Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant Survey Report for Rātā Foundation (formerly The Canterbury Community Trust) Prepared by Adrian Field PhD, Rachael Butler & Grant Hanham 29 June 2015
Contents Contents... 2 Acknowledgements... 3 Overview of findings... 4 Introduction... 4 Introduction... 7 Method... 8 1. Key features of grant applicants... 9 Areas within Rātā Foundation region... 9 Application type... 10 Grant success... 11 2. Applying for Rātā Foundation funding.... 1 3 Online and paper- based funding... 13 Feedback on the grant application process... 13 Paper- based applications... 15 3. Engaging with Rātā Foundation staff... 17 Discussing application with Rātā Foundation staff... 1 7 Grant decisions... 18 4. Potential improvements to grant application process... 19 Rātā Foundationu suggested options for improvement... 1 9 Applicant- suggested improvements and other comments... 21 5. Intention to apply for grants in the future and overall satisfaction... 25 Intention to apply for Rātā Foundation funding in the future and interest in improvements to grant processes... 25 Satisfaction with dealings with Rātā Foundation... 2 7 Conclusions... 28
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 3 Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the many hundreds of grant applicants and recipients who gave their time to complete this survey. We are also grateful to staff of Rātā Foundationfor their constructive reflections in the development of the survey and support with the distribution of the survey.
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 4 Overview of findings Introduction This report details the findings of an online survey of Rātā Foundation grant applicants, conducted in June 2015. The survey explored the applicants experiences of the grant application process, and reflections on potential improvements to Rātā Foundation funding. The survey was distributed to 1384 grant applicants, with 779 responses received, a response rate of 56%. Overall, the response rate compares well with online surveys, where 20% response rates are common, and is robust enough to support generalisations regarding the full cohort of Rātā Foundationgrant applicants in the past two years. For certain questions, analyses were undertaken to explore experiences of particular types of respondents, particularly those from different areas in the Rātā Foundation region, levels of funding, and success of grant applications. Statistically significant differences are reported, where these were found. Key features of grant applicants Two-thirds of grant applicants (67%) were based in Canterbury, 20% were based in Nelson, 10% based in Marlborough, and 0.6% (5 responses) were from the Chatham Islands. Most applications (84%) were made under the Sector Closing Date processes. Fewer than one in ten (9%) were made through the Special Fund. A further 6% of respondents couldn t recall. Just over three-quarters of respondents (78%) were successful in their grant application. Of the remainder, 5% were unsuccessful, and 17% had not yet received notification. Of those who were successful, almost half were funded under $10,000 and a further 28% were funded between $10,000 and $20,000. The remaining 24% of respondents were funded more than $20,000, with the largest group receiving $20,000 to $50,000 (18%).
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 5 Applying for Rātā Foundation grants Almost two-thirds of respondents (63%) had applied for grants online; 34% had completed paper-based applications and the remaining 6% couldn t recall. Feedback on the process of applying for grants was generally very positive, with more than 90% of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing with a range of statements regardless of the mode of application (online or paper based), with the statements most strongly agreed to being that Rātā Foundation was approachable for any queries (70% strongly agree) and being clear about why further information was requested (61% strongly agree). There tended to be more disagreement, albeit low, with the statements that sector closing date deadlines worked well with service delivery or project timeframes (14%), and that the Trust s funding priorities and the outcomes they are trying to achieve were clear (8.5%). Engaging with Rātā Foundation staff Some 40% of applicants had the opportunity to discuss their application with Rātā Foundation staff. For most, this was via telephone or email. Grant applicants strongly agreed with statements that notification and payment was made in a timely manner, correspondence on grant decisions was clear, and decision-making processes were clear. Potential improvements to grant application process Most grant applicants were open to changes in the application process, particularly to streamline processes for smaller grants, create more flexibility in grant closing dates, developing more face to face engagement for larger grants and broadening the availability of online applications.
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 6 Overall satisfaction with Rātā Foundation and future intentions to apply Grant applicants reported strong levels of satisfaction with their dealings with Rātā Foundation, with 67% being highly satisfied and 31% generally satisfied. Noticeably, most grant applicants intend to both apply for funding in the future, and are also open to improvements in application processes. In general, this survey is notable for the depth of support for the work of Rātā Foundation, and indicates a range of areas where incremental improvements to the funding process are likely to be welcomed.
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 7 Introduction This report explores the findings from a survey of people who had applied to Rātā Foundationor funding between 2013 and 2015. The following issues are discussed: Key features of grant applicants Applying for Rātā Foundation grants Potential improvements to grant application processes Overall satisfaction with Rātā Foundationand future intentions to apply The report is prepared by Adrian Field from the Centre for Social Impact (CSI), with support from Rachael Butler (qualitative analysis) and Grant Hanham (detailed data analysis).
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 8 Method Survey development and distribution The surveys were developed through consultation with Rātā Foundation staff on key areas of interest and potential use of the survey. Surveys were distributed via the Survey Monkey online platform in June 2015. Survey participants were selected on the basis of applying for grants from Rātā Foundation at any point between 2013 and 2015; unsuccessful and ineligible applicants were also invited to complete the survey. Email addresses were obtained from the Rātā Foundation grant applicant database. Questions in each survey included a mixture of open-ended and closed response questions. Response rates Three reminders were sent to survey participants. The number of surveys distributed, responses received, and overall response rates, are detailed in the table below. The survey was distributed to 1381 grant applicants 1, with 779 responses received, a response rate of 56%. Overall, these response rates reflect well against online surveys generally, where response rates of only 20% are commonplace. Survey analysis The survey responses were analysed using a mix of frequency and cross-tabulations for closed response questions, and qualitative thematic analysis for open-ended questions. For certain questions, cross-tabulations were undertaken, and are reported to the level of p<0.01 significance. 1 The survey was originally distributed to 1444 grant applicants via Survey Monkey. Of these, 26 had opted out of receiving such surveys and 37 bounced (i.e. incorrect email address); this left 1381 potential respondents to the survey, from which the response rate is calculated.
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 9 1. Key features of grant applicants Areas within Rātā Foundation region Applicants were asked where their organisation is based; this was intended to identify the main area of activity within the Rātā Foundation region. Two-thirds of applicants (67%) were based in Canterbury, 20% were based in Nelson, 10% based in Marlborough, and 0.6% (5 responses) were from the Chatham Islands (Figure 1). A further 2.6% indicated they were from other areas; this suggests a small number of organisations based outside the region but who were funded for activities within the Rātā Foundation region. Figure 1: Areas where Rātā Foundation-funded organisations based Chatham Islands, 0.6% Other, 2.6% Marlborough, 10% Nelson, 20% Canterbury, 67% N=779
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 10 Application type Applicants were asked to indicate if they applied for funds through either the Special Fund 2, or through the annual Sector Closing Date processes. Most applications (84%) were made under the Sector Closing Date processes. Fewer than one in ten (9%) were made through the Special Fund. A further 6% of respondents couldn t recall (Figure 2). Figure 2: Funding application type Special fund, 9% Unsure, 6% N=779 Sector closing date, 84% Of the 667 respondents who reported using the Sector Closing Date process, a wide range of specific areas were cited. One in five (21%) reported sport and recreation, 14% each indicated arts and heritage and health and wellbeing, 12% reported education, and 11% each reported young people, community and economic development, and social services. A further 3% reported environmental projects. 2 The Special Fund has no closing date (these include Need Help Now, Events Development Fund and Social Enterprise Fund ).
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 11 Figure 3: Sector closing dates grant types Sports and RecreaQon 21% Arts and Heritage Health and Wellbeing EducaQon Young People Community and Economic Development Social Services 14% 14% 12% 11% 11% 11% Environmental 3% Chatham Islands 0.4% I can't remember 3% N=667 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Grant success Just over three-quarters of respondents (78%) were successful in their grant application. Of the remainder, 5% were unsuccessful, and 17% had not yet received notification. Of those who were successful, almost half were funded under $10,000 and a further 28% were funded between $10,000 and $20,000. The remaining 24% of respondents were funded more than $20,000, with the largest group receiving $20,000 to $50,000 (18%) (Figure 4)
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 12 Figure 4: Funding amount received More than $250,000, $150,001 to 1% $250,000, 0.3% I can't remember, 0.2% $50,001 to $150,000, 5% $20,001 to $50,000, 18% Under $10,000, 48% $10,001-20,000, 28% N=600
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 13 2. Applying for Rātā Foundation funding Online and paper-based funding An option made available in recent years was to apply online. Almost two-thirds of respondents (63%) had applied for grants online; 34% had completed paper-based applications and the remaining 6% couldn t recall. Feedback on the grant application process Online applicants Survey respondents were asked a series of statements on the grant application process, with a rating scale of 1 to 4, where 1 meant strongly disagree and 4 meant strongly agree. Feedback on the online grant application process was generally positive, with average ratings of agreement at between 3.2 and 3.7 out of 4. 3 High levels of agreement were with regard to: Rātā Foundation was approachable for any queries we had about our application (3.7 rating average, with 99% agreeing or strongly agreeing) When I was asked for further information I was clear on what this was for (3.6, 98% agreement) I was clear on what was going to happen with my application once I applied (3.5, 98% agreement) 3 Note that don t know and not applicable are excluded from this analysis.
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 14 Overall, I am satisfied with the grant application process (3.5, 96% agreement) I had a clear understanding of the criteria for applying (3.5, 95% agreement) The online application form was easy to follow and complete (3.4, 95% agreement) The online tool tips were easy to follow (3.4, 96% agreement) I was clear on the Foundation's funding priorities and the outcomes they are trying to achieve (3.4, 92% agreement). Findings for responses on all statements are detailed in Figure 5 below. Figure 5: Online applications feedback on application process (maximum respond 4) Rātā Foundation was approachable for any queries we had about our 1% 27% 72% When I was asked for further informaqon I was clear on what this was for 2% 34% 65% I had a clear understanding of the criteria for applying 1% 43% 55% Overall, I am saqsfied with the grant applicaqon process 4% 43% 53% I was clear on what was going to happen with my applicaqon once I applied 5% 44% 50% The online tool Qps were easy to follow 4% 51% 45% The online applicaqon form was easy to follow 1% 4% and complete 49% 46% I was clear on the Trust's funding prioriqes and the outcomes they are trying to achieve 8% 47% 45% The sector closing date deadline worked well with our service delivery or project Qmeframe 3% 11% 49% 37% N=473 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 15 Disagreement with these statements was low overall. The lowest level of agreement (albeit still fairly high) was with the statement the sector closing date deadline worked well with our service delivery or project timeframe, with an overall rating of 3.2, and where 86% agreed and 14% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Paper-based applications Feedback was similarly positive among those who had submitted applications on hard copy forms, with average ratings of agreement at between 3.1 and 3.7 out of 4. The highest level of agreement was with regard to: Rātā Foundationwas approachable for any queries we had about our application (3.7 rating average, with 99% agreeing or strongly agreeing) When I was asked for further information I was clear on what this was for (3.5, 97% agreement) I was clear on what was going to happen with my application once I applied (3.5, 97% agreement) Overall, I am satisfied with the grant application process (3.5, 96% agreement) I had a clear understanding of the criteria for applying (3.4, 97% agreement) I was clear on the Foundaation's funding priorities and the outcomes they are trying to achieve (3.3, 90% agreement) The application forms are easy to follow and complete (3.2, 92% agreement). Findings for responses on all statements are detailed in below. The lowest level of agreement was with the statement the sector closing date deadline worked well with our service delivery or project timeframe (3.1, with 85% in agreement and 15% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing).
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 16 Figure 6: Paper-based applications feedback on application process (maximum value 4) Rātā Foundation was approachable for any queries we had about our applicaqon 1% 32% 67% When I was asked for further informaqon I was 1% 2% clear on what this was for 42% 55% Overall, I am saqsfied with the grant applicaqon process 3% 48% 49% I was clear on what was going to happen with my applicaqon once I applied 4% 46% 50% I had a clear understanding of the criteria for applying 2% 54% 44% I was clear on the Foundation's funding prioriqes and the outcomes they are trying to achieve 10% The applicaqon forms are easy to follow and 1%7% complete 54% 61% 36% 31% The sector closing date deadline worked well with our service delivery or project Qmeframe 2% 13% 57% 28% N=280 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 17 3. Engaging with Rātā Foundation staff Discussing application with Rātā Foundation staff Grant applicants were asked if they had the opportunity to discuss their application with Rātā Foundation staff after their application was submitted; 40% had had such an opportunity, and 60% had not had the opportunity. For most of the 40% of respondents who had had an opportunity to discuss their application, this was via telephone (72%) or email (52%). Relatively few had face to face meetings at Rātā Foundation offices or visits to organisations/projects (13% and 8% respectively) (Figure 7) Figure 7: Type of engagement Over the phone 72% Via email 52% Face to face meeqng at the Trust's office 13% A visit to your organisaqon or project N=303 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Note: Multiple responses were possible to this question; hence totals exceed 100%.
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 18 Grant decisions When asked a series of statements about grant decisions, high levels of agreement were found with all statements (Figure 8): We received payment of the grant in a timely manner after we received the decision (3.6 rating average, with 99% agreeing or strongly agreeing) The correspondence telling us of the decision was clear (3.6, 98% agreement) We were notified in a timely manner about the funding decision (3.4, 95% agreement) The decision-making process was clear to us (3.3, 90% agreement) Figure 8: Grant decisions and payments We received payment of the grant in a Qmely manner acer we received the decision The correspondence telling us of the decision was clear 1% 2% 39% 42% 60% 56% We were noqfied in a Qmely manner about the funding decision 5% 51% 43% The decision- making process was clear to us 10% 54% 36% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N=744 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 19 4. Potential improvements to grant application process Rātā Foundation-suggested options for improvement Survey respondents were offered a range of potential improvements to the grant application process, which they were able to rate on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 meant strongly disagree and 4 meant strongly agree. There was substantially more variation in responses than in other survey questions. The responses are detailed in Figure 9 below. There were high levels of agreement with the following potential improvements: Creating simpler application forms for organisations requesting smaller funds (such as under $10,000 or $20,000) (3.3 rating average, with 91% either agreeing or strongly agreeing) Speeding up decision timeframes for smaller requests (3.3, 91% agreement) Creating more options for online grant applications (3.2, 85% in agreement) Changing from an annual sector closing date to allow organisations to apply to one of three or four closing dates during the year (3.2, 84% agreement)
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 20 Changing from an annual sector closing date to allow organisations to apply at a time that suits their service delivery or project timeframe (3.2, 78% in agreement) More face to face engagement and support around applications with larger requests (3.1, 84% in agreement) There were lower levels of agreement with the following statements: Creating more comprehensive application processes for larger requests (such as requests over $50,000) (2.9 rating, with 70% in agreement and 30% in disagreement) Improving phone and online application support (2.7 rating, with 59% agreeing or strongly agreeing, and 41% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing) Figure 9: Potential improvements to Rātā Foundation grant application process CreaQng simpler applicaqon forms for organisaqons requesqng smaller funds (such as under $10,000 or 1% 9% $20,000) Speeding up decision Qmeframes for smaller requests 1% 8% 47% 52% 44% 40% Changing from an annual sector closing date to allow organisaqons to apply to one of three or four closing dates during the year Changing from an annual sector closing date to allow organisaqons to apply at a Qme that suits their service delivery or project Qmeframe 2% 1% 14% 21% 42% 38% 42% 41% CreaQng more opqons for online grant applicaqons 1% 14% 54% 32% More face to face engagement and support around applicaqons with larger requests 1% 15% 53% 31% CreaQng more comprehensive applicaqon processes for larger requests (such as requests over $50,000) 2% 28% 46% 24% Improving phone and online applicaqon support 4% 37% 46% 12% N=742 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 21 When analysing these responses by characteristics of grant applicants, the following patterns emerged: People receiving grants of lower value tended to be more in favour of simpler application forms and speeding up application times for smaller grants, compared to people receiving grants of higher value. People who were unsuccessful in grant applications tended to be more in favour of online options, face to face support, and to improve phone and online support, than those who were successful. People receiving grants of lower value also tended to be more in favour of requiring more comprehensive applications for higher value grants, compared to those who received higher value grants. People doing paper-based applications tended to be more in favour of more online options than those doing online applications There were no patterns by area; i.e. no preferences emerged for any of these options that were more or less supported by people from the Canterbury, Nelson, Marlborough or Chatham Island areas. Applicant-suggested improvements and other comments Rātā Foundation grant applicants were also asked via an open-ended question if there were any other improvements they would like to see or other comments they would like to make. A total of n=239 responses were received to this question. It should be noted that, of these, around one fifth of survey participants indicated that they either had no further comments or additional improvements to suggest. The majority of responses included positive statements about the Foundation or expressions of gratitude for the support and financial assistance received: I have dealt with Rātā Foundation since the 1990s. They are the most efficient, approachable, funding group we deal with. Fantastic engagement, keep up the great work that you do.
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 22 Within this, many comments referred to the high calibre of staff within the organisation, in particular their strong communication skills, availability and willingness to help, and overall quality support they provide: I found the Foundation staff really helpful, were prompt and efficient. They answered all questions in a timely fashion. Thank you. I cannot speak highly enough of the amazing support that I have received by email from the Rātā Foundation staff The support we have received in the past cannot be faulted. Positive feedback was also provided about the process involved in making an application, which was reported as being simple and easy to follow. As part of this, some respondents made specific reference to the improved on-line process. In terms of suggested improvements, the level and nature of information required for applications was highlighted by a number of survey participants. Repeat applicants, for example, were looking for a more streamlined process in relation to not having to re-submit standardised information: A lot of organisations apply every year and have been for a long time. Most of the information asked for does not change, the needs of people might, but there is a lot of information duplication. Once you have our files of information, maybe a simpler form for request. Some comments were made about the high level of detail required for applications, particularly where the level of funding sought was considered to be relatively low: There was an awful amount of paperwork required for a less than ten thousand dollar grant!!!! Others reported that some of the information requested was not relevant to their (type of) organisation (e.g. For a small organisation it is very hard to give a financial forecast valid for three years, as the number of members can change). There were also a minority of comments regarding the confusing or repetitive nature of some content within application forms. There were a range of improvements sought to the online application process. These included general statements about it needing to be more user-friendly, as well as specific comments regarding its functionality. Highlighted issues included problems with printing and saving applications, as well as attaching documents: Ability to save the online application prior to putting in financial details. It says can save anytime, but have to put in funding request amounts for it to save. Need to be able to download a copy of the completed application in PDF format for our records please. Current format to print a copy is very difficult.
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 23 A number of respondents commented on the allocation of funds from Rātā Foundation. These mostly included suggestions for changing the structure of the funding programme (e.g. to a two-tier or multi-year format): Re- introduce multi- year funding two or three year funding agreement with opportunity to submit a new application within agreement if funding need changes dramatically. Having a two tier system would help, i.e. over 20k and under 20k. Timing issues were raised by some respondents, including requests for faster funding decisions and/or receipt of funds following successful funding applications. A small number specifically commented that Rātā Foundationtimeframes were lengthy, compared to other funders: The time taken for decisions on small applications is lengthy compared to some other Trusts. An improvement in the time delay from the application to the notification of its success would be very helpful. The majority of funding processes have a much shorter timeframe for this notification. Other timing issues related to the scheduling of funding applications, which were either not at the right frequency or at the wrong time of the year for some applicants (although it should be noted that others reported the timing of applications was appropriate for their organisation). Suggested improvements included: The once annually opportunity to apply for funds would be challenging for some organisations particularly with smaller funding requests, and therefore a more frequent application window would be a good option if this could be achieved. Strongly support more closing dates during the year. Although less of an issue, a minority of applicants sought improved communication from the Foundation, particularly around funding decisions. This mostly related to a desire for more information regarding the reasons why an application was declined or a reduced level of funding was allocated. In addition, some sought better communication of the Foundation's key criteria or priorities for funding: The hardest thing is when we receive the news around the success of our application, we have no context to know how the figure has been come to. Was the pool of money smaller or larger? How many applications were there? And in a more specific way, is there any information about why our grant has increased or decreased from the year before?
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 24 As noted previously, Rātā Foundation staff were viewed very favourably. However, a small number of respondents sought closer relationships with staff to allow the Trust to gain a better understanding of the needs and characteristics of their particular organisation. This included requests for one point of contact that they could work with from Rātā Foundation and/or face-to-face meetings and site visits: Face to face is good for even small applications - even if only every second and third year. Face to face makes you feel you have put the best case you can for your organisation. The only suggestion is to maybe have some face to face meetings available for larger applications so the Rātā Foundation can understand who they are supporting and ask any pertinent questions.
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 25 5. Intention to apply for grants in the future and overall satisfaction Intention to apply for Rātā Foundation funding in the future and interest in improvements to grant processes As a gauge on the overall desirability of potential improvements to the grant application process, survey respondents were asked to choose between three options: I will apply for funding from the Foundation again and I would like to see some improvements in the application process I will apply for funding from the Foundation again and I don t want any changes to the application process I do not intend to apply for a grant again
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 26 As indicated in Figure 10 below, 61% of respondents intended to apply for grants again, and wished to see improvements to the grant application process. Only 36% intended to apply for funding again and did not want any changes to the funding process. Less than 1% did not intend to apply for funding again. Figure 10: Future funding application intentions and preferences for grant improvements I do not intend to apply for a grant again, 0.8% Don't know / Not applicable, 2.7% I will apply for funding from the Foundation again and I don t want any changes to the applicaqon process, 36% N=739 I will apply for funding from the Foundation again and I would like to see some improvements in the applicaqon process, 61% When analysing these responses by characteristics of grant applicants, the following patterns emerged: People receiving grants of lower value tended to be more in favour of changes to the application process, than people receiving grants of higher value. People who were successful in their grant application tended to be more in favour of improvements than those who were unsuccessful No other statistically significant patterns (such as by area) emerged for this analysis.
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 27 Satisfaction with dealings with Rātā Foundation Respondents were asked to rate overall their satisfaction in dealing with Rātā Foundation, on a scale of 1 to 4. Their responses indicate broad satisfaction, with 98% either generally satisfied or highly satisfied, and an average rating of 3.7 out of 4 (Figure 11). Figure 11: Overall level of Rātā Foundation satisfaction 2. Somewhat saqsfied, 1.2% 1. Not saqsfied, 0.3% 3. Generally saqsfied, 31% 4. Highly saqsfied, 67% N=739 Unsurprisingly, those who were successful in their grant applications were more likely to be satisfied overall than those who were unsuccessful. No other patterns of satisfaction ratings were apparent.
Rātā Foundation Grant Applicant survey 28 Conclusions This survey reveals a very high degree of satisfaction with the grant application processes at Rātā Foundation. Overall, grant applicants felt that Rātā Foundation was approachable, was clear in its processes and criteria, and the grant processes were straightforward to complete for both online and paper-based applications. Grant notification and payments were generally seen as clear and timely. A substantial majority of grant applicants were open to changes in the application process, particularly to streamline processes for smaller grants, create more flexibility in grant closing dates, developing more face to face engagement for larger grants and broadening the availability of online applications. Noticeably, most grant applicants both intend to apply for funding in the future, and are open to improvements in overall processes. No statistical differences were noted by funding region. In general, this survey is notable for the depth of support for the work of Rātā Foundation, and indicates a range of areas where incremental improvements to the funding process are likely to be welcomed.