grant criteria

---

The Board assesses proposals against the grant criteria found on this website. These criteria are listed below and their associated scores follow.

1.  Has the organisation included in their application an audited report for the previous 12 months or bank statements and receipts for all expenditure over the previous 12 months? If yes, then score +1. If no, then score -1. If not indicated, score -1. 

2.  Has the organisation received government funds during the previous 12 months as shown in the financial report? If yes, then score -1. If no, then score +1. If not indicated, then score -1. 

3.   Does this project ask to fund water supply, grass cutting, landscaping (except planting of native trees), or projects that are only a temporary band-aid measure, don’t address the cause of a problem and require an endless, continuous input of funds to achieve the goal e.g. clearing of invasive vines or rubbish clean-ups? If yes, then score -1. If no, then score +1. If not indicated, then score -1. 

4.  How well does the NGO project meet one or more of the three broad outcomes we want to fund?  For each project provide a score with +3 for "very well", +2 for "moderately well", +1 for "somewhat well", -1 for "somewhat poorly", -2 for "moderately poorly" and -1 for "very poorly".  Broad Outcomes we want to fund are: 

a. Education about litter, eco-development, the importance of biodiversity, mindful consumerism, green lifestyles, traditional knowledge

b. Improved understanding about our biodiversity through scientific research

c. Planting of rare native trees for shade, nutrient uptake and to prevent soil erosion and flooding 

5.  How clearly has the NGO outlined the planned use of funds? For each project provide a score with +3 for "very clear", +2 for "moderately clear", +1 for "somewhat clear", -1 for "somewhat unclear", -2 for "moderately unclear" and -1 for "very unclear". 

The more criteria a project meets, the higher it scores. 

Only one of the organisations (Te Matie Ethical Care) that submitted a proposal in 2021 was registered under the Incorporated Societies Act and so enjoyed an advantage over the other organisations for being membership-based and having transparency under the Act. None of the organisations provided an audited financial report for the previous three years so they all scored poorly on this account. While we'll be changing this criterion slightly for future years, it's important to maintain a standard, at least so that all Cook Islands NGOs adopt good financial management practices. Our new criterion will be that the organisation must provide a financial report for the previous 12 months either audited or with copies of receipts and bank statements. 

All of the projects except one involved some sort of planting. The criteria allows for projects focussed on planting but only for the planting of rare native trees. The one project that didn't involve planting was about marine debris. The criteria does not allow for rubbish clean-ups, but assessment and education about marine debris fits under the broad outcome of education about litter, so they were still scored positively.

The projects that expressed the intention of planting rare native trees and combined this with education and scientific research scored best. The more criteria a project met, the higher it scored. So, the permaculture projects scored well not only because they involved education and scientific research, but by their nature, they are about eco-development, the importance of biodiversity, mindful consumerism, green lifestyles, traditional knowledge, valuing trees for shade, nutrient uptake and the prevention of soil erosion and flooding. 

The marine litter projects and the first of the three permaculture projects scored best on the last criterion because they clearly stated their intended use of funds.