Applicant's guidelines - Community Projects

Community grants are made by InternetNZ to further the objects of the Society. In doing so, grant recipients are, through their work, helping to advance our charitable purpose. 

The principles that govern the InternetNZ Community Grants and the Community Grants Policy Framework can be found here.

Community Projects Grant criteria

Assessment criteria are evenly weighted between the following criteria:

Alignment with purpose (weighted at 40%)

    This criterion relates to the extent to which the project is aligned with the project round purpose and related community goals and objectives. Applicants are asked to:

    1. Explain how the project matches the InternetNZ purpose for the community grants round.
    2. Identify any engagement within the community relevant to this project and explain how this project can help address community goals and objectives.

    Potential Benefit (weighted at 30%)

      With this criterion, the committee is assessing the outcomes and potential benefit of the projects, including value for money. Applicants are asked to:

      1. Give an indication of the expected project outcomes and the impact of those outcomes.
      2. Identify any potential benefits to communities, disadvantaged groups or segments of the population (government, business, users, etc).
      3. Identify how and to what extent this is addressing community needs and how those have been clearly identified.
      4. Identify the project’s relationship to any other related projects.
      5. Describe what makes this project different or innovative.
      6. Identify the project’s ongoing commitment and viability, if any.

      Likelihood of success (weighted at 30%)

        With this criterion, the committee is trying to understand the likelihood of the project being successfully completed, towards delivering the outcomes and benefits intended. Applicants are asked to:

        1. Show clearly how this project will be implemented.
        2. Outline your approach and management of any ethical considerations.
        3. Provide evidence of the commitment of others, especially involved or affected groups or communities, including any co-funding or in-kind backing from others and what commitment exists.
        4. Where possible, describe the experience of the people applying, i.e. a successful track record of implementing projects of this kind.
        5. State what qualifications the applicants have that are relevant to the requirements of the project.

        Assessment of grant applications

        Projects Community Grants Round decisions are made on a contestable basis, with many applications being compared against each other. The process that applications go through involves InternetNZ staff providing information about each application to the InternetNZ Council’s Grants Committee, or an Assessment Committee they convene for Grant Round. That Committee carries out the assessment and the Grants Committee makes recommendations to the InternetNZ Council for final decision making. In order to be considered for funding, applications must have an alignment to the objects of InternetNZ including “to maintain and extend the availability of the Internet and its associated technologies and applications in New Zealand, both as an end in itself and as means of enabling organisations, professionals and individuals to more effectively collaborate, cooperate, communicate and innovate in their respective fields of interest."

          Assessment process steps are:

          1. Applications are first assessed in Stage 1, via a short application form (see form below) that should take no longer than 30 minutes to complete, for completeness and compliance with the round conditions by InternetNZ staff. InternetNZ staff then provide applications and background information from the applicants to the Grants Committee for applications which meet these requirements.
          2. Stage 1 applications are assessed by InternetNZ staff and the Grants Committee to ensure fit with the InternetNZ purpose for the community grants round. Those that fit the purpose are assessed by the Grants Committee or an Assessment Committee they convene and scored against each of the criteria above.
          3. Stage 1 applications are then ranked on their scores against the criteria. Applications which score below a minimum level set by the Grants Committee will not be eligible for funding and will be advised accordingly. Detailed Stage 2 applications are invited from other applicants. The committee may suggest that two or more applicants might benefit from working together in a joint application but the decision to take up this suggestion lies with the applicants.
          4. Full applications received in Stage 2 are then assessed by the Grants Committee or an Assessment Committee they convene and scored against each of the criteria.
          5. Once all proposals have been assessed and scored, those that score below a minimum level will not be eligible for funding and will be advised accordingly.
          6. The remaining proposals are ranked in groups according to their scores and will be recommended for approval in sequence until all the available funds have been allocated. Recommendations will then be made to the InternetNZ Council, as the final decisionmaking body.
          7. The Grants Committee reserves the right to take into account any concentration of proposals as part of its final recommendations to the InternetNZ Council. The committee may decide to adjust the ranking list among comparably scored proposals to achieve this balance. A clear decision trail will be visible on any occasion where this proves necessary.
          8. Applicants who are successful will then be contacted and advised that their project is eligible for funding and agreement is then reached over issues like reporting before final confirmation. In the event, that agreement cannot be reached the next ranked proposal may become eligible for funding.
          9. The remaining applicants who are not successful at this stage will be advised that their project is “potentially fundable but there are insufficient funds available”. These applications may be resubmitted in future community project funding rounds.