In The In Grant Assessment and Selection

ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 64 Moderation tool

4.18 Environment

developed a ‘tool’ a spreadsheet with formulae and macros to provide calculations to assist the Moderation Group in its deliberations and decision‐making. The tool was populated with information on each application, including the project name, its description, location stateterritory, type of applicant for example, statelocal government organisation, community group, NRM body, individual, the requested funding amount, and the Biodiversity Fund program themes that the project would address. 91 The post‐normalisation ranking was also included in the moderation tool. The tool allowed the Moderation Group to run various scenarios—for example, to display the range and characteristics of projects that would be selected if a specified percentage of the available funding was allocated. 92 Processes used to select applications for funding

4.19 The

Moderation Groups employed a range of methods to determine the selection of recommended projects that both fit the established budget envelope for each round which had been stipulated by the department for the Round 2, NATI and Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests rounds and, in the Moderation Group’s view, provided the appropriate range of projects to meet the Biodiversity Fund program objectives. These methods included:  selecting the highest‐ranked projects to the limit of 80 per cent of the available funding for that round, and then adding or removing projects to provide the Group’s assessment of the best ‘fit’ for the round’s objectives;  setting a cut‐off merit score for example, 8.0 in Round 1 as an initial selection point, followed by a review of lower‐scoring projects between 7.0 and 8.0 to select a mix to fit the required objectives;  reviewing high‐scoring applications from the same provider or in similar regions, to identify possible duplication and consider the organisation’s capacity to deliver, and also with a view to removing some of these projects to allow for a more even geographic spread; and 91 The electorate in which the applicantproject was located was not included in the moderation tool. 92 Both independent chairs of the Moderation Groups interviewed by the ANAO commented very favourably on the moderation tool. The chairs reported that it had helped the Group manage the volume and complexity of information that was involved in the consideration of applications in each funding round. ‐ ‐  ‐  ‐ ‐  ‐ ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 65  reviewing applications from particular types of applicants for example, Indigenous groups to ensure high‐quality applications were adequately