Evaluation of suicide prevention activities

10.3 Sustainability of projects

Page last updated: January 2014

This section examines the potential for projects to be able to continue operating in future, in the absence of NSPP funding. Analysis is provided of:

10.3.1 Non-NSPP funding

Projects were asked to indicate in the survey whether they received any funding in addition to that provided under the NSPP and, if so, to identify the funding sources as follows:
  • Australian Government
  • State/territory government
  • Private business or corporate funds
  • Research
  • Non-government organisation
  • Philanthropic
  • Donations
  • Other
Table 10-3 provides a breakdown of the number of additional funding sources reported by the NSPP-funded projects.

As indicated in Table 10-3, 44% of projects received funds other than NSPP funding and 56% did not receive any other funds. The most commonly reported sources of additional funds were:

  • Private – five projects
  • Philanthropic – four projects
  • Donations – four projects.
Only two projects received additional funding from a state/territory government.

However, other survey information indicates that where non-NSPP funds were received, this typically represented a very small proportion of total project funding/income. This is consistent with the fact that private, philanthropic and donations were the most commonly reported additional funding sources.

    Table 10-3: Number of additional sources of funding for NSPP projects

    No. of additional sources of funding
    Projects (no.)
    Projects (%)
    0
    28
    56
    1
    12
    24
    2
    8
    16
    3
    1
    2
    4
    0
    0
    5
    1
    2
    Total
    50
    100
Top of page

10.3.2 Volunteer support

Table 10-4 summarises the share (%) of projects' full time equivalent (FTE) workforce which was made up of volunteers. As identified, nearly two thirds of projects (65%; 31 of 48 respondents) did not have any volunteers, ie, all staff were paid employees. Of the 35% of projects which received some level of volunteer support:
  • Six projects (13%) - volunteer workforce represented between 1% and 25% of their total FTE workforce
  • Two projects (4%) - volunteer workforce represented between 26% and 50% of total FTE
  • Four projects (8%) - volunteer workforce represented between 51% and 75% of total FTE
  • Five projects (10%) - volunteer workforce represented between 76% and 100% of total FTE

    Table 10-4: Share of project FTE workforce represented by volunteers

    Volunteer share of workforce
    0%
    1%–25%
    26%–50%
    51%–75%
    76%–100%
    Total
    Projects (no.)
    31
    6
    2
    4
    5
    48
    Projects (%)
    65%
    13%
    4%
    8%
    10%
    100%

    Note: N=48, as data was not available for two projects

10.3.3 In-kind support

As identified in Table 10-5, NSPP-funded projects benefited from a range of in-kind support.

The prevalence of in-kind support was similar across all six types of support, ranging from 28% (staff support) to 38% (other) of projects receiving in-kind support.

    Table 10-5: Projects that received in-kind support, by type of support

    In-kind support
    Internal
    External
    Infra-structure
    Staff
    Mgmt
    Other
    Total
    Projects (no.)
    17
    15
    17
    14
    18
    19
    48
    Projects (%)
    34%
    30%
    34%
    28%
    36%
    38%
    100%

    Note: N=48, as data was not available for two projects

    Top of page

    10.3.4 Projects' self-assessment of sustainability

    The survey asked project representatives to indicate the sustainability of their project in the absence of NSPP funding, on a scale from 1 (not sustainable) to 5 (very sustainable) (see Table 10-6).
As indicated in Table 10-6, all 50 projects rated their sustainability without NSPP funding at 1, 2 or 3, indicating that no projects were likely to be sustainable to any significant degree without NSPP funding. Nearly three-quarters of projects (74%) reported a rating of 1, indicating their belief that there was no likelihood that they would be sustainable. Only three projects rated themselves as 3 in terms of sustainability, indicating marginal sustainability.

This suggests that the majority of projects would not be sustainable in the absence of NSPP funding. This viewpoint was supported in consultations with Department STO and CO representatives.

    Table 10-6: Projects' self-assessment of sustainability

    Rating
    Projects (no.)
    Projects (%)
    1 (not sustainable)
    37
    74%
    2
    10
    20%
    3
    3
    6%
    4
    -
    0%
    5 (very sustainable)
    -
    0%
    Total
    50
    100%
Top of page

10.3.5 Overall assessment of sustainability

The analysis set out in this section indicates that few, if any, projects believe they would be able to continue in the absence of NSPP funding. This assessment is based upon the information presented, indicating that:
  • 56% of projects had no alternative sources of income.
  • 44% of projects received other income; however this represented a very small proportion of their total income.
  • 56% of projects were reliant on in-kind support.
  • 65% of projects did not have the assistance of any volunteers, ie, all workers were paid staff.
  • 94% of projects rated themselves as 1 (not sustainable) or 2, in terms of sustainability.
No projects rated themselves as 5 (very sustainable) or 4, in terms of sustainability, while only three projects rated themselves as 3, indicating marginal sustainability.

Key findings

  • More than half (56%) of projects received no additional funds other than NSPP funding.
  • Where non-NSPP funds were received, they were typically from private, philanthropic sources and donations and represents a very small proportion of total project funding/income.
  • Only two projects received additional funding from a state/territory government.
  • 65% of projects did not have the assistance of any volunteers, ie, all workers were paid staff.
  • The vast majority of projects did not believe that their project would be sustainable without continued NSPP funding.