Agenda of Communities Committee

8 14 July 2021

Communities Committee

27 May 2021

File: (21/813)

Report no: CCCCC2021/3/154

Future Approach to Community Funding

Purpose of Report

1. To seek agreement on the proposed future Council approach to working with and funding the community and voluntary sector.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(1) notes and receives the report and the engagement report attached as Appendix 2 to the report;

(2) agrees to the proposed Council approach (2021-31) to working with and funding the community and voluntary sector, including:

a) an increased focus on support beyond funding; and

b) continuation of the existing Mauri Ora and Kakano funding categories, processes and governance; and

(3) notes there may be an opportunity in future to expand this approach to include other categories including Regional Grants and place-based funding, and that officers could be directed to further consider this at that time.

For the reason that in early 2020 officers completed phase 1 of re-configuring Council’s community funding plan. Phase 2 has focussed on engagement and exploring approaches to funding to create a community funding plan to support Council’s strategic direction.

Introduction

2. Council invests significant resources in the people and communities of Te Awa Kairangi ki Tai Lower Hutt. This includes funding facilities, infrastructure and amenities, and services, as well as the work of community organisations. The current Community Funding Strategy focusses specifically on the two discretionary funds, Mauri Ora and Kakano, that Council has available to build on the strengths of communities with a focus on equity and enabling people and communities to shape their futures.

Background

3. In 2017 Council approved a new Community Funding Strategy, effective from 1 July 2018. The intent of this strategy was to assist in achieving Council’s priorities by targeting funding where it was needed most. The strategy focused on equity, improving processes and relationships, encouraging innovation, and fostering long-term partnerships.

4. As part of the strategy, a number of groups which had previously secured funding directly via the Annual Plan were moved into the contestable funding process. These were: Youth Wise Trust (Secret Level), Citizens Advice Bureau (Lower Hutt and Petone), Youth Inspire, and all Community Houses. This process was completed over three years to enable groups to plan for possible changes to their existing funding. This change increased the contestable funding available from $196,000 in 2018 to $783,000 pa from 2021-2031. Three new funding streams were created: Mahia Atu Partnership (multiyear), Mahia Atu General (single year) and Kakano (single year – innovation, new ideas). Details of the recipients of community funding from 2018-21 are attached as Appendix 1.

5. Following the election of the new Council in 2019 officers began a two phase process to reset the Community Funding Strategy. Phase 1 was completed in March 2020 and aligned community funding with Council’s new vision and priorities. This phase also restructured the available funding, retaining the Kakano fund and collapsing the other two funds into one, the Mauri Ora Fund.

6. Since phase 1 Council has developed the Long Term Plan 2021-31 which aims to ensure our city and all our people can thrive, and which is underpinned by six strategic priorities:

i. Investing in infrastructure

ii. Caring for and protecting our environment

iii. Increasing housing supply

iv. Supporting an innovative, agile economy, and attractive city

v. Connected communities

vi. Financial sustainability

7. Our future approach to community funding needs to align with the strategic direction, and particularly to developing connected and resilient communities and caring for and protecting our environment.

Current situation and opportunity

8. Phase 2 of the process began during late 2020 with the aim of developing a consistent longer-term approach to both the Mauri Ora and Kakano funds, and other funding provided by Council for community purposes. Council’s Community and Environment Committee agreed the approach for this work in November 2020 – see Report no: CEC2020/6/279 Creating a Plan for Community Funding.

9. There are both problems and opportunities with Council’s current approach to funding:

· Our current funding structure is fragmented with contestable funding streams under the current community funding plan as well as numerous individual funding lines, some of which are products of historic practices and individual funding decisions, and some which are no longer well-aligned to Council’s strategy. This results in opportunity cost for groups or initiatives which may have more impact;

· There are a range of governance arrangements, decision-making processes, and timing, leading to inconsistency and a lack of transparency;

· Because decisions are made at different times by different people, there is limited visibility of whole picture or all investment in a community – this limitation will become more important as we shift to taking an holistic view of neighbourhoods and working to harness the collective impact of all those on the ground in a community; and

· Our processes for promoting and applying for funds are inconsistent and so not user friendly.

Phase 2

10. Phase two has involved two key workstreams:

· Review the funding that Council allocates for community purposes – this included a range of individual funds as well as Kakano, and Mauri Ora – and explore literature and the approaches taken by other funders; and

· Engagement with the community on the approach to community funding and key aspects such as accessibility of funding, processes and accountability, relationship management, and the wider role of a funding organisation. The engagement was led by consultant Liana Stupples.

11. The engagement was conducted between January and March 2021 and consisted of:

· face to face meetings with Mana Whenua – an initial meeting to discuss the engagement approach and gather views on Council’s funding role, and a second meeting at the end of the engagement process to discuss findings.

· face to face meetings with link organisations for Pasifika people.

· face to face meetings with other funding organisations, including Department of Internal Affairs, Te Puni Kokiri, Ministry of Social Development, Porirua City Council, and Wellington Community Trust.

· three public hui – at Waiwhetu Marae, in Taita, and at the Dowse – with groups and organisations receiving Council funding and those that are not currently funded.

· on-line Survey.

· correspondence to Council’s database of community organisations.

Key findings

12. The Engagement report is attached as Appendix 2 and below is a summary of both the engagement and literature review.

Engagement and relationship building

13. Council needs to improve its knowledge of the local funding system to understand where we fit, and where we can make the most difference with the money available, rather than targeting too many issues. Being clear about what Council doesn’t fund is also important.

14. An emphasis on building high-trust relationships with clear and proportionate accountability, working together, and also a commitment to longer-term partnerships to deliver change. Mana Whenua referred to their planning being about ‘resilient families for the next 100 years’ so we need to improve how we see our role and build partnerships that help us achieve thriving communities in the city.

15. To support community-led working it’s crucial that we work more closely with communities, organisation, and partners to develop detailed outcomes that are in-line with our purpose and priorities.

Operating effectively

16. Council needs to use more local knowledge, evidence and data to better target funding at local needs, in particular around specific communities e.g. tangata whenua and Pacific People.

17. Council should tailor what it expects from organisations in terms of accountability and enable people to report more effectively e.g. through storytelling, verbal reports, rather than reporting on paper. These points are linked to the need to build strong partnerships and trust in relationships.

Accessible funding

18. There should be one simple streamlined process for applicants, with simple forms or other means of applying, and clear decision-making processes. One method implemented by another funding organisation has been to develop a single funding portal so that applicants can quickly see whether or not they might be eligible for funding.

Being a good funder

19. Alongside Council’s funding role, we could use additional mechanisms that would help strengthen community capacity, and the capacity of organisations, to work effectively. This would enable us to provide some level of support and value to a wider range of groups, without the requirement to directly fund them. This is an aspect officers will explore as part of implementing the new funding approach. For example, this could include:

· Free access to photocopying/printing and other relevant Council services

· Subsidised access to facilities

· Inclusion in Council training opportunities

· Identification of areas where shared resources/services would add value (this could result in applications to the contestable fund)

Discussion

20. In response to this work, officers propose a future approach in two parts.

21. Part one outlines an over-arching Council approach to working with the community and voluntary sector. Part two outlines an approach to the current Community Funding allocation ($783kpa) for the period 2021-31.

22. This approach will seek to support and further strengthen Council’s high-level commitment to partner with Māori. Council is committed to meaningfully embracing and incorporating Te Ao Māori in our policies and practices, being aware and responsive to the needs and aspirations of tangata whenua, and fulfilling its responsibilities under the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Part one - how we work with the community and voluntary sector

23. Officers in a number of areas of Council engage with and fund the community and voluntary sector including non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The following is recommended as an over-arching approach to this work. In some areas this shift can happen immediately and in others there will be a transition over time.

Principles

24. Working together for impact (partnering, not just funding).

Our funding relationships will acknowledge that achieving outcomes for the city is a shared responsibility and that effective partnerships are crucial to creating a city where everyone thrives. We share many aspirations and values with our local organisations and groups, and we also recognise their knowledge, expertise, and independence.

25. Transparency

Our funding programme will be clear in terms of access to funding, funding criteria and expectations, and decision-making processes. Council publishes information about all its funding, its purpose, and the organisations or groups with whom we work.

26. Learning together

Achieving our outcomes will take time and we‘ll work with our partners to evaluate and learn from our work. We will work with organisations and groups to develop measures, reporting, and evaluation.

27. Proportionality

We will balance the need to demonstrate responsibility and accountability for investing public money and the trust that we have in our partners to deliver, and make sure we recognise the impact of any administrative and reporting requirements on their time and resources. Our processes and reporting requirements will be proportionate to the funding investment.

Delivery approach

28. One aligned and co-ordinated approach: over time, co-ordination of all current contestable community funds, alignment to principles, one streamlined process where possible (including website portal as starting point for all contestable funds), simplifying our processes and accountability requirements. This will also give us visibility of investment in each neighbourhood and overall investment in each organisation.

29. Engagement and relationship building: an increased focus on working proactively with partners, organisations, and communities to build understanding and relationships and enable effective investment of funding.

30. Being a good funder: increased focus on support beyond funding – strengthening the broader community/voluntary sector, starting with the development of a network.

Part two - Council’s approach to the current Community Funding allocation ($783k pa) for the period 2021-31:

31. The current priorities and funding structure respond well to the review findings, so the following is proposed:

Priorities (unchanged from current)

32. Community-led: locally owned initiatives, goals, and detailed outcomes.

33. Equity: recognising different people with different levels of advantage require different approaches and resources to achieve equitable wellbeing outcomes.

Funding structure (unchanged from current)

Fund

Description

Current allocation: 2021/31

Mauri Ora Fund

· Main fund, investing in initiatives/organisations that can make a significant shift in our key strategic outcome areas

· Partnership plans – 1-3 years

· Decisions made by Council

$713Kpa

Kakano Fund

· Investing in new ideas, pilots, seed funding, agile, trying things

· Small fund, shorter-term decision-making, operational governance

$70Kpa

Governance and decision-making

34. No changes are proposed to the process for decision-making and approval of funding, which is:

Mauri Ora Fund

· Funding round opens and is promoted and advertised (including communication to current funding database).

· Where needed, support is provided to prepare applications.

· Applications close and are assessed against criteria reflecting the priorities and outcomes Council is seeking to achieve, and the capability and capacity of the organization to deliver.

· Recommendations go to the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) for endorsement.

· Recommendations are provided for the Communities Committee to approve.

· Report back at year end on outcomes achieved.

Kakano Fund

· Applications accepted throughout the year in response to identified needs or opportunities.

· CLT approves.

· Report back at year end on outcomes achieved.

Future considerations

35. In future, consideration could be given to two other categories of funding which are supported by the review findings and/or support the above approach.

Place-based funding

36. The review supported place-based funding as a means of enabling participation and developing social networks that facilitate belonging and enhance resilience. A more consistent approach to place-based funding would align well with Council’s strategic intent to take a more holistic approach to neighbourhoods and to encourage greater self-determination.

37. Council currently provides place-based funding through the Community Panel Assets fund (Total $456K per triennium) and Community Engagement fund (Total $48,850 pa). The Annual Plan also includes funding for some existing partnerships with groups focused on particular neighbourhoods. This approach illustrates the current fragmented approach, with little visibility of the decision-making around funding going into each neighbourhood and a missed opportunity for greater impact.

38. The opportunity to review how place-based funding is provided could arise following the next Representation Review, and when Council has further progressed its holistic approach to working with communities. Officers could be directed to consider this again at that time.

Annual/Regional grants

39. Consideration could also be given to creating an additional category for groups which currently receive Regional and Annual grants directly via the Annual Plan (eg emergency services). This would not change their level of funding, but would enable it to be reviewed and approved by Council as part of the annual community funding process. This change supports our objective of providing more consistent processes and decision-making around the way we work with the sector.

Next steps

August 2021	Community Funding Round Opens
November 2021	Recommendations for 2021/22 community funding round come to the Communities Committee
December 2021	Recommendations for 2021/22 community funding round come to Council
December 2021	Work starts on ‘being a good funder’ workstream with development of a network of community and voluntary groups

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

40. Funding decisions will need to take account of the direction agreed by Council that recognises the urgency of adapting to climate change and protecting and enhance environment and biodiversity.

Legal Considerations

41. There are no legal considerations.

Financial Considerations

42. The level of funding remains the same and therefore there are no financial considerations at this time.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Hutt City Community Funding Recipients - 2018-2021	17
2 ⇩	Engagement report	18

Author: John Pritchard

Principal Policy Advisor

Author: Melanie Laban

Head of Community Projects and Relationships

Author: Barry Gall

Systems Strategist

Approved By: Andrea Blackshaw

Director Neighbourhoods and Communities

1. Purpose

Hutt City Council has embarked on a process to review how to make its Community Grant Making processes work better. This is set out in a report to the Council’s Community and Environment Committee (Report no CEC 2020/6/279). The process is building on the 20-21 Hutt City Council Community Funding Strategy. This approach is to

· Review the funding that Council allocates for community purposes and explore the approaches taken by other funders;

· Using discussion groups and individual meetings, engage with individuals, organisations, and groups, about the approach to community funding.

The public engagement part of this review is reported here.

1.1 Aim

The overall aim of the engagement was to engage with individuals, organisations, and groups, about possible approaches Council might take with community funding in the longer-term. The sub-aims were to:

· Work with the principles of our Treaty partnership

· Ensure fair access to influence

· Expand the pool of good ideas

· Ensure the final community funding approaches are aligned with the strengths and needs of the community as well as the capacities and responsibilities of the Council

· Ensure the community feels a greater sense of ownership and agency over the Council’s community funding

· Enable all to explore and learn more about what good funding is

· Build stronger relationships

1.2 Reach

The engagement set out to have the following reach:

· Mana Whenua – to work with Mana Whenua to ensure the engagement is designed to meet the needs of both partners

· Pasifika Communities – to reach out to these communities and their advocates

· To not aim for a large quantity of participants, rather to aim for quality and wide representativeness of participation. The topic of how funding is delivered is a relatively specialist interest and the resources and time scale to complete this phase of engagement are finite

· To be aware of how representative our reach is of the City as a whole, for example

o ethnic and age distribution

o geographical spread

· To aim to ensure that the range of issues that that the Council is concerned with (for example the 4 wellbeings from the Local Government Act 2002) is covered, therefore participants will be working for social, environmental, and cultural outcomes

· To aim to ensure that both existing funding recipients and those that do not receive funding are heard

· To aim to hear from across the spectrum from individuals, to small groups, to small organisations, to large organisations

· To be mindful that not all organisations will be not-for-profits (e.g. social enterprise)

· To acknowledge the importance of the grass roots community being able to directly influence outcomes important for them, however it is likely that their voices will be represented in this engagement by trusted leaders, or nodes in the network

· To reach other funders who can help us understand the Hutt funding “ecosystem”

· To engage with relevant Council Staff as needed

2. Method

In order to maximise the opportunity for members of the community sector to engage, a diverse range of engagement methods were used. These methods included:

· Face to face meetings with Mana Whenua Reps

· Face to face meetings with Other Funders

· 3 Public Hui in 3 different locations and times

· An on-line Survey

· Emails to a data base of community organisations

· Face to face meetings with Link organisations for Pasifika people

Council staff worked with an independent contractor, Liana Stupples, to design and deliver the engagement. Specialist Council staff advised on the online survey format.

See the Appendices for details about the formats for these engagement methods.

2.1 Participation overview

Event	Format	Total numbers	Currently funded?	Not funded?
Mana Whenua	Face to face 1 hour Jointly hosted Hui	3	n/a	n/a
Other Funders	Joint zoom 1 hour	6	n/a	n/a
Pasifika	Staff liaison with MPP staff Attending MPP event Liaison with Pacific Centre	8	0	8
Sector Invitations and reminders	2 emails through the grants database – 12 March and 17 March 2021	628
Taita public Hui	2 small groups, 45 minutes each	5	5	0
Dowse public Hui	1 large group 2 hours	26	18	8
Waiwhetu Marae public Hui	1 group 1 hour	18	10	8
On-line Survey	17 questions, open 3 weeks	68	46 67%	16 24%
Total numbers informed		650 (approx.)
Total numbers replied		126

Results

3. Results Mana Whenua

Contact with mana Whenua on this phase of the review has been as follows:

· An initial meeting with representatives to discuss the terms of the review and how to go about the engagement

· The Rununga offered to host a workshop and to extend invitations via its networks. This resulted in the Waiwhetu Marae hui written up below

· A subsequent meeting to share the draft results of the engagement.

Key themes which emerged from the initial meeting were:

· The challenge that many people have in applying for funds and filling in the forms

· Working towards a whanau and marae model of social service delivery

· The challenge of joining up all the government efforts and the opportunity of co-commissioning

· Example of sports clubs as potential carers and connectors into community

· The importance of the people on the ground who know “who is who” in the community and what the needs are – how can we find and support those “node” people?

· The need to know things down to street level; “hyper local”

· Flexibility is key – creating opportunities to get to the “moments that matter”

· Also be clear about what is not funded

· The need to build capacity and capability is acknowledged

· Examples of better reporting included having someone to do that alongside the doers in community

· May be worth getting other funders in the rohe together to see how things fit together

· Getting the right staff/person in the role is always key

· A focus on vulnerable families -but everyone has their own definition of what that means

· We are about resilient families for the next 100 years – that means succession in organisations is also an issue

4. Results Other Funders

Organisations represented on the Zoom included

· DIA

· Wellington Community Trust

· TPK

· Porirua city.

· MSD

· Ministry PP

· HCC

The following key points emerged:

We don’t yet have a complete overview of the funding Ecosystem in the Hutt?

· Having a network of funders can help to get more system insights into who is funding what

· Fundees will also have a (maybe better) ecosystem view

It would be good to be more evidence informed about community need

· It is important to be more data informed for allocating funding (but data alone are not enough)

· What are the indicators of excluded, vulnerable? etc

· The WCT data tells us the need is in Otaki and Lower Hutt and Maori and Pacifika and refugee/migrants

· MYD are doing a regional profile – but a big region including Taranaki – some based on a Treasury framework – e.g. identifying employment as key

Beware of funding too wide and thin

· Need to know your lane – e.g. WCT deciding to take a an equity lens and target the most excluded

· You need to know how much money you have and how to focus that

· Past issues of being thin and wide causing problems

· Sometimes there is pressure to be able to tick the number of funds dispersed or the range of people reached – but it is not always getting deep

Focus on Local solutions

· It’s not just the needs; it’s about the solutions and whether they would work in a given situation

Possibilities for a HCC niche?

· Working across the wellbeings?

· Perhaps some capacity to pick up the small organisations, the more neighbourhood level

· Perhaps to work across place issues including environment?

· Councils have youth councils but how representative are they – how could they be used more?

· Local collaboration via hubs

· Those in immediate need

· Those that are also advocates

Examples of emerging practice to overcome barriers to funding

· run sessions to work with capability to access funding

· get better stats on who is not accessing and how to identify them

· All the potential funders for one organisation getting together and planning how to coordinate funding to ensure continuity with each other and the organisation

· Better definition of what kaupapa Māori really is in criteria i.e. – not just one Māori person in a predominately non-Māori set up

· Relational funding is the way to go but staff capacity is key – matching approach to be able to do this

5. Results Public Hui

Three public face to face hui were held. Each followed a similar format, but differed in the timeframe, the detail of questions and the options that were put to the group. Each hui consisted of:

· information about the review and the process

· a session of small group open-ended discussions about what works

· a session of “ticking” some pre-selected options

· the chance to add any other comments

· a reflection/thanks

In 2 of the Hui, participants also had an opportunity to note what particular combination of options would suit them best (“the plates exercise”).

5.1 Small Group Open-Ended Discussions:

This part of the hui was based on an appreciative inquiry model; seeking to understand what is already present that seems to work. It allows the strengths in the current system to be recognised and for the wisdom based on experience in the community to be revealed, unprompted.

TAITA HUI:

Taita Hui - Examples of “good” (clustered by drivers/principles by facilitator)
example	drivers/principles
· Application forms that are easy to understand, no word limits, straight forward and simple to do online · (hate it when the technology gets in the way, passwords that don’t work portals that don’t open) · Being aware that digital communications aren’t accessible to everyone · An opportunity to give further info in any form · When you don’t have to give the same information again and again · People who recognise that the work it takes to do an application can be worth more than the sum granted	Simple, flexible and accessible processes
· A funder came to the office and helped me with a problem accessing their system · Having a face that you know to help you navigate, it really helps when you find the right person -I’m inside the machine! · Having the gatekeepers available, get back to you when they say,	Responsive and service-oriented person to deal with
· good clear reliable communications about what the fund is about, examples of things funded, examples of the categories -making it easy to know if we would be eligible or not · Publicity and telling the stories around who and why is funded to the wider community · Being clear on the definitions (was not clear what new meant in kakano fund for a while)	Clear and consistent policies and communications about the funds
· High Trust long term relationships where there is recognition of work done in the past and ongoing (BAU) work is supported. This can lead to multiyear operational grants which are not tied to a specific thing. This demonstrates the trust. · Want to be able to show who we are through face to face visits, forums, personal contact · We want to get across our flavour; every group is unique and we want to share it well (as well as the criteria) · We need the money that covers our operational costs and to meet the needs of our community in a strategic way · WCC and Nikau responding to COVID; quick turnaround decisions, a paragraph of reporting is OK · Face to face means of accountability	High Trust relationships/ feel that we are known for who we are
· Helping get together the resources for bigger studies of impact; accessing the data, funding for external researchers, getting a theory of change prepared · Leveraging things that make it easier for our clients’ e.g. a free train ticker for our youth would really help our work · Providing common resources like buildings or vans	Help with meeting common sector needs

Taita Hui - Niche for the Council? clustered by drivers/principles by facilitator)
example	drivers/principles
· A local in this place focus – including arts and sport	Local place based focus
· Community relationships · More meetings like this to meet others here · Helping others to work together (particularly as in covid) · Shared assets	Connection and collaboration in the community
· Talking to other funders to see what is missing · Monitoring how community needs are and how they change · Emerging scenarios in the district · Contributing to overall resilience · Forums to pool know how – what’s on top for your community and to share ideas about programmes that could translate into other settings	Big picture view of what is needed in the community
· Long and short term: some organisations need to start small – they need help along the pathway to longer term funding (no just big organisations getting the funding) · Preserve the diversity of the sector here/be aware of it	Diversity in the community sector

DOWSE HUI

Dowse Hui - Examples of good (clustered by the group)
Story of good	Cluster name
Clear information from funders	Streamlined Processes
Some funders streamlining their whole system
No budget projections required
No accountability report
Success through adversity
Realising we had options and putting our time (in terms of fundraising applications) into other funders (not HCC) as HCC too time consuming
High trust model: one page application, reporting 6 monthly 3 challenges and 3 successes
Timing/timeframes post Covid
Fast response time for a community event
Relationship building	Trusting Relationship and making it easy it have conversations
Making it easy to have the conversation
Trust between funder and organisation. Partnerships
Debbie at HCC. always willing to help
Relationships – funders doing the same things – encouraging to see changes
Funder provider engagement
Shared opportunities, relationships and connections
Face to face meeting with funders
Face to face tell the story
Leveraging communications team to increase our reach (after we got the money)
New back to fundraising for about 20 years, got $$ for grandkids	Listening to what the community thinks is important
Council saw a gap and filled it with a small activation fund- they listened to the community	Listening to what the community thinks is important

Dowse Hui - Drivers (clustered by the group and facilitator)
Driver/enabler/secret sauce	Cluster name
Communications clear	Open listening and clear communications
Willingness to communicate
Listening to each other and thinking creatively to see the potential
A good “shopfront”
Relationships	Funder/fundee aroha relationship
Trust
Facilitating opportunities to meet with each other
Relationship building and trust
Love affair NGO and funders passion
Supplement and connect up with others (funders)
Access to the funder face to face
Part of what funders (Council) want meeting objectives	Council internal working aligned
Communications across HCC departments
Facilitating events
Extra support not just money
Not just for projects for staff too
Facilities use for free
The way	Respect Passion for the work
Passion for what you do
Their passion for our product – or empathy
Personalising who you are applying on behalf of
Community activation and mobilisation	Creating community and resilience
Passion to accessibility
Connected to community
Why: knowing the narratives, Doing: responding to the pain
Helping to make things not so competitive
Not just an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff
Reduce vulnerability and enhance participation
Create community

WAIWHETU MARAE HUI

Waiwhetu marae hui - Examples of good (clustered by rep from the group and facilitator)
Story of good	Cluster name
Getting support for a new grassroots initiative was very encouraging	Grassroots innovation
Getting funding for a new way of fitness via social media for Pasifika	Grassroots innovation
Getting funding for Tokelau easter festivals – a sense of connection, community and mental health	Cultural understanding
Teaching the young tradition and language – getting help to keep that alive
Support for Christchurch visitor centre
Being able to apply to both Wellington and Lower Hutt Councils because our members live in both cities	Range and connection of funding
School litter project throughout the Hutt	Range and connection of funding
Getting two years of funding from Wellington Community Trust	Longer term funding
Prompt payment of COVID 19 subsidy- received within 3 hours of submission	Ease of process
When the process does not go in favour of your project, find a way to adapt and keep going	Capacity and resilience in fundees
A community arts worker who could facilitate the funding process for a new artist	Facilitation, support for applications
Debbie’s meeting of funders helped us to decide to apply to WCT	Facilitation, support for applications

Waiwhetu marae hui - Drivers (clustered by rep from the group and facilitator)
Driver/enabler/secret sauce	Cluster name
Understanding cultural values	Understanding Culture
Knowing how important it is to bring the past to the young to stop our culture dying
New Zealanders more and more wanting to know about Chinese Culture
Knowing how important it is to bring our people together and feed their sense of community
Having a range of funding options	Range of funding options
Having and introduction to other funders
There are a range of groups that need support at different levels
Easy application process	Quick and easy process
Quick decision making
Prompt payment of funds
Personal connections with people from council	Relationships with council
Special relationships and trust
Connections and a good network
Meeting tangible/demonstrable social needs	Matching with community need and values
Already trialled and proven projects
Changes in community and Council attitudes to our issue (heritage preservation)
Giving evidence of past projects in multimedia format: video, pictures, newspaper article)	Flexibility and freedom in applications (understanding how we work)
Adjusting the funding language to suit the application process
Having an open mind to change eligibility and criteria if needed
Applications don’t always have to be written
Criteria was not restricting. Allowed us to put through our proposal from our perspective
Creating an overall experience that is clear and easy
Inspiration and motivation for the cause	Recognising Passion, inspiration
Mission, passion, purpose keeps us going	Recognising Passion, inspiration
Positive approach to funding requests	Communication for mutual understanding
Avoiding misunderstanding, miscommunication, unclear expectations for funding	Communication for mutual understanding
Feedback from the year before application to improve future funding applications	Build capacity
Building capability for future funding
Someone to help navigate the funding process (e.g. arts savvy and finding savvy)

Public Hui Combined Key ideas of what works (open ended) cluster of clusters:
Idea	Taita	Dowse	Waiwhetu
Processes	Simple, flexible and accessible processes	Streamlined application processes Council internal working aligned	Quick and easy process Flexibility and freedom in applications (understanding how we work)
Relationships	Responsive and service-oriented person to deal with High Trust relationships/ feel that we are known for who we are	Trusting Relationship and making it easy to have the conversations Funder/fundee aroha relationship	Relationships with council
Communications	Clear and consistent policies and communications about the funds	Open listening and clear communications	Communication for mutual understanding
Capacity in the sector	Help with meeting common sector needs Big picture view Connection and collaboration		Build capacity and resilience in fundees
Focus for sector outcome	Diversity in the sector	Range and connection of funding	Range of funding options Longer term funding
Focus for wider community outcomes	Local place based	Listening to what the community thinks is important Creating community and resilience	Matching with community need and values
		Respect Passion for the work	Recognising Passion, inspiration
			Grassroots innovation
			Cultural understanding Understanding of culture

5.1.1 SUMMARY OF THE KEY IDEAS THAT EMERGED FROM 5.1 SMALL GROUP OPEN-ENDED DISCUSSIONS:

1. Trusting relationships between the funder and fundees based on a mutual understanding

2. Clear communications about the purpose and criteria for funds

3. Communications that are two way and involve listening and seeing by the Council

4. Simple, flexible application and accountability processes

5. A responsive service oriented person to deal with

6. Community Driven priorities based on a better cultural understanding and respect for the passion for the cause

7. Support for a diverse, innovative, resilient, connected and capable community sector

5.2 Pre-Prepared Options “Ticking”

Coding Key

Not asked

Coldest

25%-

Cooler

50%-

Warmer

50% +

Hottest

75% +

(numbers are approx.)

PURPOSE /FOCUS What should the purpose of funding be?
Idea	Taita	Dowse	Waiwhetu
The current Council overall purpose: Our city and all our people can thrive	4	9
The current Council funding priorities: 1. Supporting those who work closely with communities 2. Focusing on equity – helping where it is needed most 3. Supporting those who enable people and communities	5	12
Council develops its role to enable communities to shape their own future, without constraining or prescribing interventions or approaches that communities can take.	3	7
Fund any work aligned with the Long Term Plan purposes and priorities there are 6 out for consultation (listed)	0	5
Fund any topic of work done by a community organisation	1	4
Fund only long-term investment in known drivers of change e.g. investment in the first 100 days of a child’s life	0	0
Prioritise just a few main challenges for a particular period e.g. housing, climate change, vulnerable families	0	0
Ensure even distribution across localities	1	2
Prioritise localities that have the greatest need	2	8
Prioritise Funding locally determined priorities at Ward/Community Board level?	0	4
Fund responses to the need to adapt to climate change and protect and enhance environment and biodiversity	1	2
Only Fund projects where people in neighbourhoods and communities are part of designing interventions and making decisions	0	3
Only Fund the bigger, harder things	0	0
Only fund things when there is alignment across more than one funder	0	0
Only fund things that no one else funds – find the gaps and a niche for Council funding	0	0
Only apply changes to the current Mauri Ora and Kakano Funds	0	0
Apply changes as far as possible to all Council funding covering arts and events etc	2	0
Consistency with any Council contracts for service with community organisations	0	0
Reducing inequality			4
Improving outcomes for Tangata Whenua			5
Improving outcomes for Pasifika			7
Environmental Sustainability			8
Filling a need not already met			6
Supporting defined priority populations			3
Developing community networks			4
Reducing social isolation			5
Enabling participation			7
Encouraging community led design			7
Other?	Arts need to be valued as much as sport, music brings wellbeing to Tamariki and whanau	0	Only if reducing inequality improves equity Looking at correct ways for funding best spent for pasifika needs

PRINCIPLES What should the principles of funding be?
	Taita	Dowse	Waiwhetu
Focus on Outcomes	0	8
Value Te Ao Māori	1	10
Bring the Treaty of Waitangi into effect	1	10
Recognise innovation.	0	9
Quality, and effectiveness	4	10
Value for money	0	0
Proportionality	1	0
Fairness and equity of opportunity	2	12
Working together: mutual respect and shared responsibility	4	13
Transparency and clarity	3	13
Alignment with other funders	1	0
Reduce the admin burden – net positive effect for grantees	2	14
Work to the strengths of the grantees	1	5
Alignment with community and council priorities	4	12
Strong relationships	2	14
People in neighbourhoods and communities are part of designing interventions and making decisions – not just organisations	0	2
Other?	0	Bringing the treaty into effect should already be happening
		Council priorities should follow community priorities
		Community need/demand

FUNDING PLUS What else other than funding should Council do to support community funding?
Idea	Taita	Dowse	Waiwhetu
Identifying readiness for funding out in Community	0	2
Help grow readiness for funding out in Community	0	2
Supporting capacity building for enhancing impact of community work	0	2
Developing stronger relationships with fundees	2	17
Work in ways that are culturally responsive and developing partnerships with iwi and tangata whenua.	0	9
Develop leadership in the community	3	6
Support collaboration across community groups	4	10
Leveraging grants by helping find other funders	1	12
Convene gatherings to grow connections in community	2	12	4
Supporting research and data gathering and sharing	2	10
Provide better access to council staff and systems	0	14
Influencing and advocating on issues important to community	1	15
Raising awareness and supporting with communications	4	17
Support to ensure people in neighbourhoods and communities are part of designing interventions and making decisions	4	9
Prioritise Contract for services to local community groups?	0	5
Consider the Transfer of assets to local community groups	1	3*
Provide Loans to local community groups	0	1
Consider Share ownership in local community enterprises	2	6
Provide data to inform groups and organisations about their community			2
Guidance on developing an evaluation and monitoring plan			5
Assist with application process			3
Other	A building is needed for our organisation. Support professional development	Contract for services only if it comes with maintenance funding (3)	Governance training Cost benefit measureables Free/subsidised facilities e.g. venues Mentoring-link up with successful applicants
		Come out and see/talk to NGOs	For pasifika groups and refugees and migrants many organisations and churches may not know they can also apply – some have language barriers, so important to use key community leaders who speak languages

FUNDING APPROACH What approaches to funding should the Council take?
Idea	Taita	Dowse	Waiwhetu
Long term investment – based on a strong relationship and shared ownership of project	3	6
Long term multi-year grant funding via a partnership relationship	4	14
Multiyear funding based on a shared theory of change	0	4
Funding for innovation, trials and pilots	2	8	4
Funding for business as usual – repeated delivery of proven programs	1	8	7
Funding for core support functions – admin, board etc	2	10
Funding for capacity building and learning	3	6*
Funding to ensure people in neighbourhoods and communities are part of designing interventions and making decisions	2	5
Annual grants for new projects	0	5
Flexible short term funding for bright ideas	1	9*
Short term funding for the most vulnerable to meet emergency/bridging needs	3	6
Micro - loans	0	3*
Peer /participatory decision making about allocation of funds	2	1
Co-funding with other funders	0	3	4
Funding for collaboration or working together more	3	8
No contestable funding; if you meet criteria you get it	2	12
No time frame – just outcomes	1	3
Just a few long term, high investments	0	1
Many smaller and shorter term investments	2	0
A mix of approaches long term, high investments and smaller and shorter term investments	3	13
Multi year funding			7
Full funding of projects even if fewer projects receive funding			3
Part funding of projects to ensure more projects receive funds			5
Funding for programme design where co design/participatory approaches are used			3
Other	0	· Capacity building funding in addition to other funding · Use your skills to support orgs collectively not fork out money · Need more information about micro loans · We are all in competition with each other already · What comes next after funding for bright ideas?	Separate process for arts funding What are the reasons for funding stopping during covid?

Who should be funded?
Idea	Taita	Dowse	Waiwhetu
Collaborations/consortiums	0	4
Well run organisations with a track record	3	13	5
Legally constituted organisations – e.g. charities or incorporated societies	3	14	7
Informal organisations	0	3	2
Individuals	0	0	5
Social enterprises	0	4	0
Businesses	0	1
Umbrella entities for those without a formal organisation	0	3
Iwi, and hapu	1	6	3
neighbourhoods and communities	0	7
Organisations with staff in Lower Hutt			2
Organisations with a physical office in Lower Hutt			2
Religious organisations			5
Education providers			4
Two or more organisations working in partnership			3
Other	0	What happens to grass roots if only legally constituted orgs?	Every member of the community Working as a community makes it stronger and easier to get funding For pacific churches some do not have the chance to apply due to lack of knowledge, yet they have a lot of great ideas and initiatives they run out of their own pockets. An idea: to help mentor pacific communities

PROCESS TO GET FUNDED – What criteria or application processes should council use?
Idea	Taita	Dowse	Waiwhetu
APPLICATION CRITERIA:
What difference you will make	0	13
Capability to deliver	0	16
Demonstrate the Need for funding	0	0
Demonstration of the need in the community	2	10
Community involvement	5	9
How you learn and evaluate	0	6
Working with others	2	7
Good practice based on evidence	4	11
Te Tiriti and Mana Whenua relationships	0	10
Volunteering	0	6
Community led development	3	7
Social enterprise	0	3
Growing capacity	2	7
Growing leadership	2	6	2
Relevant past experience			6
Other funding sources			2
Community involvement in the design of the programme			3
Evaluation and monitoring			3
Growing internal capability			4
Financial records			3
Alignment to longer term community outcomes			4
other			List of what is not allowed/limits What has worked and why More funding of resources to assist all types An open mind to “out of the box” strange projects

APPLICATION PROCESS
	Taita	Dowse	Waiwhetu
Fill out an Application form each time	0	0	5
Application portal where some information is retained for next time	5	19	10
A community helper to fill out forms for you	0	5
All open to apply in a contestable process	0	6
Expression of interest first and then detailed application for some only	4	5	3
Application meetings with Council staff (no forms)	4	10	7
You decide how to apply – it could be a video	3	7	6
No applications because grants are made on the basis of a strong relationship	1	1	0
Other			· Take support people · Option for video presentations · Caters for different groups if there are options for application method · Social media intricacies- uke team had anti-asian comments added to you tube video

ACCOUNTABILITY How should grantees demonstrate accountability for the funds
	Taita	Dowse	waiwhetu
Report according to deliverables	0	5
Report according to outcome	0	5
Report quantitative measurable outcome numbers	0	3
Report qualitatively – e.g. comments from people	2	5
Report with a variety of methods that together give a good picture	0	7
Report on all activity – methods and outcomes	1	1
Report by Story telling	5	18
No reporting – it’s based on trust	1	0
Just need to demonstrate that you have your own internal methods of accountability and reporting	4	8
Reports from ultimate users only	0	0
Meetings or dinners to report verbally in person	4	7
Report what actually happened not what was hoped would happen so that mutual learning can occur	0	17
Reporting on progress rather than just at the end	3	3
Case by case evaluation framework agreed for each grant	0	0
Report the same way as required by other funders to minimise work	0	5
Report to the Council – or Council staff	0	9
Report to the community – or the beneficiaries of the work	0	7
other

5.2.1 RED (HOT) PRE- PREPARED OPTIONS FROM EACH SESSION COMBINED:

RED (HOT) PRE- PREPARED OPTIONS FROM EACH SESSION COMBINED
Purpose:	The current Council overall purpose: Our city and all our people can thrive
	The current Council funding priorities: 1. Supporting those who work closely with communities 2. Focusing on equity – helping where it is needed most 3. Supporting those who enable people and communities
	Environmental Sustainability
	Quality, and effectiveness
Principles	Working together: mutual respect and shared responsibility
	Transparency and clarity
	Reduce the admin burden – net positive effect for grantees
	Strong relationships
	Alignment with community and council priorities
Funding plus	Provide better access to council staff and systems
	Influencing and advocating on issues important to community
	Raising awareness and supporting with communications
	Support to ensure people in neighbourhoods and communities are part of designing interventions and making decisions
Approach	Long term multi-year grant funding via a partnership relationship
	Funding for business as usual – repeated delivery of proven programs
	A mix of approaches long term, high investments and smaller and shorter term investments
Criteria	Capability to deliver
	Community involvement
	Good practice based on evidence
Who	Legally constituted organisations – e.g. charities or incorporated societies
Who	Well run organisations with a track record
Process	Application portal where some information is retained for next time
	Expression of interest first and then detailed application for some only
	Application meetings with Council staff (no forms
Accountability	Report by Story telling
	Just need to demonstrate that you have your own internal methods of accountability and reporting
	Report what actually happened, not what was hoped would happen so that mutual learning can occur
	Meetings or dinners to report verbally in person

5.3 How can the Council work smarter?

How can the Council work smarter?
Idea	Taita	Dowse	waiwhetu
Are the Council processes internally efficient? If not what could they do?	nc	· Update website more often · Answer the phone
Does the Council have the right skills and experience? If not what does it need?	nc	· Competent staff · More people with Matauranga and who really understand high need communities, i.e. the difference between poverty and neglect
How could the Council’s communication be more effective?	nc	· Relationship development that builds a high trust model · Make priorities very clear- not vague and all-inclusive which can waste org’s time applying
How can the Council be accountable for its overall choices of funding?	nc	· Have an appeal process
How can the Council learn more from its funding choices?	nc	· Be more involved in the organisations they fund

5.4 What combination from the buffet would suit you?

“Plates” from the menu by organisation:

Taita

Community House

· Story telling reporting

· Multiyear funding

· Core funding/new initiatives mix

Oasis

· Report back by storytelling – can be by zoom or video

· Collaboration

Strings

· Professional development

· We decide how to apply

· Flexibility to match need as it arises

· Data from the real world help to get it

Naenae Boxing Academy

· Apply once then no more forms

· Meetings for applications (like Todd and JR Mckenzie)

· Qualitative reporting and quantitative and meetings

Dowse

anon	· Council stick to funding strategy for long term · Council liaise with other govt and philanthropic orgs to determine and know who and what is being funded in the Hutt · Long term funding shows social return on investment
Pomare Taita Community Trust	· Kindness, working together, helping each other, whanau, kaumatua, aroha, unity in the community, whenua · We need it all: · How to learn and evaluate · Volunteering · Neighbours and communities · Funding for collaborative working · The whole principles · Reports to council and staff · Report by storytelling · Support neighbourhoods and communities being part of the design and decision making · Developing stronger relationships with funders · Working in culturally responsive ways
anon	· Building community resilience; bringing communities together, promoting social connection · Report by storytelling - ability to submit videos and other media · funding for core support functions · funding for business as usual – proven projects that work · council can help raise awareness of programmes · report on progress rather than just at the end
Whanau family support services trust	· Venue funding · Community – supporting your local
Team Naenae Trust	· To build back trust relationship between TNT and council funders · Reinstate community centres funding and our spaces in Naenae
Te Rito Performance centre	· Try and hear those voices that are suppressed · Know the gaps in our Rohe · Giving new initiatives a chance · Funding someone who is passionate about your vision · Someone who understands our kaupapa and actually gets us · Aroha means way more than just love
Wesley Community Action	· Meaningful relationship with HCC – across all of HCC · Genuine understanding of community led development and openness to this
Supergrans	· Support in kind at reduced cost
Jackson Street Programme	· Who? Well run organisations with a track record business groups too · Approaches- a mix is needed, flexible short term, core support functions, no time frame · Council internal processes – find it difficult to get hold of HCC and getting locked out of online application processes · A guide person to help would be great
ECP Hutt	· Please don’t penalise “national” organisations- we still work locally
CAB petone	· Support from HCC that is not just financial · Consistency in funding for well run organisations with a track record
B Hall	· What if Council administered funding in all the Hutt valley? · Coggs, lotto, nikau, pub charity etc. · Cut out the rorts of the Pokie machines

5.5 Evaluation of face to face hui

The face to face workshops were well received. Formal evaluation forms were completed at two of the hui and indicated that the aims of the hui were met.

	What was good about the workshop?	What could be improved about the workshop?	Overall, how well did the workshop achieve its purpose do you think?	Is there anything else you want to say?
Taita Total forms: 4	Very good presentation	Nc	Excellent array of options/ideas	More openness to arts funding would be awesome
	Small, interactive. Able to share ideas easily	nc	Excellent	Nc
	Good ideas. Strengthen relationship and understanding of both HCC and other community groups involved in funding	nc	Having and independent person allowed the freedom to speak	Even though the timeframe changed I was able to participate and got value from this
	Discussion based. Informal. Run by independent leader	Access to wall survey questions ahead of time to prompt thoughts	We’ll have to see based on the outcomes! Good way to get input from organisations	Multi year operational funding grants would enable trusted organisations to focus their work – not funding/accountability processes all the time
Dowse Total forms: 17	Networking	Nc	Yes I think so	Nc
	Well facilitated with clear aims	One intro per organisation	Generally very well but hcc need to listen	Nc
	Open conversation, participatory	Nc	Generated lots of ideas. Facilitator was good	Nc
	Felt safe to talk, great facilitator, excellent structure	A karakia at the beginning. Sheets on the wall were not accessible for wheelchair tangata	Yes	Thanks for this mahi
	Good topics	Nc	Yes	Thankyou
	Great facilitator, awesome being with other providers, open honest conversation	Nothing	Great way to get people’s ideas and visual action on paper	Nc
	Great facilitation, great time management	More networking time- a cuppa after?	Yes	nc
	Great chance to connect and share ideas and feel listened to	Maybe some more explanation of the tick box options (Principles)	Very well	Thanks you
	The opportunity to have voice heard, the opportunity to network	Nc	Very well, what a great facilitator	Nc
	Ability to share concerns, get some new ideas	Maybe shorter by half an hour?	Hopefully the opinions expressed will be delivered to council	Nc
	Connecting with others, good facilitation, opportunity to contribute, good timing allowed for job to do	Nc	Nc	Nc
	Very easy to understand and give feedback	More pens?	We were able to give our feedback and ideas	Nc
	Participants contributing and sharing ideas related to funding opportunities	Progressive 1-2-3 ending in submission of funding apps to council	It was great. Very interactive	Part 2- will there be one?
	Interaction with others, well facilitated	Nc	Definitely achieved its purpose, however we will wait until the report to understand objectives and outcomes	Great workshop
	Well structured, good timing		A good start, great that some tangibles can be taken away for the council	I think the council need to decide what sort of community they want in the Hutt, then look at how they support it
	Liana! Well run	Nc	Great ideas and interesting topics	Thanks for the opportunity
	Meeting other NGOs	Fewer people/smaller group?	Very good	nc

6. Results On-line Survey

The on-line survey was developed as a supplement to face to face hui. A shorter condensed set of questions was created out of the fuller set of questions used in the first two face to face hui. The third face to face hui used the online condensed questions in the “tick the box” part of the session

There were an initial few technical difficulties with the survey for the first day, so that some participations could not tick more than one option for some questions. This was quickly rectified. It means that the exact numbers for each response may be skewed very slightly to prioritisation.

See the Appendix for full survey questions and results.

Coding Key

Not asked

coldest

cooler

warmer

Hottest

Q1 Which of the following do you think should be the key focus(s) for Council's community funding?
Answer Choices	Responses
Reducing inequality	57.89%	33
Improving outcomes for Tangata Whenua	54.39%	31
Improving outcomes for Pasifika	36.84%	21
Environmental sustainability	45.61%	26
Filling a need not already met	35.09%	20
Supporting defined priority populations	29.82%	17
Developing community networks	56.14%	32
Reducing social isolation	49.12%	28
Enabling participation	71.93%	41
Encouraging community led design	57.89%	33
	Answered	57
	Skipped	11

Q2 Please add here any comments you have about the focus of Council’s community funding (categorised by facilitator)
These are all worthy goals. In particular, environmental sustainability is also incredibly important.	A broad focus
Great initiative
This needs to be multifaceted - all of the aforementioned focuses are vital to a community and people having connection and not only surviving but THRIVING!
I would tick all above but my focus is on Koraunui Ukulele
This survey is a good start
I think it should be focussed on preventative services.	Inequality/greatest need
I think reducing inequalities covers most of the priority focus points mentioned. We have an opportunity to get things right and to make some transformational changes in the lives of those whanau who have less opportunities to thrive in our city. Through statistics and research we know that Maori suffer disproportionately with poor health and social outcomes than any other ethnic group, so a focus on Māori would create the change that is needed.	Inequality/greatest need
It should also focus on actively promoting actively involved in enhancing diversity and inclusion	Targeting outcomes for specific groups; e.g. Mana Whenua
Racism runs deep and is insidious. The tyranny of the majority means they do not want the money to support Maori and Pasifika growth. Council must be aspirational and make those decisions for them.
we should have extra focus on serving those in our community who are in the most need. This is usually Māori and pasifika, those with mental health issues and the very poor
I've selected Tangata Whenua but I don’t just mean Te Atiawa, but all Māori
Funding should focus on all the above. What would be beneficial is to have some grouped together, for e.g. Improving outcomes for Maori and Pasifika
Funds need to be applied to where the greatest need is within the community such as mental health services
Strengthening Families	Youth and families
More opportunities for youth
Youth are not mentioned as a focus. They are the future and we need a focus there
Please support volunteer sports clubs who run events	Wider community and civil society focus
Some groups serve the broader community i.e. the whole of Hutt City. We don't believe that your funding parameters support that fact.
The community’s priorities should take precedence over Council’s
Supporting Civil Society
Encouraging community-led design. Support existing orgs more, in-kind and through accessible community grants. Don't perpetuate inequities by "filling a need" in spaces that community orgs have already identified and are working toward. Rather ask community orgs what they need and then listen, support and resource.
I think community funding should focus on community - many of these goals are related to social equity etc. which should be funded separately
Supporting initiatives that encourage good health and well-being in mind, body and spirit.	Wellbeing
I definitely think new ideas and creativity with the arts should be promoted	Arts
Also supporting arts heritage and culture	Arts
All funding should be available to all people under approved criteria within the communities under the jurisdiction of the Hutt City Council.	Sceptical about some aspects of focus
All funding should be available under an approved criteria irrespective of race and colour
The priorities are very broad and therefore everyone is eligible so why bother having priorities at all?
Too many events that cost too much money and lack the people crowds

Q3 What approaches to community funding would you like to see Council consider?
Answer Choices	Responses
Multi-year funding	71.43%	40
Funding of trials and pilots	46.43%	26
Funding for ongoing / repeat programs	67.86%	38
Co-funding with other funders	33.93%	19
Full-funding of projects even if fewer projects receive funding	14.29%	8
Part-funding of projects to ensure more projects receive funds	48.21%	27
Funding for programme design where co-design/participatory approaches are used	41.07%	23
	Answered	56
	Skipped	12

Q4 Please add here any comments you have about funding approaches Council’s should consider (categorised by facilitator)
Multiyear funding would enable better planning and sustained delivery of programmes that make a huge difference.	Multiyear/ongoing
Tried to tick a few of the options - but I think you should consider funding repeat projects or orgs that are well established but rely on funding already. This will keep them going.
Multi-year funding for proven and successful outcome based delivery so as to really see the value and positive change as some of these things don't show up overnight (one year) but real change in high deprivation areas takes time.
There have been some awesome kaupapa delivered to whānau over the years but often it takes at least three years to see any significant changes, multiyear funding would support these changes to happen. Funding pilots or new ideas would also mean that there are opportunities for groups to put some innovative ideas on the table.
Funding new/novel projects which could then look to other sources once proof of concept/trial has shown support and benefits. Use it as a catalyst fund rather than ongoing, which should devolve to other sources	Innovation
I think funding should be made available for concept development, research/survey that benefits the community or
New funding opportunities for new businesses that will impact Hutt city in positive ways
new projects with a special focus that might not have existed in the past. helping to revive community organisations who need assistance to become digital or need help with bringing their community buildings into a modern fit for purpose position.
Funding that encourages collaboration	Collaboration
co-design projects should have overall priority
Consider co funding and part funding to be more sustainable in the current fiscal environment.
Fund those that provide health and fitness
Funding should be for one off projects as opposed to ongoing operational expenses. All projects whether they are full or part funded should be considered on their respective merits. In some cases funding over two financial years may be considered. Strategic value to the communities of the Hutt Valley should be considered.	Not multiyear/ongoing
Funding should be for one off projects as opposed to ongoing operational expenses	Not multiyear/ongoing
Stick to your core business and stop wasting money.	Blend/scepticism
Case by case basis	Blend/scepticism
. Approaching existing community focused groups such as Lions with projects they could champion

Q5 Who do you think should be able to apply for Council’s community funding?
Answer Choices	Responses
Two or more organisations working in partnership	40.00%	20
Organisations who have a proven track record	68.00%	34
Organisations that are registered charities	70.00%	35
Organisations that are incorporated societies	56.00%	28
Informal organisations	28.00%	14
Individuals	22.00%	11
Education providers	22.00%	11
Social enterprises	34.00%	17
Iwi and Hapu	62.00%	31
Religious organisations	14.00%	7
Organisations with a physical office in Lower Hutt	30.00%	15
Organisations with a staff located in Lower Hutt	24.00%	12
	Answered	50
	Skipped	18

Q6 Please add here any comments you have about who should be able to apply for Council’s community funding	category
Nothing more to add - Great options
Good to include education providers (eg. for environmental initiatives). Many low decile schools have to dedicate most of their fundraising effort to camps, sports uniforms etc., so don’t have funding available for these less necessary initiatives	Making a difference/outcome focus/more than established
Some organisations providing good social outputs and track - records do not have adequate infrastructural staff with sufficient time and experience to maintain obligations under the Charities Acts are too small to warrant registration with Companies Office, Charities Commission
Somewhat ambiguous options, education should have other options, religious groups are exclusive. As a catalyst fund it's not a good idea to set the bar to access too high, but there needs to be accountability as well...
Funding one- off projects/events/workshops organised by not registered organisations or credible individuals in the community should be encouraged and allowed to access funding that will benefit the community.
new organisations who are willing to fill gaps in service in the community.
Anyone that is making a difference in Te Awakairangi
While an organisation's reputation is an important factor in allocating funding, the potential benefits, along with the quality of thinking and planning for the activity seeking funding should be primary	Making a difference/outcome focus/established
Everyone still get an opportunity to prove themselves. But also the measures/KPI's need to be adjusted from a numbers game to a quality of life & positive change in character which extends beyond the constraints of the activity/sport.
Council funding should be aimed at those who take their business or incorporated company seriously
Organisations who are doers and have a proven track record, who advocate hard for whānau, who step outside of their box to make things happen, who are known in the community, who are willing to challenge the status quo, who have whānau at the core of their being.
there needs to be full transparency of how funds are spent and this is best obtained via Charities Commission annual reports etc
Only those organizations who are non profit or community volunteer clubs who cater for activities that are provenly beneficial to the wider public with the Hutt City Council.
Organisations should be doing work in the Hutt and preferably by Hutt people	Hutt location focus
Encourage & target LIONS groups
It should be people who are a part of and contribute to the Lower Hutt communities
I think organisations that are located and deliver services in Lower Hutt
Again - tried to tick more than one. Also wanted to tick: Registered charities, inc. societies, social enterprise.	Tech problem with question
There should be option to choose more than one answer in all the questions. Registered organisations that have a proven track record	Tech problem with question

Q7 Community funding applications are assessed against their alignment with the purpose / focus of the relevant fund. What other criteria, if any, do you think should be considered by Council when assessing applications?
Answer Choices	Responses
Relevant past experience	64.58%	31
Other funding sources	35.42%	17
Community involvement in design of program	52.08%	25
Evaluation and monitoring	45.83%	22
Growing internal capability	43.75%	21
Growing internal leadership	41.67%	20
Financial records	50.00%	24
		34
	Answered	48
	Skipped	20

Q 8 Please add here any comments you have about the criteria used to assess community funding applications
Nothing more to add - Great options
Relationships should be a key element of the assessment process for access to funding - sometime applications can look good on paper but lack substance while some good initiatives may not be well articulated.	More than just application criteria (reputation, relationship, client verification, match with need assessment)
Funding needs assessment of the local area needs with in depth research into the issues facing the communities eg, mental health funding where it will have the greatest impact within a suburb or community where it will have the greatest impact
Client feedback
Often groups who are working with whānau and at grassroots levels know what will work because they have been in that space for years, regardless of funding they will continue to work to support whānau in need, those are the groups that need support, the movers and shakers.

For individual applications or non registered voluntary groups, their purpose, benefit and the individual's standing in the community.
Criteria should be lower hutt based and how it will be used to improve and impact hutt city making it a better place to connect and support each other	More strict criteria
1. Must be non profit. 2. Contribute a minimum of 20% of the total amount of funding sought. 3. Provide a business case outlining the justification of the project and how it will benefit the community or Hutt Valley in general.	More strict criteria
New ideas may not have a track record, so other attainable factors should be considered.	Chance for innovation, learning and development
That our organisation enables other Maori communities to apply via simply pathway
Increasing capability through shared services with other like-minded organisations who are aligned in purpose.
It was tricky choosing only one criteria here. A proven track record was the least favourite option as it closes out groups who are starting up when they are likely to have lots of energy behind them.
I remember my first application was terrible. I had no experience in applications. I was thankful for the support
new initiatives being made available to community
I think there needs to be a balance between delivering the service. project and also the support that goes on in the background to enable that service/project to be delivered

Q9 What would be your preferred way to apply for community funding?
Answer Choices	Responses
Fill out a paper application form	19.57%	9
Online application form or portal	78.26%	36
Expression of interest first and then detailed application if shortlisted	30.43%	14
Face to face application meetings with Council staff (no forms)	34.78%	16
Applicants decide application method – no restrictions on method e.g. power point, video, story telling	32.61%	15
Hutt City Council conducts research and identifies partners and relationships rather than running grant funding programmes	15.22%	7
	Answered	46
	Skipped	22

Q10 Please add any comments you have about application methods and the application process
Make it accessible for all who wish to apply	Simple/accessible /two way
Make it really simple for the applicant with the questions asked. Some evidence of past work or testimonials but should not be mandatory. Reporting after the event/project is completed is important but should not be too onerous.
Online is my preference, but for others where digital literacy/ connection or access to devices may be a barrier to applying- there should be suitable alternatives.
Where possible workshops from council or availability to answer questions etc
Make it open and accessible, so long as sufficient detail is provided
Online and face to face.	Face to face benefits
An online application is definitely needed but also a first face to face meeting to talk about why you want to apply for grant and what grants are available if you fit criteria
Being able to explain confidently and passionately about your kaupapa face to face is a great way to gauge your commitment and motivation to make it happen.
There is nothing like hearing the voices of people. Being able to confidently express kanohi ki te kanohi, how your kaupapa will align with council priorities, how you will deliver your kaupapa, and delivering the voices of whānau, will make a better impact then filling in a form.
Online application would allow basic requirements to be met in terms of information, but also allowing presentations or other supporting material would be good
Online applications but also a face to face to answer questions and tell you more about the project. Allows for your team to determine passion and drive.
Identifying partners for a long term relationship makes sense if the fund is to deliver the best overall outcomes, but establishing the partnership should not be HCC driven as implied in the selection above	Not just HCC led
I think the wider community supporting the decision making for community funding would be great too.	Not just HCC led
Online with the same reporting process like a portal of some type. the report should be confirmation pictures and narrative of how it went. and any changes only within 10% of the original application.	other
Nothing more to add - Great options
Applications for funding is too bureaucratic across too many organizations that many people are not even aware of. A more streamlined and efficient process should be deployed under the direction of the Hutt City Council with a defined criteria where all monies can be annually consolidated into one fund and distributed accordingly within the rules of the day.
As per comments in Item 8
Must be secure and password protected.
as well as online application/portal, the EOI idea is good too where you go to next stage if short-listed - although this could slow down the process??
Having a written process of some sort encourages people to think through and express their plans. It need not be on paper but that shouldn't necessarily be excluded.
In my experience in schools, there are initiatives and programmes that are very well written and advertised but the content and effectiveness is of the product delivered is much lower than what was advertised. I feel this trend may disadvantage individuals or organisations that are just starting out.
Great Initiative by the council

Q11 What else, other than funding, could Council do to support those who provide community based programs and projects?
Answer Choices	Responses
Assistance with application process	56.52%	26
Guidance on developing an evaluation and monitoring plan	34.78%	16
Organise sessions to connect groups and individuals working in the community	56.52%	26
Provide data to inform groups and organisation about their community	67.39%	31
	Answered	46
	Skipped	22

Q12 Please add any comments you have about how Council could support applicants	Category by facilitator
Firstly, if you need data to inform you about your community then you shouldn't be working in that community, the people who know their communities well and have an attachment to those communities are the ones who would work best within that community. I think a lot of us struggle with evaluation and monitoring, we are too busy doing the mahi so tend to forget that this is a requirement.	Data issues
Firstly, if you are working in a community and you don’t know the demographics or needs of that community you shouldn’t be working there. I think a barrier for a lot of groups is the monitoring and evaluation. While the mahi is happening, often groups don’t have the skill to write evaluation reports.
making data available would be great but a good initiative would be for HCC to utilise data generated by community
providing data would be good too.
Provide a funding calendar for other external funding	Help with getting funding
Pippa does a good job, but you need someone else helping with other funding areas to give advice and guidance.
It impresses me when Councils (and other stakeholders) are prepared to jump through their self-created hoops for funding on behalf of community orgs. It shows true reciprocity, honours Te Tiriti and means that the (usually resource/time/capacity stretched) community org can get on with the real mahi.
Promoting them in the newsletter or their work/project on social media as well.	Communications
A quick 30-45sec video showing one if the funded projects each month. Short videos and testimonials can really showcase the project and also provides content for HCC to share and raise profile of the great work your team do to help in this space.	Communications
Definitely be on board with the applicants funding idea, support, network etc	Networking
The idea of promoting networking between different community groups is a great idea, this could have great outcomes separate from the funding process, networking could have powerful outcomes when groups identify synergies, shared goals, resources etc. Community building!	Networking
see previous comments applications must be community focussed where the organisation is based	Caveats
Just be aware of how much support the council is giving to different organisations as that could colour the lens of the project, the bias in the funding application or overestimate an organisations ability to deliver	Caveats
Nothing more to add - Great options
Clarity to ensure that applicants understand what is needed to be successful, not just on getting funding but using it well to get the best outcome.
Great Initiative by the council
Information sharing about data and analysis that the Council is doing would be great too.
Help with optimal application content for higher success rates of funding achievement

Q 13 Have you applied for Council community funding in the last 3 years?
Answer Choices	Responses
Yes	67.24%	39
No	24.14%	14
Can’t remember	8.62%	5
	Answered	58
	Skipped	10

Summary of 3 most supported options in each category – On-line
Category	Option	Percentage
Focus:	Enabling participation	71.93%
	Reducing inequality	57.89%
	Developing community networks	56.14%
Funding plus	Provide data to inform groups and organisation about their community	67.39%
	Organise sessions to connect groups and individuals working in the community	56.52%
	Assistance with application process	56.52%
Approach	Multi-year funding	71.43%
	Funding for ongoing / repeat programs	67.86%
	Part-funding of projects to ensure more projects receive funds	48.21%
Criteria	Alignment to longer term community outcomes	70.83%
	Relevant past experience	64.58%
	Community involvement in design of program	52.08%
Who	Organisations that are registered charities	70.00%
	Organisations who have a proven track record	68.00%
	Iwi and hapu	62.00%
Process	Online application form or portal	78.26%
	Face to face application meetings with Council staff (no forms)	34.78%
	Applicants decide application method – no restrictions on method e.g. power point, video, story telling	32.61%

7 Results Combined Red hot responses from face to face compared with online survey

	Face to face	Online comparison
Purpose:	The current Council overall purpose: Our city and all our people can thrive
	The current Council funding priorities: 1. Supporting those who work closely with communities 2. Focusing on equity – helping where it is needed most 3. Supporting those who enable people and communities	Reducing inequality Developing community networks Enabling participation
	Environmental Sustainability
	Quality, and effectiveness
Principles	Working together: mutual respect and shared responsibility
	Transparency and clarity
	Reduce the admin burden – net positive effect for grantees
	Strong relationships
	Alignment with community and council priorities
Funding plus	Provide better access to council staff and systems
	Influencing and advocating on issues important to community
	Raising awareness and supporting with communications
	Support to ensure people in neighbourhoods and communities are part of designing interventions and making decisions	Encouraging community led design
approach	Long term multi-year grant funding via a partnership relationship	Multiyear funding
	Funding for business as usual – repeated delivery of proven programs	Ongoing repeat programmes
	A mix of approaches long term, high investments and smaller and shorter term investments
Criteria	Capability to deliver
	Community involvement
	Good practice based on evidence
who	Legally constituted organisations – e.g. charities or incorporated societies	Registered charities
who	Well run organisations with a track record
process	Application portal where some information is retained for next time	Online application form or portal
	Expression of interest first and then detailed application for some only	Only 30%
	Application meetings with Council staff (no forms
accountability	Report by Story telling
	Just need to demonstrate that you have your own internal methods of accountability and reporting
	Report what actually happened, not what was hoped would happen so that mutual learning can occur
	Meetings or dinners to report verbally in person

8 Discussion

8.1 How best to use the information?

There are many uses for the rich information obtained and it is unwise to treat the responses as just a “vote” for how things should be. Here are some suggestions for carefully using the information

· Look for consistently stated preferences across the different engagement formats

· Look at the range or breadth of the responses (noting that for example, forward thinking or new ideas may not yet be popular)

· Comparative analysis of what the Council does already (for example, there is already an online portal)

· Note voices that did not participate (for example, Youth voices were not able to be specifically targeted)

· Research into emerging best practice

· Assess feasibility according to Council capacity and resource

· Fit with the community determined priorities in the Long Term Plan (currently in consultation)

· Remember it’s a snap-shot in time of where the participating organisations are at, and may only reflect the preferences of the individual who attended

· Use it to understand which ideas are well understood and supported, and those that are less well understood and supported. (For example, low response to a novel idea like micro loans could mean that they are not liked or that if they were to be implemented it would first require a period of further engagement and education)

8.2 Reach

The engagement has done a good job of achieving the aims for the Reach of the engagement. A face to face hui was offered in Wanuiomata, but, in the end, participants chose to do the online survey. More than 650 people were contacted twice about the opportunity to participate. The response rate is sitting at about 20%. The quality of the engagement was high, with feedback forms from 2 events being overwhelmingly positive and good completion rates for the on-line survey. There was good diversity in the participants and Mana Whenua and Pasifika voices were represented. Although there were some participants from other ethnic minorities and youth agencies, more effort would have been required to target these voices specifically.

8.3 Format

The project team adapted as the needs and availability of participants changed over the course of the engagement. This flexibility helped achieved the good engagement levels. It also created a diversity of formats which helps with providing accessible options for a range of people and with “triangulating” the results. An area for improvement would have been to more carefully match the questions in the on-line survey with the run sheet questions for the face to face. This would have made for slightly more consistent comparison.

8.4 The Clearest Messages by section

Looking at the responses combined, these are the clearest messages from the participants

8.4.1 Purpose or Focus

· Aligning with the Long Term Plan is likely to be generally accepted if it is clear that it expresses “Community Driven” priorities based on a better cultural understanding

· The current funding priorities are well supported, however there may be scope to clarify these

· Focus on equity versus reducing inequality – not everyone may understand the level of inequality in Lower Hutt

· Work closely with versus enable participation – the later phrase is stronger

· Enable people and communities versus developing community – the later phrase is potentially deeper and more community led

· It seems that there is scope for the funding priorities to even better linked to a vision for the community sector as a whole “a diverse, innovative, resilient, connected and capable community sector”

· Environmental sustainability and culture and the Arts were all variously supported but it is not clear to all how “community” funding overlaps with these

8.4.2 Principles

· Seeking alignment between community and council priorities

· Strong relationships and working together based on passion for the cause, mutual respect and shared responsibility

· Transparency and clarity

· Reducing the admin burden/net positive effect for grantees

8.4.3 Approach

· A mix of approaches long term, high investments and smaller and shorter-term investments, so that diversity and innovation are supported

· Some shift to multiyear funding for core work based on trust and relationship appears to be supported

· Communications that are richer, two way and involve listening and seeing by the Council

8.4.4 Criteria

· Who: Clearly well run existing charities etc are supported – (but there is less consensus on who else or under what conditions – this will need careful explanation)

· a focus on being able to show how you are committed to making a difference is supported

· Capability to deliver

· Good practice based on evidence

· Community involvement

8.4.5 Process to get funded, application and accountability

· Simple, flexible application and accountability processes

· Online portal but with improved functionality

· Clear communications about the purpose and criteria for funds

· A responsive service-oriented person to deal with

· Innovating and enabling accountability methods that leads to learning and better relationships are supported. There is a sense that the grantees want to feel seen and want a chance to express what they do in a variety of more creative ways.

8.4.6 More than funding

· The council doing more than funding is seen as appropriate, particularly where it supports the other priorities and is done in an enabling way

· community led design

· networking in the sector

· evidence base

· using the council’s resources – transport and venues frequently named

Deputy Mayor T Lewis (Chair)
Mayor C Barry	Cr J Briggs
Cr K Brown	Cr B Dyer
Cr S Edwards	Cr D Hislop
Cr C Milne	Cr A Mitchell
Cr S Rasheed	Cr N Shaw (Deputy Chair)
Cr L Sutton

2018/2019	2019/2020	2020/2021
Mahia Atu Partnership	Mahia Atu Partnership	Mahi Atu Partnership
Wesley Community Action	Wesley Community Action	Wesley Community Action
Youth Inspire
Mahia Atu General	Mahia Atu General	Mauri Ora Fund
Presbyterian Support	Big Brothers Big Sisters	Naenae Youth Charitable Trust
Naenae Youth Charitable Trust	Vulnerable Support Charitable Trust	Ignite Sport
Ignite Sport	Taita Pomare Community Trust	Goodtime Foundation
Goodtime Foundation	Basketball Association	Big Brothers/Big sisters
	Takiri Mai Te Ata Whanau Ora Collective	Takiri Mai Te Ata Whanau Ora Collective
	Age Concern	Age Concern
	Te Awaikarangi Access Trust	Moera Community House
	Moera Community House	Team Naenae Trust
	Birthright Hutt Valley	Common Unity
	Team Naenae Trust	Wellington City Mission
	Naenae Youth Charitable Trust	Arohanui Strings
	Presbyterian Support	Lower Hutt CAB
	Youth Inspire	Te Puna Manawai
	Ignite Sport	Trade School Kitchens
	Goodtime Foundation	Kaibosh
		Vulnerable Support Services
		Taita Pomare Community Trust
		Youth Inspire
Kakano Fund	Kakano Fund	Kakano Fund
Whaits Ltd	Petone Budget	Petone Depot
Te Ara Tane		Common Unity

1. Wilke Cres Firebreak	2. Kingsley Route
3. Rata Street Loop	4. Te Whiti Firebreak
5. Stokes Valley Ridge	6. Freewheel
7. Kamahi Street Track	8. Towai Traverse
9. Tawhai Route	10. Konini Firebreak

WCB 21210	Wainuiomata Reserve Review
FILE REF	21/559
AGENDA ITEM NO.	WCB2021/2/54

21/22 Projects	Est. Budget $000	General Scope	Timeline	Comment
Parks Asset Management Plan Funded
Avalon Park pond waterproofing	$50k	Relining of the ponds basin	Dec 2021	The pond is fed from the aquifer. It leaks water and must be topped up every few months.
Car park renewals	$50k	Re-construction of car park area	Dec 2021	McEwen Park - Improvements include drainage as well as an asphalt seal replacement
Petone Foreshore Improvements	$50k	Refurbishing park furniture, planting and general landscape features along the foreshore	Dec 2021	Ongoing renewal of park furniture and landscape along the Foreshore
Taita Cemetery – Stabilisation Work	$50k	Work to stabilize retaining wall structures at the Cemetery	Jan 2022 - June 2022	Some of the retaining devices in the cemetery are falling-over exposing grave sites and closing footpaths. These need to be reconstructed. A broad investigation across all walls will be done also.
Percy Reserve building and park improvements	$160k	Improvements to a series of operational buildings and tracks within the reserve	TBC July 2021 - June 2022	Some of the service areas and public buildings are declining in quality and are becoming more costly to maintain.
New tracks and upgrade	$400k	Construction of new or renewal of existing walking/bush tracks	TBC July 2021 - June 2022	Work identified here stems from the last condition assessment and audit of the track network. The priorities also fall from recent reserve reviews: · Wainuiomata black creek connections · Percy Reserve waterfall track · Kaimahi St track · Rata St Loop extension
Queen Street landscape improvements	$100k	Landscaping to complement the work completed as a part of the streetscape work	TBC