New Funding Data
Fundsorter has carried out the first comprehensive analysis of contestable grant funding in New Zealand
We reviewed nearly 2,000 opportunities across 37 broad categories. The result is a live census revealing explicit funding priorities across the motu.
Environmental priorities rising to the top
Environmental issues are a focus of the funding landscape. Biodiversity and conservation feature in 15.7 % of funding opportunities, while climate change is mentioned in 13%.
Rebecca Mills, CEO of The Lever Room says the findings are heartening: “Historically, around 96 percent of NZ’s grant funding has gone to social causes, with only about 4 percent supporting those working on nature or climate … covering our entire ocean and terrestrial space. It’s great to see funders are starting to recognise the value and importance of this work.”
Pip Wheaton, convenor and co-founder of The Climatics, believes this signals a deeper cultural shift: “For a long time we’ve known that Kiwis care about climate change. It’s brilliant to see this data and a clear indicator of positive intention … Now we can have robust conversations about what it takes to turn that intention into money going to support climate change organisations in Aotearoa.”
Family and sexual violence: underfunded and overlooked
At the other end of the spectrum, the picture is stark. Only 0.7 percent of funds explicitly mention family or sexual violence. Gavin Healy, General Manager of Help@Hand, says the lack of focus on family violence is alarming: “Domestic and sexual violence in Aotearoa isn’t just a crisis – it’s a chronic public health emergency … yet less than 1 percent of funds explicitly prioritise family and sexual violence.”
He points out that the social and economic toll is immense: ACC estimates sexual violence alone costs around $6.9 billion a year. “The impacts are far-reaching … when children live in constant fear, there’s a biological trade-off between development and survival. It’s the first domino in a multitude of social problems … Investing in their safety should be a priority as it’s an investment in the future of New Zealand itself.”
Rainbow Communities missing out
Only 1.3% of funding in Aotearoa currently prioritises rainbow communities, despite 1 in 10 New Zealanders identifying as LGBTQIA+. Tabby Besley, founder and Managing Director of InsideOUT says;
“Rainbow communities in Aotearoa experience disproportionately high rates of mental health challenges, social exclusion, discrimination and violence as well as economic challenges in areas like housing and employment. Data shows this is one of the most vulnerable population groups in Aotearoa - yet we are too often left behind.
Naming rainbow communities as a priority is an easy way for funders to acknowledge these significant disparities that face rainbow communities. While Fundsorter’s insights aren’t surprising, they are extremely disappointing and demonstrate a need for change. This data should act as an opportunity for funders to centre more of our most marginalised populations in Aotearoa in their priorities.”
General Funding supports community self-determination
Around 30 percent of funds are broad in scope, supporting a wide range of categories. Katie Bruce, Co-CEO of Hui E! believes that is a good thing: “We are encouraged by the large percentage of funding (approx 30%) open to communities to determine what is needed, and equally concerned that targeted funding for communities who are doing it hardest is so low.”
Patrick Gemmell, Hui E! Co-CEO also points to the low percentage of funding open for tangata whenua and encourage funders to “connect with community infrastructure in Aotearoa - the over 700 marae - and learn from how communities about how they work holistically and intergenerationally across many of these different categories.”
What’s next?
Our hope is that Fundsorter’s data – updated regularly – will help funders, policymakers and community groups make informed decisions.
The data will be regularly updated and we’ll share quarterly snapshots to track changes and trends over time. In the future we also plan to layer in additional data: what communities say they most need funding for (derived from user queries in our system), versus where grant dollars actually end up (using public and voluntary reporting). This could help to highlight further mismatches between grassroots need, funder intent, and funding delivered – guiding strategy, policy and advocacy - and the more customers we have, the better the data will be.