The Grant That Came With Strings
A community arts organisation applies for a $25,000 government grant to run free workshops for disadvantaged youth. The grant guidelines require: at least 40 participants, delivery within 12 months, and quarterly reporting with attendance data. The organisation has 3 staff, all already at capacity, and no data system. It estimates each workshop costs $400 and it can run one per month. Last year it ran a similar program with 22 participants. The board is split: the treasurer says 'we cannot refuse $25,000', while the coordinator warns the reporting burden will consume the benefit.
1. Assess whether the organisation can realistically meet the grant conditions, showing your calculations.
Read the worked answer
Capacity check: One workshop/month × 12 months = 12 workshops.
Cost check: 12 × $400 = $4,800 in direct delivery costs against $25,000 - plenty of funding for delivery. Money is not the constraint.
Participant check: Needs 40 participants across 12 workshops = about 3.3 per workshop. Last year's program reached 22 across a similar run (roughly 1.8 per workshop). So the target requires almost double last year's reach - achievable only with deliberate recruitment effort, not automatically.
Reporting check: Quarterly reporting with attendance data, and no data system. Three staff already at capacity. Someone must build a tracking system and compile four reports. This is the real risk: the organisation could deliver workshops but fail the reporting condition, risking clawback or ineligibility for future grants.
Verdict: Delivery is feasible on cost and time, but participant recruitment and reporting capability are genuine gaps. The grant is not a simple yes/no - it depends on whether those gaps can be closed.
2. Recommend a course of action to the board, addressing both the treasurer's and the coordinator's positions.
Read the worked answer
Treasurer's view ('cannot refuse $25,000'): Understandable but incomplete. Grant money is conditional. If conditions are missed, the organisation may have to repay funds, damaging its reputation and future eligibility. The $25,000 is not free money; it is a contract.
Coordinator's view (reporting burden): Valid. With no data system and full-capacity staff, reporting could consume the benefit and divert staff from core work.
Recommendation - accept, but with conditions:
- Build a simple data system first (a shared spreadsheet is enough) so attendance is captured at each workshop, not reconstructed later.
- Assign reporting responsibility explicitly - one named person, with time protected.
- Plan recruitment to reach 40 participants: partner with schools or youth services to access the target group, since last year's 22 shows organic reach is insufficient.
- Budget part of the $25,000 for administration, not just workshops - the grant is for the program, and admin is part of delivering it.
- Set a checkpoint at month 3: if recruitment is tracking below 10 participants, escalate and adjust.
Why: This captures the funding while managing the two real risks (recruitment and reporting). Refusing outright forgoes a valuable opportunity; accepting blindly risks clawback and reputational harm. Conditional acceptance with a monitoring plan is the balanced judgement.