EFFECTIVE GRANTS MANAGEMENT 26 February 2010 Sean Crumlin & Michael Johnston A FISH STORY Audley weir c. 1900 1
Audley weir in flood 2007 2
THE MORAL Take a reality check You as grant-makers are spending public money You need to be accountable Don t spend for the sake of spending Role of Auditors-General Hold Government accountable for its use of public resources Focus on transparency and value for money Independent of Government and report directly to Parliament 3
Grants are significant 12 per cent of NSW Govt expenditure $5 billion in 2007-08 (up 50% since 2000-01) $750 for every man, woman & child A major means of getting things done NSW $5 BILLION (2006-07) Payment to households 9% Social Services 30% Health 15% Transport 15% Education 17% Other 8% Natural Resources & Environment 6% 4
BIG GRANTS 15 programs pay $3.3 billion to hospital, disability, bus, school and community services SMALLER GRANTS Thousands of smaller grants community culture recreation infrastructure environment heritage research road safety regional development industry drought relief 5
OUR AUDIT WORK IN 2009 Also known as 6
KEY FINDINGS DICE Design plan program Inform let people know Cut red tape Evaluate ensure value for $ Design Objectives Controls Criteria Monitoring Evaluation Haste is the enemy of good design 7
Inform about funding opportunities decision-making where grants went and what they achieved GRANT TAKERS VIEWS ON TRANSPARENCY We get timely advice on available grants We get clear advice on how to apply for grants We get clear advice on how applications will be assessed Decisions to approve or reject grants are fair and NGOs Councils Agencies tell us why our applications were unsuccessful 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Per cent of respondents who agree 8
OPEN DECISION-MAKING Clear criteria Stakeholders Transparency Explain deviation from normal procedures POLITICAL SPREAD OF $5.2 BILLION 9
REGIONAL SPREAD OF $5.2 BILLION 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 $ million 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Annual grants per seat Tableland South Coast Greater Syd Newcastle/Central Coast Wollongong/Illawarra West North Coast Far West TELL US WHERE GRANTS GO Example of good practice 10
GRANT TAKERS VIEWS ON RED TAPE The amount of work to apply for a grant is reasonable Reporting requirements are reasonable Decisions to approve grants are timely Agencies don't change reporting during the grant Reporting is consistent across NSW programs There is coordination between grantmaking agencies NGOs Councils 0 20 40 60 80 100 Per cent of respondents who agree GRANT-TAKERS COMMENTS Dealing with a number of departments requires extra project management, reporting and work loads. Recording different sets of data for different agencies gets complex. Comment by North Coast regional shire Serious consideration is desperately needed on how grants are administered. We spend a high percentage of the time we are funded writing submissions, reporting and meeting government requirements. This is not a good use of money. Comment by metropolitan NGO 11
IMPACT OF RED TAPE (1) Up to a third of grants for managing flood risks were not taken up due to: Funding not aligned to the councils budget cycle Unnecessary processes Ministerial delay IMPACT OF RED TAPE (2) NGO funded by several grant programs Separate applications, activity and financial reports and audited statements for each grant NGO bookkeeper can t cope Result = poor record keeping, failure to report and inappropriate spending 12
IS RED TAPE INEVITABLE? Transparency does not demand stifling paperwork You can t see through red tape Adopt a risk management approach Procedures should be fit for purpose WHAT CAN BE DONE Cut red tape Standardise terminology and reporting Use technology to streamline interactions Eliminate unnecessary processes Don t use annual applications for recurrent grants Coordinate programs funding the same organisation Better align timing of grant cycle Set and achieve time targets to make grants 13
Ensuring value Grant-takers views on results Monitoring Outcomes Evaluation GRANT TAKERS VIEWS ON RESULTS Grants have had a positive impact on our community Agencies target grants at areas of greatest need Agencies encourage local solutions to identified needs NGOs Councils Information about grant successes and failures is available 0 20 40 60 80 100 Per cent of respondents who agree 14
GRANT-TAKERS COMMENTS there is no clarity about why certain grants exist Comment by a Sydney council many grants first made in the 70s or 80s no longer reflect population growth or changing needs Comment by a North Coast health NGO MONITORING Grant makers monitor spending (acquittal) BUT do little to monitor outcomes some tangible results little evaluation grants continued for little benefit ACCOUNTABILITY DEMANDS VALUE FOR MONEY 15
EVALUATE The continuing relevance of the program The efficiency of the program Whether funding should be maintained, increased, decreased or redirected to where it could make a difference EVALUATE Plan for evaluation at the outset Formally evaluate every 3-5 years Publish the results 16
IN CONCLUSION Grants = an important way of working with the community to get things done Grant makers need to Design Inform Cut red tape Evaluate IN SEARCH OF AUDLEY Angelina Pillay 17
DICE THE WEIR 18
QUESTIONS 19