Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L00854:body:0:p16
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L00854
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 44859–48252

acquittal requirements for grants. There are no mandatory acquittal or reporting requirements for grantees in the CGRPs. Officials should determine the volume, detail and frequency of reporting requirements, proportional to the risks involved and policy outcomes being sought.
          * Where a grant is used to support the ongoing delivery of services from the same organisations over a period of years, officials should consider reducing the detail of the reporting requirements, given a grantee's established record of compliance and performance.
          * Subject to transparency considerations and risk assessment, it may be appropriate for officials to provide grantees that have a consistent record of high performance and reliability, more streamlined reporting requirements and evaluation measures, for example, allowing for aggregation of reports and less frequent reporting milestones.
          * When determining what acquittal or reporting requirements are required, officials should have regard to information collected by Australian Government regulators[65].
                  + Officials should not impose obligations on grantees to provide information that is available from other sources, such as Australian Government regulators[66], the Australian Bureau of Statistics, peak bodies or publicly available material.
          * Where possible and appropriate, officials should consider aligning grant reporting requirements with a grantee's internal reporting, such as the annual reporting cycle and/or other substantive reporting requirements.
    9.6.       A further consideration is the entity's reporting requirements. Inappropriately or inflexibly applied entity standards and accountability frameworks could deter potential grantees. For example, requiring small businesses or not-for-profit entities to report in the same manner as large corporate organisations may not be appropriate. Similarly, poorly formulated reporting requirements, which focus on outputs rather than outcomes, can be overly burdensome, while stifling innovation by grantees.
          * Officials should use better practice tools[67] and templates[68].
          * Officials should balance the stringency of acquittal procedures against the level of risk, based on consideration of the risks involved with the grant activity, the grantee and the costs of compliance.
    9.7.       Grant opportunity guidelines and operational procedures should explain how proportionality is to be applied. Proportionality decisions should also be recorded and periodically reviewed, so that accountability and reporting requirements remain aligned to considerations of performance and risk through all phases of the grants lifecycle.

  10.        An Outcomes Orientation
    10.1.   Grants administration should be designed and implemented so that grantees focus on outcomes and outputs for beneficiaries, while seeking the most efficient and effective use of inputs. Accountable authorities and officials should focus on achieving government policy outcomes.[69]
    10.2.   Grants administration should have a performance framework that is linked to an entity's strategic direction and key performance indicators. Officials should determine the operational objectives that can be used to evaluate a grant. Specifically, officials should determine what change is expected as a result of a grant (the