Grant Management Accountability and Red Tape

1. Grant Management Accountability and Red Tape - Bob Herbert Section Manager, Agreements and Monitoring, Regional Partnerships Program

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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’.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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?

9. ?