Associate Minister for Mental Health, Matt Doocey spoke recently in parliament about his plans to improve mental health for all New Zealanders, including the important work that community level support organisations do, and how he plans to improve their workforce capacity and the quantity of these services available to those who need them. A significant part this plan is the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund, about which the Associate Minister said:

"The Fund will help new and innovative mental health services to scale up the ongoing community need for access to better mental health and addiction support.

The Fund will offer an opportunity for non-governmental and community organisations to access funding. It will operate on a matched funding basis, with existing investment from community organisations matched by the government up to an agreed funding cap of $1M per year per initiative."

The fund is an important and valuable step towards improving the mental health and wellbeing of people in New Zealand. However the way it is structured ultimately makes it nearly impossible for small, grass roots community and peer-led organisations to access.

RSC organisations provide a range of support services, with a focus on nourishing the health of at-risk populations before people reach a point of crisis and need to turn to already under-resourced crisis and counselling services. Funding like this could enable RSC organisations to deliver:

• Development and delivery of information resources to promote wellbeing
• Expansion of peer support and counselling services
• Campaigns for cultural change around the issues negatively impacting the mental health of our communities
• Workforce training to mainstream providers of mental health services to improve their responsiveness and develop their capacity to meet the needs of rainbow people
• Workforce training in other sectors which influence mental health - such as sexual violence services, housing services (including emergency housing) and healthcare providers

While this fund states that it is seeking to achieve equitable outcomes for groups who have poorer mental health and addiction outcomes than the general population, the rainbow population is not named as a priority group. This is despite clear evidence that rainbow populations experience higher lifetime rates of distress and substance use, population-specific minority stressors, specific barriers to accessing services, and discrimination within services. Currently, mental health services do not routinely collect or report on outcomes for their rainbow clients. In turn, this contributes to a cycle of under-prioritisation of rainbow mental health, low levels of funding and a lack of specific requirements for rainbow competency, leading to service provision that does not meet rainbow needs. These barriers were acknowledged in the Mental Health and Addictions Inquiry, and have been demonstrated for years across a range of research. Without specifically naming rainbow populations as a specific priority for this fund, there is no incentive for respondents to prioritise rainbow people. It is likely that the only providers who would consider rainbow mental health needs would be rainbow-led community providers, such as those represented by our Collective.

The requirement to match the minimum threshold of $250,000 with funding from non-Government sources is extremely difficult, especially given there were just 30 days to register RFPs and many rainbow community organisations already depend on Government funding. Even for those of us with the largest cash reserves and largest philanthropic grants, this is a near insurmountable barrier.

Many community organisations already have an operating yearly budget of well under $1 million annually, so an additional quarter million dollars in funding would enable a substantial expansion of services, however, it is extremely difficult to create a comprehensive plan for such a significant expansion within the 30 day window given.

Furthermore, the fact that this fund is unable to cover administrative wages or overhead creates a massive barrier in that any organisation intending to apply would need to have the staffing and overhead already in place to commit to additional work worth at least a quarter million dollars a year. While perhaps some large and well established organisations are big enough to have all of that in place, it will do very little to help grassroots community level organisations, especially ones supporting smaller regional local communities.

Another big limitation of the extremely high minimum threshold is that it means that the full $10 million of public investment will be able to fund, at the most, twenty individual projects. This means that many smaller organisations - especially ones localised in smaller communities - will miss out entirely. Perhaps with more time, it would be possible for several such organisations to collaborate and design something that meets the needs of several communities under a single application, but given the timeframe this is unrealistic for small organisations to achieve.

With some small but significant changes, this fund could be much more effective at reaching improving grass roots and community lead mental health services. Small organisations that struggle to obtain $250,000 in matched funding would have much better chances if they could apply for a smaller amount, like $20,000, which could be more easily matched with community grants or donated funds. A longer tender window would give community and grassroots organisations time to seek, apply for, and secure the matched funding needed. A longer tender window would also mean smaller organisations have time to develop a collaborative pitch, enabling them to pool matched funding - one of the few viable approaches given the tender minimum in light of resourcing for such organisations. Another really impactful change for accessibility would be, dropping the requirement for matched funding, or changing the ratio (e.g. 25% matched, 75% from the fund).

While these barriers are less significant for organisations which operate on a larger scale, these larger mainstream organisations are unable to adequately meet the mental health needs of rainbow people. This fund is stated to close that gap and enable peer lead and grass roots community level organisations to expand their service, however the fund is structured in a way that prohibits rainbow community led services from accessing it. We reiterate the importance of community-based responses to our specific community needs, and urge you to deeply consider whether applicant proposals are going to be accessible, safe, and fit for purpose for the rainbow population. We encourage you to consult relevant community organisations on whether proposals are suitable for specific communities, rainbow or otherwise.

At the very least, we do believe that if any rainbow organisations are able to put together an application for this funding, they should be given priority for access so that at least some of this funding might be used to address the mental health needs of rainbow New Zealanders.

We hope that in the future funding earmarked for grassroots and peer led community organisations is set up in a way that they are able to access, because these organisations are crucial to the wellbeing of people around Aotearoa. We also hope that in the future, rainbow populations are explicitly recognised as a priority population with heightened need for support services, and additional barriers to accessing mainstream services. Additionally, the way this fund has been set up really demonstrates a need for Te Whatu Ora to better engage with community groups including rainbow organisations, which is of particular significance given they will soon be responsible for creating a national strategy for Mental Health and Wellbeing.

The Rainbow Support Collective Members are:

OutLine Aotearoa
InsideOUT Kōaro
Rainbow Hub Waikato
Moana Vā Navigators of Pacific Pride
RainbowYOUTH
QTopia
Burnett Foundation Aotearoa
Mana Tipua
Gender Minorities Aotearoa
Te Ngākau Kahukura
Intersex Aotearoa

© Scoop Media