Blue Ribbon Panel - Symposium Presentation - Jan Donio

8/9/2019 Blue Ribbon Panel - Symposium Presentation - Jan Donio

1/25

The Blue Ribbon Panel onGrants and Contributions

Summary of Online ConsultationsJan Donio

[email protected]


2/25


3/25

BRP Consultation Process Online consultation with Recipients (August- September)

and Program Managers (September-October)

Consultation meetings with sectors such as the volunteer

sector, business, research, Aboriginal, etc. Consultation meetings with Government officials at

senior levels and from the front line

Online discussion forums

Symposium U of T November 2006

Validation Session November 2006 Sharing of Recommendation Themes with those

significantly impacted by the proposed direction


4/25

The 1089 recipients were from all sectors as well as from all provinces.The 543 Program Managers indicated considerable experience and workwith all types of recipients with a strong representation of managersworking with the not for profit sector.

60%Not for

Profit /

Voluntary

Sector

24%Business

12%Aboriginal

(community or

organization)

4%Other

Online Workbook Responses Who Participated

You work

Primarily from a

296 / 543 Regional

/ Local Office?

247 / 543 National

Office /

Headquarters

Office?

Recipients Managers


5/25

Priorities for Improvement Recipients indicated a one window approach with better

integration across departments. Respondents fromQuebec and the aboriginal sector indicated better

relationships with government officials is a priority, butthis view was not shared for most other recipient groups.

Program Managers also see a one window approach asa priority along with better communication and a clientcentered approach. Those working in the regionsstrongly emphasized a client centered approach.

Both groups indicated that technology could enablethese priorities .

and now for some data


6/25

The concept of a one window approach had wide appeal to all recipient sectors

as it would save time by applying only for those funds that are appropriate

and enable groups to easily be informed of new funding sources available. This type

of online resource was seen as decreasing the constant phone calls and searches for

information related to new grants and contributions.

81% identify this as one of thetop 3 priorities

Recipients The Priorities for Action

"One window" that would identify federal grants and contributions for whichyour organization may qualify


7/25

One of the main frustrations for grant and contribution recipients is thelack of consistency across departments and the inability for departments to share

information easily. The concept that departments could easily share information

was viewed as a means to decrease duplication of effort by recipientorganizations in the application and administration processes. For smallorganization these savings would enable greater service to client groups.

73% identify this as one of the

top 3 priorities

Recipients The Priorities for Action

More integration across departments and sharing of information


8/25

There were several options for priorities and the option of a one window approachwas selected the most often. There were several notations that indicated a onewindow approach with the inconsistency in language for objectives anddeliverables may not be beneficial. It may be more appropriate to consider onewindow after policies and procedures/ business practices are revised.

74 / 280 2

141 / 280 1

65 / 280 3

Managers The Priorities for Action

One window that would facilitate coordination of similar services within thedepartment, or across government, to potential recipients


9/25

The concept of better communications was to clarify what is relevant to recipientsto minimize false expectations and time wasted on apply for funds when vaguecriteria may be misleading. There was also a sense that some smallerorganizations lack the internal staff to constantly stay on top of what grants andcontributions are relevant to them.

88 / 264 1

87 / 264 3

89 / 264 2

Priorities:

Better communication / promotion of existing grant and contribution

programs with potential recipients


10/25

Several notations about this priority stressed the weight of the current application

process for smaller organizations and the need to view recipients as clients who

should have readily access to the correct information to facilitate application.

59 / 210 3

81 / 210 1

70 / 210 2

Priorities - A client centered approach whereby programs are automatically

identified to potential applicants based on needs, attributes and eligibility


11/25

How to Improve Recipients indicated that services standards, if used

would save time and effort

Smaller not for profits view longer term funding as thetop priority.

Recipients saw the need forgreater use of technologyand improved business processes as important to goodservice standards.

Managers indicated that the simplification of policies andprocedures governing accountability and reportingrequirements was equally as important as having strongleadership or champions driving improvements.

and now for some data.


12/25

74% of respondents ranked service standards as number 1 or 2 of their top three

choices. This is a very high percentage and the narratives strongly suggest that

service standards need to be clearly understood and followed at all levels of

government for this to be effective.

26% 3

32% 142% 2

Recipients Improvements

Service standards for the application and administration processes that are

clearly understood by all parties


13/25

75% ranked this highly and it is clearly a reflection of the voluntary sector. The

issues related to longer term funding would decrease the number of applications,

minimize the number of different accountability processes and generally seen as

giving stability and saving time so that the focus can be on delivering the services

and meeting the needs of clients.

49% 1

26% 226% 3

Recipients Improvements

More certainty about the government's longer term financial commitment tothe sector


14/25

The concept of simplifying existing rules in departmental procedures and practiceswas selected by the greatest number of respondents as the most important issuefor the panel to address. The narrative comments indicated a lack of clarity acrossdepartments because Treasury Board sets a minimum standards and eachdepartments adds rules as they see appropriate.

73 / 233 1

67 / 233 3

93 / 233 2

Managers- Improvements

Simplification and/or reduction in reporting/monitoring/evaluation

requirements in departmental procedures and practices for grant andcontribution programs


15/25


16/25

Challenges Both Recipients and Managers indicated that too much

of their efforts are devoted to the administration of grantsand contributions, with little or no perceived benefit or

real increases in accountabilities. Recipients perceived the constant changing of staff and

the lack of transparency as secondary issues

Managers indicated that ongoing training and delays inprocessing are issues. Program Managers working in theregions consider the lack of delegation of authority astheir main challenge.

and now for some data


17/25

Data from program Managers was difficult to aggregate because they had so manychoices about challenges but suffice to say that there is a high level of frustration amongthose that responded and a concern that after many consultations very little has changed.Some Program Managers mentioned their own special efforts to improve.

8% Risk management

18% Lack of transparency of

government policies

25% Lack of transparency of

program procedures

25% Relationship with

government officials

18% Lack of consistency across

government departments

7% Lack of technologicalexpertise by user groups

Challenges

Recipients were asked to indicate the three main challenges to implementing

application and administrative improvements to federal grants andcontributions


18/25

Accountability & Other Instruments Recipients indicated that over the past few years there had been

new accountability procedures put in place for many grants andcontributions but there was not a strong sense that anyone hadreviewed all the requirements for overall effective accountability.

Program Managers stressed several tools that had been used toassess risk and assist in longer term planning however there was astrong sense that the tools devised were often not playing thepurpose for which they were designed.

Both Program Managers and Recipients strongly understood theneed for accountability for government funds and there was strongagreement on both sides that every effort should be made to ensurefunds are used for the intended purpose.


19/25


20/25

In the voluntary sector longer term funding is a key issue especially for smaller

voluntary groups throughout the country. The business sector indicated that

service contracts or tax incentives could be more beneficial and the instruments

being used should be reviewed regularly. Other instruments such as horizontal

funding and possible foundations were seen as requiring significantly more

research and maybe more of a longer term solution

62% Yes

18% No

19% Maybe

1% N/A

Alternative Instruments

Would long term funding be more appropriate than short term


21/25

Summary

Narrative Comments Promote a better understanding ofthe role grants and contributions play in our

society through a communications strategy

Considerable resources wasted on trying to track applications, continuous audits,separate bank accounts, hiring external evaluations without any clarity of the rational

Recipients that responded to the survey tend to view themselves as being inpartnership with the government to meet needs of society, roles need clarification

Program Mangers believe they are trying to do their best in a very difficultenvironment with limited resources

Less time on applying for funds and administering projects would mean more timewith clients/ fulfilling mandate

There are some good practices but they are not being fostered across government


22/25

Summary of Findings Across the board there is a deep frustration with the continuous consultation

and the lack of improvements in government administration

Most respondents agreed that a one window approach to information aboutgrants and contributions would be beneficial.

Investing in greater use of technology to track applications, etc is also seenas viable but may require some capacity building for smaller groups

This group also agreed that conformity in paper work requirements acrossgovernment departments would be an improvement

Generally there is a perception that the risk adverse culture of governmentdeters government officials from improving service

Government officials not seen as having adequate authority, although in arisk adverse culture not clear that greater authority is the answer


23/25

Findings

..contd. Organizations understand the concerns of government and

expect to be held accountable for funds received, simplywant it to be less onerous and more productive.

Application processes need to be more transparent from thebeginning and approvals need to occur within the statedtimeframes. Recipients and Program Managers need towork together to design new procedures where possible.

Improving the business processes and setting servicestandards as well as the effective use of technology would

go a long way in improving the processes and increasingaccountabilities.

It is time to stop consulting and start improving.


24/25

Conclusions of the Online Consultation Review of Policies and Procedures to support good business

practices

Longer term funding

Shorter turn around times for processing applications and reportsdeveloped with the recipients (service standards)

Capacity building of recipient organizations to be able to meetthe requirements of funders make better use of umbrellaorganizations to deliver required training

Consistency in reporting processes across departments

Application processes online that draw on previously completedapplications for data and information Invest in technology for one

window access to information and to allow tracking ofapplications online and to process reports/ meet accountabilityrequirements

Leadership at the top to share best practices and engage thepublic service/recipients in designing improvements andimplementation.


25/25

A focus on Implementation

It is time to stop asking about what is wrong and it

is time to start improving the application and

administration processes for grants andcontributions so that those citizens being served

through this funding can see greater benefitsComment by a recipient organization in the online consultation process

To learn more: http://[email protected]

Documents

Blue Ribbon Panel - Symposium Presentation - Jan Donio