Why Your Government Funding Strategy Isn’t Working
Understanding the gaps in government engagement and how strategic advocacy can strengthen funding outcomes for NFPs.
By Neil Pharaoh
A recurring theme we have identified across our work with the for-purpose sector is frustration with government. Budgets get tighter, communication with government can go cold, and priorities can shift seemingly overnight. We get it — it is completely understandable to feel frustrated.
However, the world we operate in is constantly evolving, and with it, government priorities. What is a priority today may change tomorrow. That means it is up to us to stay informed, adapt our approach, and keep pace with this ever-evolving ecosystem.
A central driver of funding frustration is not scarcity alone, but misalignment between community perception of need and government spending priorities.
The Tanck–Perpetual 2025 survey showed a for-purpose sector that experiences funding decisions as opaque, late and disconnected from evidence on the ground. This gap is reinforced by budget processes that reward political safety, short-term announcements and visible delivery over structural reform.
A recurring pattern in Tanck’s work is that many not-for-profits have limited understanding of how government priorities are formed. Few organisations map their advocacy against governing party platforms, conference resolutions or internal policy tensions. As a result, advocacy is often framed in moral or programmatic terms rather than aligned to the language and commitments that shape decision-making.
The same applies to political research. Many organisations enter meetings without reviewing maiden speeches, committee memberships or prior positions. This reinforces a perception of earnestness, but without sophistication this weakens influence before conversations begin.
Budget processes are a particularly stark example. Almost every organisation identifies funding as a core concern, yet relatively few engage consistently through formal budget submissions. Where submissions do occur, they are often isolated, poorly framed or disconnected from broader engagement strategies.
Parliamentary committee engagement follows a similar pattern. Committees lead on applying scrutiny to government decisions and shape reform, yet engagement is often treated as a one-off rather than a sustained pathway. As one international review notes, civil society is too often seen as implementers rather than decision-makers.
Fragmentation within the sector compounds these issues. Many organisations treat their mission as uniquely distinctive, making collaboration feel risky or unnecessary.
The result is duplicated advocacy, competing narratives and missed opportunities to aggregate evidence and power. Governments respond more seriously to disciplined coalitions acting strategically rather than isolated appeals, particularly in tight fiscal environments.
Fiscal constraint itself is frequently misunderstood. While discretionary program funding may be constrained, major expenditure and revenue decisions continue to shape fiscal space. Compared to well-resourced commercial interests operating through tax and industry policy, not-for-profits often underplay their leverage.
The issue, ultimately, is power literacy. Government priorities are not fixed. They are shaped by who shows up, how prepared they are and whether they stay engaged long enough to matter.
What this means for NFPs:
Learn government’s language before asking for change
Key question: Have we mapped our asks against governing party platforms and conference positions?
Treat political research as basic preparation
Key question: Do we routinely research MPs’ backgrounds, speeches and committee interests?
Use budget processes as core advocacy channels
Key question: Do we make regular, evidence-based budget submissions linked to our engagement plan?
Engage committees as influence pathways, not one-offs
Key question: Are we tracking and engaging relevant inquiries consistently over time?
Build coalitions to contest entrenched interests
Key question: Are we aggregating evidence and power, or relying on uniqueness alone?
If this is something you would like to explore further, we encourage you to read our other resources available on our website, or get in touch with us for an online coffee. We’d be happy to help you identify any gaps in your strategy and explore where you could strengthen your approach.
Frustration is normal, but it only goes away when you take that first step towards strategic change.
Email: info@tanck.com.au
Tanck offers advisory services in government engagement, advocacy, stakeholder strategy, and communications.
We share our political expertise and government experience so you can achieve your funding and policy goals.
