The The Program Program Design
2.17 As
noted in ANAO’s Grants Administration Better Practice Guide, value with public money should be considered at two levels: in the context of grant allocation, the extent to which a population of projects maximises the achievement of specified objectives within the available funding; and in the context of selecting individual projects for funding, selected applications should be eligible, have met the selection criteria, involve reasonable cost and have a risk profile that is acceptable to the Commonwealth. 582.18 With
regard to the value of individual projects, there were four merit criteria for the programs, but none specifically addressed the reasonableness of project costs as shown in Table 2.1. However, the assessment of applications against merit criterion one included consideration of the grant funds per tonne of carbon abated. This indicator provided a measure of the fiscal cost of abatement 59 and was used as a basis for identifying and promoting changes to projects that the department considered were ‘unlikely to represent value for money’. 60 In June 2014, the department advised ANAO that the cost of abatement measure was ‘simply a tool that allowed us to compare and consistently score total carbon savings over the life of the project’. Despite this advice: the department’s customer guidelines released in August 2013 near the time of program closure stated that ‘total carbon savings in the context of value for money grant dollars for each tonne of carbon abated’ was a factor considered in the assessment of merit criterion one; and both IA committee chairs advised ANAO that value for money was considered during committee deliberations.2.19 Value
with public money is also promoted by considering the extent to which the funding being sought by an applicant will result in an outcome that 58 ANAO Grants Administration Better Practice Guide, op. cit., p. vi. 59 The fiscal cost of abatement is a measure of the abatement leverage achieved by a dollar of government resources. It is based on the budget impact of the policy per tonne of carbon abated and does not take into account the costs and savings incurred by households, businesses, non- government organisations and other levels of governments. 60 Reframing of projects is discussed in paragraphs 3.10 to 3.34. ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology 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