Place-based approaches: funding toolkit

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge Aboriginal people as the First Peoples and Traditional Owners and custodians of the land and water on which we all rely. We acknowledge that Aboriginal communities are steeped in traditions and customs, and we respect this. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role of the Aboriginal community in striving to redress inequality and disadvantage and the catastrophic and enduring effects of colonisation.

---

How to use this toolkit

Welcome to this collection of practical tools and insights for funding place-based approaches. If you are a Victorian public servant designing or managing a funding agreement for community-led place-based approaches then this toolkit is for you.

This is a long document. It is structured to step you through the key phases of developing and implementing a funding agreement—you can read through it all in sequence, or click on a link below to go directly to the phase or tool you are most interested in. You can also navigate by the different kinds of funding agreement you may be working on. If you are new to place-based approaches we recommend you start from the beginning. The introduction provides an overview of how place-based approaches are defined by the Victorian Government and what is unique about funding them.

---

About this toolkit

Why a toolkit?

While we know what works for funding place-based approaches, we also know that many of these principles run contrary to government systems— which have been constructed around traditional approaches, shorter-term time frames, predetermined activities and the need for strict accountability to outputs. But by working to the best of our ability within these systems, Victorian public servants can produce more appropriate funding agreements for place-based approaches. And with more flexible and fit-for-purpose funding agreements, place-based approaches can better meet community needs and deliver the things which will have a positive impact in people’s lives.

Who is this toolkit for?

This toolkit is primarily intended for VPS officers and managers who are designing or managing funding agreements with place-based approaches, but may provide useful information that can be applied to funding agreements with different types of initiatives.

What is this toolkit?

This toolkit brings together existing and new tools and resources that you can pick up and use when designing new, or managing existing, funding agreements with place-based approaches.

What is out of scope for this toolkit?

You don’t need any prior experience with place-based approaches to use this toolkit, but keep in mind it is not a definitive or exhaustive guide to designing government funding agreements. It is intended to complement, not replace, existing advice such as the Better Grants by Design guide (this guide is for VPS only). It should be used in conjunction with existing tools and any guidance specific to your department.

---

What do we mean by place-based approaches?

Working in place is a core part of our work—but across government we do it in different ways. From tailoring large government infrastructure projects to local need, to enabling community-owned initiatives, all these ways of working are equally valuable and can support improved community outcomes.

But when we talk about place-based approaches in this toolkit, we mean initiatives which target the specific circumstances of a place and engage the community and a broad range of local organisations from different sectors as active participants in developing and implementing solutions.

Because they are driven by local need, place-based approaches all look different. They may be initiated by community or by government; they may have started out as place-based or be evolving to a more bottom-up approach over time; they may be a stand-alone initiative or form part of a broader project or suite of measures.

But while they look different depending on their area, all place-based work requires similar capabilities from government. Crucially, place-based approaches require government to take on a partnering and enabling role and genuinely share decision-making about what outcomes matter locally and how they can best be achieved. For more information see the Victorian Government’s Framework for Place-based Approaches.

---

What’s unique about funding place-based approaches?

Place-based approaches’ strength is that they harness local leadership to develop tailored and innovative solutions. They are not suitable for all circumstances and should complement (rather than replace) traditional government services and infrastructure.

They can be a powerful tool where an issue or opportunity:

• is multifaceted, complex and concentrated in a place,
• cannot be addressed through services or infrastructure alone—existing government interventions have not had the desired impact,
• does not have a clear solution and requires the active involvement of local people and organisations to discover and develop meaningful responses,
• requires a whole of government or cross-sectoral response, or
• requires a long-term response.

Because place-based approaches are all different, it is key to understand the role of government as funder and the degree to which you are using a funding agreement to shape or support the direction of the initiative.

For example, government has established many place-based approaches. But they can also begin and become established by community leaders without any government involvement.

Regardless of where they begin, place-based approaches all require a different approach from government funders to reach their full potential—and how government invests in this work can significantly impact its success in improving outcomes for community.

It has been recognised by a range of stakeholders from government, to the community sector, to the recent Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, that traditional government funding approaches (while appropriate for many traditional programs and services) can limit the ability of place-based approaches to achieve outcomes for communities.

For example, output-based funding, which predetermines the activities a funded organisation will deliver, can be less appropriate for place-based approaches. This is because initiatives often need the autonomy and agility to adjust what they deliver based on the unique and changing needs of the community.

Equally, short-term contracts may be fit-for-purpose for focused, time-limited local projects. But when the aim of an initiative is to build long-term capability and change in a community, they can significantly hinder the ability of local stakeholders to plan and deliver on bigger outcomes.

On the other hand, a range of evaluations and reviews including the Independent Review of the Australian Public Service (PDF, 17.8 MB) have identified flexible and sustainable funding as key enablers to successful placebased approaches. As government partners, it is critical that we provide:

• Flexibility to allow local partners and the people most impacted by the issue to tailor their actions to what has the most impact for their community.
• Commitment to ensure stability for community partners as they work over the long term (often ten years or more) to tackle complex, multi-faceted issues.
• Trust to allow for innovation and an environment where it is safe to fail and learn. See the next page for some examples of how funding models have enabled action or caused challenges for place-based approaches.

---

Examples: How funding models can help or hinder local action

Communities for Children

Communities for Children (CfC) is a Commonwealth place-based model of investment supporting children and families in 52 disadvantaged communities across Australia. CfC facilitates a whole-of-community approach to support early childhood development and wellbeing with a focus on children from birth to 12 years, and can include children up to 18 years and their families.

How funding helped:

• Community-focused: A 2010 evaluation found providers preferred the CfC funding model to direct funding because it was community-based and built on local connections. Funding was critical to improvements in local service coordination.
• Asset mapping: The asset-mapping component of CfC helped communities to tailor CfC programs, activities and services. Community consultations enabled CfC stakeholders to understand the needs or aspirations of community members, fund and design programs and services to support these needs, increase awareness of programs, and help engage families.

How funding hindered:

• Less flexibility: Sites had to provide budgets for the entire program early in the establishment of CfC, resulting in the perception that funding could not be adjusted over the three-year period.
• Reporting burden: Accountability requirements put substantial burdens on lead organisations, especially since they have also had to assist many service providers with their reporting.
• Competitive tendering: Competitive tendering caused tensions in some CfC sites and funding was not always sufficient to fund the workload adequately.¹

Community Revitalisation

Community Revitalisation is a Victorian place-based approach that involves communities, their local leaders, and government working together to increase economic participation for people experiencing complex barriers to employment. It began in 2017 in five communities and the next phase, building on learnings from a 2019 evaluation, is currently being implemented.

How funding helped:

• Well auspiced: A 2019 evaluation found that auspicing arrangements that were in place for grant funding were appropriate and working effectively.
• Helping to leverage other funding: The 2019 evaluation also found that Community Revitalisation sites leveraged at least $1.75 million in additional funding to support or complement their initiatives. They were also able to leverage at least an additional $0.8 million in the form of in-kind contributions to support delivery of Community Revitalisation initiatives.

How funding hindered:

• Unclear objectives and KPIs: The 2019 evaluation noted that funding agreements were seen as complex to administer. They did not consistently incorporate specified outcomes for CR activity and were not always clear in terms of project objectives and KPIs. This might have been attributable to the fact that, early in the life-cycle of place-based activities, the funding department did not clearly define the scope and achievable outcomes.
• Complex: The 2019 evaluation also found that multiple funding agreements were in place for Community Revitalisation activities at some sites. Stakeholders indicated this presented administrative complexity in a local government setting.²

Better Futures Local Solutions

Better Futures Local Solutions was a Commonwealth placebased policy aimed at helping families in 10 communities find jobs and provide opportunities for their children. It also supported communities to develop solutions to address disadvantage in their area and strengthen community infrastructure.

How funding helped:

• Flexibility: Flexible funding fostered local innovation and collaboration. Local capacity to plan, think strategically, share knowledge and learn from doing was strengthened.
• Encouraging collaboration: Better Futures Local Solutions required applications for funding to be locally brokered. Increasingly proposals were developed collectively, and many projects involved applications and delivery by a consortium of partners—a significant departure from the norm of community organisations bidding against each other and delivering funded services in isolation.

How funding hindered:

• Inadequate funding amount: The funding amount provided to each site was considered too small to effect substantial change.
• Inadequate time to develop proposals: Adequate lead time between the establishment of local advisory groups and the first funding round would have enabled a more strategic approach.
• Short-term: Funding of Better Futures Local Solutions ceased 12 months earlier than expected, meaning the initiative was cut short before it could have significant impact.³

¹ Kristy Muir, Ilan Katz, Ben Edwards, Matthew Gray, Sarah Wise, Alan Hayes and the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy evaluation team’s National evaluation of the Communities for Children initiative (2010)

² First Point Consulting’s Community Revitalisation Program evaluation (2019)

³ The Brotherhood of St Laurence’s What’s next for place-based approaches to tackle disadvantage? (2015)

To design an effective funding agreement, you first need to clearly scope where you will be working, who you will be working with, and what role you will have as the funder.

Place-based approaches are typically based around a ‘backbone’ or lead organisation (or group of organisations) that are located in the local community, hold the funding, and coordinate local partners to meet their shared outcome.

Place-based approaches can and do become established by community leaders without the involvement of government—meaning a clear backbone and focus may be in place by the time government comes into the funding conversation.

Government also establishes many place-based approaches and you may be responsible for determining the outcome the funding is seeking to achieve and the lead organisation that will receive the resources via a selection process.

With large variations in the type of support government can provide, it is important to be clear on what is already happening in a local area, the role you want to play, and subsequently the focus and type of investment to make.

To ensure a thorough scoping and/or selection process, you should build your knowledge about the local community, its issues, opportunities demographics, and local power dynamics. It is important to gather a broad range of information.

This includes from inside of government, to understand where we are already funding or working with local partners and ensure action is as aligned and efficient as possible. And also from outside of government, to build a strong understanding of local community leaders and members and challenge any of your own biases.

Another key factor to consider from the beginning is the role that competition will play. Competition often forms a key part of government funding processes. But for place-based approaches which rely deeply on local partnerships, it is important to also consider how processes can promote collaboration between local organisations.

The tools and insights in this section are designed to help you work through these questions and processes. Because continuous evaluation and improvement is key to place-based approaches, they can also help you if you are revisiting the purpose or direction of an existing funding agreement.

---

Scoping in action: Working Together in Place

Working Together in Place was a Victorian Government initiative that worked with five existing place-based approaches across the state to test new ways of working and learn about how government can best support locally-led action. It began in 2019 as part of the Whole-of-Government Place-based Agenda, and included a scoping process via key steps:

• Determined objectives and scope of agreement: The team started with an existing budget allocation and asked key questions to narrow down and clearly define:
  • the funding’s purpose (to come alongside existing initiatives and demonstrate how better support from government can help local leadership disrupt disadvantage, rather than start new initiatives),
  • scope (a handful of locations to not dilute resources, with a mix of regional and metropolitan to ensure a broad range of lessons were learned about placebased work in Victoria)
  • the type of role they would play as government funder (making a commitment to dedicate government staff resources to partnering and show up in a more relational way).
• Selected sites based on data analysis and a readiness assessment: Because one of the purposes was to support areas facing entrenched disadvantage, the team initially filtered possible sites by analysing data like the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas. The team then created readiness assessment criteria to narrow it down further and identify areas with existing place-based approaches (whether mature or emerging) and a willingness on behalf of local leaders to dedicate time to testing new ways of working with government. To conduct the assessment, they first talked with internal government stakeholders and regional directors with knowledge of local areas. Once there was greater authorisation, the team met with external local stakeholders to understand context, brief them on the project and gauge their willingness and readiness to participate.
• Gained authorisation: The team regularly briefed key decision-makers throughout the process to ensure there was buy-in for the purpose, scope and shortlisted sites. Once the readiness assessment was completed, final sites were proposed via a Cabinet submission and approval was received to undertake a negotiated grant process.

---

Tool: Scoping questions

What is this tool?

This framework of questions was developed by the Institute for Voluntary Action Research (PDF, 673 KB) to support funders in the planning of place-based approaches. The questions are linked to key stages in the development of place-based work: rationale, design and implementation.

How do I use it?

This tool can be used to organise a conversation with your team responsible for planning a place-based funding agreement. The purpose is not to identify ‘good’ or ‘bad’ practice but rather to clarify the potential objectives, scope, recipients, etc., of investment—all of which will be critical to shaping your funding agreement.

What will I get?

A clearer understanding of the purpose of your investment that can help guide the design of your funding agreement. You can also use your findings to inform briefings on the business case, investment concept or project plan for key decision-makers— particularly where authorisation to devolve decisionmaking or work in a more relational way is required.

Tool

1. Why is a place-based approach being considered or used?

One or more of the following circumstances may indicate when a place-based approach should be considered:

• To target a particular issue or opportunity
• To enable self-determination
• To address cold spots
• In response to changes in policy/external context
• To test a model or approach
• As a way of targeting areas of high disadvantage
• Because you are by definition a ‘place-based funder’ with a specific geographic remit/focus.

2. Who is proposing funding a place-based approach?

• Government
• Cooperative group of local stakeholders
• Established community-led approach

Government has established many place-based approaches, but they can also begin and become established by community leaders without any government involvement. Understanding who is proposing funding a place-based approach and what stage of development they are at will help you understand your role as funder and the degree to which you are using a funding agreement to support and/or shape the direction of the initiative.

3. What does 'place' mean?

• Street
• Neighbourhood
• Town
• City
• Local Government Area

The geographical scale of the place-based approach should be shaped by the rationale and will affect the resources needed to deliver on its ambition. For example, the geographic scope may differ if the approach is proposed for a metropolitan area or a regional city, town or local government area.

4. What contribution are you seeking to make?

• Responsive funding of ‘good things’
• Building community assets
• Strategic systems change

Understanding the contribution you hope to make will be closely linked to why you wish to work in a place-based way. Think about what you hope will happen. For example, are you looking to provide funds for isolated projects that support people in an area, build community assets for a particular cohort, and/or make investments towards systems change?

5. What is your attitude towards risk and uncertainty?

• Risk averse
• Comfortable with risk

This question focuses on your tolerance of failure/uncertainty. Place-based work takes time and outcomes may emerge slowly. Risk is about much more than due diligence and will need considering from multiple perspectives, for example: program level; organisational level (for yourself as funder and for key partners); resident. It may be helpful to frame your place-based approach as exploratory and see ‘progress’ as a long-term journey.

6. What is your position on impact?

• Tangible, measurable difference
• Learning about what happens

‘Success’ means different things to different funders. Place-based approaches can be an opportunity for learning and trying new ways of working. But this also means thinking about success in a different way. If you are embarking on exploratory or community-led work there may not be a predetermined end point to measure against, and different processes and monitoring systems will need to be in place. It might mean focusing on outcomes rather than outputs.

7. What is your existing knowledge of the area?

• Low
• High

Consider what you know, how you know it and what you might need to find out. There are different ways of doing this and it often depends on the scale of contribution. The place-based guide includes guidance on meaningful engagement that you might find useful when developing your knowledge of a local community and its stakeholders.

8. What duration of involvement is required?

• Short-term
• Long-term

Consider how long you need to work in a place. Are you committing to working in an area in the long term or using geography to focus your work within a time limit? What are the implications for how long you need to be there and how to exit? Keep in mind place-based approaches often require a 10+ year commitment to deal with complex or entrenched issues. Funding over multiple years can help give confidence to communities, enable a sense of security for organisations, and allow adaptation to new ways of working and building relationships.

9. Where will control sit?

• Funder-driven
• Community-led

Think about who is defining the local need and determining how to best respond. Will the work be community-led or driven by what you—as a funder—have identified to focus on? Remember, if you are not willing to ensure that at least some control rests with the community, you are not empowering in line with the spirit of place-based approaches. If so, it may be worth revisiting the Framework for Place-based Approaches (PDF, 7.9MB) to determine the clear role of government and community in the work.

10. Who will you need to work with?

• Grantees only
• Multiple stakeholders

Relationships and partnerships are a central feature of place-based approaches – whether in terms of having a trusted source of local information / insights or the co-design and implementation of initiatives. Place-based work is often about sharing power, respecting local knowledge, having a degree of pragmatism, and accepting some amount of risk.

11. What kind of relationships are required?

• Contractual
• Relational/collaborative

What kind of relationship will help you to meet your motivation and desired contribution? Contractual (traditional grant-making), engaged (an informed and supportive grants process) or relational/collaborative (where you are working alongside grantees and other partners)? Keep in mind if the initiative is seeking to influence and shift systems, this will require a more collaborative and trusting approach from government. The type of relationships required will also inform what role you take on (see below).

12. What will your role be?

• Arm’s length
• Embedded

When working in this way it is crucial to communicate clearly about the role you intend to play and be aware of the implications this might have for others involved. This toolkit’s spotlight on enabling collaboration instead of competition when developing contracts might also be helpful in understanding your role.

13. What commitment of staff time/effort is required?

• Low
• High

The commitment of staff time required in a place-based approach links closely with the choice of geographic focus, overall motivation and style of approach. Placebased work can be resource intensive; to engage meaningfully, and to work in a cooperative, exploratory way, takes time as well as skills.

---

Spotlight on: enabling collaboration instead of competition

Place-based approaches rely heavily on collaboration between local stakeholders. It is therefore critical to consider how grants processes will be received by local organisations and how they can be designed to support providers to build productive partnerships.

Carefully considering competitive tendering

Strong relationships and collaboration between local partners are a key success factor for place-based approaches. But these can be compromised when local stakeholders are incentivised to compete against one another for limited resources, rather than to work together to achieve the greatest impact for community. Competitive tendering is key to how government establishes many funding agreements and ensures value for money. For place-based approaches, it is important to carefully consider how tender processes are designed to ensure they do not undermine the ability of providers to form partnerships and deliver against the funding objectives.

Alternatives to competitive tendering

By taking the time to complete rigorous risk assessments, stakeholder mapping and a local readiness assessment, it may be possible to identify a clear lead organisation without a competitive process. A readiness assessment involves talking with local stakeholders inside and outside of government to understand what organisations are already working in the area and their ability to work in partnership on a shared outcome—see the following Partnerships Readiness Checklist tool.

Encouraging collaboration within a competitive process

Of course, the imperative to support collaboration must also be balanced against government probity requirements. It is also important that government considers a wide range of organisations beyond just the ‘usual suspects’. If you are undertaking a competitive process, look for opportunities to encourage collaboration. For example by:

• Consulting deeply within a local area to understand existing relationships and how best to communicate the funding opportunity
• Including place-based principles in funding or program guidelines to set expectations around collaboration and governance for applicants at the start of the grant communication process and to allow you to assess applications against these conditions.
• Strongly encouraging applications from consortia or partnerships of organisations. For example you might include a clause in funding guidelines stating, “submissions from partnership-based consortia are strongly encouraged, to draw together the full range of experience and capabilities required to deliver the placebased approach.” You should also be mindful that forming a consortia can mean a significant upfront investment of time and resources on the part of participating organisations, and consider what support you can provide to applicants so that smaller organisations are not disadvantaged in the process.
• Building the requirement for the successful organisation to embed collaborative local decision-making processes into the funding agreement.

Ensuring strong risk management

Strong accountability, probity and risk management should form the basis of all grants processes, whether contested or not.

Strong risk assessment processes are particularly important for place-based approaches, which involve sharing power and decision-making with local organisations and so involve an inherent level of risk.

All risk assessment should be in line with the Victorian Government Risk Framework and your department's risk plan.

You can use your departmental grant guidelines and the Victorian Government’s Better Grants by Design risk management process to guide your process (this guide is for VPS only).

Your department’s intranet or central funding area may also be a useful source of information and guidance to ensure you are in line with probity and risk requirements.

---

Case study: Events Gippsland

The Events Gippsland Collaboration Fund was established in 2021 to support the region’s councils to compete as one voice for events and to drive recovery across Gippsland communities with a reignited events industry.

Building on a successful pilot model that demonstrated the benefits of a collaborative approach and the development of a Regional Events Strategy, the Latrobe Valley Authority provided a further $250,000 to the regional tourism board Destination Gippsland to establish the Events Gippsland Acquisition Committee and dispense funds to the events it approves. Additional funding of $500,000 was also secured through Regional Development Victoria’s Regional Recovery Fund.

The Committee includes the six local councils within Gippsland, as well as departmental representation from the Latrobe Valley Authority, Regional Development Victoria and Sport and Recreation Victoria. They meet monthly to decide what events will be funded based on agreed assessment criteria like return on investment, how it builds community capacity, and how it promotes the region. All funding is matched by local councils.

As this model has evolved over time, Destination Gippsland, State Government and local councils have brought proposed events to the group for joint deliberation and consideration. This forum has reduced the ability for event proponents to play councils off against each other and get into ‘bidding wars’ over attraction fees. The collaboration has also resulted in greater coordination, information sharing, identifying Gippsland wide benefits and reducing costs through joint agreements. The model has also helped councils collectively build their capability in planning and delivering events and is currently focusing on data capture and evaluating what makes a successful event.

Events Gippsland has plans to grow their acquisition fund and strengthen the collaboration that currently exists, ensuring that their place-based approach addresses local priorities and has long term sustainability.

---

Tool: Partnerships readiness checklist

What is this tool?

This partnerships assessment tool was developed by VicHealth (PDF, 880 KB) to help reflect on and evaluate the effectiveness of partnerships.

How do I use it?

Ideally, the checklist should be completed by all potential partners in a local area. However, if you do not yet have authorisation or it is not yet appropriate to talk with partners outside of government about funding opportunities, you can also use it as a guide to support discussions with regional departmental staff to understand the existing relationships and issues in an area.

What will I get?

An understanding of the readiness of your and local partners’ readiness to engage in a place-based approach. You can use this to inform whether you should invest and the focus of your investment (e.g. investment might focus more on local capacity building for less mature partnerships). It can also identify key areas of weakness that can be identified and addressed in the partnership (e.g. convening partners with a view to creating greater clarity on objectives and roles).

Other resources

• The Collective Impact Forum has developed a readiness assessment for a group considering using the collective impact approach to determine if collective impact is the right approach for the social issues, and the extent to which the conditions for success are in place for the initiative to succeed.
• The Tamarack Institute (PDF, 457 KB) has also created a tool to measure partners’ readiness to engage in a Collective Impact initiative.
• Collaboration for Impact has developed the Collaborative Change Cycle to help change makers collaborate to address complex social issues. Its ‘Readiness Runway’ phase contains many tools that can help you understand readiness to collaborate.

Tool

Rate your level of agreement with each of the statements below, with:

• 1 indicating strong disagreement
• 2 indicating disagreement
• 3 indicating not sure
• 4 indicating agreement
• 5 indicating strong agreement.

1. Determining the need for the partnership

• There is a perceived need for the partnership in terms of areas of common interest and complementary capacity.
• There is a clear goal for the partnership.
• There is a shared understanding of, and commitment to, this goal among all potential partners.
• The partners are willing to share some of their ideas, resources, influence and power to fulfil the goal.
• The perceived benefits of the partnership outweigh the perceived costs.

2. Choosing partners

• The partners share common ideologies, interests and approaches.
• The partners see their core business as partially interdependent.
• There is a history of good relations between the partners.
• The partnership brings added prestige to the partners individually as well as collectively.
• There is enough variety among members to have a comprehensive understanding of the issues being addressed.

3. Making sure partnerships work

• The managers in each organisation (or division) support the partnership.
• Partners have the necessary skills for collaborative action.
• There are strategies to enhance the skills of the partnership through increasing the membership or workforce development.
• The roles, responsibilities and expectations of partners are clearly defined and understood by all other partners.
• The administrative, communication and decision-making structure of the partnership is as simple as possible.

4. Planning collaborative action

• All partners are involved in planning and setting priorities for collaborative action.
• Partners have the task of communicating and promoting the partnership in their own organisations.
• Some staff have roles that cross the traditional boundaries that exist between agencies or divisions in the partnership.
• The lines of communication, roles and expectations of partners are clear.
• There is a participatory decision-making system that is accountable, responsive and inclusive.

5. Implementing collaborative action

• Processes that are common across agencies have been standardised (e.g. service standards, data collection and reporting mechanisms).
• There is an investment in the partnership of time, personnel, materials or facilities.
• Collaborative action by staff and reciprocity between agencies is rewarded by management.
• The action is adding value (rather than duplicating services) for the community, clients or agencies involved in the partnership.
• There are regular opportunities for informal and voluntary contact between staff from the different agencies and other members of the partnership.

6. Minimising the barriers to partnerships

• Differences in organisational priorities, goals and tasks have been addressed.
• There is a core group of skilled and committed (in terms of the partnership) staff that has continued over the life of the partnership.
• There are formal structures for sharing information and resolving demarcation disputes.
• There are informal ways of achieving this.
• There are strategies to ensure alternative views are expressed within the partnership.

7. Reflecting on and continuing the partnership

• There are processes for recognising and celebrating collective achievements and/or individual contributions.
• The partnership can demonstrate or document the outcomes of its collective work.
• There is a clear need for and commitment to continuing the collaboration in the medium term.
• There are resources available from either internal or external sources to continue the partnership.
• There is a way of reviewing the range of partners and bringing in new members or removing some.

Checklist score

• 35–84: You should rigorously question whether to invest in the partnership, or consider focusing any investment on building the capabilities of local stakeholders to work collaboratively on a shared outcome in the future.
• 85–126: The partnership is moving in the right direction but it will need more attention if it is going to be really successful.
• 127–175: A partnership based on genuine collaboration has been established. The challenge is to maintain its impetus and build on the current success.

Once you’ve clearly scoped the purpose of the funding and who will be receiving it, you also need to design the funding agreement so that it supports local activity and meets your objectives.

While the focus areas and outcomes of place-based approaches can vary greatly, there are consistent elements that need to be resourced that you should take into account when calculating cost.

You should be clear on the amount of flexibility you are able to offer and work to align the funding agreement to this approach. As place-based approaches often require government to invest in a process rather than activities, you may also consider how you can incorporate process-based milestones and reporting requirements.

Because place-based approaches are often a different way of working for community and government stakeholders, it is important to be clear on expectations from the start. Government should be clear about what our goals are, what we can bring to the table and where our points of influence in the community and government departments are.

Equally, you should have clear and open conversations about what is expected of the place-based approach. This can ensure flexible funding enables effective and targeted local action, and does not lead to confusion about what outcomes an initiative is seeking to deliver, or how community and government will work together.

It is also important to remember that many place-based approaches, especially already established ones, receive resources from multiple funders. For example, a large initiative may be funded by various levels of government, local organisations, businesses and/or philanthropic organisations. Connecting with co-funders can allow you to find opportunities to pool funding around common objectives, or design milestones and reporting requirements so that they align across co-funders as much as possible.

The tools and insights in this section are designed to help you work through these questions and processes. Because continuous evaluation and improvement is key to place-based approaches, they can also help you if you are redesigning an existing funding agreement.

---

Designing in action: Community Revitalisation

Community Revitalisation is a place-based approach that began in 2017 and works in five areas across Victoria. It involves communities, their local leaders, and government working together to increase economic participation for people experiencing complex barriers to employment. In 2021 a new budget allocation gave the team in the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions the opportunity to redesign existing funding agreements, based on findings of an independent evaluation. To do so they:

• Determined the type of flexibility to provide: It was determined that to support local people facing employment barriers, funded lead organisations could use resources on a broad range of costs and activities—including staffing costs, wraparound supports, strategic engagement and partnership building, and data, monitoring and evaluation.
• Designed milestones and reporting requirements: The team designed the funding agreement so it was based around process-focused milestones. Rather than predetermine activities for the life of the multi-year agreement, the first milestone required the funded lead organisations to create an ‘Impact and Learning Plan’ outlining the high-level outcomes and priorities of the initiative for the four years, along with a 12-month action plan. Further milestones require regular progress reporting and the development of an annual 12-month action plan to provide oversight and ensure sites are on track.
• Embedded capability building into the process: The team also procured an independent organisation with expertise in collaboration and systems change to support funded lead organisations and local partners in the collaborative design of strategic approaches and to building their capability in facilitating place-based work, tracking progress and impact, and creating structures and processes to support greater collaboration, including engagement with local communities with lived experience, to increase the sustainability of impacts achieved.

---

Tool: potential funded activities

What is this tool?

A list of activities and functions that need to be resourced to enable a place-based approach to do their work.

How do I use it?

Assess which elements are already funded, for example by existing partners or organisations, and what still needs to be funded to enable local action on the ground.

What will I get?

A list of the activities that will be permitted expenditure in your funding agreement and can be used to help calculate your funding amount.

Tool

• Backbone: The backbone plays a vital role in coordinating strategic direction and governance, stakeholder communication and engagement, monitoring data collection and analysis and managing funding and communications. Whether a new organisation is set up for this purpose or an existing organisation takes on this role, it is important to fund the activities of the backbone to support the successful implementation and to ensure its sustainability.
• Partnerships: Funding needs to enable collaboration, not promote competition between organisations, to maximise the impact of local work. The literature suggests that it is important to give attention to the process of partnership building in the early stages, to allow time to develop trust and build relationships, and mechanisms for accountability. This needs to be reflected in the funding model.
• People: Some projects may directly employ staff, or staff may be involved as part of their existing roles in an organisation. Required roles may include a project officer or other staff to coordinate project staff who are implementing project elements, and staff and managers to lead the work. If staff are involved as part of their existing role, this may be through dedicated funding, or an in-kind contribution from a participating organisation. If you are resourcing a role you should consider the relevant award rate (for example the Social and Community Services Award) and ensure you resource a level of role which matches the skills and experience needed to manage or support the initiative.
• Community engagement and development: Meaningful community engagement and development is critical to success and needs adequate investment. Engaging with the community to understand the local issues and shape the solutions requires time and resources. Community development activities may be required to build local capability and readiness to participate. These activities are key for a co-design approach, where people’s participation should be reimbursed appropriately.
• Development and capacity building: Place-based approaches offer a different way of working, meaning that people will need support to work in new ways or to participate at all. For example, it is important to develop the capacity of community members to participate in decision-making and to develop the capacity of organisations and their workforce to implement a program or service in a new way. Resources needed for this include training, mentoring or investing in behaviour change approaches.
• Project activities: The various project activities that make up the initiative will require resourcing, such as the day to day running of the service or project that is being implemented.
• Overheads: Overheads include office space, meeting space, IT systems and other basic resources to enable the project to operate. Both the backbone functions and the project activities will require these resources. They may either be funded through the initiative’s formal funding, or could be provided in-kind by one of the participating organisations.
• Communications: It is important to communicate the initiative’s purpose, activities and progress to a number of audiences, including the community, funders and other stakeholders. To do this, have a singular project identity and visual brand. Adequate resources should be dedicated to communications and branding, and this function can sit within the backbone.
• Time: Place-based strategies are longterm—the desired outcomes typically involve systemic change, which takes time to achieve. The funding approach needs to recognise this and allow the necessary time. Time should be considered as a necessary resource for a place-based approach.

---

Tool: Flexible funding spectrum

What is this tool?

The flexible funding spectrum was developed by the Institute for Voluntary Action Research (PDF, 1,554 KB), and articulates the different forms that flexible funding can take, using examples from real funding bodies.

How do I use it?

Use the examples to help identify which type of flexible funding you are seeking to provide, taking into account the intent of your investment, the readiness of your partners and any organisational constraints you are facing.

What will I get?

A better understanding of the type of flexibility you want to and are able to provide, which can inform the types of milestones and reporting requirements you include in your agreement.

Tool

• Fully unrestricted: E.g. “Completely no strings attached, they can do whatever they want with it.”
• Unrestricted, designated: E.g. “We’ve identified an activity we’re particularly interested in, and the size of our grant probably reflects the cost of it. But, if the organisation can get some or all of the money for that from elsewhere, we’d be happy for them to use our money for something else. So we ask them to report specifically on the activity we’re interested in but make the grant unrestricted.” 3
• Broadly restricted: E.g. “We set a timeframe for spending, which helped with the trustee journey from performance management to partner.” E.g. “We can only fund in this LGA so our grant has to be restricted to work benefitting it.”
• Flexible core cost funding: E.g. “The restrictions are light and the grant can be broadly used for organisational overheads and core costs.”
• Flexible project or program funding: E.g. “We don’t offer unrestricted, but our project grants are very flexible. We’re less concerned with detail of how they deliver and more about outcomes. We approach from a learning prism and let them lead the way.”
• Restricted on request: E.g. “Applicants are empowered/trusted to apply for either entirely unrestricted funding, or for funding that goes towards core costs. Sometimes people want us to restrict their funding to make sure the work—for example supporting staff—is protected.”

---

Tool: Progress checklist

What is this tool?

Adapted from the United States of America Centre for Community Health and Development’s Collective Impact Progress Assessment, this checklist allows you to assess how a place-based approach is meeting the five conditions that are associated with success for collaborative, community-led initiatives: a common agenda, shared measurement, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication and engagement, and an independent backbone structure.

How do I use it?

Assess the current state of the initiative and determine if there are conditions you need to incentivise through your funding agreement to ensure it is effectively driving outcomes. This is particularly important for a place-based approach in its early stages where it may not yet have these conditions, or a plan to achieve them, in place.

What will I get?

An assessment of the current maturity and point in the lifecycle of the partnership. This can inform what you include in milestones and reporting requirements to ensure the funded initiative is driving impact. For example, if a place-based approach does not have clear agreed upon goals, you could require a Theory of Change1 as part of your reporting requirements, or if a place-based approach does not have a shared measurement approach in place you could include the development of a Measurement, Evaluation and Learning strategy as a milestone.

A Theory of Change is a process for mapping outcomes in the short, medium and long-term. Your department may use similar tools like an outcomes logic model or investment logic model. You can find more information about developing a Theory of Change for place-based approaches in the place-based Monitoring, Evaluating and Learning toolkit.

Tool

• Is there a common agenda?
  • Are all of the necessary stakeholders at the table
  • Does the group have an explicit definition of the problem in agreed-upon language to refer to?
  • Has the group agreed upon the scope of the landscape it is focusing on? (i.e., Which stakeholders need/do not need to be involved?)
  • Has the group written a vision and mission statement?
  • Does the group have agreed upon goals, and measurable targets related to those goals?

• Is shared measurement in place?
  • Is ongoing staffing assigned and funding allocated to develop and implement a shared measurement strategy?
  • Have benchmarks and measures to track progress been decided?
  • Have processes been established to ensure that measurement remains aligned to hold all organizations accountable?
  • Is this data accessible enough so that organizations can easily course-correct?
  • Are stakeholders sharing results and learning from each other?

• Have mutually reinforcing activities been established?
  • Is there an up-to-date map of the players, strategies and work underway?
  • Is it clear who is responsible for the different strategic elements of the initiative?
  • Has overlap and redundancy between organizations been identified and minimized?
  • Have sub-groups been established by locality and type of activity?
  • Has a list of prioritized activities and next steps been written so that the different groups are coordinated around common agenda?

• Is there continuous communication and engagement?
  • Have governance structures been put in place, such as steering committees and/or sub-groups focused on specific actions?
  • Have meeting schedules been established for these groups? Will these meetings occur yearly? Monthly? Weekly?
  • Have vertical and horizontal reporting processes been established? (i.e., How will sub-groups report out to the steering committee? How will groups report to each other?)
  • Have decision-making processes been established?

• Does backbone support exist?
  • Has a structure for the backbone been clearly decided (e.g., existing organization, new organization, hybrid)?
  • Is there a funder willing to fund the creation of backbone infrastructure over several years?
  • Is the backbone actively supporting aligned activities through convening partners, providing technical assistance, and recruiting new partners?
  • Has the backbone organization begun to build public will with consensus and commitment through communications management, articulating the call to action, and supporting community member engagement activities?

---

Tool: Milestone bank

What is this tool?

Examples of milestones that have been used in other Victorian Government grant and service agreements to support place-based approaches.

How do I use it?

Consider if any of these milestones would support the objectives of your funding and talk with your department’s funding area about the potential to implement them in your agreement.

What will I get?

An idea of how to structure the milestones in your funding agreement around processes rather than pre-determined activities.

Tool

Regular reporting based around an implementation plan

When funding a place-based approach, consider basing milestones around an implementation or action plan rather than predetermined activities or outputs. This can allow reporting at the appropriate frequency (e.g. yearly, six monthly, quarterly) without locking initiatives into activities that are difficult to change over the life of the agreement.

• Example milestone 1: Implementation plan
• Example milestone 2: Six monthly progress report provided by email including activity progress, budget, milestone and KPI tracking
• Example milestone 3: Yearly progress report on implementation plan
• Example milestone 4: Six monthly progress report provided by email including activity progress, budget, milestone and KPI tracking
• Example milestone 5: Yearly progress report on implementation plan
• Example milestone 6: Six monthly progress report provided by email including activity progress, budget, milestone and KPI tracking
• Example milestone 7: Final report

Formalising a partnership

If you are funding an initiative in its early stages or without a strong governance structure, it may need to confirm its key partners and how they will work together towards their shared goals. You can consider including a Memorandum of Understanding as the first milestone to formalise the partnership and ensure relationships are maintained throughout the life of the initiative.

• Example milestone 1: Memorandum of Understanding formalising partnership
• Example milestone 2: Implementation plan
• Example milestone 3: Yearly progress report on implementation plan
• Example milestone 4: Yearly progress report on implementation plan
• Example milestone 5: Final report

Undertaking a codesign process

If an initiative is in its early stages, or is refreshing its priorities, it may need to undertake a co-design or engagement process to understand community needs before it determines its focus area and/or implementation plan. You can consider including a first milestone that releases ‘up to’ a certain amount of funding to resource this process, before requiring an implementation plan later in the funding period.

• Example milestone 1: Proposal outlining resourcing requirements to undertake a co-design process
• Example milestone 2: Common agenda and implementation plan
• Example milestone 3: Yearly progress report on implementation plan
• Example milestone 4: Yearly progress report on implementation plan
• Example milestone 5: Final report

Reviewing priorities

If you are funding a mid to later years place-based approach, it can be valuable to include a review of priorities to ensure action is still targeted at what will have the greatest impact for community. You may consider a milestone requiring an updated Theory of Change or implementation plan.

• Example milestone 1: Updated Theory of Change and implementation plan
• Example milestone 2: Yearly progress report on implementation plan
• Example milestone 3:
  • Yearly progress report on implementation plan
  • Final report

Targeting an element to strengthen

If you are funding a more mature place-based approach and have identified it needs to strengthen an element of its operating model, you can consider including this in your milestones. For example, if the initiative lacks a comprehensive or fit-for-purpose evaluation plan, you could require them to develop one.

• Example milestone 1:
  • Implementation plan
  • Current outcomes framework
• Example milestone 2:
  • Yearly progress report on implementation plan
  • Monitoring Evaluation and Learning plan
• Example milestone 3:
  • Yearly progress report on implementation plan
  • Evaluation findings
• Example milestone 4:
  • Final report

---

Spotlight on: aligning with other funders

Place-based approaches often work with a number of funders from different levels of government and different non-government organisations. This can generate broad buy-in and reduce the risk of a single funder having too much control, but it can also result in complex funding arrangements with a large reporting burden for the lead organisation. It is important that government makes an effort to align with any co-funders to reduce administrative burden and ensure the most meaningful data is informing the actions of all partners.

With the funded organisation

Remember to consider the organisation itself when planning frequency and timing of reporting. Lead organisations may have their own strategic planning processes and annual reporting schedules. For example, if working with a local council, you could determine its annual reporting process and align your reporting timelines to that to minimise the number of reports they are required to generate in a year.

Inside government

Place-based approaches look holistically at local issues and often work across multiple government portfolios. If you are seeking new funding, consider which portfolios have a stake in the initiative and how you can establish joint funding arrangements from the start.

New Zealand’s Cross Agency Funding Framework (PDF, 1,683 KB) outlines different funding models available for cross-departmental initiatives and includes key questions to reduce transaction costs.

You can also look at how your funding agreement will work with existing funding agreements the organisation holds with the Victorian Government and look for opportunities to align or pool funding.

The Trust for America’s Health’s Compendium of Resources and Examples on Braiding and Blending Funding (PDF, 367 KB) provides an overview of different methods for pooling funding and a range of resources including free training courses.

Outside government

Place-based approaches work with a range of partners outside government. In particular, philanthropy is often a key partner to place-based approaches since their organisational objectives often focus on funding innovative and long-term initiatives. Understanding where government and philanthropy’s objectives align and where they differ is key to designing an agreement that plays to one another’s strengths and develops strong working relationships.

The Centre on Philanthropy and Public Policy’s Philanthropy and Government Working Together report (PDF, 1,786 KB) highlights some key features, challenges and benefits of government-philanthropy partnerships

Just as place-based approaches differ from traditional programs, managing them on an ongoing basis also requires different resources from a traditional contract. It requires deep relationships, trust and a commitment to continuous learning and improvement.

Providing place-based approaches with adequate flexibility is critical to enabling effective local action. But it also requires effective engagement and monitoring to ensure work is on track and lessons from innovative approaches are being captured and adding value for government.

As place-based approaches are typically testing new and innovative ways of working, it is important to continually reflect on what is working or not, why this may be, and what time and support might be needed to adapt.

You should consider dedicating a person to managing the contract, playing an enabling role between community leadership and government, continuing to build the relationship, and ensuring that decision-making power is distributed most appropriately across partners.

This often does not require 1.0 FTE but does require someone with an ongoing connection to the place -based approach that has time to invest in the relationship.

Regular meetings or co -locating with partner organisations for a period of time can help the VPS to really understand the local work that is happening, build relationships and solve problems on the ground.

Having a consistent point of contact within government who has enough time to fully engage as a partner is key to ensuring strong, productive relationships that support positive outcomes for communities.

It is important to continue to build trust with open conversations, interrogate where power and decision-making over funding is sitting, and whether this balance is enabling or hindering the best outcomes for community.

---

Implementing in action: Lighthouse Project

The Greater Shepparton Lighthouse Project (Lighthouse Project) is a place-based approach established by local leadership in 2014 to activate the whole community to support young people to realise their full potential.

The Victorian Government, through the Department of Education & Training (DET), began supporting the Lighthouse Project in 2017 following resourcing being identified as one of the key priorities of the Goulburn Regional Partnership. A flexible funding agreement was developed that is not contingent on pre-defined outputs established by government.

The DET Goulburn Area VPS team responsible for the agreement manages it through a range of steps:

• Regular reporting: While funding is flexible, there is strong reporting in place with first quarter progress reporting and final reporting standard each year. To ensure transparency, each year the Lighthouse Project presents government with a detailed workplan on how it intends to utilise its funding over the course of the year. It then reports on its expenditure, based on the proposed plan. ▪
• Dedicated contact and meetings to initially build and then foster the relationship: The Service Support Branch Manager in the DET Goulburn Area office manages the relationship. To build trust and ensure outcomes and reporting are on track, there are monthly meetings between the manager and the Lighthouse Project CEO to discuss project management and shared opportunities to leverage change in education settings and the broader community.
• An Advisory Group chaired by DET brings together government leaders from DFFH, DJCS, Victoria Police and Greater Shepparton City Council. This group have been key to connecting the Lighthouse Project to stakeholders and help them build stronger relationships into government, the platform allows for discussion of shared issues and priorities to identify opportunities across the interconnecting systems of government and community.
• Being an advocate within government: Lighthouse Project have identified that having an advocate within government who understands how they operate, their mission and also the Greater Shepparton context (its people, its culture, its challenges and strengths) has been important to its success as a place-based approach. An effective advocate is openminded and open to a new way of working. They create space at the table for place-based approaches to have their voice heard and their way of working understood and supported. “We have seen and know firsthand that this type of working can yield strong results, especially if enabled.”

---

Spotlight on: optimising local funding

Place-based approaches can be a powerful tool for making existing funding work better for a local community—but this also requires commitment from government.

Place-based approaches recognise that there is sometimes already enough money ‘in the system’ to effectively support a community. By their collaborative nature, they do not focus only on their own organisation’s funding and targets, but on broader outcomes. This means they can look holistically at what resources are in a local area and how they can be utilised to have the greatest impact.

“It is less a question of needing more resources overall, but rather a need to coordinate and utilise what is available with greater focus on making a positive difference to people’s lives.” — The Centre for Policy Development on its place-based employment model (PDF, 33.6 MB)

But realising this potential also requires government to be flexible and open to adapting existing funding so that investments have the greatest impact for acommunity. For example by:

• supporting local partners to undertake a financial mapping exercise to understand what funding is currently being spent in the local area. This could involve sharing data and intelligence on Victorian Government-funded services being delivered in a community.
• pooling current government funding in the local area, either by designing a new funding agreement or clearly aligning objectives and reporting requirements across a group of existing grant or service agreements.
• reallocating existing funding to different services or programs that a place-based approach has identified will have a greater impact for the community.

---

Case study: Bass Coast

The former Department of Health and Human Services’ South Division worked with local services to change funding arrangements for the community health promotion program in the South Coast. This was the first voluntary agreement to structurally adjust funding arrangements to create a place-based primary prevention funding pool in a catchment.

The funding adjustment aimed to further strengthen joined-up work between health services, councils and other agencies in the South Coast. Under the proposal, existing recurrent funding provided by the department to support prevention and health promotion in the catchment would be consolidated. The pooled funding would used for a South Coast primary prevention team—a dedicated team of staff supporting prevention and health promotion across the catchment.

Thanks to this strong commitment from partners to work collectively, the South Coast Prevention Team was formed in 2019. It is now using pooled health promotion resources to better align prevention work with the broader health agenda across the region. This initiative is tailored to the local context, by building off existing service networks, fostering local integration and responding to an identified need in the local area.

---

Tool: Funding manager position description

What is this tool?

A generic position description for a role responsible for implementing a place-based funding agreement, including example role statement, key responsibilities and key selection criteria.

How do I use it?

You can use this generic example as a basis and tailor it to the specific skills, connections or content knowledge needed for your place-based approach.

What will I get?

A clearer idea and description of the human resources you need to manage your funding agreement on an ongoing basis.

Other resources

• The VPS place-based capability framework which defines knowledge, skills and behaviours the VPS requires to work effectively with place-based approaches and can help you in developing position descriptions and interview questions.

Tool

Example role statement

The role has responsibility for managing and facilitating the delivery of a place-based initiative [or range of place-based initiatives] and for providing strategic advice to senior stakeholders on strategic directions and priority projects across the local area. They will enable communities and partners to work together to achieve better outcomes in the local area.

Experience in leading and facilitating improved community outcomes, an open, engaged mindset, together with excellent stakeholder and project management skills, are critical in this role.

Example key accountabilities

1. Enabling place-based progress: Enable implementation of a place-based approach, ensuring local objectives are understood and met. Enable the initiative to deliver on the intent of local leadership by identifying how to support community aspiration and objectives. Administer grants, including monitoring progress, and managing grant agreements, contracts and payments.
2. Maintaining and fostering strong relationships: Engage actively with a variety of stakeholders from the government, private, community, health and education sectors to leverage opportunities for collaboration, communicate key needs and share information. Listen to and understand context for partners and translate this into meaningful impacts. Deliver key messages and performance expectations as needed. Convene stakeholders to share information and progress issues.
3. Track and assess progress and lessons: Actively monitor progress and key issues, including through, but not limited to, reporting requirements. Identify trends, risks and key lessons and insights. Share these actively with the wider team and stakeholders. Contribute to operational and strategic duties.
4. Be a great team member: Actively participate as a team member to support the sharing of information, building of culture and maintenance of positive, robust relationships. Collaborate and support work to identify opportunities to achieve outcomes, as well as ensure awareness of initiatives.
5. Provide authoritative advice: Communicate key issues, updates and decision points to stakeholders and decisionmakers. Provide authoritative advice on emerging risks and opportunities. Understand and communicate key elements of context for relevant programs and work agendas.

Example key selection criteria

1. Program design and delivery: Excellent project management capabilities with experience leading and delivering projects, including planning and contributing to the implementation of projects in complex environments. Regularly communicates with and supports project team members. Ensures project objectives are met by anticipating and managing potential emerging issues. Ensures good governance and provides advice and recommendations to senior management to support decision-making.
2. Partnering and co-creation: Builds and maintains partnerships to achieve objectives. Coaches others on the co-creation process and builds team commitment to co-creation by demonstrating personal commitment. Builds trust in partnerships through timely and quality delivery of outcomes. Facilitates discussion and navigates differences of opinion to reach decisions.
3. Working collaboratively: Guides others to create a culture of collaboration. Identifies, and works to overcome, barriers to knowledge or information sharing. Identifies opportunities to work with other teams to deliver outcomes.
4. Communicate with impact: Active listener. Makes a positive impression on others and comes across with credibility. Communicates orally in a manner that is clear, fluent and holds the listeners’ attention. Able to deal with difficult and sensitive topics and questions.
5. Technical capabilities (desirable): Understands the context and drivers of [social/health/economic/etc.] outcomes, particularly in local communities. Understands how place-based approaches differ from service provision or grant delivery in enabling outcomes in communities.

---

Tool: Funding relationship mirror

What is this tool?

The funding relationship mirror was developed by ten20 (PDF, 2.6MB) for place-based funders and initiatives to reflect on their existing relationships and identify their strengths and where they need to grow.

How do I use it?

You can use this tool alone, with your team, or with your funder-initiative partnership. Use the statements on the following pages to help you reflect on where you are strong, ok or need to grow. You may want to consider your reflections and how they may be similar or different to your partner’s reflections on the relationship.

What will I get?

An identification of the strengths of your funding relationship and where it needs to grow. In particular, the tool can be used to interrogate the role of power—what different types of power exist across the relationship, how is it used and the impact it has.

Other resources

The Funding Relationships Mind Stretcher, also developed by ten20, which provides a list of conversation starter questions and thought provoking videos and books that aim to stretch minds, provoke new ideas and provide new reference points.

Tool

Use the statements below to reflect on where you are strong, ok or need to grow.

Trust

1. We understand each other’s values and what has shaped them
2. We are aligned on the outcomes, the collaborative aims to achieve, the timeline and approach
3. We spend good time together in community to listen, observe, learn and actively engage
4. We learn together and openly share information, including challenges
5. We are open and prepare to take risks with the collaborative
6. We both deliver on the commitments we make to each other
7. Our community collaborative understands:
   • the funder role we pay in their change effort
   • our intent to transition power to community, responding to its needs rather than imposing solutions
   • our willingness to have new conversations and work in new ways

Cultural authority

1. We challenge how our existing systems and practices may be reinforcing marginalisation of Aboriginal voices, perspectives and lived experience and explore how to decolonise existing structures and ways of doing things
2. We amplify the leadership of Aboriginal Victorians to be heard and integrated into decision making
3. We listen and uplift the truth of shared histories in community, celebrating and preserving that truth
4. Data sovereignty and cultural IP are respected
5. Funders and backbone members have earnt the trust and respect of Aboriginal community leaders
6. Timelines are flexible and can move at the speed of community and account for cultural business

Agility

1. Our mindsets and governance frameworks allow for agility and adaption
2. Funding agreements allow for adaption around timing, amounts and areas for allocation
3. Funds for the collaborative are held and overseen by clear and enabling governance and decision-making structures that allow for agility and accountability

Equity and shared power

1. We openly discuss and work toward shared equity and power:
   • the different types of power in the relationship are openly acknowledged (e.g. power to decide, information power, expertise power)
   • helpful and unhelpful uses of power are understood from other’s perspectives (we challenge how existing systems and practices reinforce traditional power dynamics that constrain community voices)
   • steps are taken to better balance power (e.g. use of accessible language, shifting who informs and makes decisions)
2. We seek out and support local communityled strategies that build racial, ethnic and gender equity
3. We convene and build strong networks and ensure community has access to their expertise, perspectives and influence
4. We align with other funders around reporting and effort to ensure community needs are best met
5. Community defines progress markers rather than funders
6. We build incentives for collective and collaborative approaches at every stage
7. We share all new knowledge for all to gain – not just a few for themselves
8. We have an embedded learning practice which facilitates our growing awareness of our own power, how we use it and understand how it is perceived

Just as with funding, place-based approaches also require Victorian public servants to take a different approach to monitoring and evaluating their success.

The Place-based Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning toolkit has been developed to illustrate the ways in which evaluating place-based approaches differs from program evaluation.

It provides you with examples and tools to support your monitoring, evaluation and learning practice in this area.

The following section includes links to the some of the most common types of funding agreement the Victorian Government uses, to help you access templates and understand which tools in this guide can help you complete them.

Victorian Common Funding Agreement

The Victorian Common Funding Agreement is the main agreement used by the Victorian Government to provide grant funding to community organisations, and it is designed to be flexible and easy to understand. It is used across departments.

DJSIR Grant agreement

Grant agreement templates are also used by the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions.

DFFH/DoH Service Agreement

A service agreement is a legal contract between a government department and a funded organisation for delivery of services in the community on behalf of the Department of Health and Department of Families, Fairness and Housing.

Service agreements are set up as one contract with a service provider to ensure coordinated management across agencies and funding sources. Where a place-based approach is funded as part of a service agreement, it will be one of the funding lines included in the document.