The Impact of Funding Modalities on the Performance of Indigenous Organisations

Abstract

Governments’ choice of funding modality can produce powerful incentives for organisations to perform in preferred ways, but it can also divert limited resources, narrow accountability, and undermine capability. Through literature review and interviews, the research explored the international literature on public finance management in developing country contexts, and compared this to case studies of Indigenous organisations. The situation in Australia was found to differ in three ways: (1) performance indicators are imposed, rather than negotiated; (2) few existing public funding modalities reward performance or provide incentives; and (3) funding arrangements do not generally require receiving organisations to be accountable to their constituents. Stability and durability of funding modalities, and clarity in functions and jurisdictional boundaries, were also found to positively influence performance. Further research is required to design new performance frameworks that build around the organisation, rather than the grant, with indicators of governance capability and downward accountability to constituents.

Complexity and hybrid effects in the delivery and evaluation of youth programmes in a remote Indigenous community

“…Remote Indigenous communities are, in this manner, predominantly financed through public monies (Moran & Porter, ). This typically occurs through programmes (where performance indicators are imposed by the funder) rather than through grants (which enable a greater degree of organisational and community influence over expenditure; Moran, Porter, & Curth‐Bibb, ).…”

Building capacity in indigenous governance: Comparing the Australian and American experiences

“…But Empowered Communities has achieved little traction in policy; although the Commonwealth is providing support for its regional‐level organization, it has not committed to the structural reforms sought by regional leaders, and results remain indeterminate (Empowered Communities; https://empoweredcommunities.org.au/). The Australian system thus seems to inhibit the emergence of local decision‐making, and problems of fragmentation are magnified by the contested contracting practices through which Indigenous corporations are required to administer service delivery under the oversight of the Commonwealth (see relatedly Moran, Porter, & Curth‐Bibb, , p. 360).…”

“…Indigenous corporations also have to compete with non‐Indigenous service providers in many areas of contracting (Moran & Porter, , p. 118; Moran et al., , p. 361). Contracts are structured, not with Indigenous capacity building in mind, but instead to support a service sector of competing providers.…”

“…Contracts are structured, not with Indigenous capacity building in mind, but instead to support a service sector of competing providers. Moreover, contracts are often narrowly tailored, with a focus on deliverable results that can be easily measured rather than criteria that would favour a local contender, such as local discretion and knowledge and maintaining a representative constituency (Moran & Porter, , p. 122; Moran et al., , p. 361). In the absence of plausible competition, this incentive structure works to dampen creativity among the small number of available organizations.…”

The effect of stakeholder culture on managers’ perceptions of stakeholder attributes in Australian not‐for‐profit organizations

“…As Moran et al. () argue, governments’ choice of, and changes in, funding modality not only influence NFPs’ behaviour but also affect their understanding and management of accountability relationships.…”