Greater integrity needed in grants assessments

SmartyGrants managed services leader Stephen Foxworthy said his team’s recent in-depth review of grants audits demonstrated the need for further reform in the area.

Speaking ahead of a presentation on the issue at the Melbourne “Grantmaking Muster”, Foxworthy said the use of independent assessors could reduce reputational and political risks linked to assessments by those with perceived or actual conflicts of interests.

SmartyGrants offers its own assessment service, which Foxworthy described as a response to “the need to improve the fairness, consistency and integrity of funding decisions”.

He said that audits in each state and territory, reviews by the federal grants watchdog, and parliamentary oversight committees have repeatedly raised concerns about the integrity of grants, particularly those subject to pork-barrelling claims in the lead-up to elections.

Government grant guidelines in multiple states warn that the risk of conflicts of interest can be at its greatest at the assessment stage, a fact highlighted by an in-depth investigation into grants administration by the South Australian Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) last year.

“Decisions made to provide grants funding to individuals and organisations should show good planning and assessment, be made in an equitable manner, be open to scrutiny, and demonstrate value for public money,” wrote the then ICAC commissioner Ann Vanstone. “Decisions made with disregard of these standards erode public confidence and raise suspicions of corruption.”

Foxworthy said external assessors could help reduce real or perceived conflicts of interest, counter the limited training of internal assessors, and strengthen public trust in government and philanthropic grants.

The Institute of Grants Management, SmartyGrants’ grants education arm, has previously examined what constitutes best practice for assessment panels, including those where assessors have an interest.

The Community Broadcasting Foundation, for example, looks for assessors who work in community broadcasting, since they are the subject matter experts.

The foundation is careful to ensure assessors declare any interests, can’t review their own applications, are not able to see information about those grants in which they have an interest, and are reminded of their obligations. In some cases, funders may protect the identity of assessors to avoid the risks of their being pressured.

Foxworthy said that arm’s length assessments could increase probity, reduce bias, ensure merit-based assessment, and offer the ability to scale up assessments for larger programs, when needed.

He said grant applicants may perceive independent assessments to be fairer, while for funders they signal a commitment to transparency.

More information

Issues paper: Why grantmakers are considering professional assessment

Checklist: Using independent assessors

Tools and resources: Assess and decide

Help sheet: Dealing with assessment panels