Audit Report No. 36 2008-09
Chapter 6 Settlement Grants Program
Introduction
6.1
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) is responsible for
implementing the Government’s immigration policies. The department’s purpose is
to enrich Australia through the well managed entry and settlement of people.[1]
To achieve this purpose, DIAC is responsible for achieving two Government
outcomes:
n Outcome 1.
Contributing to Australia’s society and its economic advancement through the
lawful and orderly entry and stay of people[2]; and
n Outcome 2. A society
which values Australian Citizenship and social cohesion, and enables migrants
and refugees to participate equitably.[3]
6.2
Outcome 2 is divided into five outputs. Settlement services are covered
by Output 2.1, which focuses on building self-reliance, developing English
skills and fostering links with mainstream services.[4]
Output 2.1 includes a wide range of activities, including the Settlement Grants
Program (SGP).
Settlement Grants Program
6.3
SGP was introduced on 1 July 2006 following a review of DIAC’s
settlement services.[5] The aim of SGP is to
deliver services that assist eligible clients to become self-reliant and
participate equitably in Australian society as soon as possible after arrival.
Through SGP, DIAC funds settlement projects that target specified groups of new
entrants.
6.4
These target groups are:
n permanent residents
who have arrived in the last five years as humanitarian entrants or as family
stream migrants with low English proficiency;
n dependants of skilled
migrants in rural and regional areas with low English proficiency who have
arrived in the last five years;
n select temporary
residents (Prospective Marriage, Provisional Spouse, Provisional
Interdependency visa holders and their dependants) in rural and regional areas
who have arrived in the last five years and who have low English proficiency;
and
n communities which
require assistance to develop their capacity to organise, plan and advocate for
services to meet their own needs and which are still receiving significant
numbers of new arrivals.[6]
6.5
Projects funded through SGP fall into three categories, referred to as
service types. The three service types are Orientation to Australia – practical
assistance to promote self-reliance, Developing Communities, and Integration –
inclusion and participation.[7] Services are provided by
SGP grant recipients, who are known as service providers. To be eligible for
SGP funding, an organisation must be a not-for-profit incorporated
community-based organisation, a local government organisation, currently funded
to deliver services under the Adult Migrant English Program, and/or a
government service delivery organisation in a rural or regional area.[8]
6.6
DIAC’s National Office (NatO) and State and Territory Offices (STOs)
share responsibility for effectively managing the program. Service providers
apply for grants in response to annual advertising. DIAC assesses applications
and provides funding recommendations to the Minister for Immigration and
Citizenship, who makes the decisions to award grants. After the Minister
announces the outcome of the funding round, DIAC negotiates funding agreements
with successful applicants. At regular intervals throughout the grant period,
providers report on progress and DIAC pays grant instalments.
6.7
To date there have been three annual SGP funding rounds. Just over $30
million has been allocated to SGP projects in each round, amounting to a total
of $95.5 million. This has funded 669 grants: 209 in the 2006-07 funding round;
231 in 2007-08; and 230 in 2008-09.
The Audit[9]
Audit objective and scope
6.8
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the
Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s management of the Settlement Grants
Program. The ANAO assessed DIAC’s performance in terms of how effectively it
planned for funding rounds, assessed and allocated grants, monitored and
evaluated the program, and managed relationships with its stakeholders. In
doing so, the ANAO focused on SGP projects that received funding in the 2007-08
[round].
Overall audit conclusions
6.9
The ANAO made the following overall audit conclusion:
The Settlement Grants Program assists eligible migrants to
become self-reliant and participate equitable in Australian society. The
program funds service providers to manage projects which offer orientation,
community development and/or integration services to specific groups of new
migrants.
Overall, DIAC has developed an effective framework for
managing SGP. DIAC has implemented the program in a manner that is consistent
with Government policy and its strategic objective, and has clearly defined the
program’s parameters. It has also established a strategic risk management
framework, focusing on managing risks at a whole-of program level, but has
focussed less on risks to performance at an operational level. In addition,
DIAC has developed sound procedures to:
n promote funding
rounds;
n assist applicants to
apply for SGP grants;
n assess applications
and allocate grants; and
n monitor individual
grant recipients’ compliance with funding agreement conditions.
DIAC provides
its officers with adequate guidance documents and training on essential
elements of SGP and supports service providers to apply for grants and deliver
funded projects. DIAC’s grant managers and service providers reported that
their relationships were positive and productive.
However, DIAC
has not developed or implemented effective performance indicators and a
performance management framework that would assist it to measure, monitor and
assess the performance of individual projects and the program as a whole.
Further, the department should provide more meaningful settlement needs
information to assist applicants to better target settlement needs. Also, the
current Grants Management System (GMS) does not support the effective
administration of SGP.
In some areas
DIAC has not effectively implemented its procedures for assessing grant
applications and monitoring grant progress reporting, which are interpreted and
applied inconsistently across DIAC’s STOs. Also, DIAC has poorly documented the
basis of funding recommendations, including actions taken in response to
discussions with the Parliamentary Secretary. The standard of documentation
supporting grant assessment processes has been a recurring theme in some recent
ANAO audits of grants administration.[10] Without adequate
documentation, departments are not able to demonstrate that all applicants have
been treated equitably, and applications have been considered on their merits
having regard to the program’s objectives.
The ANAO has
made six recommendations to improve DIAC’s management of SGP. These are aimed
at developing and implementing an effective performance management framework,
improving settlement needs information, ensuring key decisions are adequately
documented, and evaluating the program.[11]
ANAO recommendations
6.10
The ANAO made the following recommendations:
Table 3.1 ANAO recommendations, Audit Report No. 36
2008-09
1.
|
To assist DIAC and grant recipients to more effectively
target SGP projects, the ANAO recommends that DIAC:
(a) improves the quality
of settlement needs information;
(b) includes more
meaningful information about settlement needs in funding round guidance; and
(c) ensures that grant
applicants address settlement needs when applying for grants.
DIAC’s response: Agreed
|
2.
|
The ANAO recommends that, in order to support transparent,
accountable and equitable decision making, DIAC:
(a) amends the SGP
guidelines to outline the manner in which additional funding that becomes
available after the initial assessment process will be allocated to SGP
projects; and
(b) ensures that key
factors contributing to SGP grant allocation decisions are adequately
documented.
DIAC’s response: Agreed
|
3.
|
The ANAO recommends that DIAC implements an effective
process for fully acquitting grants at the end of their funding period.
DIAC’s response: Agreed
|
4.
|
The ANAO recommends that DIAC develops and implements a
plan to periodically evaluate how effectively SGP is achieving its objective
and identify opportunities for improvements in program administration.
DIAC’s response: Agreed
|
5.
|
The ANAO recommends that DIAC develops and implements an
effective performance management framework, which includes collecting and
analysing relevant data against useful SGP performance indicators, informs
program evaluation, and that assists DIAC to measure, monitor and assess the
impact of the program and whether it is achieving its objectives.
DIAC’s response: Agreed
|
6.
|
The ANAO recommends that DIAC formally decides the Grants
Management System’s future.
DIAC’s response: Agreed
|
The Committee’s review
6.11
The Committee held a public hearing on Monday 16 November 2009, with the
following witnesses:
n Australian National
Audit Office (ANAO); and
n Department of
Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC).
6.12
The Committee took evidence on the following issues:
n effectiveness of the
Settlement Grants Program (SGP);
n identifying
settlement needs;
n five-year focus of
the SGP;
n risk management:
§
program risks; and
§
grant risks;
n scope of grants
following funding announcement;
n IT system stability;
and
n future of the Grants Management
System (GMS).
Effectiveness of the SGP
6.13
The ANAO found that although DIAC is assessing and monitoring the SGP
for administrative compliance, there is no process in place to evaluate whether
the program is meeting its underlying objectives to help clients ‘to become
self-reliant and participate equitably in Australian society as soon as
possible after arrival’.[12] While acknowledging the
difficulty of measuring performance in the public sector, the ANAO notes that
the performance indicators in place do not address any of the key elements of
the program’s objectives.[13]
6.14
The Committee questioned how DIAC are evaluating the effectiveness of
the program and what processes it is using to assess delivery. DIAC told the
Committee that since the audit the Department has taken steps to develop an
improved performance framework in consultation with departmental offices and
outside expertise.[14]
Recommendation 11
|
|
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration
and Citizenship (DIAC) provides a brief report to the Joint Committee of
Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) detailing how DIAC is measuring the
effectiveness of the Settlement Grants Program (SGP) under the new
performance framework including:
n type
of data collected;
n methodology
used to collect data; and
n methods
of consultation with local communities.
|
Identifying settlement needs
6.15
The ANAO found that settlement needs reporting from state and territory
offices varied in detail and that staff were uncertain about what to report.[15]
The Committee expressed concern that the needs of new arrivals are not being
effectively identified and asked DIAC what steps it has taken to rectify this
situation. DIAC assured the Committee that it has improved the settlement needs
reporting process, developing and implementing a new four monthly issue report
template.[16] The template was
designed to remove uncertainty and confusing over what is required from the
report and provide consistent information across states and territories.[17]
6.16
The Committee stressed the importance of obtaining feedback directly
from settler communities regarding their requirements and asked if DIAC is seeking
such feedback. DIAC assured the Committee that it is consulting widely with
clients around the country, both directly through focus groups, and indirectly
through its network of community liaison officers as well as taking advice from
formal advisory bodies.[18] The Department
emphasised that it does not consider the SGP in isolation but as part of the
full range of services DIAC offers to meet the needs of new arrivals.[19]
Five-year focus of the SGP
6.17
The Committee asked the ANAO if the focus of the program on new arrivals
that have been in the country for less than five years is being complied with.
The ANAO replied that recipient agencies were applying the requirement
flexibly:
… we found that the general approach is that if they had
someone coming in the door who required services that did not exactly fit
within the parameters of the program and who might be at the five-year limit,
then they would provide those services.[20]
6.18
DIAC confirmed that agencies are inclined to consider the rule on a
case-by-case basis.[21] In light of this, the
Committee queried whether or not the imposition of an arbitrary five-year focus
on the program was justifiable or appropriate. DIAC conceded that it is
difficult to determine a timeframe in which individual new arrivals are settled
within the Australian community but that there needed to be a cut off point
where they would move into mainstream services.[22]
DIAC added that the original period had been set by government policy sometime
ago after extensive consultation with the community.[23]
Risk management
Program risks
6.19
The ANAO found that the Settlement Grants Program: Risk Framework
addressed the major program-level risks for the program but that there is no
formal monitoring of the framework throughout the year, and that some staff are
unaware of its existence.[24]
6.20
The Committee asked DIAC what steps had been taken to ensure the
framework is adhered to more effectively. DIAC told the Committee that
quarterly exception reports were introduced in October 2008 for all state and
territory offices. DIAC added that a range of other measures are in place to
monitor risk:
… risk owners monitor and minimise program risks through
strategies such as conducting stakeholder meetings, conferences and interviews,
grant management assessments and reviews and providing support and advice to
both internal and external stakeholders as issues emerge. Policies and
procedures are also created and updated on a regular basis as a result of the
reporting framework.[25]
Grants risks
6.21
The ANAO noted that DIAC experienced problems with risk assessment at
individual grant level and in 2008-09 introduced a standard risk assessment
matrix to assist assessor to more accurately identify potential problems at the
application stage.[26] The Committee asked if
DIAC had seen any benefits from the new strategy.
6.22
DIAC explained that the matrix has helped assessors gauge the level of
risk with individual projects and also determine how thoroughly an applicant
has thought through each area of the application. DIAC are confident that the new
assessment tool will prove beneficial in assessing risk at the individual grant
level:
The benefit of the risk assessment matrix has been more
consistent and rigorous assessment of the risks associated with grant
applications, thereby maximising the many and varied outcomes delivered through
this grants program for newly arrived migrants and refugees.[27]
Scope of grants following funding announcement
6.23
The ANAO noted that information regarding the scope of successful
projects was published on the DIAC website before negotiations for the grant
are finalised. During the negotiation phase changes are regularly made to the
scope of the project and the ANAO found that this may ‘result in disappointed
community expectations’.[28] The Committee asked DIAC
for its opinion on this assessment.
6.24
DIAC disagreed with this assumption maintaining that the information
published on the website was of ‘interest to service providers and clients,
providing advice on the availability of settlement services’.[29]
Rather than raising unrealistic expectations, DIAC expects the information to
be used by communities to work with providers to develop suitable projects.[30]
IT system stability
6.25
The ANAO report found that the IT system used to support the SGP was
unstable and frequently unavailable, failing at critical times and causing
frustration for staff and applicants.[31] The Committee asked what
steps are being taken to ensure the existing system is more reliable.
6.26
DIAC told the Committee that monitoring of the system has been improved
resulting in a significant drop in outages.[32] Additionally, DIAC
informed the Committee that the implementation of the Systems for People 10 in
November 2009 has rectified a number of system defects that were triggering the
outages.[33]
Future of the Grants Management System (GMS)
6.27
The ANAO found that the Grants Management System (GMS) used to
administer the SGP is unstable and lacks functionality.[34]
The system is frequently unavailable during peak periods, many processes have
to be carried out manually, and it cannot interact with DIAC’s financial
management system.[35] Although DIAC has taken
steps to modernise its technological support systems since 2006 there has been
no improvement in the GMS and its future remains uncertain. The ANAO
recommended that DIAC decides on the systems future so that GMS users and
support staff can more efficiently manage the SGP.
6.28
The Committee asked what steps have been taken to implement this
recommendation. DIAC informed the Committee that it has had a proposal approved
to develop a grants management system that will address the concerns raised in
the Audit Report.[36] The new GMS will support
the end-to-end operations of all DIAC’s settlement and multicultural grant
programs.[37] The Department assured
the Committee it will consult widely to ensure the new system is stable and
functional and addresses the limitations of the current program.[38]
DIAC is confident the new GMS improve management decision-making and
accommodate future grant program expansion:
Establishing a consistent grants management and reporting
capability across the DIAC’s various grant programs will ensure more consistent
decision-making, ensuring the policy objectives fo the settlement and
multicultural affairs programs are more effectively addressed. In addition, the
new system will be able to incorporate any future grant types with ease.[39]
Recommendation 12
|
|
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration
and Citizenship (DIAC) report within 12 months of tabling this report on the
implementation and progress of the new Grants Management System (GMS)
specifically addressing the issues raised in Australian National Audit Office
Audit Report No 36 2008-09 with regard to the functionality of the GMS for
the Settlement Grants Program (SGP).
|
Conclusion
6.29
The Committee is concerned that the effectiveness of the Settlement Grants
Program (SGP) is not being satisfactorily monitored and evaluated to determine
if it is meeting its objective to help new arrivals to settle into Australian
society. The Committee is not convinced that enough is being done to identify
and respond to the needs of immigrants at a local level and support programs
specifically tailored to those needs.
6.30
The Committee is concerned that the Grants Management System (GMS) does
not provide support to either grant applicants or DIAC staff, is inefficient
and an ongoing source of frustration. The Committee urges DIAC to implement the
ANAO recommendations and upgrade the Grants Management System (GMS) without
delay.