Common reasons for unsuccessful applications in Quick Response grants

Based upon Quick Response funding round (closing date 4 February 2009)

In the first round for the new contestable funding system, Creative New Zealand received a high number of applications totalling 214 and seeking nearly $ 1.3 million. Each application was carefully assessed and 78 projects were offered grants totalling $ 466,073. We were able to fund approximately one in three projects, or 36 % of the total dollar request.

As is the case with every funding round, some worthwhile projects miss out on grants because there isn’t enough funding available. In other cases applications were not offered funding as they did not have a strong enough match with the criteria provided in the Contestable Funding Guide: Ngā Pūtea and application forms, or they did not present a strong enough case for delivering CNZ’s strategic results. Based on feedback from programme advisers, we’ve identified some of the common issues with applications and some ways you can improve your application.

When completing an application, we recommend that you follow the Contestable Funding Guide: Ngā Pūtea, available on-line or in hard copy. This resource lists the information needed to make a strong application. We also advise contacting a programme administrator if you have any queries or need help with understanding the information.

1) Information about your project idea
Some applications didn’t provide enough relevant information about the project. This meant that staff couldn’t fully assess the artistic quality or the potential for the project to be realised.

2) Information about the processes
Some applications did not include clear timeframes or detailed information about how they were going to achieve their aims. Others requested funding for projects that began before Creative New Zealand had made its funding decisions.

3) The People
Some applications did not include artistic CVs for the key people or support letters from proposed partners indicating their willingness to be involved in the project.

4) Budgets
Some applications included budgets that didn’t provide enough information or were inaccurate. Sometimes the requested amount for funding didn’t appear to have any relationship to the budget.

5) Strategic priorities
All applications needed to have identified up to two Creative New Zealand results and convincingly described how the project would achieve these results. The results must be selected from the set criteria either on the website or pages 20 to 22 in the Contestable Funding Guide: Ngā Pūtea).

Some applications:

• Did not identify a CNZ result (pages 20 -22 of the Contestable Funding Guide: Ngā Pūtea) but instead made up their own result
• Identified a CNZ result but did not choose one that was a strong fit for the project, sometimes confusing an eventual, long-term desired result with the aspect of the project they were seeking funding for
• Identified a CNZ result but did not make a strong enough case for how the project would deliver that result for CNZ
• Did not identify any result.

6) Cultural Diversity, Innovation and Community Arts Participation
These are strategic priorities for Creative New Zealand and applications should address these where relevant. .
Some applications did not refer to the Creative New Zealand definitions for these terms which can be found in the Contestable Funding Guide: Ngā Pūtea (pages 100-106). Please also see note 8 on Terminology below.

7) Support Material
Some applications didn’t provide sufficient or relevant support material. Some applicants sent the support material separate to the applications. Because of the volume of applications we receive and the tight time frames for processing applications, CNZ can’t guarantee to match support material with applications where it is sent in separately. We advise that all material should be sent together as one application.

The type of support material varies depending on the artform and the Contestable Funding Guide: Ngā Pūtea outlines what is required. The following common issues were noted:

• Dance: poor quality of video/DVD support material, or a failure to supply recordings of recent and relevant choreography
• Theatre: poor quality of video/DVD material
• Music: poor quality audio material or disc formats that couldn’t be assessed
• Visual Arts; images (where required) not relevant to project or of poor quality
• Letters of support (where relevant): in some cases they were not appropriate, not from the right people, or not recent. Where key practitioners are named in an application a letter of confirmation from each of these is necessary to verify their interest and availability in the project.

8) Terminology
Some applicants tried to show their project met the criteria or delivered a particular result without reference to the specific definitions of these key terms. The Glossary in the funding guide (pages 100-106) provides definitions of key terms used in the proposal template, assessment criteria and results sought, including definitions of ‘cultural diversity’, ‘innovation’, ‘community arts’, ‘young’ and ‘emerging/established artist’.

9) Applications to tour
For touring applications common issues were:

• Insufficient itinerary information (i.e. where and when you’re going, who you’re seeing and why, what you expect the benefits to be)
• Lack of confirmation of venues: NB a strong proposal includes letters or information to support the fact that the venue has been contacted and/or has confirmed your act
• Lack of reviews or support letters commenting on previous presentations of the work

To be successful your application must have:

• Clearly defined what you expected the project to achieve
• Demonstrated how you’ll complete your project within the time frame
• Identified key people and their credibility to carry out the project
• Provided credible financial information
• Identified how your project meets Creative New Zealand’s objectives (please refer to the Contestable Funding Guide: Ngā Pūtea and the Strategic Plan 2007-2010).