Grant ManagementAccountability and Red Tape

- Bob Herbert

Section Manager, Agreements and Monitoring, Regional Partnerships Program

Regional Partnerships Grant Program

• The Regional Partnerships (RP) program commenced on 1 July 2003

• RP combined nine regional programs into one consolidated regional funding package

• Through Regional Partnerships, the Australian Government partners projects that focus on:

• Strengthening growth and opportunities;

• Improving access to services;

• Supporting planning; and

• Assisting communities with structural adjustment

• As at 31 December 2005 a total of $209.7 million (GST exclusive) of public money has been expended by the program and new projects have attracted just over a further $500 million in cash and in-kind partnership support

• Over $360m is available for projects over the four years from 2005-06 to 2008-09

• Envisaged that RP would be a model for good grants program management and evaluation

Red Tape vs Accountability

What is Red Tape?

• Red tape seen to be anything that impedes ‘getting the job done’

• Red tape will be different depending on your viewpoint:• Applicant• Area Consultative Committees (ACCs)• Regional Office• National Office• Partners and other stakeholders• Ministers and Local Members

• Defined obligations for grant management processes can be viewed as ‘red tape’ - Accountability

Accountability• What does it mean?

• That we can demonstrate we know what our money is spent on?

• That it is spent in accordance with our requirements?

• That we have complied with all of our legislated responsibilities?

• That we have followed our own instructions and guidelines appropriately?

• It’s how we justify that we have done what we said we would. If we have rules have we followed them.

• Why do we need it?

For Government:

• Legislation (we have to)

• Public scrutiny (it’s not our money)

• Grant not a loan - No collateral

In general

• Good practice

Accountability

• How do we achieve it? What are our tools?

• Legislated obligations (eg FMA Act and Regulations) define operating framework for managing public monies

• ANAO Better Practice Guide provides guidance for managing grant programs

• Internal procedures, manuals etc

• Risk assessments

• Evaluations

• Communication between grant giving organisations

• An appreciation that the job is not done. What ‘was’ is not necessarily the best for what now ‘is’.

Accountability

• Pitfalls

• Poor Preparation

• Poor Data Management and Reporting Systems

• Poor Guidance

• Poor Processes

• If it goes wrong?

• Loss of money

• Political embarrassment

• Loss of community opportunity

Accountability

• What does it cost and is it worth it?

For us

• Peace of mind but purchased with time and money

For funding recipients

• Lost time that can jeopardise a project – perceived as Red Tape

What is the Answer?

• What is the balance?

• Is there a balance?

• Can we reduce the Red Tape without losing accountability?

• Is accountability a failsafe? Does it mean nothing will go wrong?

• How do you determine risk and where do you draw the line between risk and expediency?

• How do you manage risk?

• What level of accountability can you afford?

• What level of accountability do you require?

• Are you prepared to obligate yourself to maintaining a specific level of accountability?

?