Audits examining grants management
Report No.1 2006–07 Administration of the Native Title Respondents Scheme. The audit assessed the effectiveness of the Attorney–General’s Department administration of grants provided under the Respondents Scheme. The audit found that, while the Attorney–General’s Department effectively managed the overall administration of the grants programme, its administration could be strengthened through clearer specification of performance measures; closer monitoring of grant commitment (individually and in total); and improvements to AGD’s Data and Workflow Grants System.
Audit Report No.11 2006–07 National Food Industry Strategy, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The audit assessed the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF’s) management of the contractual arrangements in place to deliver the National Food Industry Strategy. The Strategy involves distribution of grants to industry aimed at increasing investment in research and development. The audit found that, overall, DAFF’s management of the contractual arrangements was effective. DAFF has developed and implemented sound financial management arrangements for managing the funds provided to National Food Industry Strategy Limited (NFIS Ltd). DAFF’s governance arrangements for oversight of NFIS Ltd were adequate; and there was an effective process for assessing, selecting and managing grants. The report also identified a number of areas where improvements could be made. These include: improving programme planning processes; putting in place adequate processes to assist staff in managing contracts; documenting all contract variations; and developing an information plan for collecting and analysing performance information in order to assess programme success.
Audit Report No.19 2006–07 Administration of State and Territory Compliance with the Australian Health Care Agreement. The objective of this audit was to determine whether Health adequately assessed the State and Territory Governments’ compliance with their obligations under the terms of the Australian Health Care Agreements (AHCA). The main issues raised related to Health’s responsibility to assess whether states and territories were complying with their obligations under the AHCAs and to advise the Minister for Health. These obligations included adhering to the principles that all eligible persons had equitable access to free public health and emergency services on the basis of clinical need within an appropriate period; contributing substantial funding of their own and increasing this funding at a rate which at least matches the estimated cumulative rate of growth of Australian Government funding under the AHCAs; and meeting certain performance reporting requirements. The report found that Health has developed and implemented a suitable framework to administer the AHCAs. While there is scope for some improvement in the approach adopted, Health has taken into account the obligations of the States and Territories under the AHCAs in providing advice to the Health Minister.
Audit Report No.36 2006–07 Management of the Higher Bandwidth Incentive Scheme and Broadband Connect Stage 1. The audit found that the management of the Higher Bandwidth Incentive Scheme and Broadband Connect Stage 1 programs had achieved their objectives. The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) established an appropriate management framework to administer the programs that included comprehensive guidelines and regular data speed testing of providers. However, a lack of administrative resources led to inadequate controls over the assessment and payment of provider claims. The report estimates that between $10.6 and $12.4 million has been paid to providers for invalid or inaccurate claims as a result of inadequate controls over the assessment and payment of provider claims.
Audit Report No.38 2006–07 Administration of the Community Aged Care Packages Program. The audit assessed the effectiveness of the Department of Health and Ageing’s (DoHA) management of the Community Aged Care Packages (CACPs) program in fulfilling its legislated objectives under the Aged Care Act 1997. We considered that, overall, DoHA has performed effectively in enhancing the number of new CACP places in ways that balance complex resource constraints. Interfaces of CACPs would be strengthened by a number of improvements outlined in recommendations resulting from the audit, such as the use and administration of Community Care Grants to stimulate the extension of CACP services to areas where there is unmet or poorly served need; improved monitoring of service provider performance, including the extent to which providers adhere to conditions of grants of places relating to special needs groups year-upon-year; and improved reporting to Parliament about the extent of unmet need and provider fulfilment of responsibilities, as required by the legislation.
Audit Report No.39 2006–07 Distribution of Funding for Community Grant Programmes. This audit considered aspects of governance and procurement in the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs’ (FaCSIA’s) administration of the distribution of funding for certain community grants programmes. In 2005–06, FaCSIA administered approximately 20 000 funding agreements, and administered $1.029 billion in direct funding to a range of non-government service delivery outlets. FaCSIA had established generally sound governance arrangements to administer the Local Answers, Volunteer Small Equipment Grants (VSEG), Reconnect and Minor Capital Upgrade programmes. However, FaCSIA’s administration of the approval processes for eight one-off grants to community organisations and the VSEG Round One 2004 was below the standard expected of Australian Government agencies. FaCSIA needed to clarify aspects of its interaction with the portfolio Minister and his or her office, in the processes to determine organisations eligible for grant funding. Given the fundamental importance of the approval process in relation to the expenditure of public funds, and for accountability purposes, it is critical that agencies have a clear understanding, and record, of ministerial decisions.
Audit Report No.45 2006–07 National Black Spot Programme. The National Black Spot Programme (now referred to as the AusLink Black Spot Programme) targets sites or sections of the road network that experience a high incidence of vehicle crashes and fatalities (referred to as ‘black spots’). It is a key element of the Australian Government’s aim to reduce the national road fatality rate by 40 per cent over the decade to 2010. In April 2007, the Federal Government announced that funding for the Programme would continue to 2013–14 and that, as of 2009–10, annual funding would increase from $45 million to $60 million. The report examined the administration of the Programme by DOTARS. As State road transport authorities play a key role in the administration of the Programme, the audit also examined the agency role performed, particularly in relation to the assessment and ranking of projects against the Programme criteria, and as the conduit through which funds are paid for the delivery of road works either by the state or local government. It also examined the delivery of road works by the states and local government. The evidence-based approach to nominating, ranking and approving National Black Spot Programme projects is consistent with better practice principles for road safety programmes. However, the current administration arrangements have not consistently resulted in the highest priority road safety Black Spot projects being selected and funded. Further, project delivery arrangements do not provide DOTARS with sufficient assurance that approved road works are delivered as approved, in a timely manner, to address the road safety issue that underpinned the nomination and approval of the project for funding. A number of the audit recommendations were focused on addressing shortcomings under the current governance arrangements that have resulted in lower priority road safety projects being selected and funded. In addition, the report drew attention to the benefits of different programme delivery methods being kept under review by the Department, recognising that decisions on programme delivery are ultimately a matter for the Government.
Report No.46 2006–07 Management of the Pharmaceuticals Partnerships Program. The Program is small but complex and overall the audit found that it was effectively managed by the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. The communication strategy was effective in promoting the Program and processes for assessing and ranking applicants were developed and implemented. An effective strategy was also developed to monitor recipients’ compliance with funding agreements. The Program is supported by a sound governance framework. However, there was no ongoing assessment of whether the Program is meeting its overall objective or sub-objectives. A proposed Program evaluation is designed to measure some important aspects of the Program but will not give a complete assessment on whether the Program’s overall objective is being met because the industry-wide data being collected does not address the quality of the research and development activity being undertaken.