Chapter 3 Accessibility
3.1
The development of straightforward program guidelines is a start, but once
a program structure has been put in place, focus must then be turned to
ensuring that it is accessible to all applicants. Applying for funding should
be as easy as possible and assistance with the development of applications
forthcoming.
Does the application process need to be so complex?
3.2
Community feedback to this Committee consistently stressed the level of
complication and uncertainty involved in the RPP application process. Delays in
assessment and approval were cited as problematic, as was a lack of
transparency and certainty in connection with application approvals. In
practice, delays and subsequent increases in cost threatened the viability of
projects and also reduced the degree to which the program was seen as fair and
above-board by applicants and associated parties.[1]
3.3
The ANAO expressed similar concerns, citing delays and project cost increases
and the adequacy of the actions of the former administering Department
(Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) relating to due
diligence, financial management and departmental procedures.[2]
3.4
Any replacement program needs to be less complex than its predecessor. However,
the Committee is aware that a reduction in complexity should not come at the
expense of obtaining quality information about a proposed project for the
purpose of fulfilling the legal expectation under the Financial Management and
Accountability Act 1997 that good value for money is obtained for
expenditure from the public purse.[3]
3.5
There is a balance to be struck between reduced complexity and adequate
scrutiny. Several of the Committee’s recommendations focused on this issue. In
supporting the need for an easier application process, the Committee endorsed a
proposal to differentiate between grant applications on the basis of the amount
of money sought from the program.[4]
3.6
This will increase access to the program for applicants and rationalise administrative
work-loads, and management of risk, by applying a greater level of scrutiny
where projects involve a greater contribution from the federal government. The result
should be an enhanced capacity by the administering department to process applications,
and to perform other administrative processes associated with the program, in a
timely fashion.[5]
3.7
To achieve this, the Committee recommended that applications be
separated into three streams: those seeking less than $50,000 in contribution
from the program, those seeking between $50,000 and $250,000, and those seeking
more than $250,000.[6] Not only would scrutiny
be commensurate with the level of funding being sought, but also the complexity
of the application form. As a result, an organisation seeking $5000, for
example, could expect to fill out a relatively straightforward application
form, which in turn would be assessed thoroughly, but quickly, by the
administering department in a funding round (noted in Chapter 2), thereby
guaranteeing timely funding announcements.
3.8
To answer the questions posed by this section: There are times when
application processes do not need to be as complex, and there are times when
they do. It is reasonable to expect that a request for a large sum of public
money be handled differently than one for a relatively small amount. The
principles of due diligence should be applied to every application but the
process can vary in complexity, thereby ensuring an accessible, or less
complex, program application process for all applicants, regardless of the
amount of money being sought.
How can we help?
3.9
No matter how simple an application process is made, there will always be
a need for applicant assistance. A funding program is essentially a service
offered to a target area or group. Public perception about the program will be
based, in part, on the nature of an applicant’s interaction with the program
administrators.
3.10
In the case of the RPP, many applicants expressed satisfaction with the
assistance they received from ACCs (now RDA) during the development of
applications and dissatisfaction with the process once their application was
submitted to the National Office for assessment.[7]
3.11
ACC representatives were perceived to have local and regional knowledge
as well as an understanding of the RPP. Dealings with DOTARS, however, often left
applicants feeling as if they were not appropriately consulted or given
feedback on the status of their application.[8] Conversely, the Committee
received evidence from the DITRDLG suggesting that 80 per cent of RPP applications received by the department through ACCs were not complete, thereby creating more
work for the department.[9]
3.12
There are two questions to consider when examining the issue of
applicant assistance: how may applicants be assisted, and by whom?
3.13
In its interim report, the Committee outlined some fundamental
information that should always be provided to applicants—well-prepared
guidelines, web-based information and contact information. Promotion of the
program should continue to be done through RDA; government websites, including
GrantsLINK; media releases announcing approval for funding applications; and
mail-outs from, or direct contact with, Members or Senators.[10]
3.14
The Committee also endorsed the use of an EOI process to develop
applications. EOIs would be accepted throughout the year, independently of the
program’s funding rounds, and would receive feedback and assistance sufficient
to allow further development of an application, or to allow applicants to
approach another, more suitable program. This information would be on file and
constitute part of the evidence upon which assessments were made of those
projects which develop into applications.[11]
3.15
At the core of the Committee’s recommendations about applicant
assistance is the assumption that in any program, applicants feel supported and
that they are being treated fairly. Sufficient information being disseminated,
and mechanisms such as an EOI process, will assist in both regards. Ultimately,
however, people will make the difference.
3.16
The question of who would assist applicants through this process has posed
some challenges. The Committee was not asked to inquire into the future role of
RDA, and as such, has limited itself to reporting on the information it
received and making some recommendations framed around options for the
Government to consider. The Committee presented two options:
n formally charge RDA with the role of assisting applicants to develop their EOIs into an application; or
n allow the
administering department to undertake this role utilising either a regional
field officer in each region or an officer allocated a specific region from
either the national office or a regional office (where available).[12]
3.17
Central to both choices is the notion that strong applicant assistance derives,
in part, from a familiarity with local communities, regions and an ability to
nurture relationships in those areas. This was seen as the strength of ACCs and
regional departmental offices.
3.18
By its nature, RDA will have the advantage of regional and local
community familiarity and so it will be up to the Government to decide if it envisions
a role for RDA in assisting applicants to funding programs. Should the
Government choose to implement a program utilising a departmental assistance
process, then the administering department should overcome its lack of regional
familiarity by:
…assigning adequate resources to manage
the program for particular regions, allowing them to develop and retain that
expertise with respect to those regions.[13]
3.19
Regardless of how the Government ultimately decides to provide
assistance to funding applicants, the need for good customer service will
remain. Customer service is the cornerstone of the Committee’s principle of
accessibility and the program’s administrators should strive to ensure that applicants
have been provided with useful knowledge and ample assistance in formulating
their application.
Conclusion
3.20
Much of the Committee’s public consultations for this inquiry centred on
the issue of accessibility. Not surprisingly, community/government interaction
during the RPP was a major issue of concern and the success of any future
program will be based, in part, on how these challenges have been overcome. In
response, the Government should remain focused on the needs of applicants when
designing and administering a new regional funding program.
3.21
Communities and regions want a funding program that is accessible. They
need access to useful information through a variety of sources and access to an
application development process which places an emphasis on personal support
provided by knowledgeable staff.
Recommendation 4 |
3.22
|
The Committee recommends that the Government, in
establishing a new regional infrastructure funding program, considers the
needs of program applicants and ensures that the program is accessible by
providing useful information through a variety of sources and access to an
application development process which places an emphasis on personal support
provided by knowledgeable staff.
|