GRANTS MANAGEMENT OPERATING GUIDELINES. A guide for the preparation of grant funding documentation. (as at January 2015)

Transcription

1 GRANTS MANAGEMENT OPERATING GUIDELINES A guide for the preparation of grant funding documentation (as at January 2015)

2 Contents 1. Glossary Acronyms Structure of these guidelines Background Integrated Grants Management Framework (IGMF) Grants Management Policy What is a grant and what is not a grant? Characteristics of a grant Characteristics of a supply Grants Management System (GMS) Principles and policies General principles for management, accountability and control Delegations, roles and decision making Delegations Roles Approvals - delegate v policy discussions and program decisions Relationship building and management Communication Collaboration and mutual obligations Site visits and meetings Capacity building Complaints and dispute resolution Complaints/disputes between the Department and a funded ESP Complaints/disputes about a funded ESP by a third party End-to-end grants management Step 1 - developing the project What is a project? Existing and new funding projects Budget allocation Scope and project rationale, purpose, objectives, target group ESP service delivery option Service model Legislative and policy considerations Funding purpose and objectives Page

3 Service outputs and catchment areas (activity locations) Project costing model Type of funding contract for the project Risk assessment Acquisition approach Policy settings Market factors Consultation Analysis and conclusions Endorsement by line managers Step 2 - project documentation and approval Business Case (Appendix 2) Project details Financial information Project costing model Eligibility details Scope and rationale Legislative and policy context Risk analysis Acquisition approach Statement of Requirement (Appendix 3) Project name Target group and target issues Project description Purpose and objectives Funded service outputs and locations/catchment areas Funding model Eligibility Assessment criteria Special assessment criteria Risk management Checklist documents Supporting documents Timing Delegate approval Quality control Page

4 Submitting the project for approval Step 3 - receiving, assessing and approving applications Approaching the market Requests for further information during the application period Receipt of applications Assessment process Role allocation for assessment, review and approval Role of assessors and reviewers Assessing risk Assessment against selection criteria Obtaining the delegate s decision Notifying applicants Step 4 - finalising the funding contract Funding contract generated by GMS Finalising funding contract content Final negotiations with ESP Submitting the final funding contract Executing the funding contract Step 5 - managing the funding contract Overall responsibilities Managing the relationship Monitoring recurrent grants Receiving ESP milestone reports Analysing ESP milestone reports Compliance and non-compliance Payment process Withheld payments Monitoring one-off and asset grants Monitoring small grants Managing performance issues all grant types Conducting performance reviews Immediate termination of funding contract Informal remedial action plan Formal non-performance process Termination Exit strategy and continuation of services Page

5 15.7 Funding contract variations Indexation of grants Rate of indexation Eligibility for indexation Indexation procedure Identifying and managing surpluses Establishing and managing grants to avoid surpluses Addressing a surplus during the term of a funding contract Addressing a surplus at the end of the funding contract Requests for additional funding Step 6 - end of project/funding contract and future directions Formal contract completion Project evaluation Evaluation methods Service review in the evaluation context Service provider capacity review Working relationship review Finalising and documenting the evaluation Needs and funding priorities review The end-to-end grants management cycle continues Transition Management Bibliography Appendix 1 Risk Assessment What is risk? Why Assess Risks? Risk Management Process (context, identification, assessment, monitoring & review) Table 1 - GMS minimum reporting requirements Table 2 - Risk Matrix Appendix 2 - Business Case Appendix 3 - Statement of Requirement Appendix 4 - Comparative Assessment Template Appendix 5 - Performance Review Appendix 6 - Confidentiality Deed P age

6 Grants Management Operating Guidelines 1. Glossary Business case: document setting out the scope of service requirement, objectives, market research, acquisition approach/method, timing, stakeholders and processes for approaching the market for submissions or directly negotiating with a service provider. Capacity building: process of developing competencies and capabilities in individuals, groups, organisations, sectors or countries which will lead to sustained and self-generating performance improvement (AusAid, 2004). External service provider (ESP): GMS term for organisations receiving grant funding. It is a broader term than non-government organisations (NGOs) and includes local government agencies and for-profit companies. Funding contract: document setting out a funding relationship between the Department and funding recipients (replaces service agreement ). Individualised support program (ISP): allocation of funding to a person with a disability to enable him/her to purchase services for ongoing disability support needs. Inherent or untreated risk rating: risk in the absence of controls or treatment actions that may be taken to alter, mitigate or reduce either the likelihood or impact of the risk that will/may occur. Integrated Grants Management Framework (IGMF): departmental governance structure for grant funding. IGMF supports provision, management and monitoring of grants by the Department and provides a detailed and transparent guide to the policies, practices and tools used for the management of grant funding provided to ESPs for the provision of health and related services to achieve departmental objectives. Milestone: key activities noted in a GMS funding contract subject to reporting requirements. Outputs: means the outputs and measures to be delivered. Partnership: organisations working together in a mutually beneficial relationship to contribute to shared goals. Organisations retain individual identities and goals but come together on shared issues. It is not a partnership in a legal sense and there is no partnership contract. Within the partnership there may be specific funding contracts. Project: activity or service model for which ESPs may apply for available grant funding. Each GMS project is underpinned by an approved business case and may comprise one or more grants. A new project may commence when Government decides to provide a new type of service or to expand existing services and allocates funding for the purpose. As funding contracts expire, the process of redevelopment of the service model, consideration of appropriate providers and decisions about future grants is referred to as a project. Residual risk: chance of a risk occurring despite controls being in place to reduce the likelihood of the risk happening. Risk treatments: actions taken to either reduce the likelihood of a risk occurring or to reduce the impact if it does occur. Service model: scope of the services to be funded through a project. Statement of requirement: public document to provide guidance to potential grant applicants on a specific project and its grant/s process. 5 P age

7 2. Acronyms The following are used throughout these guidelines and the grants management system. BOI CSI DoH ESP GAU GMS IGMF ISP NTG PPO board of inquiry contract signatory Department of Health external service provider Grants Administration Unit grants management system Integrated Grants Management Framework individualised support program Northern Territory Government principal project officer 6 P age

8 3. Structure of these guidelines These operating guidelines form part of the Integrated Grants Management Framework (IGMF) and should be read in that context. These guidelines provide overarching definitions, background material and key principles and policies to guide the overall approach to grants management. These guidelines follow an end-to-end grants management process. At each step, guidance is provided on the task/s to be undertaken and in some instances tools are included to undertake the task/s. Where relevant, the related grants management system (GMS) processes are noted. 4. Background The Department of Health uses grant funding to deliver its objectives in health, mental health, aged care, community health, disability and drug and alcohol programs. The Department chooses grant funding where an external service provider (ESP) is better placed than the Department to deliver the services or where it is more efficient to provide the service through an ESP. These guidelines and IGMF take a contemporary best practice approach which recognises that: grant programs are partnerships between the Department and ESPs supporting and building capacity among ESPs helps to achieve departmental goals while value for money is an essential criterion, this can be achieved in a number of ways. The Department emphasises performance, making sure that its grants funds are used to provide the best possible services and outcomes for clients. The approach reflected here recognises that ESPs and the Department are accountable to each other and to the clients who use the funded services. These operating guidelines form part of IGMF. They aim to: provide policy and practice guidance to achieve departmental objectives and support effective use of GMS facilitate consistency in managing funding contracts and relationships with ESPs meet the requirements of the Financial Management Act and Treasurer s Directions. These guidelines apply to all departmental grants and funding contracts that are associated with subsidies provided to ESPs for individualised support programs (ISPs). Programs may have other relevant operating policies and procedures and these must be consistent with the principles, policies and procedures in IGMF and these guidelines. These guidelines also spell out the roles and responsibilities of departmental branches and divisions with a role in grants management and the Department s responsibilities under the funding contract. These operating guidelines do NOT cover: benefits, subsidies (except for ISPs), donations or other entitlements for individuals funding transfers to other Northern Territory Government departments supplies acquisition under the Northern Territory Government Procurement Framework. 7 P age

9 5. Integrated Grants Management Framework (IGMF) IGMF comprises all documents that form the policy, governance and operating framework for grants in the Department of Health. These documents are available on the Grants Website and include: Grants Management Policy Grants Management Operating Guidelines Grants Governance Package Grants Funding Contract Part B Standard Terms and Conditions packages and tools o risk tools o GMS and associated manuals o templates o outputs catalogue. Note: These guidelines must be read in conjunction with the full set of documents. All staff involved in grants management must be familiar with all aspects of IGMF. 6. Grants Management Policy The Grants Management Policy provides the policy settings within which grants are managed. It links with Northern Territory Government policies (to ensure consistency in the approach to grants and procurement across agencies) and establishes the principles by which all departmental staff must operate. The Grants Management Policy is a public document and is available on the Department of Health Grants Website. The Grants Management Policy states that: The Department of Health provides grants to facilitate the provision of health and related services to Territorians in line with Northern Territory Government and departmental objectives. The policy aims to achieve the following objectives: promote and improve the health of all Territorians deliver the best value for government and the community create better pathways to services by supporting and building the capacity of local organisations and communities to provide services closer to home and to be involved in the health issues of their own communities and the development and management of services support informal networks and volunteer groups contributing to social infrastructure. The Grants Management Policy is reflected throughout these guidelines. 8 P age

10 7. What is a grant and what is not a grant? A grant is appropriate where the Department seeks an external organisation to provide services to the public to achieve departmental objectives and the organisation has a level of autonomy in how this is done. Another common method of seeking services is a supply. A supply of services is appropriate where the Department seeks to purchase a service or goods for use by the Department. Grants are covered by these guidelines. A supply of services is covered by the Northern Territory Government Procurement Framework. Arrangements with ESPs may not always clearly fall within one of the above categories or have the characteristics set out above. Nonetheless, it is important to ensure that the correct arrangement is selected. 7.1 Characteristics of a grant Treasurer s Direction A6.4 states: Grant and subsidy expenses are distributions of public money made by an agency to other agencies, entities or individuals that are directed at achieving agency outputs and outcomes. The following features indicate that funding fits the definition of a grant: services are provided by the ESP to the community or the target group and eligible clients can approach the ESP to get the services providers can be selected through an open application process, targeted applications or direct offer the department defines the objectives of a grant, but the ESP has some autonomy in how to deliver it the ESP can charge a fee to clients if the department approves funds are usually paid in advance, but may be paid upon invoice from the service the ESP must account to the department for how it has used the funds and for the services it has delivered the relationship between the department and the ESP is a cooperative one where both have responsibilities and are accountable. 7.2 Characteristics of a supply A supply generally involves goods or services provided to a standard and quantity set by a department at a price tendered by the supplier. There is no requirement to account for the use of the funds because it is a commercial relationship. A supply is procured through a tender or quote process (where a department approaches the market with a description of the purchase it wishes to make). Unlike a grant, a supply will usually be based on terms and conditions set by the supplier rather than the department. Key characteristics of a supply include: goods or services are provided directly to the department if services are for members of the public, the department requests and authorises the provision of the services to individuals 9 P age

11 services are provided as part of a service the department provides to clients, patients or the general public generally the department pays on invoice following the provision of the services the department does not require the supplier to account for its use of the funds; once a contract has been set, the department monitors only whether the goods or services have been received and standards met. Note: For further advice on grants versus procurement/supply please contact the Grants Administration Unit, Corporate Support Bureau. Grant v supply Example 1 DoH is providing a service for a particular client group. Because of certain behavioural issues, there is a need for security to be provided to ensure the safety of the clients and of others. DoH engages a security firm to provide the required security. This is a supply and should be managed in accordance with the Procurement Act and the NTG Procurement Framework. Why? DoH has requested and administers the service; security is required to enable DoH to provide its service and it will form part of the service. DoH will have sought a quote for the required hours of service and contracted for them at a given price per unit. Example 3 As part of DoH s treatment of patients, critically ill patients are often transported from remote areas to hospitals by aircraft and the air transport service is provided by an organisation which DoH funds. Where a patient is acutely ill and requires air transport, a representative of DoH requests the transport from the organisation. This is a supply and should be managed in accordance with the Procurement Act and the NTG Procurement Framework. Why? The air transport provided by the funded organisation is part of the services required to allow DoH to provide a health service to its patients. It is requested by DoH. Example 2 DoH provides funds to St John Ambulance to provide an emergency road retrieval service, as well as medical road transport. The service is provided to the whole community and is accessed directly by community members themselves (or others on their behalf e.g. police). The organisation recovers part of the costs directly from the consumer (unless he/she has a concession). This is a grant, and should be managed in accordance with the Integrated Grants Management Framework. Why? The service is being provided to the community. While DoH has objectives for the activity, it is administered by the funded organisation with a level of autonomy as to how the service is structured and delivered. This is clearly not DoH s service; there is a direct relationship between the organisation and the community/patient. A patient is billed directly (unless he/she has a concession). Example 4 DoH provides funds to the Menzies School of Health Research to support a research fellow position. The research undertaken by the fellow is determined by Menzies and contributes to Menzies research program and to building research capacity. Menzies research program is intended to benefit the whole community by improving the evidence base in relation to health. This is a grant and should be managed in accordance with the Integrated Grants Management Framework. Why? The activity is being funded to benefit the whole community. Menzies School of Health Research is not providing a service or product directly to DoH. DoH is not requesting a specific research product for itself but is providing a grant to contribute to DoH s objectives in relation to ensuring a strong health evidence base for the benefit of the community as a whole. 10 P age

12 8. Grants Management System (GMS) The grants management system (GMS) is a user friendly system to manage grants and funding programs end-to-end. GMS has been designed to meet best practice guidelines as proposed by the Australian National Audit Office. A GMS User Manual has been developed to provide guidance to staff on the procedures and business rules underpinning GMS and is available on the Department s intranet. Training in the use of GMS is also available from the Grants Administration Unit (GAU). These operating guidelines complement the GMS User Manual and provide guidance on policies and procedures that underpin the use of GMS. GMS is an end-to-end system that documents the decision-making process to: establish a project to be made available in GMS seek applications for a project assess, review and approve successful applications set up the funding contract for successful applications monitor and manage the grant, accept milestones and release or withhold payments. All grant related decisions need to be authorised within GMS. The process detailed in these guidelines links departmental policy to the processes and decisions that will occur in GMS. These guidelines follow, in general terms, the structure and process of GMS but contain significant additional information and cover activities and processes that occur outside GMS. GMS provides a rigorous and transparent approval process that can be tracked via the system audit trail, which documents all approval processes. All grants through GMS are based on a project s details as set out in the approved business case. These guidelines, along with the GMS User Manual, provide detailed support on the steps in the grants management and approval process. Any queries about the system should be directed to GAU. Line managers and business managers may also be able to provide advice and direction in relation to relevant internal agency delegations. 11 P age

13 9. Principles and policies 9.1 General principles for management, accountability and control Treasurer s Direction A6.4 states that: Each Agency is to ensure that appropriate management, accountability and control arrangements are in place over the payment, ongoing monitoring and acquittal of grants and subsidies. These guidelines contain processes to ensure that the Department complies with Treasurer s Direction A6.4 and are based on the following principles: value for money and achievement of departmental objectives are paramount transparent processes based on merit to select grant recipients grant documentation will satisfy accountability requirements for the distribution of public monies funding contracts will focus on outputs, not just the expenditure of funds funding contracts will be legally sound, be in plain English, and address GST issues, non-compliance processes and repayment requirements performance and financial reporting requirements will be in proportion to the nature, risk and amount of funding provided all decisions will be taken by appropriately delegated officers grants will be monitored and reports properly analysed and the analysis documented prior to release of payments non-performance or breaches will be acted upon in a timely manner, in line with the funding contract and appropriately documented prompt action will be taken if there is evidence that grant funds may be the subject of fraud periodic review of the efficiency and effectiveness of grant and subsidy funding will be undertaken as a means to achieve departmental objectives (i.e. grants will not be rolled over to the same provider automatically). 9.2 Delegations, roles and decision making Delegations Decisions in relation to grants at all stages must comply with departmental delegations Roles GMS operates on the basis of assigned roles. Roles are assigned by the system administrator and relate to the specific project. The assigned role determines the actions that each user can take within GMS. GMS defined roles are reflected throughout the end-toend grants management process detailed in these guidelines. These roles include: Assessor - assesses each ESP application against the objectives of the project criteria, conducts risk assessment and submits these assessments with recommendations to the reviewer and to the delegate through GMS. 12 P age

14 Delegate - authorises/approves all funding decisions including projects, applications for grant funding, funding contracts and releasing or withholding payments. The GAU ensures that delegates with the appropriate authority are assigned. External service provider (ESP) - submits an application/s for funding through GMS and delivers the outputs as outlined in its funding contract/s and submits payment requests, milestones and acquittals through GMS for any grant/s its receives. Grants Administration Unit (GAU) - administers GMS and provides help desk services. Northern Territory Government (NTG) User - enters project setup information in GMS but cannot undertake any decisions or change any approved information. This is a default role for all other departmental users and provides basic system wide enquiry access. Principal Project Officer (PPO) - manages the project and the individual grants and is responsible for funding contract drafting. A PPO may make decisions on milestone compliance and payment recommendations. Reviewer - reviews individual ESP applications against the objectives of the project criteria and conducts an independent risk assessment. A reviewer submits his/her assessment with recommendations (along with those of the assessor) to the delegate through GMS. SYS - provides system administration functions of GMS and training to users. Note: An individual may have different roles in respect of different projects or at different times, e.g. a PPO for one project may take the role of assessor for another project Approvals - delegate v policy discussions and program decisions While formal decisions (such as allocation of funds, approving a grant recipient and approving payments) are clearly detailed in GMS, there are many policy and program decisions that take place during the project development and grants management process. Developing and managing grant projects is a collaborative process involving internal and external stakeholders. The formal processes through GMS do not replace the discussions, research and agreements reached through the developmental processes. For example, in developing a new project, program staff need to consider: evidence and past experience views of the sector whether a grant is the appropriate approach whether a single ESP should be approached or a number of ESPs detail of the project description. These issues will inform the service model, the business case and the statement of requirement (refer sections 11 and 12). These documents need to be developed in line with the relevant program policies and procedures. They must also be consistent with departmental procedures and comply with GMS requirements, including the use of relevant templates (e.g. those provided in these guidelines) for documentation. At each stage of the process the relevant manager/s must be consulted and provide endorsement and formal approval/s. To comply with Treasurer s Direction A6.4 and to meet transparency requirements, all grants processes and decisions must be documented on departmental files and/or in GMS notes and through the business case and statement of requirement. 13 P age

15 The recommendations and documents that are uploaded to GMS for formal decision by the delegate must have first been endorsed by the line manager/s and discussed with the relevant program staff and/or with ESPs. 9.3 Relationship building and management The relationships between the Department and ESPs must be based on mutual respect, objectives and accountability. They are best viewed as informal partnerships involving working together in mutually beneficial ways to achieve shared goals. They acknowledge the fact that partners can achieve something together that they cannot achieve alone. In a true partnership there is sharing of: resources, work, risk, responsibility and decision-making. There is, unavoidably, a power imbalance flowing from the Department s role as funder and in setting the parameters of programs and funding. However, by adopting a respectful and collaborative approach to a relationship, a partnership is possible. The Department s corporate value of respect and cooperation is inherent in the partnerships it seeks with ESPs. Working relationships require mutual respect for the expertise, experience and skills that each party contributes, as well as an understanding of the challenges and constraints under which each operates. Departmental officers must work together with funded ESPs to identify common priorities and objectives. GMS automates much of the routine, procedural communications between the Department and ESPs but it does not replace ongoing communication and relationship building Communication Two-way communication is crucial to the Department s relationships with ESPs. A PPO holds primary responsibility for ensuring that communication, whether written or verbal, is: open regular clear, unambiguous and in plain English appropriately documented constructive and able to enhance the relationship timely, particularly when responding to communications from ESPs. Routine communication initiated by the Department during the funding contract period should cover: clarifying expectations about service delivery providing feedback on performance progressing towards agreed milestones providing payments resolving disagreements. Routine communication is also an opportunity to explore: any challenges an ESP is facing feedback from an ESP to the Department about the Department s performance any practical issues arising from policies or guidelines any areas in which an ESP is seeking support or guidance from the Department. 14 P age

16 9.3.2 Collaboration and mutual obligations Collaboration in a funding relationship must be underpinned by: shared commitment to outcomes for individuals, families and communities mutually understood and agreed purpose and objectives good faith in all actions commitment to seeking win/win outcomes. A true collaboration will have the features of a partnership and, along with mutual obligations in behaviour, support and responsiveness. Both parties are accountable to each other. While many of the accountabilities of an ESP and the Department are documented in a funding contract, departmental staff must also be accountable in terms of behaviour, responsiveness, professionalism, timeliness and quality of advice Site visits and meetings Visits to ESPs are essential in relationship building, management and monitoring. These guidelines assume that there will be frequent face-to-face and/or teleconference meetings with ESPs. Formal meetings may form milestones in the funding contract (refer Step 4 - Section 14) depending on the risk level of the grant. Additional meetings beyond those required in the contract are appropriate and are an important part of a relationship. When visiting an ESP, a PPO should: give adequate notice of a site visit provide an agenda outlining what he/she hopes to achieve from the visit invite the ESP to add its own agenda items allow time on the agenda for an ESP to raise any matters relating to the funding contract, service provision, the relationship with the Department etc. A PPO should keep a record of site visits and meetings and retain them on file and/or in the file notes section of GMS. In the case of meetings that form a funding contract milestone, an ESP is required to enter details into the GMS portal including date, time, venue and ESP participants involved as well as a summary of the discussion transacted, including some reflection on the quality of the relationship and the interaction (this constitutes minutes of that meeting). Whether an ESP or the Department documents the meeting record, draft records must be shared with the other party before finalising the record. An ESP and departmental officers must have the opportunity to verify or comment on the record. Submission requires declaration as with other milestones. While face-to-face meetings are desirable and PPOs should aim to hold at least some meetings face-to-face, a PPO may also need to look at other ways to meet, particularly for remote services, such as teleconference meetings or via Skype. PPOs are expected to be efficient and where possible visit a number of ESPs in an area on a single trip or collaborate across programs for visits to ESPs that have multiple funding sources Capacity building The Department has a role in encouraging and, in some instances, enabling ESPs to build their own capacity for sustainability and service delivery. In the context of relationships with ESPs, capacity building includes: information sharing (acknowledging that the Department should be a sharer of information not a gatekeeper) 15 P age

17 two-way learning (where the Department both shares its knowledge and seeks to learn from ESPs) facilitating sharing knowledge across the sector workforce development (i.e. building the capacity of ESP workers to fulfil their roles, carry out the service activities and meet the agreed standard of performance) organisational development (i.e. working with ESPs to build their capacity to provide a service which meets industry standards and to have high standards of governance). PPOs should encourage and support ESPs to undertake activities that build and sustain their capacity to deliver and improve services and should acknowledge these as legitimate activities within funding contracts and performance reports. Activities to encourage include: continuous improvement professional and practice support training and development collaboration with similar organisations. Example of capacity building pathways to community control The Northern Territory Aboriginal Health Forum (NTAHF) also known as the Aboriginal Health Forum is a consultation structure established to decide on key issues and policy in Aboriginal Primary Health Care in the Northern Territory. The forum was formed through a partnership between the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory (AMSANT), the Northern Territory Department of Health and the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing s Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health (OATSIH). Through this partnership the document Pathways to Community Control (2009) was developed and an agenda to further promote Aboriginal community control in the provision of primary health care. The main purpose of the document was to create a framework to support Aboriginal community control in the planning, development and management of primary health services within Aboriginal communities. Key points from the document include: community participation can take different forms and will not always be static a community controlled health service model often provides the greatest level of community participation in health service delivery knowledge, skill, competence, motivation and opportunity are required for communities, organisations and individuals to engage effectively in discussions, decision making, governance and service delivery. 9.4 Complaints and dispute resolution There is always potential for disputes or complaints in a partnership and these are not always negative experiences. The Department is committed to engaging with ESPs to address complaints and to resolve disputes. If handled sensitively and in good faith, complaints or disputes can provide an opportunity to: improve performance address problems in a relationship learn from others. If issues are serious and not able to be resolved, complaints or disputes may have serious consequences and lead to formal changes in the relationship such as the cessation or variation of funding contracts. In general, disputes and /or complaints are: 16 Page

18 between the Department and an ESP (by one against the other) between a third party and an ESP or about an ESP from a third party (e.g. a client) Complaints/disputes between the Department and a funded ESP Complaints or disputes should be resolved as early and as informally as possible to maintain a positive relationship focused on achieving agreed outcomes. In the case of serious disputes (i.e. formal complaints against the Department or formal dispute notifications under a funding contract), formal processes must be followed. The funding contract has formal dispute resolution processes and these must be followed if an ESP or the Department formally notifies a dispute. This process requires that: notice of the dispute must be given in writing parties must meet within 10 business days of the notice and seek to resolve the dispute if the dispute cannot be resolved within 10 business days of the meeting, an independent expert is to be agreed on by the parties to determine the dispute (if the parties cannot agree on an independent expert, the President of the Law Society of the Northern Territory will be the expert) costs are to be shared parties must abide by the decisions of the independent expert both parties must continue to meet their obligations under the funding contract while the dispute is being resolved. Note: Clause 16 of the funding contract contains full details of the formal dispute process. An ESP may make a complaint against the Department or a departmental officer. This differs from a dispute because a dispute does not always involve an allegation of wrongdoing. A complaint could, for example, allege inappropriate or illegal behaviour, failure to follow process in the allocation of grants, or unfair treatment of an ESP. An ESP may approach its PPO, a more senior manager or executive member, the Minister or the Ombudsman to raise a complaint. A PPO who receives a complaint or is made aware that an ESP plans to make a complaint must advise his/her line manager immediately. The next step/s will depend upon the nature of the complaint but may include: a response to the ESP addressing the concern dispute resolution under the funding contract seeking legal advice mediation. While many matters can be resolved in a straightforward way, this may not be possible. The Department should respond to any action/s pursued by an ESP. At all stages, the Department s intention will be to ensure the needs of clients are met and that departmental objectives are achieved. Note: In all complaint and/or dispute cases, a PPO must involve his/her line manager and retain a record of all conversations and written communications on file and/or the file notes section of GMS. These records must be factual and avoid judgement, personal comment or opinion. Such records are subject to public release and scrutiny. 17 P age

19 9.4.2 Complaints/disputes about a funded ESP by a third party A PPO who receives a complaint about an ESP from a third party must: inform his/her line manager in writing and provide regular written updates on the progress of the complaint (the manager may choose to inform more senior manager/s) be alert for any patterns in complaints against an ESP and keep an issues register respect the privacy of the client and his/her right to pursue the complaint the way he/she chooses (i.e. only with the written agreement of the client can information be shared outside the Department) Note: Where a complaint involves alleged illegal activity by ESPs or their staff, abuse or violence against clients, there may be statutory obligations to report or to take action. In these serious cases, a line manager must be consulted and legal advice sought. A PPO who receives a complaint about an ESP from a third party may also: advise the client of the options open to him/her, such as the Health and Community Services Commissioner, the Ombudsman, or the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner (clients should also be informed of services to help them with their complaint such as the Disability Discrimination Service or the Aged and Disability Advocacy Service, community legal services or Aboriginal legal services) suggest that the client may use the ESP s internal grievance/complaints mechanism (but do not pressure any client to do so) in some cases, assist the complainant to raise his/her issue with the ESP (maintaining a neutral stance when doing so) if the client wishes, examine the issue further including provide the ESP with an opportunity to brief the Department about the matter and its attempts to resolve it. Note: The Department must consider whether or not an ESP is acting in accordance with its funding contract and may take action under the contract if appropriate. The Department may also choose to facilitate mediation in attempting to broker a resolution that is satisfactory to all parties. Advocacy and Complaints resources Northern Territory Advocacy Services. Australian Government Department of Health - The National Aged Care Advocacy Program. Health and Community Services Complaints Commission. 18 P age

20 10. End-to-end grants management Rather than focus mainly on managing the funding contract, an end-to-end grants management cycle recognises that all steps in project development, management and review need to be undertaken. It further recognises that the process is cyclical rather than linear - the final step in the cycle feeds back into the first step and the process continues. This cyclical approach supports best practice in grants management. The end-to-end grants management cycle in these guidelines has been developed in line with the GMS User Manual. Because these operating guidelines cover aspects of grants management and policy that are not within GMS, the end-to-end process does not exactly match the names and steps in GMS. Figures 1 below illustrates the alignment between the two processes - the end-to-end grants management process (outlined in these guidelines) and GMS requirements (outlined in the GMS User Manual). Figure 1: Alignment of Grants Management Operating Guidelines and GMS User Manual Grants Operating Guidelines Process GMS Process Developing the Project Project Documentation Project Set up Application Stage Application Executing the Funding Contract Assessment to Execution Payment Cycle Managing the Funding Contract Variation Milestone Acquittal End of Agreement Completion These operating guidelines outline the end-to-end cycle in six key steps: Step 1 - developing the project (this is not a GMS process) Step 2 - project documentation and approval (business case and statement of requirement) Step 3 - receiving, assessing and approving applications Step 4 - finalising the funding contract Step 5 - managing the funding contract Step 6 - end of project/contract and future direction (reviewing and evaluating the project). The steps are detailed in sections 11 to 16. While all six steps must be completed, the level of detail at each step will depend on the size, complexity and risk of a specific project. For a small, uncomplicated project the project documentation may be simple and might only take a few pages. These guidelines provide examples and suggestions regarding issues that may be considered but not every point suggested needs to be covered. This is a cyclical not a linear process. On completion of Step 6, if the Department wishes to continue the provision of the services, the cycle begins again at Step 1 (with review and evaluation outcomes from Step 6 informing the development of the project into the future). Note: The Department does not automatically roll over funding to the same ESP with the same conditions. The review process must inform decisions on the future of a grant in terms of project design and acquisition. Continued funding to the same ESP is a possible outcome, but it must be reached through the end-to-end process. The end-to-end process links to GMS throughout. While much of the development work and some policy approvals are done outside GMS, GMS is the tool to manage the process and seek formal approvals. These guidelines show the process and the content of the steps while the GMS User Manual provides additional detail on the steps within GMS. 19 Page

21 At all stages, it is possible that additional approvals will be needed outside GMS (e.g. it may be necessary to seek ministerial approval in some cases). This may occur: at the direction of the Minister or Government where a decision exceeds delegations where a delegate considers it appropriate to approach the Minister. At all stages, the principle of proportionality must be applied, i.e. the level of detail needs to be appropriate to each project. For small, low risk projects the research and documentation should be minimal. For large, new or complex projects, there will be more research and detail required, particularly in project design. In all cases, the end-to-end process should lead to better designed projects, better outcomes for clients and a level of transparency that enables the Department to comply with legislative and policy parameters. 20 P age

22 11. Step 1 - developing the project Note: Step 1 is not a GMS process. Grants Operating Guidelines Process GMS Process Developing the Project Project Documentation Project Set up Application Stage Application Executing the Funding Contract Assessment to Execution Payment Cycle Managing the Funding Contract Variation Milestone Acquittal End of Agreement Completion 11.1 What is a project? A project may be a single grant or a group of grants with the same target group, goals, funding model and target issues. Some examples include: Sobering-up shelters - with the Department providing grants to several sobering-up shelters. One project should be created to cover all these grants. Advocacy services - where the Department funds several advocacy or peak group activities. These have different target groups, issues and objectives and therefore cannot be grouped into a single project. A new funding program created by Government to provide funding for a specific target issue and target group should be created as a single project Existing and new funding projects Existing projects are guided by review findings about the project to date, along with relevant Government policies and decisions. Where funding contracts have ended, a level of detail to enable the delegate to make decisions and to enable ESPs to apply is required. New projects must be guided by Government policies and decisions which form the basis for the design of the project. The difference in the process between new and existing projects is outlined in each relevant section Budget allocation The budget allocation from which the project will be funded must be identified. This may be: a current allocation one-off allocation/non recurrent redirected funds from other projects a new allocation. A project must have confirmed funding available within the relevant program s internal budget at program/divisional level for the period of the proposed project or it cannot proceed. In relation to budget allocations a PPO must consider: the purpose for which the funds were allocated by the Legislative Assembly or provided by the Australian Government (check budget papers, portfolio budget statements and policy announcements to ensure a project is an appropriate use of the funds) the amount of funds available and the period for which they are available 21 P age

23 any other potential calls on the funds. A PPO s line manager (and the appropriate business manager) must confirm that a suitable budget allocation is identified and endorse proceeding with the development of any project. Note: The funding allocation and the project cost need to be further refined in the service model development step (Step 1, Section 11.6) and approved as part of the business case (Step 2, Section 12.1) Scope and project rationale, purpose, objectives, target group The need for the service to be provided under the project must be established as well as what the project is setting out to achieve. Specifically, a PPO must provide details on: Target group - the group/s in the community that needs the service/s and why. Be specific, e.g. people with a moderate to severe disability in Alice Springs or frail elderly people living in town camps in the Darwin area. The target group is further refined in the service model (Step 1, Section 11.6). Note: GMS allows a maximum of three target groups to be selected. Size of the target group, using: o o o o population data such as the national Census survey data such as the Ageing and Disability Survey, the National Health Survey, the National Indigenous Health Survey service reports research data that can be effectively extrapolated to the broader population. (The Department of Health library may assist in locating suitable data sources.) Target issue/s - the specific needs of the target group/s that the project will address (e.g. services for people with a mental illness might address social needs, medication management, counselling or activities of daily living). Evidence regarding the target issue/s and effective ways to meet those needs. Existing services (noting if they are government or non-government). Northern Territory Government and/or Australian Government responsibilities for the target group and the proposed services. Project objectives - what it seeks to achieve, the need/s it addresses, improvements that may result. Objectives are further refined in the service model (Step 1, Section 11.6). The resulting documentation, analysis and conclusions must be endorsed by the PPO s line manager and then incorporated into the business case (Step 2, Section 12.1) ESP service delivery option A decision must be made as to whether the activity and services of a proposed project are best delivered directly by the Department or by an ESP. There are always pros and cons for both options and it is the responsibility of program areas to consider these on a case-bycase basis. A PPO must analyse the pros and cons, costs and benefits for each option and include a summary analysis of these in the business case. The recommended approach must promote value for money and accountability. Essential questions to consider include: Is the service a supply under the Procurement Act? If so, it should be managed under the Procurement Framework (refer Section 7). 22 P age