Is the overall program approach fully and clearly documented (including stakeholders, management structure, target groups, focus on established or emerging organisations, focus on capacity building, the use of competititive tender processes) or not? Are diagrams and flow charts included where appropriate?
Is the overall program approach fully and clearly documented including stakeholders, management structure, target groups, selection methodology and/or any secondary outcomes e.g. focus on capacity building?
Is the information you need to determine the eligibility of applications and to then assess them clear? Are the eligibility and assessment criteria clear?
Do grants management and record-keeping structures systems and processes enable grants managers to track applicants from the first point of contact until the last? (e.g. from inquiries, applications, assessments through to agreements, payments, reporting and acquittal processes)
Is the application process (including timeframes and documentation) appropriate to the:
A. size, complexity and level of assessed risk of the grants
B. requirements, capabilities & capacities of the intended target group
C. relationship the program owners wish to build with the grantee
D. preferences of stakeholders for passive or active approaches
E. preferences and capacities for rolling applications versus application rounds?
Do you have a program promotion strategy?
Will it ensure the program reaches the intended grantee target group in the language and mediums appropriate to them, and also meets the requirements of all key stakeholders, including promoting the grant owners?
Is it clear how and when applications will be assessed (e.g. criteria, assessment centres, compliance checks)?
Is the scale of your assessment process proportionate the size of your grants program?
Will the application assessment process meet stakeholders’ objectivity, transparency and accountability requirements?
Is it clear how the assessment of applications will be managed?
Is it clear who makes the decision about who will receive the grants and when and by what method those decisions will be made?
Is there a formal process in place for advising and announcing successful applicants? Does the process take into account the needs and sensitivities of all stakeholders?
Is there a formal process in place for advising unsuccessful applicants of the outcome of their application? Does the process provide opportunities for capacity building and relationship-building with unsuccessful appliants? Does the process operate fairly, respectfully and transparently?
Is the language, style, length and complexity of the contract, agreement or letter of understanding proportionate to the size and risk level of the grant, as well as the capacities and capabilities of the grantees?
Is its content consistent with all other aspects of the grants management system and documentation?
Are standard and non-variable requirements clear and is it obvious why each of these clauses has been included?
Is it clear who has authority to negotiate terms, sign the document?
Is it clear when and how payments will be made including frequency, milestones and incentive arrangements?
Are your grant monitoring and reporting processes:
A. proportionate to the level of funds, the capability and the assessed level of risk of grant recipients?
B. practical, in that they can realistically be implemented?
C. effective in checking that the program and projects are on track and progressing towards outcomes?
Do you have a performance issues policy in place which articulates your overall approach to performance management? Does your organisation use risk analysis to anticipate potential performance issues and possible early intervention (mitigation) strategies? Is there a clear process in place to handle variations to the contract, agreement or letter of understanding where these are required or requested? Is it clear who will negotiate contract variations, how and with whom? Is it clear how and to what extent the terms of contracts, agreements and letters of understanding may be varied? Is it clear what the triggers for a variation would be? Is it clear who would be responsible for approving such variations?
Is there a clear process in place for acquittal of funds and outcomes reporting? Does your acquittal policy consider grantee’s individual risks and capabilities in determining the frequency and evidentiary requirements of financial and outcomes reporting?
Is there a process in place for reviewing individual projects funded through this grants program, as measured against the previously agreed outputs and outcomes? Is it clear who will be responsible for carying out the review, whether the grantmaker or the grant recipient?
Is it clear how the efficiency and effectiveness of the program as a whole will be evaluated? Is is clear who would carry out the evaluation?
Have opportunities and obligations for dissemination of lessons derived from this grants program been considered? is it clear what is planned regarding dissemination (including publication) of the program evaluation or other lessons learnt? Have all relevant stakeholders been included and informed, where required or desirable?
If you want to subscribe on an Android device, you will need to either:
Need an Android podcasting app? We recommend either Pocketcasts ($3.99) or
Make sure you get the right information by visiting the website for your region.