Regeneration Fund - outcomes questionnaire

Outcome one: Improved sustainability and resilience of the arts, culture and heritage sectors

We want to support initiatives that:

• have wide reach within the arts, culture and/or heritage sectors
• make a real difference to sustainability and capability of the sector
• have strong support from the sector.

Precedents set by the Panel – Round One Evaluation

Please be clear on whose ‘sustainability and resilience’ the initiative will directly impact and answer all three questions with a focus on the same group of people or organisations.     

For example, if the reach of the initiative (question one) is rated as ‘District’, then the depth of the impact on sustainability and resilience (question two) must relate to the ‘District’ too. A lot of initiatives have answered ‘District’ or ‘Nationwide’ to question one because their organisation serves a regional audience or supports people across the country and have then answered question two in terms of the impact on their own organisation (rather than the whole District).  

The reach claimed in question one will be used to test the impact claimed in question two, and the level of support claimed in question three. It will often be better for initiatives to be modest in their answer to question one so that they can claim higher impact and support in questions two and three.

1. What reach does your initiative have?

This question explores how widely the initiative’s benefits will be felt by people and organisations in the arts, culture and heritage sectors. For example, will your initiative benefit the arts sector across Aotearoa New Zealand, people and organisations within a specific sector (for example performing arts or toi whakairo), or will it mainly benefit your organisation or a small community group.

1. Nationwide / cross sector
2. District / regional system or sector
3. Large collective / community / sub-sector
4. Small collective / town
5. Organisation / Community group

2. To what extent will your initiative increase sustainability and capability?

This question explores how much of a difference your initiative will make to the sustainability and capability of those it will reach. For example, your initiative might provide new tools that enable a large collective of arts organisations to generate the revenue they need to be sustainable long-term. 

1. Significant shift over the long-term
2. Moderate shift over the long-term
3. Significant shift over short to medium term
4. Moderate shift over short to medium term
5. Minor shift

3. What level of support does your initiative have?

This question explores the level of support your initiative has from the people and organisations that are expected to benefit. This could include recognised representatives of this group. For example, an initiative might be strongly supported by a small collective of arts organisations who have been fully involved in the design and development.

1. Strong support – including full involvement of people who will benefit
2. Well supported – including strong involvement of people who will benefit
3. Supported – including representation of people who will benefit
4. Some support – including engagement of people who will benefit
5. Limited support outside of organisation

Outcome two: Improved safeguarding of Mātauranga Māori and/or support of Toi Māori

We want to support kaupapa led by Kaitiaki (custodians) and Ringatoi Māori (practitioners), for and on behalf of iwi, hapū, hapori Māori, to safeguard their vulnerable Mātauranga through initiatives that strengthen Taonga Tuku Iho and Toi Māori infrastructure – including people, places, systems and tools.

Precedents set by the Panel – Round One Evaluation

Proposals that showed a strong contribution to this outcome were able to clearly show the relationship between vulnerability (question five) and governance (question four). For example, if the mātauranga is highly vulnerable (e.g. to a particular hapū or marae), the governance arrangement should reflect this and involve the people who have kaitiakitanga over that specific, highly vulnerable mātauranga.   

Initiatives relating to vulnerable mātauranga will almost certainly need to answer A or B for question four (who is leading the initiative). We have no appetite for risk in this area – and will rigorously test whether initiatives relating to protecting vulnerable mātauranga have people involved that will be trusted and supported by Māori. Tangible evidence on clarity of roles and how they relate to the governance, delivery, and leadership of the kaupapa will often be sought.

4. Ko Wai? Who is leading the initiative?

This question explores the degree to which the appropriate Kaitiaki or Ringatoi Māori are involved in the initiative.

1. Led by Kaitiaki, Ringatoi Māori who have tino rangatiratanga over Taonga
2. Kaitiaki, Ringatoi Māori are in governance roles, significant involvement and support
3. Kaitiaki, Ringatoi Māori are actively involved in the delivery of the initiative
4. Māori-advised
5. Delivered on behalf of Māori

5. Te Puna Mātauranga? How vulnerable is the Mātauranga Māori involved in your initiative?

This question explores the vulnerability of the Mātauranga Māori that is involved in your Taonga Tuku Iho or Toi Māori initiative. For the purposes of this fund, ‘Extremely vulnerable’ is where there are very few Kaitiaki, Pūkenga, Kaumātua, Tohunga who hold the Mātauranga. ‘Low vulnerability’ is where the Mātauranga is held by many and widely available and is therefore considered secure.

1. Extremely vulnerable
2. Highly vulnerable
3. Vulnerable
4. Some vulnerability
5. Low vulnerability

6. Ki hea? To what degree does your initiative strengthen and sustain Taonga Tuku Iho and Toi Māori Infrastructure?

This question explores the level of sustainability and impact of your initiative on the strengthening of Taonga Tuku Iho and Toi Māori Infrastructure (people, places, systems and tools). For example, recognised Pūkenga supported to train the next generation of practitioners in an endangered artform or a cultural mapping project to record the kōrero associated with wāhi tūpuna may result in a significant long-term impact. Ringatoi upskilled in e-commerce may have a medium-term impact.

1. Significant long-term impact.
2. Significant medium-term impact.
3. Some medium-term impact.
4. Short-term impact.
5. Limited impact.

Outcome three: Improved access and participation in the arts, culture and heritage sectors

We want to support initiatives that:

• grow audiences
• address barriers to access and participation
• represent and engage more New Zealanders in arts, culture and heritage.

Participation is about enabling people to engage in the creation, development and/or delivery of arts, culture and heritage. Access is about enabling people to attend, experience or view arts, culture and heritage.

Precedents set by the Panel – Round One Evaluation

Proposals that showed a strong contribution to this outcome were able to clearly and explicitly evidence the barriers that were being removed or lowered by their initiative.    

These barriers were related to both:  

• Participation - how they would enable people to overcome barriers to their engagement in the creation, development or delivery of arts, culture and heritage; and  
• Access - how they would enable people to overcome barriers to attend, experience or view arts, culture and heritage.  

The groups of people selected as being able to participate (question seven) or access (question nine) an initiative needs to be the same group that will see the impact of this participation (question eight) or access (question ten).   

For example, if you indicate that 500 people will have barriers to access removed, your selected impact (i.e., significant and sustainable) would need to happen for ALL of those 500 people.

7. How many people will be supported to participate in arts, culture and heritage?

This question explores how many people, who currently experience barriers to participating in the arts, culture and heritage, will be able to actively and meaningfully participate because of your initiative.

1. More than 100
2. 50 – 99
3. 25 – 49
4. 10 – 24
5. Less than 10

8. How significant will the impact be on participation?

This question explores how significant your initiative will be in benefitting those who will be supported to participate. It considers how significant the barrier is, how much the initiative can reduce or remove the barriers, and how long the change will be maintained.

1. Significant, sustained change
2. Significant change lasting the life of initiative
3. Moderate, sustained change
4. Moderate change lasting the life of initiative
5. One off / short term change

9. How many people will be able to access arts, culture and heritage?

This question explores how many people, who currently experience barriers to accessing arts, culture and heritage, will be able to have meaningful access because of the initiative.

Examples of things to help people overcome barriers might be including sign language interpretation in digital media; or providing free transport to help children in rural areas to visit heritage sites.

1. More than 1000
2. 500 – 999
3. 100 – 499
4. 10 – 99
5. Fewer than 10

10. How significant will the impact be on access?

This question explores how significant your initiative will be for access. It considers how significant the barrier being addressed is, how much your initiative will be able to reduce or remove the barriers, and how long the change will be maintained.

1. Significant, sustained change
2. Significant change lasting the life of initiative
3. Moderate, sustained change
4. Moderate change lasting the life of initiative
5. One off / short term change

Outcome four: Increased use of arts, culture and heritage as a tool to improve wellbeing

We want to support initiatives that use arts, culture, and heritage to provide wellbeing outcomes for New Zealanders, and strengthen the arts culture and heritage sector’s ability to deliver wellbeing initiatives in the future.

We are using the broad wellbeing domains in the Treasury Living Standards Framework.  

Precedents set by the Panel – Round One Evaluation

Proposals that showed a strong contribution to this outcome were able to clearly evidence the depth of experience in the wellbeing space and how this would be significant. The Panel were looking for initiatives scoring highly in this outcome to be transformational experiences for those involved.    

The Panel recognised the short-term positive wellbeing impacts that people get from attending an event, experiencing an artwork, or attending a wananga. However, the Panel only considered initiatives as having long-term, significant positive wellbeing impacts if the people involved were engaged over a considerable amount of time – e.g. many, many hours of support or positive experiences.    

As with the other outcomes, it is important to remember that the group of people you select in question eleven (how many people benefit) should be the same group experiencing the impact, described in question twelve– noting that different people experience wellbeing benefits differently. For example, if you select 500 people as having wellbeing impact from your initiative over weeks or months, your selected impact (i.e. significant and sustained) would need to happen for ALL those 500 people.

11. How many people will have improved wellbeing because of your initiative?

This question explores the scale and impact of your initiative by understanding the number of people who are expected to benefit from your initiative. For example, your initiative might support 20 people to spend more time doing activities that strengthen cultural identity over the coming years. 

1. More than 1000
2. 500 – 999
3. 100 – 499
4. 10 – 99
5. Fewer than 10

12. What is the depth of wellbeing benefits resulting from your initiative?

This question explores the improvement in wellbeing that will be achieved for those who are expected to benefit, and how long the improvement will be sustained. For example, activities that strengthen cultural identity over years are likely to support experiences of a significant and sustained improvement in wellbeing, whereas people enjoying a show will experience a short-term wellbeing benefit.

1. Significant and sustained improvement in wellbeing
2. Significant increases in wellbeing - with medium-term benefits
3. Moderate increases in wellbeing - with medium-term benefits
4. Minor increases in wellbeing - with short to medium-term benefits
5. Short-term wellbeing benefits

Outcome five: Increased employment and skill development opportunities

We want to support initiatives that will create new and sustainable jobs. We also want to support initiatives that help people in the sector to develop the skills they need to be successful and achieve their goals.

Precedents set by the Panel – Round One Evaluation

Proposals that showed a strong contribution to this outcome were able to clearly evidence the employment opportunities that were being created and the skill development opportunities that were being delivered, for those who work or practice in the arts, culture and heritage sectors.

As with other outcomes, it is important to remember that the group of people you select in question thirteen and fifteen should be the same group of people experiencing the impact described in questions fourteen and sixteen. For example, if you select 100 people as building skills because of your initiative, your selected impact (i.e. broad, in-depth learning – sustained change) would need to happen for ALL of those 100 people.

When considering the level of impact your initiative will have on skill development, the panel were clear that for an initiative to have a ‘Broad’ impact would require education on a wide range of subjects across multiple disciplines or topics, and ‘In-depth’ would require long-term engagement and learning by the attendees (months and years).

13. How many jobs will be created?

This question explores the number of jobs in the arts, culture and heritage sectors that will be involved in the delivery of your initiative, as well as jobs that will potentially be created because of the initiative.

Please include all jobs – even if they are short-term or part-time.

1. More than 100
2. Up to 100
3. Up to 50
4. Up to 25
5. Up to 10

14. What kind of jobs will be created?

This question explores the sorts of jobs that will be created by the initiative – whether they are new or existing, or short and long-term.

1. Mostly new sustainable jobs (years)
2. Mostly new medium-term jobs (months)
3. Extends existing jobs, medium term / sustainably (months / years)
4. Mostly new short term (days/weeks)
5. Extends existing jobs short-term (days/weeks)

15. How many people will develop their skills?

This question explores the number of people who will develop skills because of your initiative. This might include on the job learning, targeted training opportunities, or other capability building opportunities.

1. More than 1000
2. 500 – 999
3. 100 – 499
4. 10 – 99
5. Fewer than 10

16. What impact will your initiative have on skills?

This question explores the breadth and depth of the training your initiative will deliver, and how sustainable the change is that should result from the training. 

For example, will your initiative deliver in-depth skills development across a broad range of topics – will it lead to a significant and sustained increase in attendee’s skills? Or will it provide high-level learning that will enhance an attendee’s understanding of the relevant topic?

1. Broad, in-depth learning - sustained change.
2. Focussed, in depth learning - sustained change
3. Learning which builds moderate skills and understanding of a topic
4. Broad high-level learning - enhanced understanding of a range of topics
5. Focussed high level learning -enhanced understanding of topic