As The Access to Funding
3.11 In
practice, if an application was found to be incomplete during the eligibility assessment, the applicant would receive a letter or email detailing the information required to complete the application. In this respect, the procedures manual outlined that: If there is a minor omission or oversight in an application, a line manager may agree to provide the applicant with a brief opportunity to address this, and subject to this being done, may deem the application complete as at the date of receipt. Alternatively an application may be deemed complete at a later date where it takes more time for an applicant to provide all mandatory data and attachments.3.12 However,
a ‘minor omission’ was not defined or illustrated in the procedures manual. In June 2014, the department advised ANAO that: AusIndustry CSMs [Customer Service Managers] have a significant level of experience in program delivery. Our culture is to assist businesses to access our programs where possible. Typically where applications are incomplete, we would contact applicants and give them an opportunity to provide the outstanding information. Generally speaking only in those circumstances where customers did not address information gaps as requested, would applications be formally determined to be incomplete and therefore ineligible for merit assessment. 3.13 The department also implemented processes relating to additional information requests that did not promote equitable access to funding. For example, the department advised ANAO in June 2014 that: During the high application volume period of the program, guidance was provided to the network in which streamlined assessment processes were recommended for small grants [less than 300 000].3.14 The
process, referred to by the department, resulted in applicants who were seeking less than 300 000 in grant funds not being afforded the same opportunity to provide additional information as applicants seeking more than 300 000 in funds. In this respect, the departmental assessors were advised to not engage the applicant in extensive information requests, but rather seek the minimum level of information needed to complete the assessment and provide the applicant with a specified response date after which ’AusIndustry will complete its due diligence with the information available and forward it to [the] Committee for merit assessment and Delegate decision‘. It is not clear from the assessment records how many applications were assessed using this process. However, 245 applications that sought less than 300 000 in grant funding were submitted, merit assessed and considered by the programParts
» The After The Program Design
» The The Program Program Design
» The However, A Program Design
» The situation in relation to the programs was similar to that identified in
» The department accepted the subsequent recommendation made in the earlier
» The program guidelines and IA’s disclosure of interest guidelines set out
» Notwithstanding the requirements of IA disclosure of interest guidelines,
» There Further, Program Design
» The The Performance Program Design
» Effective In In Access to Funding
» Relatively Access to Funding
» Determining Access to Funding
» However, The Access to Funding
» Consistent Access to Funding
» Specifically, In Access to Funding
» In Consistent Access to Funding
» Cabinet In The Access to Funding
» Accordingly, The Reduction in Emissions
» The The Reduction in Emissions
» In This The Reduction in Emissions
» In November 2013, the department noted in a review of the programs that:
» For example, one applicant that received funding under the programs initially
» In The Reduction in Emissions
» Another Reduction in Emissions
» As In In Reduction in Emissions
» However, The Reduction in Emissions
» As The Reduction in Emissions
» The In Reduction in Emissions
» Further, Reduction in Emissions
» There This Reduction in Emissions
» Agreed. Reduction in Emissions
» The In In Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» In Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Given Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» The The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» In The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Further, following the then Government’s decision to bring forward the introduction
» From the information provided in paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10, it is clear that
» However, this indicator was inconsistently applied in assessing applications,
» A Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» In In In Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Overall, Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Following The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» The most common reason recorded for not recommending an application
» As Against A Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Nevertheless, Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» To Part Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Part Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» The Reporting and Funding Distribution
» Website In Reporting and Funding Distribution
» Reporting In Reporting and Funding Distribution
» Publication The Reporting and Funding Distribution
Show more