their projects. from a range of places, therefore grant recipients were not reliant on the Quick Actual expenditure for projects (n=32) Response Fund alone for the success of Actual income for projects (n=32) used their project as an opportunity to raise money for bushfire recovery efforts in their local communities. For example, Andrew Follows’ exhibition A Journey of Changes raised $1,000 for the CFA, and through the staging of Dimboola the Mudbrick Motley (Note: Small sample size of acquitted project means findings Theatre Group raised $1,500 for the should be interpreted with caution). Redesdale Bushfire Recovery Committee. Not only did artists contribute own money There were many other examples of grant to projects, but many also paid people who recipients using their project as a springboard participated in their project. to help others. Project acquittals indicate that the majority of the funds went towards artists fees (48 per Ongoing community support through cent of funding). However, discussions with project growth artists revealed that this fee was more likely to The growth or continuation of projects is likely have gone to other participants than to to contribute to longer term recovery and themselves. This is consistent with other healing of communities, however, only future research that shows artists can be reluctant to evaluations will be able to determine that. pay themselves a wage for their work. It is likely that this attitude would have been held Many artists did not wish to have their project even more strongly in the case of bushfire grow or continue. This does not suggest their recovery work. project was less successful than others whose The other main area of expenditure was travel project advanced. For artists whose projects (35 per cent). The remaining 17 per cent grew, their grant represented the beginning of went towards administration (11 per cent) a process of attracting additional funding or and direct project costs (6 per cent). support, expansion into something larger and have longer-lasting healing benefits to the The following pie chart illustrates these community. The work of the Project Officer findings, from the 32 acquitted reports. enabled these individuals and groups to attract There were a number of grant recipients who
from a range of places, therefore grant recipients were not reliant on the Quick Response Fund alone for the success of their projects. Actual expenditure for projects (n=32) Actual income for projects (n=32) (Note: Small sample size of acquitted project means findings should be interpreted with caution). Not only did artists contribute own money to projects, but many also paid people who participated in their project. Project acquittals indicate that the majority of the funds went towards artists fees (48 per cent of funding). However, discussions with artists revealed that this fee was more likely to have gone to other participants than to themselves. This is consistent with other research that shows artists can be reluctant to pay themselves a wage for their work. It is likely that this attitude would have been held even more strongly in the case of bushfire recovery work. The other main area of expenditure was travel (35 per cent). The remaining 17 per cent went towards administration (11 per cent) and direct project costs (6 per cent). The following pie chart illustrates these findings, from the 32 acquitted reports. There were a number of grant recipients who used their project as an opportunity to raise money for bushfire recovery efforts in their local communities. For example, Andrew Follows’ exhibition A Journey of Changes raised $1,000 for the CFA, and through the staging of Dimboola the Mudbrick Motley Theatre Group raised $1,500 for the Redesdale Bushfire Recovery Committee. There were many other examples of grant recipients using their project as a springboard to help others. Ongoing community support through project growth The growth or continuation of projects is likely to contribute to longer term recovery and healing of communities, however, only future evaluations will be able to determine that. Many artists did not wish to have their project grow or continue. This does not suggest their project was less successful than others whose project advanced. For artists whose projects grew, their grant represented the beginning of a process of attracting additional funding or support, expansion into something larger and have longer-lasting healing benefits to the community. The work of the Project Officer enabled these individuals and groups to attract