Sustainable funding remains one of the central challenges shaping the delivery of services across Australia’s veteran support sector, where governments, ex-service organisations, philanthropic funders and community organisations each play a role in meeting complex and evolving needs. As demand for evidence-based programs continues to grow, questions around who should fund innovation, who should sustain proven services, and how long-term stability can be achieved are becoming increasingly important for organisations, families and policymakers seeking lasting outcomes.
My favourite advocacy tool, when working in the non-profit space, was to identify a gap, build a program to fill it, find the sustainable funding needed to prove it worked, and then push back on Government: if this support was needed, why did we have to build and fund it before Government stepped in?
Never one to mince words, the Royal Commission submission that I wrote on behalf of the ESO I was working for back in 2023 spoke to this point, stating that Government should be funding our programs and supports, but “…until then, [we] will continue to shake tins on the street and try to raise the funds to do so in their place.”
A perspective shaped from both sides of the funding table
I’ve worked or volunteered for many non-profits over the course of my career, and am a big enough nerd that I also spent some time doing some post-grad studies to underpin my practical experience with theoretical knowledge. It’s been an interesting background to come into Government with. As the primary grant-writer for my ESO, this meant that on Friday I was madly writing and shooting off last-minute grant applications, and on Monday I was sitting in the Commissioner’s seat.
I feel a duty at this point to state that I have no influence or control over which grants get funded, but regardless, it’s a bit irrelevant as I’ve never been overly successful in writing grant applications to Government. Philanthropic bodies and corporates I’m great at, but with Government, my success rate is much lower.
Maybe my favourite advocacy tool was great for finding gaps, building programs, and driving policy change – but not necessarily for understanding how Government approaches funding decisions. Could my ego possibly let me believe that I’m the one that’s wrong?
So perhaps, with this self-declared chip on my shoulder, this is why I came into the Commissioner role ready to (and I quote, from a meeting I had with the Minister early on) “burn the grants structure to the ground.”
Rethinking the role of government funding
One of the first things I did was get to work digging into the grants section of the Department straight away with questions. What I found was a grants team that was really kind and giving of their time. The entire team took a whole day out of their schedule to sit with me and talk me through the different funding structures as they stand.
Partnerships, commemorative grants, wellbeing grants, organisations that had secured funding through long-standing election commitments. I honestly didn’t realise how many amazing programs were being funded. As Family Commissioner, I really try and stay in my lane, but I couldn’t help but look over at the veteran programs that were being supported by the grants too.
Another hit for the ego. I realised I was wrong. Well, partly anyway. So, here’s where I began to think about the role of Government in the establishment of programs and support services in the veteran space. Like I say, I’m fairly well-versed in the role of non-profits (or, the “third sector” as us nerds call it) in seed-funding novel concepts and new ideas.
One of the upsides of being terrible at securing government funding was that we became very self-sufficient in becoming self-sustainable with a diverse funding portfolio. In my view, that’s also part of the responsibility of the sector. Grants are important, but no organisation can build a sustainable future by relying on a single source of funding alone.
Sure, we shook tins on the street, but we also ran great fundraising campaigns, had a fantastic bequest or program, secured corporate sponsorships and also long-term funding from some major philanthropic organisations (something I was very proud of, because it’s really hard to do… I had to write that because my ego needed a little boost somewhere in this piece!).
What mattered wasn’t just bringing money in. It was building enough diversity into our funding model that if one stream disappeared, the programs and services our families relied on wouldn’t disappear with it. This meant that we could guarantee that our programs and services could continue, even if we lost support from one of these areas.
Who should fund innovation and long-term support?
For our families, what this meant was assurance that they could rely on us long term. For those (like me) who have lived through the trust deficit that grows when your life falls apart, being able to rely on an organisation to be there tomorrow, next year and five years from now is massive.
My question is, can Government do the same? Or rather, should Government do the same? In running programs and supports, there are two phases: There’s the concept-to-reality phase of building a program from scratch. Impact data is limited, and while you can prove a gap in the market or a demonstrated need, you can’t guarantee that the intervention will be correct.
Then there’s the long-term running phase. You know this program works. You can show the outcomes to prove that it’s the right intervention. You’ve got case studies and impact data to support the continuation of it.
So, who is responsible for what? Is Government responsible for providing the seed funding to try new things? Should Government be providing the safety to try and fail (but learn something)?
Or, should Government be responsible for providing long-term funding for already proven programs and supports? And if so, who decides what to fund, and how do we mitigate complacency (I say “we” here, because that’s something we are all responsible for)?
Or, is there a third option here? Should all our services be sustainable, regardless of where the funding comes from? Does government play a funding role alongside other funding streams. And is there a more important function that Government can play here, one that is more along the lines of strong referral pathways and imbedded working arrangements, rather than funding programs that they never actually promote.
If you’d asked me this time last year, I would have been adamant that the roles were pretty clear. The third sector provides the seed funding, and Government provides the long-term support. But, coming from an organisation that made a successful go at being self-sustainable, and now I’ve seen things from both sides of the fence, I’m not so sure.
