Australia Awards in South and West Asia Toolbox The following table provides an overview of the range of toolbox options available under the Australia Awards Program in South and West Asia. This toolbox is intended to assist country and regional programs to consider the needs of their program and the best mix of activities within Australia Awards in order to meet those needs. The Managing Contractor (Program Hub Office) and the Activity Manager in DFAT Canberra can both provide support to program staff to use this toolbox in their annual and program planning processes. Cost estimates are provided for indicative purposes only; the actual cost of all activities can vary substantially (except long-term awards, which have a more fixed cost structure). Activity Description Most Appropriate Circumstances Most Likely Benefits Issues to Consider Est. cost per Participant Possible Funding Source(s) MC Input Required DFAT Post Input Required Scholarships (Long-term Awards) (Core Activity) Scholarships for long-term study at Australian tertiary institutions, in Australia. Can be offered at any level of study from TVET to PhD, at the discretion of the relevant country or regional program. Most commonly offered for 2 year Masters’ programs Best suited to long-term skills gaps, to support ongoing relationship with government and other partners, particularly in high priority sectors, and aligned with the priorities of the aid program Development of genuine links and relationships in Australia and with other Australia Awards students High quality, formal qualifications Prestige in country of origin Strong basis for developing identity as ‘alumni’ Significant investment in single individual – opportunity cost relative to other possible investments Carefully consider the most relevant level of study for program needs (TVET/ undergraduate/ postgraduate/ PhD) Varying issues of return-to-work (reintegration) and retention for public sector awardees compared to those from private sector $100,000 - $130,000 for 2-year program (VET or Masters) $207,000 for 3-year undergrad program $286,000 for PhD (4 years) Bilateral program fund allocation to Australia Awards Global budget measure (e.g. Enhancing Education Budget Measure) – secured through annual bid process via SCB Annual cycle of promotion, selection, placement and mobilisation is resourced throughout the program Targeted or specialist promotion or selection process may require additional effort Input to targeting and prioritisation strategy each year Annual approval of Country Plan specifying number of long-term awards A-based or representative on Selection Panel Post approval of final
and civil society Long timeframe to plan, deliver and see the effect selection outcome Post approval of award variations throughout each award Regional Scholarships (Core Activity) As above, but offered on a regional, rather than basis. Suitable to respond to a very specific requirement for academic / professional education that relates to a shared or issue, and which will benefit from development of a regional network of professionals. As above, but with additional benefit of bringing together awardees in a common discipline that is of interest to participating countries, thus developing a professional network that can contribute to regional / multi-country responses to an issue or challenge As above As above Regional program fund allocation to Australia Awards Global budget measure (e.g. Enhancing Education Budget Measure) – secured through annual bid process via SCB As above Annual approval of Regional Plan specifying number of long-term awards A-based or representative on Selection Panel Post approval of final selection outcome Post approval of award
variations throughout each award Short Course Awards (Core Activity) Accredited training activity of up to 5 months’ duration (but generally less than 3 months) Must be delivered by Australian Registered Training Provider Generally expected to include component Effective when linked to other aid program or government activities in target sector/ organisation Best used to address specific technical skills gaps Well suited to senior staff who cannot spend long periods away Can be highly tailored to meet needs of participants/ target organisation or sector Can accommodate wider range of English language skills, including through use of translators and interpreters High quality program due to Australia RTP provision Opportunity for in-Australia experience and development of Requires significant technical input to identify, scope and design Administratively intensive – many similar activities to long-term awards, but in much shorter timeframe Risk of becoming ad hoc with little tangible change in capacity or performance due to result of training being only short-term – unless very well designed and supported $5000 - $7000 per week per participant $7000+ if interpreter/ translator included Likely lower cost if held in country or region Bilateral program fund allocation to Australia Awards Global budget measure (e.g. Enhancing Education Budget Measure) – secured through annual bid process via SCB Individual bilateral initiatives Ad hoc funding (e.g. DAP) Training/ Short Term Activity Specialist support for technical support for identification, scoping and planning AA Country Office for participant selection and mobilisation Substantial input from Australian office – procurement, logistics, monitoring and management Annual approval of Country Plan specifying number of short course awards Technical or strategic input to identify or refine course need and response May require brokering or promoting opportunity to partners Requires 1-2 person weeks of Post input per course, in preparation
some links Can build strong cohort amongst participants Option for regional short courses, which can build regional links periods Fellowship (Core Activity) Grants (from global pool of funding) to Australian organisations to support cooperation with organisation(s) in home country to implement activities that develop the skills of Fellows, and relationships between the organisations. Can support research, study, training or professional Valuable where links between organisations are as important as individual skills development Also useful if formal training not suitable to meet needs (e.g. when work attachment is more appropriate) Explicitly links organisations as well as developing individual skills, knowledge and networks Well suited to senior staff who cannot spend long periods away Significant flexibility to design any program of activity within Australian organisation must submit proposal and manage grant, as well as all aspects of Fellow mobilisation and support; not all organisations have good capacity to perform these roles Private sector organisations may require additional encouragement to participate Grant funding up to $35,000 in total; number of individual Fellows is variable Global fund – individual Fellowships awarded via competitive process managed by SCB Can provide support to Post role in identifying, brokering and developing Australian organisation involvement Australia office may also assist with brokering Australian organisation involvement Some Fellowships require substantial brokering and advocacy work by DFAT to attract relevant Australian host organisations, and to support their proposal development
attachments in Australia. budget and program guidelines Supplementary Program (e.g. Leadership) (Core Activity) Leadership Program is currently being re-scoped, and it is not yet known what scope, if any, Posts will have for flexibility. It is likely to remain a global program focused on individual awardees, so there may be little or no role for either Posts or the Contractor. The Toolbox will be updated when revision of program is completed. English Language Testing (Enabling Activity) Provision of funding and (in some cases) other support for applicants to do their IELTS (or equivalent) test Most appropriately used to support disadvantaged applicants who are otherwise well-placed to succeed in the selection process (e.g. for shortlisted applicants who meet all other criteria and are from target groups or areas) Can be useful to address the barrier to participation in scholarships faced by economically, ethnically or geographically disadvantaged men and women who could not otherwise access English language testing as required by application process Cost of testing generally prohibits provision of IELTS testing for all applicants, so best targeted to shortlisted applicants Test fees range from $150 to $210 per person depending on the country Bilateral program fund allocation to Australia Awards Global budget measure (e.g. Enhancing Education Budget Measure) – secured through annual bid process via SCB Development and implementation of process to identify appropriate applicants for this support Annual approval of Country Plan specifying number and type of agreed Enabling Activities No substantive input required, once Country Plan is approved
English Language Training (Enabling Activity) Provision of English language training, for varying durations, to support awardees to reach required IELTS level for acceptance into study in Australia. Can be provided in Australia or in the home country. Can be provided pre-application to target groups (so they become stronger applicants), or post application to high quality awardees who are below the required English level Suitable when English language levels are a significant barrier to the participation of target individuals who are otherwise of high calibre (e.g. women, people with a disability, ethnic minorities) AND their English level can be addressed with modest amounts of training Can ensure that disadvantaged applicants are not excluded due to lower English language levels Funding English training has an opportunity cost in that it diverts funding from core awards to increase the investment in an individual Local providers may not provide suitable quality of training – quality assessment and monitoring is required Highly variable depending on the duration and location of training Bilateral program fund allocation to Australia Awards Global budget measure (e.g. Enhancing Education Budget Measure) – secured through annual bid process via SCB Identification of suitable training providers Subcontracting and management of ELT provider Identification/ selection of ELT participants Support to participants while training Annual approval of Country Plan specifying number and type of agreed Enabling Activities No substantive input required, once Country Plan is approved (including specification of approved ELT activities) Foundation Awards (Enabling Can provide a range of training to high calibre applicants who fall Suitable when certain skills are significant barrier to the Can strengthen the capacity of disadvantaged applicants to Requires suitable good quality local training providers Diverts funding Variable depending on content and Bilateral program fund allocation to Australia Design and coordination of Foundation Award program Annual approval of Country Plan specifying
Activity) just short of selection, providing them with upgraded skills so they can be stronger candidates in subsequent selections. Training generally include ELT but can also provide training in communication, study skills, application preparation, IELTS testing etc Does not provide guaranteed selection; participants must re-apply. Local training providers deliver training participation of target individuals who are otherwise of high calibre (e.g. women, people with a disability, ethnic minorities) AND these skills gaps can be addressed with modest amounts of training Best provided part-time so participants can continue employment and do not require stipends or other support submit stronger (more likely to succeed) applications in future, with more comprehensive support that just ELT Can provide applicants with some measure of prestige even in the absence of success in securing a scholarship award from core Australia Awards activities Risks raising expectations of future scholarship awards, so careful management of expectations is essential duration Awards Global budget measure (e.g. Enhancing Education Budget Measure) – secured through annual bid process via SCB Subcontracting and supervision of local providers Modification and implementation of selection process to channel applicants into Foundation Award Support and monitoring of awardees number and type of agreed Enabling Activities No substantive input required, once Country Plan is approved Partner Organisation Provision of support to specific Best used to support Can ensure organisations This can be a significant narrowing Variable Bilateral program fund Can require considerable Annual approval of
approach (Enabling Activity) organisations to increase their participation in Australia Awards. Ranges from support to staff in preparing applications, to preferential access to ELT or Foundation Awards, provision of IELTS testing to staff, or even to the allocation of award places to an organisation engagement with organisations that play a key role in the aid program or in the support for target groups or areas within Australia Awards. Most appropriate aimed at organisations that are otherwise important for achieving the aims of Australia Awards, or the broader aid program, have increased or even guaranteed access to Australia Awards A highly directed approach to targeting of access to Australia Awards so should be used when organisations are genuinely important to the aid program and do not otherwise have access to such support, either from other donors or their own resources Organisations must be able to manage staff absences for long-term study while also holding their positions for their return (reintegration is essential). allocation to Australia Awards Global budget measure (e.g. Enhancing Education Budget Measure) – secured through annual bid process via SCB technical and coordination input depending on the scope and nature of the Partner Organisation support. Country Manager will have lead responsibility. Country Plan specifying number and type of agreed Enabling Activities Post may need to participate in ongoing relationship management with Partner Organisations, especially when they are core partners in other aspects of the aid program also
G. Priority Groups or Locations Rationale Specify which groups of people, and/or geographic locations will be given priority, and describe the approach Briefly outline why these groups or locations are given priority, referring to the intended outcomes of Australia Awards, and the overall country program. H. Partner Organisations and their entitlement Rationale Specify any organisations that will be designated as partners in Australia Awards (if any), and describe the type of support that will be provided (e.g. automatic shortlisting for nominated staff, allocated scholarships places, training or mentoring to assist with application preparation etc) Briefly outline why these organisations will receive this partner support, referring to the intended outcomes of Australia Awards, and the overall country program. I. Activities Rationale Detail the mix of Australia Awards activities (from the Implementation Toolbox) to be funded from the budget allocations specified in (D) (e.g. long-term scholarships/ short course awards/ supplementary or enabling activities etc) Briefly outline why these activities will be funded, referring to the intended outcomes of Australia Awards, and the overall country program. <country name> Current Priorities Table (year) Factor Priorities For Example: Performance Targets For Example A. Organisation/s BRAC ICDDR,B Min. of Agriculture, Policy Branch Min. of Health, Rural Health Dept. Inclusive of Public, NGO, Private Enterprise Four awards to BRAC Three awards to ICDDR,B 60% of awards to Public Orgs 20% of awards to NGOs 20% of Awards to Private Enterprises
B. Group/s (Profile/s) Profile 1: Senior Ag. Policy Makers Profile 2: Rural Health Workers Inclusive of women and disabled 70% awards to Profile 1 30% awards to Profile 2 50% awards to women 5% awards to disabled C. Form/s of Development Contribution* District-level policy development Rural health practices Rural health training 70% of contribution examples are of district policy development 30% of contribution examples are of rural health practice 20% of contribution examples are of provision of rural health training D. Sector/s (up to four) Agriculture Health (note standard terminology will be developed across region) 50% awards to Agriculture 30% awards to Health 20% awards to Education 70% of contribution examples are in Ag. sector 30% of contribution examples are in health sector E. Location/s Kathmandu District (Kathmandu) Morang District (Biratnagar) Terhathum District (Myanglung) 60% of awards to Kathmandu 20% of awards to Morang 20% of awards to Terhathum 20% of contribution examples are made in Morang 20% of contribution examples are made in Terhathum
M&E Question Indicators Disaggregates Primary Disaggregates (all): By Country/By Region Secondary Disaggregates: usually a standard set, but with noted additions/exceptions Data source Responsibility for Data Collection Responsibility for Analysis & Reporting Analysis Timing Report Timing A. Has promotion been effective and efficient? A1. Number or %* of applications lodged (all applications commenced in OASIS including both drafts and submitted applications) (*by each country) Standard Set as available (these include incomplete applications) OASIS M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually M&E Progress Report (June) Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct) A2. Number or %* of applications submitted (all applications formally submitted in OASIS) (*by each country) Standard Set with the following possible disaggregate combinations: Number or Percentage of applications submitted by Gender/ DAP/ award category/priority area/study area/award level Number of applications submitted by Ethnicity by gender/ DAP/award category/priority area/study area/award level Number or Percentage of applications submitted by Disability by gender/DAP/award category/priority area/study area/award level OASIS M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually M&E Progress Report (June) Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct)
A3. Ratio(s) of eligible applications to available awards Standard Set Mixed SASP data M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually M&E Progress Report (June) Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct) A4. Ratio(s) of ineligible to eligible applications Standard Set Mixed SASP data M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually M&E Progress Report (June) Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct) A5. Average promotional unit cost of an eligible application (ratio of cost of promotion to number of eligible applications received) Desired Applicant Profile [DAP] (country specific) Mixed SASP data M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually M&E Progress Report (June) Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct) B. Has selection been effective and efficient? B1. Number or Percentage of available awards filled Primary Disaggregates (Country/Region) only OASIS/Selection data M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually M&E Progress Report (June) Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct)
C5. (G2.) Number or Percentage of alumni providing significant and appropriate examples of actual uses of their award skills within 2 years after return Standard Set Post-return ADIS updates M&E Officer/ Country Coordinators M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)) C6. Number or Percentage of alumni who remain employed in the field of their award qualification 3 or more years after return Standard Set Tracing Surveys Case Studies M&E Adviser M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) C7. Number or Percentage of short term award) alumni providing positive feedback in ‘course relevance/quality surveys’* (broken down by survey question) Standard Set Course Survey M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer On- completion of short term awards Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)
C8. Number or Percentage of short term award) alumni providing negative feedback in ‘course relevance/quality surveys’* (broken down by survey question) Standard Set Course Survey M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer On- completion of short term awards Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) D. Were awardees suitably prepared to undertake studies in Australia? D1. Number or Percentage of awardees requiring English language training Standard Set Program Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) D2. Number or Percentage of awardees successfully completing English language training Standard Set Program Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)
D3. Number or Percentage of awardees successfully obtaining an Australian qualification Standard Set OASIS M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) D4. Number or Percentage of awardees successfully obtaining an Australian qualification of the level they originally sought Standard Set OASIS/ Program Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) D5. Number or Percentage of awardees obtaining an Australian qualification after receiving a significant extension (>1 month) due to academic -(under performance extension) Standard Set OASIS/ SASP Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)
D6. Number or Percentage of awardees obtain an Australian qualification after receiving a significant extension (>1 month) due to issues extensions) Standard Set OASIS/ SASP Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) D7. Number or Percentage of awardees failing to obtain an Australian qualification due to academic -(under performance terminations) Standard Set OASIS/ SASP Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) D8. Number or Percentage of awardees failing to obtain an Australian qualification due to non-academic issues terminations) Standard Set OASIS/ SASP Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)
E4. Number or Percentage of awardees/alumni reporting significant negative perceptions of Australia on or after return Standard Set All above (this section) All above (this section) M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) F. Are awardees establishing and maintaining positive linkages with Australia? F1. Percentage of awardees reporting establishment of personal linkages with Australians while on *uses Q64 of Survey –reports mode of Australian association categories Reduced Standard Set* *based on a sub-sample of alumni who are currently on award (able to be disaggregated only within limits of ORIMA data analysis associated with each question). On-award surveys AusAID Canberra M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) F2. Number or Percentage of alumni providing significant and appropriate examples of usage of professional linkages with Australians within 2 years after return Standard Set Post-return ADIS updates M&E Adviser/ Country Coordinators M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)
F3. Number or Percentage of alumni reporting significant and appropriate examples of usage of personal linkages with Australians within 2 years after return Standard Set Post-return ADIS updates M&E Adviser/ Country Coordinators? M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) F4. Number or Percentage of alumni reporting significant and appropriate examples of usage of professional linkages with Australians 3 or more year after return Standard Set Tracing Surveys Case Studies M&E Adviser M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) F5. Number or Percentage of alumni reporting significant and appropriate examples of usage of personal linkages with Australians 3 or more year after return Standard Set Tracing Surveys Case Studies M&E Adviser M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)
G5. (F4) Number or Percentage of alumni reporting significant and appropriate examples of usage of professional linkages with Australians 3 or more year after return Standard Set Post-return ADIS updates M&E Adviser/ Country Coordinators M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) G6. Number of awardees/alumni reporting significant examples of inappropriate intended or actual use of award skills or Australian links any time Standard Set All above (this section) All above (this section) M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Six Monthly or Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) H. Have results been sustainable? H1. (C7.) Number or Percentage of alumni who remain employed in the field of their award qualification 3 or more years after return Standard Set Tracing Surveys Case Studies M&E Adviser M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)
H2. (G4.) Number or Percentage of alumni providing significant and appropriate examples of actual uses of their award skills 3 years or more after return Standard Set Tracing Surveys Case Studies M&E Adviser M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) H3. (F4.) Number or Percentage of alumni reporting significant and appropriate examples of usage of professional linkages with Australians 3 or more year after return Standard Set Tracing Surveys Case Studies M&E Adviser M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) H4. (F5.) Number or Percentage of alumni reporting significant and appropriate examples of usage of personal linkages with Australians 3 or more year after return Standard Set Tracing Surveys Case Studies M&E Adviser M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)
I. Has Management been effective and efficient? I1. (B1.) Number or Percentage of available awards filled Primary Disaggregates (Country/Region) only Program Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) I2. Percentage of countries completing promotion processes within stated timelines Primary Disaggregates (Country/Region) only Program Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) I3. Percentage of countries completing selection processes within stated timelines Primary Disaggregates (Country/Region) only Program Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)
I4. Number or Percentage of candidates receiving placements within stated timelines Standard Set Program Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) I5. Number or Percentage of awardees mobilized within stated timelines Standard Set SASP Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) I6. Percentage of M&E data collection and reporting completed within stated timelines Primary Disaggregates (Country/Region) only Program Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)
I7. Number or Percentage of short term activities (short learning opportunity) concept papers completed within 4 weeks of initial request Primary Disaggregates (Country/Region) only Program Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March) I8. Number or Percentage of short term activities (short learning opportunity) contracted to relevant providers within 12 weeks of approval of concept paper Primary Disaggregates (Country/Region) only Program Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)
I9. Number or Percentage of short term activities (short learning opportunity) delivered within contracted period Primary Disaggregates (Country/Region) only Program Documentation M&E Officer M&E Adviser/ M&E Officer Annually Activity Cycle Plan and Report (Oct/Nov) Six –Month Update Report (Feb/March)
Annex 10: Risk Register Objective/s Risk No. RISK Event, Source & Impact (what can happen (event), how can that happen (source) and what will the impact be if it happens?) Existing Controls (what's currently in place?) Risk rating with existing controls in place Is risk rating acceptable? Y/N (if no, please propose treatments) Proposed Treatments (If no further treatment required or available, please explain why) Person Responsible for Implementing Treatment/s Date for Proposed Treatment/s Target rating Consequence (refer to matrix) Likelihood (refer to matrix) Risk Rating (refer to matrix) Consequence (refer to matrix) Contextual C1 DFAT and contractor staff, or the contractor office are affected by security incidents. Contractor office located in Serena Business Centre, Islamabad Major Rare No The Contractor will be required to commission Security and Do No Harm Risk Assessments for every participating country that has recently experienced or is still subject to internal violent conflict or high levels of criminal kidnapping. Contractor Within two months of Program Major
C2 Provision of the award or publicity of individual awardees or alumni increases personal threat levels. Limited use of individuals' data in publicity, announcements. Rare Moderate Major No The program will adopt a “no names, no faces” policy in publications and promotions in areas this risk applies (currently Pakistan and Afghanistan). Publicity and promotions will focus on development contributions, not individuals. A process to coach awardees on minimizing their exposure to such risk as required will be included in the Do No Harm Risk Assessment. Contractor and DFAT Within two months of Program Major Programmatic Outcome 1: Alumni from priority groups or organisations are delivering positive forms of development contributions in priority sectors and/or locations P1.1 The ‘right’ awardees are not selected, due to poor targeting, poor selection processes. Awardees do not select the ‘right’ course of study. Application of global Australia Awards policies and standards including for selection processes. Moderate Rare Low Yes The design provides revised guidance on targeting the “best” candidates, and includes a new provision for an Academic Adviser. Contractor Annual planning process (targeting) will be instituted at of contract; academic adviser engaged in first half of 2015 Moderate
P1.4 Awardees from areas seek to remain in Australia through a change of visa. No specific controls for this program beyond those under global Australia Awards global policy. Moderate Likely High No The design provides revised guidance on setting targets to meet the program’s objectives, while still ensuring a diverse range of candidates can continue to be selected, including those from conflict affected areas (which are also those with the greatest development need). Design provides additional resources for closer monitoring of awardees, and new return home workshops can focus specifically on return to areas for relevant cohorts. DFAT will ensure ongoing dialogue with DIBP to monitor and assess the risk. Contractor New annual planning and targeting process will be introduced at of contract. New monitoring process commenced within six months of contract commencing. Moderate Outcome 2: Alumni have positive links with Australians and Australian organisations, with other alumni, and with other global, regional and local networks P2.1 Awardees, alumni or their employers may not have a positive experience of the program (depending on their experience before, during and after they are in Australia). The MEF includes monitoring the awardee experience at all stages. The program works with the Scholarships and Alumni Branch to ensure adequate support is provided to awardees while on-award by Australian Moderate Unlikely Low Yes Inclusion of some additional on-award activities to enhance the experience in Australia, such as sector-specific workshops/seminars, and more generic activities such a return home workshop, which will be set out in an Engagement Strategy Contractor On-Award Engagement Strategy within six months of Moderate
universities, and that any issues are brought to the attention of the program in a timely manner. P2.2 Awardees do not build and maintain links with Australia No specific controls for this program beyond those under global Australia Awards global policy. Moderate Likely High No The program will introduce activities for awardees to improve the on-award experience and work with SCB on development of an engagement strategy. The program will develop an engagement plan and pilot activities from the strategy as appropriate. Contractor On-Award Engagement Strategy within six months of Moderate Outcome 3: Australia is viewed as a valued international partner P3.1 The program selects inappropriate candidates (e.g. with questionable character, or who engage in criminal activity), attracting negative public perception of the program. Existing selection processes require background checks to be performed. Department of Immigration and Border Protection also has checks and processes in place to mitigate against an awardee who fails the character Moderate Rare Yes No additional treatments Moderate
assessment to be granted a visa for entry to Australia. P3.2 Uncertainty of future budget allocations and policy directions, including changes by Country Programs under the “toolbox” could impact on the relationship with partner governments and organisations Annual planning and negotiation process with partner governments and partner organisations to agree priority sectors and other issues such as mix of public/open category Moderate Rare Yes The program sets out an annual planning process that includes review of all targets and mix of awards. Annual planning will also factor in the impact of any changes to the mix of awards on partner relations. DFAT will maintain good relations with all partners and negotiate changes with partners. DFAT post New annual planning and targeting process will be introduced at of contract Moderate