In our view, the agencies we studied cannot be sure that the grants they allocate align with their corporate objectives, and that program outcomes are achieved. This is mainly due to problems with grant selection and the evaluation of results. It was good to see that most of the grants programs had funding objectives which were fairly clear. But we found problems across most programs which could affect the fair and equitable selection of grants, such as, often no procedures for assessing applications, no assessment guidelines for advisory committees, often no clear rationale for assessments and poor documentation of the reasons for decisions.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #104 - released 4 December 2002

The acceptance of audit recommendations by agencies in the current review was high and represented 96 per cent of the recommendations made. In addition, half of the recommendations in the 1998 audits have been adequately addressed and for over 70 per cent of recommendations there has been some measurable change in practices or performance.

But overall, most of these improvements have been incremental. And, for nearly one third of the recommendations, changes have not yet taken effect and there is a risk that the issue or problem contained in the original reports may persist. There is also a danger that current reporting arrangements may not provide Parliament sufficient assurance as to the extent accepted recommendations have been implemented and improvements have been achieved. 

To provide greater transparency and accountability, agencies, following a performance audit, should establish arrangements, such as an audit committee, to follow up on the progress of implementation of the recommendations and report on the progress of the implementation of recommendations in their annual report to Parliament.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #84 - released 21 June 2001