SILOS WHAT SILOS? INDIGENOUS BOARD AND SELF-GOVERNANCE FUNDING NEEDED TO PARTNER MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR Graham Townley, October 18, 2023November 22, 2023 Share This Post I just asked an artificial intelligence engine a simple question: which Australian government funding agencies, State and Commonwealth, provide grant funds for strengthening Aboriginal or Indigenous governance? The answer was: There are several Australian government funding agencies, both state and Commonwealth, which provide grant funds for strengthening Aboriginal or indigenous governance. Some of them are: The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), administers the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) and other programs to support Indigenous Australians in various areas, such as skills and employment, women’s safety, mental health, and native title. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), which oversees the Closing the Gap strategy and the Indigenous Voice co-design process, as well as providing funding for Indigenous-specific initiatives through various portfolios. The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE), which provides funding for Indigenous land and sea management, environmental protection, and heritage conservation through programs such as the Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs), the Indigenous Ranger Program, and the Indigenous Heritage Program. The Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE), provides funding for Indigenous education, training, and employment outcomes through programs such as the Indigenous Education Strategy, the Indigenous Student Success Program, and the Indigenous Apprenticeships Program. The Department of Health (DoH), which provides funding for Indigenous health and wellbeing through programs such as the Indigenous Australians’ Health Programme, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Strategy, and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (DITRDC), which provides funding for Indigenous infrastructure, transport, regional development, and communications through programs such as the Remote Airstrip Upgrade Program, the Remote Housing Review Implementation Plan, and the Mobile Black Spot Program. The Department of Social Services (DSS), which provides funding for Indigenous social services through programs such as the Family Violence Prevention Legal Services (FVPLS), the Community Development Program (CDP), and the Cashless Debit Card Trial. The Department of Home Affairs (DHA), which provides funding for Indigenous citizenship, immigration, multicultural affairs, and emergency management through programs such as the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Program, the Settlement Grants Program, and the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. The Department of Defence (DoD), which provides funding for Indigenous defence and security through programs such as the Defence Reconciliation Action Plan, the Defence Indigenous Development Program, and the Defence Cooperation Program. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), which provides funding for Indigenous foreign affairs and trade through programs such as the Australia Awards Scholarships, the Pacific Labour Scheme, and the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change. In addition to these Commonwealth agencies, each state and territory government also has its own departments and agencies that provide funding for strengthening aboriginal or indigenous governance within their jurisdictions. For example: In New South Wales, Aboriginal Affairs NSW administers a Cultural Grants Program to support Aboriginal communities to strengthen, protect, and maintain traditional and contemporary expressions of Aboriginal culture. In Victoria, Aboriginal Victoria administers a Treaty Advancement Fund to support Aboriginal organisations to engage with their communities on treaty matters. In Queensland, DATSIP administers a Thriving Cohesive Communities Grants program to support community-led initiatives that foster social cohesion and address issues affecting Queensland’s diverse communities. In Western Australia, DLGSC administers a Community Resilience Grants program to support local governments and community organisations to deliver projects that enhance community resilience in response to COVID-19. In South Australia, DPC-AARD administers a Community Grants program to support Aboriginal community organisations to deliver projects that benefit Aboriginal people in South Australia. In Tasmania, DPAC administers a Cultural Heritage Grants program to support Aboriginal organisations undertaking projects that protect or promote Tasmania’s Aboriginal cultural heritage. In the Northern Territory, DLGHCD administers a Remote Aboriginal Development Fund to support remote Aboriginal communities to improve their living conditions and economic opportunities. In the Australian Capital Territory, CSD administers an ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Grants program to support projects that enhance the social well-being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the ACT. These are some examples of Australian government funding agencies that provide grant funds for strengthening aboriginal or indigenous governance. However, this is not an exhaustive list. Amen. However, what this simple research exercise demonstrates is that, despite these potential funding pathways, there are many silos across government programs and public services, with inadequate direct support for Capacity Building, Governance Skills Training and other secretariat functions that are essential services for remote Indigenous community-controlled organisations. One assumption, for example, is that communities have grant writers on hand who don’t need to be paid out of some bucket of program money or tied grant funds linked to government KPIs. My job over many years has been writing grants, and the community in Tjuntjuntjara can not really afford my time to liaise with agencies in the vain hope that they will see merit in the proposals we develop and fund community-led initiatives that are both recurrent and sustainable. But Board governance is both essential and fundamental to achieving outcomes: indeed, good governance and external and internal accountability is the Holy Grail as far as sustainable and resilient communities are concerned. Without adequate resources, it is tough for remote communities to be self-determining and take up the opportunities within the procurement supply chains offered by public and private sector agencies. The Department of Communities in WA is starting to research the issue as a matter of urgency as living conditions in remote and isolated communities deteriorate and community safety is impacted. My point here is simple: internal and external accountability has a cost. It is not sufficient to assume that all indigenous corporations have access to funding to pay for these costs, including Chief Executive Officers. Remote communities are different from local government authorities that have a rate base from residents. Governments tend to want to align their Federal or State program objectives and KPIs to grant opportunities that, in some instances, create more of an administrative burden than a useful investment in Closing the Gap. The assumption, and I am guessing here, is that agencies know what is needed and take for granted the capacity and skills needed to self-govern and meet the stringent internal and external requirements for accountability and outcomes. I would argue that Indigenous self-determination is a liberal imperative because it is based on the recognition of the inherent rights and dignity of Indigenous peoples, as well as on the principles of justice, democracy, pluralism and tolerance that are central to Australian political culture. Indigenous self-determination and better Board governance are the most effective ways to enhance the legitimacy and responsiveness of remote community-controlled organisations to the needs and aspirations of their members. CORPORATE VERSUS COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? Clearly, both corporate and community governance are essential for ensuring the practical and ethical management of organisations and their assets and resources. However, they have different purposes, principles, and practices that reflect their different contexts and stakeholder requirements. Perhaps the best way to view the difference is the degree to which Corporate Governance and Community Governance are oriented externally and internally – the former can be more focused on government-funded programs and services, while the latter is about social cohesion, local leadership, resilience and a social licence to operate. Without a social licence to operate, local Boards can become delegitimised and unsupported, a common situation where operational needs soak up all the human resources and Boards become dysfunctional. Corporate governance and community governance are thus two different concepts that relate to how organisations are directed and controlled. Corporate governance is the rules, practices, and processes by which an organisation is established, managed and controlled. It involves balancing the interests of financial interests, government agencies and community stakeholders, such as service providers, staff and senior management, customers, suppliers, government agencies, and the other local community stakeholders and organisations that deliver services to residents. Community governance, on the other hand, is a community-level engagement and decision-making process that is undertaken by, with, or on behalf of a whole community by a group of community leaders and champions. It usually refers to community participation, engagement and decision-making in public matters. It is related to social cohesion, engagement, community development and local governance, including building social capital, supporting local family ties, and bringing people together for participation in community affairs. One of the main differences between corporate and community governance is the focus on the ‘community’ rather than on a corporation’s vested interests, organisation, local government or the public sector agencies that tie grant funds to their program objectives. Community governance aims to address community needs and build community capacity and well-being. In contrast, corporate governance seeks to ensure the accountability and performance of a Corporation under the CATSI Act or State legislation depending on its constitution or Rules. Another difference is the type of governance structures that support each concept. Corporate governance is typically based on a hierarchical structure of boards, committees, and executives with defined roles and responsibilities. Community governance is more flexible and can involve various models and perspectives, such as cultural safety, community meetings and forums, internal or unofficial authority structures and most importantly, traditional status hierarchies and cultural authority. Network governance is a form of horizontal coordination among autonomous actors who share common goals or interests. Community sector governance is the governance of organisations that operate in the community sector, such as non-government organisations (NGOs), charities, social enterprises, and cooperatives. INDIRECT COST MODELS FOR FINANCIAL GOVERNANCE A key goal ought to be securing more revenue and calculating a reasonable indirect cost % that funding agencies accept is needed to sustain the workforce and capacity required to function effectively. According to my web search results, some typical indirect costs in a not-for-profit organisation providing community services are: IT, finance, human resources, learning and development, measurement and evaluation, governance, planning and compliance1 Utilities, premises and equipment costs, information and communications technology, the cost of recruiting, training, professionally developing and supervising staff, workplace health and safety requirements, and financial management and accounting2 Administration, board meetings, general liability insurance, and other costs associated with running the organisation as a whole3 Indirect costs are incurred by an organisation that cannot be directly and easily attributed to a specific project1. They are also known as overheads or shared organisational costs4. Indirect costs are essential for the effective functioning and sustainability of a not-for-profit organisation, but they are often underfunded or overlooked by funders154. You could count CEOs, Board Corporation Secretaries and Director Sitting Fees in this mix, along with finance, IT and HR costs. Equally, someone has to contribute toward renting and maintaining assets and offices, something that is often lost on some funding agencies that think remote Indigenous corporations have a bottomless pit of money to sustain these indirect costs without their acceptance of the surcharge. In Tjuntjuntjara the community doesn’t even have a training coordinator or TAFE presence so the assumption is that the Aboriginal workforce will be trained and skilled by staff who are usually neither specialists in vocational training with a Cert IV TAE qualification or funded by TAFE to facilitate professional development. The essential building blocks: a Grant Writer or two competent administration effective reporting quality management systems and administration for risk, compliance, asset management, policies and procedures, incident management, CQI and accreditation and auditing sufficient grants to leverage 20% indirect cost model to pay for corporate services, CEO and non-grant funded human resources good connectivity, telcoms and IT support community, cultural and staff safety measures to sustain a viable workforce in remote contexts etc. A brief disclaimer: none of these items guarantees success. An organisation’s culture and mentoring or support capacity for retention of quality staff is as important internally as the relationships with funding bodies are externally. High staff turnover and the risk of hiring people without remote experience must be weighed against the challenges of remote recruitment and staffing essential services. Too often, one gets traded against the other, and the social licence to operate can be eroded by inattention to community and corporate governance as the foundations for self-determination and community control. To be continued …………… “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. ”― Archimedes Quote by Archimedes: “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on wh...” (goodreads.com) Community Resources Community Work Uncategorized