Philanthropy and Youth Support in Victoria

June 2014

The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria

The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria

The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria (YACVic) is a vibrant, member based organisa-tion that represents and advocates for young people and the organisations that work with them. YACVic has worked for and with young Victorians and the services that support them for over 50 years.

Our vision is for a Victorian community in which all young people are valued as active participants, have their rights recognised and are treated fairly and with respect.

The Youth Affairs Council of Victoria IncLevel 2, 180 Flinders St, Melbourne VIC 3000Ph: (03) 9267 3799 Fax: (03) 9639 1622

www.yacvic.org.au

ContactJessie Mitchell, Manager, Policy & Projectspolicy@yacvic.org.au

June 2014

3

Contents

Background…………………………………………………………………………………3

Policy context………………………………………………………………………….…...6

Method………………………………………………………………………………......….7

Findings………………………………………………………………………….….………8

How many grants? How much money?....................................................................8

Where does the funding come from?......................................................................10

Where do the grants go?.........................................................................................13

What were the very large grants for?......................................................................15

What were the very small grants for?......................................................................16

What about multiple grants?....................................................................................18

What sort of work gets funded?...............................................................................19

Which young people?...............................................................................................21

How easy is it to access philanthropic funding?.......................................................23

Future directions……………………………………………………………………………27

Recommendations………………………………………………...……………………….29

4

Background

The Australian community has a strong ethos of philanthropy, and many philanthropic

foundations offer grants rounds that provide financial support to initiatives assisting young

people. Philanthropic engagement with the youth sector is supported by the Victorian

Government, whose 2012 Youth Statement, Engage, Involve, Create, outlines the

government’s commitment to ‘driving new partnerships with business, philanthropy and

other organisations to support young Victorians.’1

The philanthropic sector is diverse and evolving. Philanthropy Australia, the not-for-profit

national peak body for philanthropy, defines philanthropy as the planned and structured

giving of money, time, information, goods and services, voice and influence to improve the

wellbeing of humanity and the community. They define the philanthropic sector as trusts,

foundations, organisations, families and individuals who engage in philanthropy.2 Alongside

traditional foundations and trusts established in wills, the past decade has seen a growth in

the number of individual and family foundations with living donors, community

organisations, community investment programs by corporates, and organisations that

promote workplace giving and volunteering. These are supported by a growing range of

service providers like Trustee Companies, family offices, asset management firms, private

banks and consultants.3 Philanthropic bodies have a particular presence in Victoria. As of

2011, according to the Office for the Community Sector, 80% of Australia’s philanthropic

trusts were based in Victoria.4

Philanthropy’s relationship to government is a complex one. Dr Rosalyn Black of Monash

University has observed that executives of Australian trusts and foundations tend to feel

that philanthropy works best as ‘a spearhead for innovation … [providing] a space in which

creative alliances can form to generate new solutions.’5 In a recent article about the

philanthropic and Indigenous sectors, Sue Smyllie, Wendy Scaife and Katie McDonald

observed that grant-makers tend to see governments as having core responsibilities for

areas like health and education, while their own organisations develop new, innovative

approaches, taking risks with untested projects and operating outside of political

commitments.6 As such, grant-makers are wary of governments of trying to shift core

responsibilities onto them. As the patron of the Scottish Community Foundation, Lord Smith

of Kelvin, observed recently, philanthropists are not keen on being ‘sucked into replacing

what government ought to be doing’.7 Some assume when a philanthropic initiative is

5

successful, it should then be taken up by government – but in practice, this does not always

happen.

Philanthropic bodies also have complex relationships to the charitable bodies which apply

for their funding. In a survey of charities which applied for their grants in 2012, the Lord

Mayor’s Charitable Foundation found that the top two general funding needs identified by

their applicants were ‘sustaining a current program’ (64%) and ‘general operating support’

(44%).8 In a constrained fiscal environment, where many community sector organisations

struggle to secure government funding, demand for philanthropic support for their core

functions may well rise accordingly. But this does not sit well with the innovative, time-

limited, ‘pump-priming’ focus of many philanthropic bodies, which rarely support the

projects they have funded beyond the original project term. In our survey of youth sector

representatives (outlined later), we asked them ‘Is anything stopping you from accessing

more philanthropic funding?’ The second most common response selected was ‘We don't

want new pilots or short-term projects; it's our long-term work that needs support.’

This briefing was designed to provide a state-wide perspective on:

The current contribution of financial support by philanthropic organisations to youth-

specific initiatives through an analysis of recent grants rounds

The level to which philanthropic organisations offering targeted grants to youth

initiatives are successfully subscribed by young people / youth services

Key characteristics of the access to philanthropic grants for youth initiatives, to

inform our understanding of the future role of philanthropy in this area. For example:

Is there capacity for stronger engagement? Do young people or youth services need

further support to access philanthropic opportunities? How does the scope of

philanthropic grants at present influence the development of programs and initiatives

for young people? Are there gaps, or opportunities for increased support?

“We have a number of projects which rely on grant funding … sustainability is the biggest

issue we face. Good ideas, great support but very hard to fund ongoing”. “We are often frustrated that grants are given to projects which are not strategic and are short term in nature”. “[Philanthropic] funds help projects to get off the ground but not always stay in flight”.

- Responses to YACVic survey of 46 youth services

6

Policy context

The Victorian Government’s Youth Statement, Engage, Involve, Create, describes the

philanthropic sector as one of the key stakeholders with whom government wishes to work,

to support the aspirations of young Victorians. The Victorian Government undertakes to

engage with the philanthropic community to establish and nurture new partnerships, and to

support the growth of social enterprises.9 To this end, the Government created the Youth

Partner Network, which provides events, information and networking opportunities to bring

together the youth sector, business, government and philanthropy.10

In 2012 the Victorian Government’s Office for the Community Sector developed principles

to guide government collaboration with the philanthropic sector. These covered:

Engaging with each other early when a common interest is identified.

Building trust, communication, and understanding of each other’s capacities and

priorities.

Ensuring mutual agreement on values, goals, responsibilities and outcomes, and

agreed processes for selecting organisations and projects to support.

Ensuring the right people are at the table, in terms of seniority and consistency.

Appointing an identified staff member(s) to coordinate governance, communication

and actions within the collaboration.

Documenting and evaluating the collaboration – a process which must be supported

by appropriate resources.

Addressing sustainability issues early, including developing funding plans and exit

strategies where appropriate.11

In the future, such work may also be influenced by the changes to the service sector taking

place in response to Peter Shergold’s 2013 report Service Sector Reform. Shergold pointed

to problems that could develop between community sector organisations, government and

philanthropic bodies when CSOs, under pressure to ‘win business’, take on work that might

otherwise be seen as the government’s responsibility at below the actual cost of service

delivery. These CSOs may then seek to cross-subsidise their government funds with

philanthropic donations. In the short term, Shergold noted, this has advantages to

government in lowering delivery costs. However in the long term it can have detrimental

7

effects, such as preventing CSOs from investing adequately in workforce development and

infrastructure, encouraging them to reduce service standards, and making them less

appealing to philanthropic supporters.12

Shergold also noted that representatives from social enterprises who attended his focus

groups raised their own concerns about relationships with philanthropy and government.

Some suggested that public service agencies focused too much on how not-for-profit

resources could be used to subsidise the cost of government programs. Others complained

that when they took entrepreneurial actions, such as accessing new forms of philanthropy,

it made their relationships with government more complex and difficult.13 These issues will

presumably be considered by the new Community Sector Reform Council, announced by

the Minister for Community Services, Mental Health and Disability Services and Reform.

Method

Due to the philanthropic sector’s size, diversity, and varied approaches to giving and

reporting, we did not have the capacity to undertake a truly comprehensive scoping. This

would have meant looking at hundreds of organisations over several years, a task

complicated further by the fact that only a minority of trusts make the details of their giving

public. Instead, we have used the data that is publically available (mostly that of larger,

better-known foundations and trusts) to put together a general picture of recent

philanthropic support for initiatives to benefit Victorian young people.

To this end, we scoped the most recent reporting cycles of philanthropic bodies, based on

the list of members supplied by Philanthropy Australia, under the headings ‘Private Trusts

and Foundations’, ‘Businesses and Corporate Foundations’, ‘Community Foundations’,

‘Trustee Companies’, and ‘Government-Initiated & Statutory Bodies’. Here, we were looking

for grants designed to benefit young people in Victoria aged between 12 and 25 (with some

“It would also be good to review current options for State and Federal grants as well…in relation to the amount of funding available, which is limited, and the focus of funding.” “We have been looking to both corporate, philanthropic and government or sector organisations for funding to run additional projects and supplementary funding for continuing projects”.

- Responses to YACVic survey of 46 youth services

8

flexibility, as some ‘youth’ grants target different age cohorts, such as 10-17 years). We did

not include private or family philanthropy, as these entities are much less likely to make

their details public, and are so numerous that it would be impractical to check them all.14

We took our information from published documents such as annual reports and reviews

from the last reporting round. In most instances, this meant the financial year 2012-13, but

some philanthropic bodies report on calendar years instead, and one gave their latest round

as 2011-12.

We also invited the youth sector to contribute their views through an online survey, which

had 46 responses. While this is a modest number, the questions were so specific that we

had not expected widespread uptake, and the qualitative responses received were so

detailed and thoughtful that they added considerably to our understanding of the field.

Findings

How many grants? How much money?

Given the diversity of philanthropic bodies, and their varied approaches to giving and

reporting, it is impossible to give a final figure for what they are contributing to the youth

sector. According to Philanthropy Australia, many donations, including to youth projects, are

never publically announced.15 However, from the available data, a broad picture does

emerge.

After surveying the members listed by Philanthropy Australia, we identified 43

philanthropic bodies or partnerships which, in their last reporting cycle, described

awarding grants to initiatives or organisations which were either youth-focused or had a

strong youth component, and which either focused on Victoria or had a national focus which

included working in Victoria.

These funding bodies represented 43 out of 188 trusts, foundations, trustee companies and

statutory bodies listed by Philanthropy Australia, meaning around a quarter of

philanthropic bodies allocated grants to benefit Victorian young people during their

last reporting round. These 43 philanthropic bodies ranged from very large national

foundations to small, locally-based funds.16 As not all philanthropic bodies list their

contributions publically, the real rate of contribution to youth projects may be higher.

9

The total number of grants shown to be allocated to initiatives with a strong youth

component, operating in Victoria or nationally with a Victorian component, was 338 grants

from 43 philanthropic bodies or partnerships to 234 recipients.

Not all of these philanthropic bodies specified the amounts they granted. In addition, grants

may be allocated for expenditure over different periods of time, so citing a dollar figure for

any one year is difficult. We identified 30 philanthropic bodies or partnerships which

specified the amounts they had allocated; this covered 252 out of the 338 grants delivered

to youth initiatives. Across these, $14,490,238 was allocated to initiatives with a strong

youth component, operating in Victoria or nationally with a Victorian component.

The amounts allocated to youth initiatives vary tremendously. In the above grants rounds,

the smallest grant listed was $500 for a donation to a school. The largest was over $3

million to develop the Youth Health Research Centre in partnership with Orygen, University

of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, to support young people with mental illness.

However, on the whole, most grants allocated to Victorian youth initiatives during the last

reporting round were relatively small. The most common funding bracket (encompassing

45% of grants allocated) was for grants between $5,001 and $20,000 (see following

graph). The rarest grants allocated were those between $50,000 and $100,000.

To some extent, this reflects what youth services are applying for. In our survey of youth

services, we asked them what sized grants they had applied for during the last twelve

months. The most common funding bracket selected (representing over a third of the grants

the respondents had applied for) was between $5,001 – 20,000. The next most common

bracket (representing around a quarter of applications) was between $0 – 5,000. Very few

respondents had applied for grants of over $100,000.

Thus, in most cases philanthropic grants to youth initiatives could not fund a whole

organisation or a large, long-term program, unless additional funds were accessed from

elsewhere. According to the Productivity Commission’s 2010 report Contribution of the Not-

for-Profit Sector, Australian not-for-profits in general tend to access only 0.4% of their

funding through donations from philanthropic trusts and foundations.17

10

Where does the funding come from?

Many philanthropic bodies fund initiatives to benefit young people, but there is no universal

approach to this. Focusing only on philanthropic bodies which deliver ‘youth grants streams’

would not give an accurate picture, for only a minority actually take this approach. Instead,

we have identified the following ways that philanthropic bodies engage in the youth space:

Focusing the entire philanthropic body on helping disadvantaged young Victorians.

Only the Newsboys Foundation seems to do this, defining youth as aged 11-18.

Prioritising vulnerable young people as a key group to help through grant-giving in

general. This approach is taken, for example, by the Lord Mayor’s Charitable

Foundation.

Funding youth initiatives through grants streams which have a broader focus, such

as community development, wellbeing, capacity-building, the arts, environment, or

rural communities.

25

15

57

113

42

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Over $100,000

$50,001 - $100,000

$20,001 - $50,000

$5,001 - $20,000

Up to $5,000

What sized grants were delivered by philanthropic bodies to Victorian youth initiatives in the last round?

(Based on scoping of reports by philanthropic bodies)

Number of grants to youthinitiatives - out of 252 grantswhere funding was identified

11

Funding youth initiatives through grants rounds which have a youth-related theme.

These grants rounds often roll ‘youth’ in with ‘children’, and / or with ‘education’. For

example:

o Some grant streams focus on children and young people at risk – see R.E.

Ross Trust and Gandel Philanthropy

o Some grant streams focus on Victorian children and young people – see Jack

Brockhoff Foundation and Equity Trustees

o Some streams work Australia-wide, focusing on vulnerable young people –

see Coca-Cola Australia Foundation

o Some streams work Australia-wide and focus on the under-18s – see St

George Foundation

o Some streams have an Australia-wide focus on rural young people – see the

Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal’s Heywire Youth Innovation

Grants

o Some have an Australia-wide focus on education – see Ian Potter Foundation,

Macquarie Group Foundations, Gandel Philanthropy, the Myer Foundation

and Sydney Myer Fund

o Some have an Australia-wide focus on education in rural communities – see

the REAPing Rewards grants program (supported by a coalition of

philanthropic bodies)

o Some Victorian streams focus on education for women and girls – see

Invergowrie Foundation

Different philanthropic bodies commit different proportions of their resources to youth

initiatives. The following graph shows the percentage of total grants and total funds

delivered by philanthropic bodies to Victorian youth initiatives in their last reporting round,

as a proportion of their total giving. The mean level of commitment to youth initiatives was

29% of overall funds and 24% of overall grants. However, the field was very diverse, with

levels of commitment ranging from 4% of 100%.

“Often very little flexibility and tight criteria for philanthropic funds. We often look for funds to deal with emerging youth issues and projects which are not often specified in philanthropic grants”.

- Response to YACVic survey of 46 youth services

12

0 50 100 150

Commonwealth Bank Staff Community Fund

Border Trust Community Foundation Albury…

Geelong Community Foundation

Victorian Women's Trust

Colonial Foundation Limited

AMP Foundation

Helen Macpherson Smith Trust

Invergowrie Foundation

Gardiner Foundation

Seeds of Renewal (FRRR)

Give Where You Live

McEwan Foundation (Goulburn Valley)

Alfred Felton Bequest - small grants

STEPS Program (FRRR - Victorian bushfires)

William Buckland Foundation

Reichstein Foundation

Mirboo North & District Community Foundation

Inner North Community Foundation

Telematics Trust

Tomorrow: Today (Benalla)

Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation

Grants for Resilience & Wellness (FRRR)

ANZ Trustees

Victoria Law Foundation

Harold Mitchell Foundation

IOOF Foundation

MLC Community Foundation

Westpac Foundation

Telstra Foundation

St George Foundation

Macquarie Group Foundation

Newsboys Foundation

Ian Potter Foundation

RE Ross Trust

Heywire Youth Innovation (FRRR)

REAPing Rewards

Jack Brockhoff Foundation

Coca-Cola Australia Foundation

Equity Trustees - Children & Youth

Gandel Philanthropy

Sydney Myer Fund

Myer Foundation

%

What % of thisfoundation'sfunds went toVictorian youthinitiatives in thelast round(where known)?

What % of thisfoundation'sgrants went toVictorian youthinitiatives in thelast round(where known)?

13

There is no single, consistent ‘Victorian youth’ area of the philanthropic sector. Youth

services look to a wide variety of grants rounds for assistance, and can expect different

levels of interest from different funding bodies.

Where do the grants go?

Not all philanthropic bodies report on which Victorian communities will benefit from the

grants they allocate. However, we identified 208 grants (out of 338) where a location for

delivery was indicated during the last reporting round.

58% of the locations listed were in Melbourne. Of the grants allocated to rural or regional

projects, the largest number were in Barwon south-west, and then in north-eastern Victoria.

Most of the Barwon grants went to initiatives operating in or near Geelong; the second

highest number went to Warrnambool. In the north-east, most of the grants were allocated

fairly evenly between the regional cities of Wodonga, Wangaratta, Benalla and Shepparton.

Meanwhile, our survey of youth services found that 53% of the 62 grants received across all

the respondents went to organisations working in Melbourne. 39% went to organisations

working in rural or regional areas, and 8% to organisations working state-wide. While the

sample size was small, it’s interesting to see how closely it resembles the findings of our

wider scope of philanthropic reporting.

9

9

11

24

34

121

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Loddon Mallee

Grampians

Gippsland

Hume

Barwon south-west

Melbourne

Which Victorian locations received philanthropic grants, during the last funding round?

Based on scoping of reports by philanthropic bodies

Grants where the location fordelivery was identified - 208grants

14

Around three quarters of Victoria’s young people live in Melbourne,18 so it’s unsurprising

that the majority of philanthropic grants would be allocated there. In fact, regional and rural

applicants seem to be accessing quite a high percentage of grants relative to their

population levels. This reflects the enthusiasm of many philanthropic bodies for assisting

rural communities, believing that their money will go further there and have a clearer

impact.19 It is also suggestive of the higher levels of socio-economic disadvantage in rural /

regional areas (which, again, might command more philanthropic intervention), and their

relatively poor access to publically-funded services.

At the same time, charities and services must be ‘on the ground’ to apply for philanthropic

money in the first place, with sufficient resources to do so. In our scoping of philanthropic

reports from the last funding round, we found that most grants allocated outside of

Melbourne went to initiatives based in regional cities, where services tend to accumulate.

The smallest numbers of grants went to the Loddon Mallee and Grampians regions.

Numbers in Gippsland were also relatively low. (The low numbers in the Loddon Mallee and

Grampians were mirrored, on a small scale, in the responses to our youth sector survey.)

This is interesting given that these regions have relatively high levels of disadvantage. The

Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage ranks

Victoria’s 79 LGAs by disadvantage, where 1 indicates the highest levels of vulnerability.

Loddon Mallee contains LGAs ranked 2, 4, 12, and 13; Gippsland contains LGAs ranked 8,

15 and 26.20

Of the grants allocated to Melbourne, the largest number appeared to go to relatively ‘inner’

suburbs (a 20 minute drive or less from the CBD). The second highest number of grants

went to suburbs in Melbourne’s south-east – eg Frankston, Dandenong – although the

spread was relatively even. The smallest numbers of metropolitan grants where the location

was indicated went to communities in Melbourne’s east – eg Box Hill, Ringwood.

Our survey of youth sector representatives also showed that most grants delivered in

Melbourne went to organisations based in the inner suburbs.

In some ways it is surprising that youth projects in interface suburbs of Melbourne have

attracted so little philanthropic giving in recent months. Young people are especially

15

prominent in these suburbs; if 10-24 year olds represent 20% of Victoria’s overall

population, they represent 23% of the population in Hume, 22% in Casey and 21% in

Melton and the Yarra Ranges.21 According to the ABS Index of Relative Socio-Economic

Disadvantage, Melbourne’s interface suburbs also show higher than average levels of

vulnerability. Hume ranks 16 out of 79, for example, while Greater Dandenong ranks 1.22

The lull in philanthropic funding to the interface may have occurred following the work done

between 2006-10 through the Melbourne Community Foundation’s MacroMelbourne

project. MacroMelbourne aimed to build and coordinate philanthropic and business support

for communities in Melbourne’s interface suburbs, and raised over $1M to support projects

in six growth areas during 2009-10.23 We might speculate that by 2012-13 some

philanthropic bodies wished to shift their attentions elsewhere.

In conversation with our members, we were also reminded that due to high levels of

disadvantage in some interface suburbs, and relatively scarce infrastructure, services may

feel under so much pressure to deliver core outputs that applying for short-term

philanthropic projects may not be a priority. In addition, some suburbs are so new that

services may not be certain what the population needs or wants yet – the demographic

details are still coming together, making funding applications hard to substantiate.

What were the very large grants for?

During the last philanthropic funding round, very large grants of over $100,000 were

allocated to Victorian programs and partnerships in the following areas:

Assisting very vulnerable young people, such as those in out-of-home care,

homelessness, or sex work – 5 grants

Supporting literacy and school engagement – 4 grants

Inspiring and mentoring young people in schools – 3 grants

“We have approximately 1000 visits per month from young people and we receive no general youth funding – over 50% of the work we do is unfunded.” “We need funds for staff to do/coordinate/oversee the work and funds for brokerage to support young people with study, computers, sports equipment etc. But mostly it’s staffing.”

- Responses to YACVic survey of 46 youth services

16

Building or supporting youth social enterprises – 2 grants

One large grant was delivered to each of the following topic areas:

Building an online platform for youth service delivery

Coaching talented young musicians

A volunteering and social action program for young people, culminating in a year’s

volunteering overseas

Adapting a successful American program for addressing adolescent violence in the

home

Support for a grants program (inter-philanthropic donation)

Integrating government funding sources supporting education and employment for

vulnerable young people

Six of the grants of over $100,000 went to organisations based in the inner suburbs of

Melbourne. Five were allocated to rural or regional communities: Ballarat, Bendigo, Benalla,

the Yarra Valley and Churchill; another was to support a series of grants to rural Australian

communities. The locations for the other grants were not stated, but a number of the

recipient organisations work across multiple locations.

None of the recipients of very large grants were identified as based in Melbourne’s interface

suburbs.

What were the very small grants for?

Based on our scoping of the most recent funding rounds of philanthropic bodies, it appears

that very small grants – of $5,000 or less – were allocated to support youth initiatives in the

following areas:

Life skills for young people, such as healthy eating, parenting, studying, suicide

prevention, work readiness, and getting a drivers’ license – 7 grants

Income distribution or core support to an organisation – 6 grants

Purchase of equipment, such as theatre equipment, a mini-bus, baby mannikins for a

sexual education program, vocational equipment, sporting gear, and a trailer – 6

grants

17

Development of educational videos or websites – 3 grants

Training for young people in fashion, textiles, beauty and retail – 3 grants

Scholarships for individual students – 2 grants

Leadership or inspiration programs for young people – 2 grants

Arts- or adventure-based activities for young people – 2 grants

A fundraising pack of young social entrepreneurs – 1 grant

It is sometimes assumed that youth initiatives will use small grants to purchase equipment.

However, the above figures suggest this is not necessarily the case. Many of these grants

were used to support work which could be larger or long term.

The majority of recipients of very small grants (where locations were specified) were in rural

or regional communities: Ararat, Shepparton, Boolarra, Lake Bolac, Benalla, Robinvale,

Sale, Eastern Park, Kyabram, Sea Lake, and the Mallee and Upper Murray districts. Three

small grants went to organisations based in interface suburbs of Melbourne (Whittlesea,

Meadow Heights, Mornington Peninsula), and two went to organisations based in

Melbourne’s inner suburbs. Two grants went to organisations which work across several

metropolitan and rural locations, and two were for online platforms.

Our survey of youth sector representatives seemed to echo these findings. Altogether the

respondents had applied for 45 grants of $5,000 or less, and 71% of these applications

were made by organisations based in rural or regional Victoria.

Thus, different parts of Victoria do not fare equally when it comes to the size of

philanthropic grants accessed, or perhaps applied for. Very small grants are associated

with smaller rural communities, and to some extent with interface suburbs. Very large

grants are associated with inner suburbs and regional centres.

“The philanthropic grants that we have received have enabled us to source additional funds to keep some of our projects going into the future. … e.g. our Kitchen Garden project - once the garden beds were built we can keep the project going via our core funding”. “Philanthropic grants we've received have been very small, so they are used to supplement an existing program, for example, to run a camp for participants in our Aboriginal youth program.”

- Responses to YACVic survey of 46 youth services

18

What about multiple grants?

Applying for philanthropic grants is not always a simple process of approaching and

working with one funding body. In our scoping of reporting by philanthropic bodies during

their last funding round, we found that of the 234 organisations which received philanthropic

funding to work with young people, 63 (or 27%) received more than one grant, from

different funding bodies.

As the amounts of funding delivered were not always stated, it is difficult to determine the

relationship between how many grants a youth initiative receives and how much funding

they have to work with overall. However, we can make a few suggestions.

In almost a third of cases (18 out of 63), when an organisation accessed more than one

grant, the grants would be within $20,000 of each other. For example, an organisation

might receive one grant worth $20,000 and another worth $30,000.

Accessing more than one grant does not necessarily mean that the successful organisation

will end up with an exceptionally high pool of funds overall. For example, one organisation

secured two grants to a total of approximately $20,000 overall. In contrast, another secured

two grants which added up to over $3 million.

0 10 20 30 40 50

7 grants received

6 grants received

5 grants received

4 grants received

3 grants received

2 grants received

How many grants were awarded per organisation in the last round?

Based on reports by philanthropic bodies

Number of organisationsawarded more than 1grant in the last round (63organisations overall)

19

Of the organisations that secured multiple grants, 19 were identified as operating in the

inner suburbs of Melbourne, 18 were in rural / regional communities, and 6 were in interface

suburbs. Others went to organisations working across multiple communities. Of the non-

metro recipients of multiple grants, most were based in regional centres. The smallest

community to receive more than one grant was Robinvale, which received three grants

adding up to a modest $35,470, plus a fourth which was unspecified but appeared modest

in its scope (supporting a school holiday program).

What sort of work gets funded?

Not all philanthropic bodies report in detail about the programs they are funding, and many

programs have a range of aims. However, based on our scoping of recent philanthropic

reporting, it appears:

By far the greatest number of grants went to projects supporting young people’s

engagement in education, training and employment.*

A significant number of grants went to programs to support young people who were

vulnerable to homelessness, poor health and / or violence.

A small but noteworthy number of grants went to arts projects, some focusing on

achievement and excellence by young artists, others aiming to boost young people’s

engagement and wellbeing through the arts.

Other prominent areas included camps and outdoor adventure programs, youth

social enterprises, engaging young people through sport, scholarships for young

people, and support for young people to access school supplies and extra-curricular

activities.

Relatively few grants focused on professional development for workers or building a

stronger, integrated sector. Funding was also scarce for projects which focused on policy

development or advocacy. The main exception was advocacy to support young people in

nursing homes; this attracted comparatively strong philanthropic funding in the last round.

Other areas which received very few grants concerned young volunteers, and young

people’s roles as civic participants and community leaders.

* In a conversation with Philanthropy Australia and Our Community, they confirmed that educational engagement has been a very popular area for philanthropic work for some time.

20

2

17

65

7

6

16

17

20

11

2

2

9

16

15

36

8

12

4

5

5

1

2

4

2

3

1

3

1

1

2

1

12

0 20 40 60 80

Homework clubs

Health and wellbeing education for young people

Engagement in education, training, employment

Leadership and self-esteem programs for girls

Breakfast clubs and other food provision

School supplies & extra curricular activities

Camps and outdoor adventure programs

Arts to support engagement / wellbeing

Arts - supporting ambitious young artists

Purchase arts equipment

Supporting young environmental advocates

Advocacy around young people in nursing homes

Social enterprises

Online tools & platforms to support young people

Support for very vulnerable young people

Films & resources about rights & wellbeing

Sports-based wellbeing and life-skills programs

Purchase sporting equipment

Professional development / growing the sector

Media training for young people

Supporting young people suing Victoria Police

Supporting young volunteers

Young mothers' support groups

Training young people as trainers / presenters

Mental health research and treatment

Connecting young people to culture and country

Youth inspiration programs

Support for young people living with chronic illness

Young entrepenuers program

Youth first aid programs

Hobby farm for young people

Scholarships / bursaries

What were the grants used for? (Topic areas) Based on reports by philanthropic bodies

Number ofgrantsdelivered - outof 308 grantswhere a topicwas given

21

Which young people?

It can be difficult to state definitively which groups of young people will benefit from

philanthropic grants, as reporting is inconsistent. However, from the information provided, a

general picture does emerge (see the following graph).

A slight majority of grants went to initiatives aimed at young people who were vulnerable

and disadvantaged in a general sense. In practice, this must include young people in a

variety of circumstances. The second largest number of grants went to initiatives with a

more generalist focus, intended to benefit all young people or many different groups. The

third and fourth most popular categories were grants to benefit young people with

disabilities, and refugee or culturally diverse young people.

There were some groups of young people who appeared to attract relatively little

philanthropic funding, despite demonstrated levels of vulnerability. These included young

carers and same-sex attracted and gender-diverse young people. Given the prominence of

youth mental health as concern in Australia, it is also curious that relatively few grants went

to this area – although youth mental health did attract a couple of very large single grants.

Indigenous initiatives did not attract as many grants as might be expected either, given that

Aboriginal communities tend to have relatively young populations and high levels of

disadvantage. Most philanthropic grants to Indigenous initiatives focused on education,

skills and employment. While these are very important, we might speculate why programs

focused on health, culture and community did not attract more support.

Very few grants were targeted at young people as advocates or activists, either. Young

people who wish to engage in public or political debate, to influence change in their

communities, do not seem to access much philanthropic support. As many grants require

not only tax concession charity status but also deductable gift recipient status, they might

not be eligible. This shows the importance of grants such as the Engage! grants, funded by

the Victorian government to involve young people in community decision-making.

Our survey of youth service providers found that nearly half the respondents had also

applied for Victorian government grants in the last 12 months, most prominently the HEY

grants (for sexually- and gender-diverse young people), FReeZA and Engage!

22

5

16

4

13

3

21

13

16

70

13

33

4

3

10

4

2

1

1

75

13

0 20 40 60 80

Young advocates / volunteers

Indigenous young people

Young parents

Young women (specific)

Young men (specific)

Refugee / CALD young people

Homeless young people

Young people with poor mentalhealth

Young people in general

Young people in the justice system

Young people with a disability

Young entrepenuers

Young people with serious illness

Talented students in financial need

Young people in out-of-home care

Violent young people

Young carers

GLBTIQ young people

General vulnerability / disadvantage

Young artists

Number of grants

When grants were delivered for youth initiatives, which cohorts of young people were they aimed at?

Based on reports by philanthropic bodies

Number of grantsdelivered, out of 320grants where thetarget cohort ofyoung people wasindicated

23

How easy is it to access philanthropic funding?

Competition for philanthropic grants can be intense. In their 2012-13 annual reports, these

philanthropic bodies reflected on the amount of applications they had received, and the

amount that were actually funded:

R.E. Ross Trust – 49% success rate

Helen Macpherson Smith Trust – 32% success rate

Foundation for Regional and Rural Renewal – 34% success rate

Telematics Trust – 20% success rate

Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust – 17% success rate

Victoria Law Foundation – 33% success rate for general grants, 57% success rate

for small grants

Ian Potter Foundation – 25% success rate.24

In our survey of youth sector representatives, we compared the number of applications for

grants submitted with the number of successes reported and found a success rate of

around 31%. While based on a small sample, this resembles the above figures recorded by

philanthropic bodies.

In our survey of youth sector representatives, we also found that those who had Deductible

Gift Recipient (DGR) status were more likely to apply for philanthropic grants than those

who did not, or who were unsure of their status. Those with DGR status were also more

likely to successfully receive grants than those who did not, or who were unsure.

When we spoke with Philanthropy Australia and Our Community, they did not feel that

youth programs would necessarily have a lower success rate in accessing philanthropic

“Takes time to build relationship and going back more than once shows you really need/want it and believe in the project. As our programs are recreationally focussed, sometimes more high needs projects are prioritized so it just depends each time who we are up against.” “…very competitive and there is a view implied or otherwise that once you have had your 'turn' you cannot apply again for some time”.

- Responses to YACVic survey of 46 youth services

24

funding than programs with working with different cohorts (although data is so limited it is

hard to be sure). However, they emphasised that youth services seeking funding would

nonetheless face challenges of high demand for philanthropic support, and sometimes a

disconnect between the aims of the youth service and what philanthropic bodies wish to

fund – for example pilot projects versus core organisational costs.

Thus, organisations seeking funding for youth programs must submit applications

(sometimes quite detailed) in the knowledge that it is unlikely that they will succeed. For

many, this means a loss of productivity, especially for smaller providers applying for multiple

grants. For some, the benefit of applying for smaller grants, in particular, can seem dubious

given the time and resources required.

Applicants for philanthropic funding have varying levels of capacity to begin with. In the

survey conducted by the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation of their 2012 grant applicants,

applicants were asked to nominate their top capacity-building needs. These were

‘fundraising’ (52%), ‘staff development’ (37%), ‘program development’ (36%) and

‘partnership development’ (32%).25 These are areas which are not typically funded through

philanthropic grants, but where support from government and peak bodies is needed.

When we surveyed youth sector representatives, we asked them ‘In your organisation, is

grant-seeking a designated part of someone’s job?’ The most common response (in 49% of

cases) was ‘No, we apply for grants on top of our regular work’. This was followed by ‘Yes,

some of our team have grant-seeking as part of their position descriptions. They also do

other things’ (23%), then ‘Our CEO is responsible for grant applications’ (13%). Only 8%

ticked ‘Yes, we have a designated grants officer’, and 8% ticked ‘No, that's why we rarely

apply for grants!’ When we asked respondents ‘Is anything stopping you from accessing

more philanthropic funding?’, by the most common response was ‘It takes too much time

and resources to apply.’ See the following chart for details.

“Seeking funding takes time away from delivering the programs we are currently contracted to deliver. Whilst we would love to see more funding and pursue some of the terrific ideas we see developing locally, we are fully committed to our current programs. Unfortunately the core funding for our organisation is currently in jeopardy and we risk losing the programs built over the past ten years”.

- Response to YACVic survey of 46 youth services

25

1

22

5

20

10

10

13

11

0

5

3

1

0

0 10 20 30

We have sufficient funds already; wedon't need more

It takes too much time and resourcesto apply

Philanthropic bodies don't like to fundthe kind of projects we work on

We don't want new pilots or short-term projects; it's our long-term work

that needs support

Application and reporting processesare too complex

Our organisation is not eligible for alot of grants

The amounts of funding available aretoo small; it's not worth the effort

We aren't sure which philanthropicsare best to approach

We need help to apply for grants

The chances of success are too slim;it's not worth the effort

It's easier to access funding throughgovernment grant rounds

It's easier to leverage businesssponsorship

We have philosophical objections toseeking grants - our work should be

tax-payer funded

Number of responses

Is anything stopping youth services from accessing more philanthropic funding?

(Based on survey responses from 34 services)

'Is anythingstopping you fromaccessing morephilanthropicfunding?' - Weposed 13 possibleanswers to thisquestion, andrespondents couldselect as many asthey liked. 34services answeredthe question.

26

0

16

4

15

11

24

17

12

14

0 10 20 30

No, we don't want to accessmore philanthropic funding

More help to identify grantsrounds

More help to write applications

Clearer information about whatphilanthropic bodies want and

how they work

Simpler reporting processes

More education ofphilanthropic bodies about the

key issues affecting youngpeople

Increased staffing capacity atmy organisation, to apply for

grants

Better communication betweenphilanthropic bodies and

government

A change in what kind ofprojects philanthropics are

willing to fund

Number of responses

Would any of these factors make it easier to successfully leverage philanthropic funding?

(Based on survey responses from 36 services)

Would any of thesefactors make it easier foryou to successfullyleverage philanthropicfunding?' - We posed 9possible answers to thisquestion, andrespondents could selectas many as they liked. 36services answered thequestion.

27

One of the biggest challenges faced by community organisations when accessing

philanthropic grants is what to do when the funding runs out. Comments from youth service

providers who answered our survey hint at the complexities and frustrations of trying to

access multiple sources of funding and plan the future of projects which have no recurrent

resourcing. For example:

- “We continue to seek further funding from philanthropic bodies and the government.

We do have to end some programs when funding runs out.”

- “Yes [we have plans to continue our work] - all grant funding is applied for with an

expectation that it can be made sustainable into the future”.

- “Resources in our core budget have been directed toward continuing a program

initiated with philanthropic grant funding.”

- “We commenced projects as pilots. if we did not receive further funding to cobble

them together to extend programs we either terminated them at the end of the pilot

or if possible we integrated aspects of the pilot into other areas of work. Continuity

and local credibility of service delivery is compromised when pilots which prove to be

effective cannot be continued. [H]aving to cobble together bits and pieces of funding

to meet clearly evident needs results in onerous tasks for already very busy staff

who are working to achieve clear outputs.”

- “Some projects/activities have been supported by philanthropic funding for long

enough (a couple of years) to become sustainable within the community. Some

projects/activities cease. Our biggest concern currently is that the philanthropic

funding for our positions (staff) and entire programs has been greatly reduced and

unless we find an alternative we may need to start closing down some of our

services.

Future directions

In conversation with Philanthropy Australia, they emphasised the importance of strong

communication between government, community organisations and the philanthropic

sector; conversations which go beyond ‘What can we get philanthropy to pay for?’ and

28

engage all players in strategic planning, preferably through a collective impact approach.

They stressed the useful role that could be played by YACVic and the Victorian

Government Office for Youth, in collaboration with Philanthropy Australia, in facilitating

conversations about how to coordinate philanthropic giving, and providing the content,

evidence base and strategic lead to support stronger outcomes in the youth space.

An emphasis on the importance of partnership and the need for coordinated approaches to

seeking and distributing philanthropic funding also came across strongly in the responses to

our survey from Victorian youth services. So did the need for better communication with the

philanthropic sector about young people’s issues and what the youth sector needs, and

better information for youth services about viable grants rounds and what philanthropic

funders are really looking for, as well as better communication between philanthropic

bodies and government. Comments included:

- “Building & supporting partnerships with stakeholders in our large rural region is crucial

to the continued work of our organisation to address service gaps & barriers to rural

youth. Reducing competition for funds & avoiding duplication via an integrated

approach based on evidence & youth participation is the approach being adopted by

our organisation in partnerships with regional stakeholders and rural youth.”

- “Would love to have more communication and less 'one size fits all' approach to the

whole funding situation.”

- “Funding bodies often talk to addressing the social issues of family violence, food

security, homelessness etc which are wicked problems. A joined up philanthropic effort

to tackle these rather than isolated pockets of money that fizzle out after 2 years is

required if we are going to make any significant changes”.

- “We are often frustrated that grants are given to projects which are not strategic and are

short term in nature. [F]unding partnership approaches would be a good idea which

[should] fit into regional strategy not ad hoc giving”.

- “The issue which our organisation has had with Philanthropists, is that they don't take

into account programs that follow an evidence base. They are looking for 'sexy' (as they

put it), innovative, cutting edge programs. Because most philanthropist are from a

29

business background, they're criteria is based on business … They are very unlikely to

fund a program which has 'copied' another.”

- “A more co-ordinated approach to the system of philanthropic funding would definitely

be beneficial to the youth sector.”

In conversation with Our Community, they also stressed the need for funders and

applicants to have better access to, and make better use of, clear coordinated data.

Recommendations to government

1. When promoting Victorian Government youth grants, ensure that promotional

material indicates the approximate chances of an applicant’s success, for example

by quoting the applicant success rate in the previous round. Through the Youth

Partner Network and other forums with the philanthropic sector, advocate that

philanthropic bodies do likewise.

2. In collaboration with Philanthropy Australia, the Youth Affairs Council of Victoria and

other stakeholders such as the Australian Communities Foundation, bring together

philanthropic bodies and youth services in forums to identify key youth issues, the

priorities of philanthropic bodies and youth services, and how to identify and use a

strong evidence base. It might be advantageous to run these sessions in interface

suburbs, in light of their relatively poor access to philanthropic support.

3. Support the development of ethical systems for gathering and sharing data

concerning philanthropic investment, including needs analysis, identifying priority

areas, and forming effective partnerships. An example of this work is currently being

undertaken in western Sydney by Our Community, through their SmartyGrants online

grants management program.

4. Review the levels of funding for grants rounds delivered by the Victorian Government

to enhance young people’s community leadership and civic participation, such as

Engage! and the Youth Inclusion Grants, to ensure they have kept pace with

community growth and levels of demand. This is partly in recognition of the fact that

similar work is not usually funded by the philanthropic sector.

30

References

Alfred Felton Bequest, Report for the Year ended 30 June 2013,

http://www.anz.com.au/resources/4/e/4e66db0049aa446d804ca7c3936870f6/Felton2013A

nnualReport.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

AMP Foundation, 2013 Community Report,

https://www.amp.com.au/wps/portal/au/AMPAUMiniSite3C?vigurl=%2Fvgn-ext-

templating%2Fv%2Findex.jsp%3Fvgnextoid%3Dd9a4a17c612f1210VgnVCM10000083d20

d0aRCRD

ANZ Seeds of Renewal program, ‘Grants to sprout community projects,’

http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/news/SeedsofRenewalgrants2013.php

ANZ Trustees, ‘Recent Grants’ January 2013 – December 2013 (grants delivered from ANZ

Trustees and ANZ Staff Foundation, http://www.anz.com.au/personal/private-bank-

trustees/trustees/granting/recent-grants/

Aussie Farmers Foundation, ‘2013 Granting Organisations,’

http://www.aussiefarmersfoundation.org.au/news/2013grants.php

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), ‘2011 Census of Population and Housing: Place of

Enumeration Profiles’, for Victoria, Greater Melbourne, Melton, Casey, Yarra Ranges,

Hume http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/communityprofiles

Australian Communities Foundation, ‘MacroMelbourne,’ 2011,

http://www.communityfoundation.org.au/grantmaking/macromelbourne

Commonwealth Bank, ‘Community Grants 2013,’ https://www.commbank.com.au/about-

us/in-the-community/employee-giving/staff-community-fund/2013-recipients.html

Bass Coast Community Foundation, ‘Community Grants Program 2013’,

http://bccf.org.au/grants-and-scholarships/community-grants-program/

31

Rosalyn Black, ‘Classroom coalition: philanthropy and school education,’ Australian

Philanthropy, issue 7

http://philanthropywiki.org.au/upload/c/cc/AustralianPhilanthropy_Issue70_RosalynBlack.pd

f

Border Trust: The Community Foundation for the Albury Wodonga Region, ‘Summary of

Grant-Making 2005 to 2013,’

http://www.bordertrust.org.au/images/MASTER_SUMMARY_OF_ALL_GRANTS_2005_201

3.pdf

Coca-Cola Australia Foundation, ‘Who we’ve helped: grant recipients 2013,’

http://www.coca-colajourney.com.au/coca-cola-australia-foundation/who-weve-helped

Colonial Foundation Limited, Annual Report 2012,

http://www.colonialfoundation.org.au/assets/166/Files/Colonial%20Foundation%20Limited

%20Annual%20Report%202011-2012.pdf

Commonwealth Bank Staff Community Fund, ‘Community Grants: Victoria,’

https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/in-the-community/employee-giving/staff-

community-fund/2013-recipients.html

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD), Adolescent

Community Profiles 2010, Melbourne, 2011 – Gippsland, Eastern Metro, Loddon Mallee,

Northern Metro, Southern Metro, Western Metro

Equity Trustees, ‘Children and Youth Trusts: 2013 Grant Recipients’,

http://www.eqt.com.au/media/184418/children_and_youth_grant_recipients.pdf

Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, 2013 Annual Review,

http://annualreview.frrr.org.au/2013/year-review/chairmans-report/

FRRR ABC Heywire Youth Innovation Grants, inaugural recipients list,

http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/news/Heywire_Innovation_Grant_Recipients_2013.php

32

Gandel Philanthropy, Annual Review 2012-13, http://gandelphilanthropy.org.au/wp-

content/uploads/sites/3/2013/03/Annual-Review-2012-13.pdf

Gardiner Foundation, ‘Working in Dairy Communities,’ outcomes for 2013 round,

http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/gardiner_grants.php

Geelong Community Foundation, ‘Grants Awarded in 2013’,

http://geelongfoundation.org/?page_id=997

Give Where You Live: Building a Better Geelong, ‘How We Make A Difference,’

https://givewhereyoulive.com.au/how-we-make-a-difference/

Grants for Resilience & Wellness, list of projects funded in round 3,

http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/grants_for_resilience__wellness.php

Harold Mitchell Foundation, ‘News’, http://haroldmitchellfoundation.com.au/#!/news/

Jenny Harrow and Tobias Jung, ‘Philanthropy is Dead; Long Live Philanthropy?’ Public

Management Review, vol. 13 Issue 8, 2011

Helen Macpherson Smith Trust, Annual Report 2013, http://hmstrust.org.au/wp-

content/uploads/2013/12/HMSTrust-Annual-Report-2013.pdf

Ian Potter Foundation, Annual Grants Report 2012-13,

http://www.potterfdnreport2013.org.au/

Inner North Community Foundation, Year in Review: 2011-12,

http://www.innernorthfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/Inner%20North%20Community%2

0Foundation%20Year%20in%20Review%202011%20-%202012.pdf

Invergowrie Foundation, ‘Chairman’s Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2013,’

http://www.invergowrie.org.au/report.html

IOOF Foundation, ‘Recent Grants FY 2013,’

http://www.ioof.com.au/iooffoundation/our_stories/recent_grants

33

Jack Brockhoff Foundation, ‘Grant Statistics: 2013 Grants Program,’

http://www.jackbrockhoff.org.au/recent-grants/grant-statistics/

Mark Kramer, Marcie Parkhurt, Lalitha Vaidyanathan, ‘Breakthroughs in Shared

Measurement and Social Impact’, FSG Social Impact Advisors, 2009

Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, ‘Grantee Perception Survey 2013,’

http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/2013-grants-program-2/grantee-perception-survey-2013

Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, ‘Helpful Hints for Grant Seekers’,

http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/2013-grants-program-2/helpful-hints-for-grantseekers

Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, ‘Past Grants Recipients: 2013 Grants Program’,

http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/past-grant-recipients

Macquarie Group Foundation, Annual Review 2012

http://static.macquarie.com/dafiles/Internet/mgl/shared/au-com/about/foundation/mgf-

news/annual-reports/docs/2012_macquarie_foundation_annual_report.pdf?v=1

Melbourne Community Foundation, ‘The MacroMelbourne Initiative 2010: Building Strong

Communities on the Urban Fringes of Melbourne,’ 2010,

http://www.communityfoundation.org.au/assets/MCF_project_update_brochure.pdf

McEwen Foundation Grants Program, ‘Grants for the Goulburn Valley District, Victoria,’

http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/mcewen.php

Mirboo North and District Community Foundation, Annual Report 2013,

http://www.mirboodistrictfoundation.org.au/news/8-news/33-annual-reports

MLC Community Foundation, ‘Grant Recipients: Our Partners, 2013 and 2014 Social

Impact Grant Recipients,’

http://www.mlc.com.au/mlc/im_considering_mlc/personal/footer_tools/about_mlc/community

/mlc_community_foundation/grant_recipients__our_partners

34

Myer Foundation and Sydney Myer Fund, Annual Report 2012-13,

http://www.myerfoundation.org.au/_uploads/rsfil/00545.pdf

Newsboys Foundation, Annual Report 2012, http://newsboysfoundation.org.au/wp-

content/uploads/2013/07/NFAR_2012_web.pdf

Origin Foundation, 2012 Annual Review,

http://www.originfoundation.com.au/sites/default/files/2012_OF_Annual_Review.pdf

Philanthropy Australia, Annual Report 2012 http://www.philanthropy.org.au/about-

us/annual-reports/

Philanthropy Australia, ‘A more giving Australia’: Philanthropy Australia’s Strategic Plan

2012-2014, 2012, p.8 http://www.philanthropy.org.au/about-us/strategic-plan/

Philanthropy Australia, ‘Who Are Our Members?’, http://www.philanthropy.org.au/join/who-

are-our-members/ (Accessed Feb 2014)

Productivity Commission, Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector, Melbourne, 2010

R E Ross Trust, Annual Report 2012-2013, http://www.rosstrust.org.au/wp-

content/uploads/2013/12/Ross-Trust-AR-2013_web-FINAL.pdf

Reichstein Foundation, Annual Report 2009-12, http://www.reichstein.org.au/

Rural Education Australia Program – REAPing Rewards, ‘Funded Projects: Round 2,’

http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/rural_education_australia_program_-_reaping_rewards.php

Peter Shergold, Service Sector Reform: A roadmap for community and human services

reform: final report, Melbourne, July 2013

Small Grants for Rural Communities, ‘Successful Projects: Round 24,’

http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/small_grants_for_small_communities.php

35

Sue Smyllie, Wendy Scaife and Katie McDonald, ‘That’s what governments do: Exploring

fundamental barriers to public–philanthropic interaction: The example of indigenous well-

being,’ Public Management Review, vol. 13 issue 8, 2011

Skills, Training, Engagement & Practical Support (STEPS),

http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/STEPS.php

St George Foundation, ‘Who We’ve Supported (2013),’

http://promos.stgeorge.com.au/stgeorgefoundation/supported.asp

Telematics Trust, A Year in Review 2013, http://www.telematics.org.au/

Telstra Foundation, ‘Everyone Connected Grants Program, September 2012,’

http://www.kidsfund.telstrafoundation.com/dir148/tfweb.nsf/FilesToLinkToLookup/everyonec

onnectedgrantrecipients/$FILE/Everyone%20Connected%20Grant%20recipients.pdf

Tomorrow Today: A Foundation for Rural Community Development, Annual Report

2012/2013,

http://www.tomorrowtoday.com.au/articles/401/pdf/Annual%20Report%202013.pdf

Victorian Government, Engage, Involve, Create: Youth Statement, Melbourne 2012

Victorian Government, ‘Youth Partner Network’,

http://www.youthcentral.vic.gov.au/Government+Info+%26+Assistance/Youth+Partner+Net

work/

Victorian Government Office for the Community Sector, Guiding Principles for Collaboration

between Government and Philanthropy: Working together for a strong community sector,

2012, http://www.scanlonfoundation.org.au/docs/Guiding_Principles_Brochure_Jul_12.pdf

Victoria Law Foundation, Annual Report 2012-13,

http://www.victorialawfoundation.org.au/images/stories/files/Annual%20Report%202012-

13%20FINAL%20web.pdf

Victorian Women’s Trust, ‘Recent Grants 2013-14’, http://vwt.org.au/vwbt/recent-grants/

36

Lynne Wannan AM, ‘Building Relationships between philanthropy and Government – the

Victorian Office of the Community Sector,’ Philanthropy Australia Melbourne Seminar:

‘Contemporary and Emerging Issues in Philanthropy,’ 22 September 2011

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDwQFjA

E&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dhs.vic.gov.au%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpowerpoint_doc%2

F0019%2F770014%2FBuilding-relationships-between-philanthropy-and-government-22-

Sept-Presentation-to-

PA.ppt&ei=mhMpU_X6EMXykAWx5oEY&usg=AFQjCNEMBU9eSQ4s1RBZoOsSD7XzHW

JH_w&sig2=1N3Lu8rP-dDkaH1jmpE1Rg&bvm=bv.62922401,d.dGI

Westpac Foundation, ‘Grant Recipients in 2013,’ http://www.westpac.com.au/about-

westpac/westpac-foundation/grants/grant-recipients-2013/

William Buckland Foundation, Annual Report 2013,

http://www.anz.com.au/resources/8/0/80b1e4804de2804da513e52860a727f7/20140114_B

ucklandAnnualReport.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

1 Victorian Government, Engage, Involve, Create: Youth Statement, Melbourne 2012, p.2

2 Philanthropy Australia, Annual Report 2012, p.4 http://www.philanthropy.org.au/about-us/annual-reports/

3 Philanthropy Australia, ‘A more giving Australia’: Philanthropy Australia’s Strategic Plan 2012-2014, 2012,

p.8 http://www.philanthropy.org.au/about-us/strategic-plan/ 4 Lynne Wannan AM, ‘Building Relationships between philanthropy and Government – the Victorian Office of

the Community Sector,’ Philanthropy Australia Melbourne Seminar: ‘Contemporary and Emerging Issues in Philanthropy,’ 22 September 2011 http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDwQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dhs.vic.gov.au%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpowerpoint_doc%2F0019%2F770014%2FBuilding-relationships-between-philanthropy-and-government-22-Sept-Presentation-to-PA.ppt&ei=mhMpU_X6EMXykAWx5oEY&usg=AFQjCNEMBU9eSQ4s1RBZoOsSD7XzHWJH_w&sig2=1N3Lu8rP-dDkaH1jmpE1Rg&bvm=bv.62922401,d.dGI 5 Rosalyn Black, ‘Classroom coalition: philanthropy and school education,’ Australian Philanthropy, issue 7,

pp.3-4 6 Sue Smyllie, Wendy Scaife and Katie McDonald, ‘That’s what governments do: Exploring fundamental

barriers to public–philanthropic interaction: The example of indigenous well-being,’ Public Management Review, vol. 13 issue 8 2011, pp.1141-45 7 Jenny Harrow and Tobias Jung, ‘Philanthropy is Dead; Long Live Philanthropy?’ Public Management Review

Vol. 13 Issue 8 2011, p.1049 8 Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, ‘Grantee Perception Survey 2013,’ http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/2013-

grants-program-2/grantee-perception-survey-2013 9 Victorian Government, Engage, Involve, Create, pp.19-20

10 Victorian Government, ‘Youth Partner Network’,

http://www.youthcentral.vic.gov.au/Government+Info+%26+Assistance/Youth+Partner+Network/ 11

Victorian Government Office for the Community Sector, Guiding Principles for Collaboration between Government and Philanthropy: Working together for a strong community sector, 2012, http://www.scanlonfoundation.org.au/docs/Guiding_Principles_Brochure_Jul_12.pdf 12

Peter Shergold, Service Sector Reform: A roadmap for community and human services reform: final report, Melbourne, July 2013, p.27

37

13

Peter Shergold, Service Sector Reform: A roadmap for community and human services reform: final report, Melbourne, July 2013, p.36 14

Philanthropy Australia, ‘Who Are Our Members?’, http://www.philanthropy.org.au/join/who-are-our-members/ (Accessed Feb 2014) 15

Conversation with Philanthropy Australia 16

Philanthropy Australia, ‘Who Are Our Members?’, http://www.philanthropy.org.au/join/who-are-our-members/ (Accessed Feb 2014) 17

Productivity Commission, Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector, Melbourne, 2010, p.72 18

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) , ‘2011 Census of Population and Housing: Place of Enumeration Profile: Victoria’, http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/2?opendocument&navpos=220 ; ABS, ‘2011 Census of Population and Housing: Place of Enumeration Profile: Greater Melbourne,’ http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/2GMEL?opendocument&navpos=230 19

Conversation with Philanthropy Australia 20

Victorian Government Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD), Adolescent Community Profiles 2010: Gippsland, Melbourne, 2011, p.3; DEECD, Adolescent Community Profiles 2010: Loddon Mallee, Melbourne, 2011, p.3 21

ABS, ‘2011 Census of Population and Housing: Place of Enumeration Profiles’: Melton, Casey, Yarra Ranges, Hume’ 22

DEECD, Adolescent Community Profiles 2010: Eastern Metro, Northern Metro, Southern Metro, Western Metro 23

Australian Communities Foundation, ‘MacroMelbourne,’ 2011, http://www.communityfoundation.org.au/grantmaking/macromelbourne; Melbourne Community Foundation, ‘The MacroMelbourne Initiative 2010: Building Strong Communities on the Urban Fringes of Melbourne,’ 2010, http://www.communityfoundation.org.au/assets/MCF_project_update_brochure.pdf 24

Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, 2013 Annual Review, http://annualreview.frrr.org.au/2013/year-review/chairmans-report/ ; Helen Macpherson Smith Trust, Annual Report, 2013, p.5; Ian Potter Foundation, Annual Grants Report 2012-13, http://www.potterfdnreport2013.org.au/ ; Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, ‘Helpful Hints for Grant Seekers’, http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/2013-grants-program-2/helpful-hints-for-grantseekers and ‘Past Grants Recipients: 2013 Grants Program’, http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/past-grant-recipients; RE Ross – find reference online ; Telematics Trust, A Year in Review 2013, p.3; Victoria Law Foundation, Annual Report 2012-13, p.23 http://www.victorialawfoundation.org.au/images/stories/files/Annual%20Report%202012-13%20FINAL%20web.pdf 25

Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation, ‘Grantee Perception Survey 2013,’ http://www.lmcf.org.au/grants/2013-grants-program-2/grantee-perception-survey-2013