2013 Commonwealth HACC funding round
Feedback for applicants
Outcomes of the 2013 Commonwealth HACC funding round
The 2013 Commonwealth HACC funding round was the first open, competitive funding round under the new Commonwealth HACC programme. There was a high level of interest in the round and the department received applications from over 660 organisations seeking to deliver new Commonwealth HACC services.
The outcomes of the 2013 Commonwealth HACC funding round (Invitation to Apply DoHA/003/1314) are now available. Letters will be sent to all applicants advising of the outcomes of the assessment process.
Purpose of this document
Given the intense competition in this first round, this document is being provided for applicants, particularly those who were not successful in seeking funding through the 2013 Commonwealth HACC funding round, to convey important information on areas where applications could be strengthened. This feedback draws on the field of applications received by the department.
Background
How were applications assessed?
The Invitation to Apply (ITA) provided applicants with key information on the process employed in assessing applications against the assessment criteria and the selection of successful applicants, detailing the criteria for compliance, eligibility and assessment and the scoring for those criteria.
What were the mandatory criteria?
From 2 September 2013, the department conducted an initial screening of applications to determine whether each application was compliant and eligible. The ITA stated that the compliance criteria and eligibility criteria were mandatory.
A compliant application was one that:
· was submitted using the approved application forms to a state or territory office and was not late
· was in English
· was complete
· correctly used the Part Three application form for service types not identified as regional priorities
· complied with the Commonwealth HACC Program Guidelines and the application kit.
An eligible application was one that:
· was submitted by an incorporated organisation
· was in scope of the Commonwealth HACC service types as defined in 1.6.1 of the Commonwealth HACC Program Guidelines.
What were the assessment criteria?
Once an application was assessed as compliant and eligible it proceeded to the next stage of the process to determine its relative merit against the measureable criteria as set out in the ITA.
Once the assessment of each measured criterion was complete, the final score was tallied. Those applications with the highest scores, with consideration of value for money, were considered for funding.
In assessing each application, the department considered the value for money of the proposed outcomes. The value for money criterion was an overarching criterion and, as applicants were advised, its assessment could considerably affect the overall outcome of the assessment process.
How was the process generally conducted?
Importantly, the assessment process for the 2013 round was undertaken in a manner that was consistent with the ITA and complied with the Commonwealth HACC Program Guidelines and the Commonwealth Grants Guidelines, including:
· promoting fairness and impartiality in the assessment of applications
· efficient, effective, economical and ethical conduct
· consistency and transparency
· identification and resolution of potential conflicts of interest.
Feedback - general
How competitive was the 2013 round?
The 2013 Commonwealth HACC funding round was highly competitive. There was strong interest from organisations in applying for Commonwealth HACC funding (over subscription) in all 33 Commonwealth HACC regions and for both priority and non-priority service types.
While more than sixty per cent of applicants were existing Commonwealth HACC providers seeking to extend services in their state, the round also attracted approved providers operating services under the Aged Care Act 1997, providers that are currently involved in disability services and Commonwealth HACC providers moving to new states.
Of the 331successful organisations, more than 15 per cent will be new entrants to the Commonwealth HACC programme.
In particular, there were large numbers of applications received for the priority service types, making competition for the advertised outputs particularly tough. More than half of the applications received were for the priority service types of domestic assistance, social support and transport.
The competitive nature of the round resulted in 1,231 high quality applications being selected to proceed to service delivery from a field of over 4,500 applications. This meant that a number of quality applications were not recommended and that many successful applicants were not successful for all of the applications they submitted or for all the outputs and funding they sought within an application.
Feedback - specific
How could an applicant strengthen responses to the assessment criteria?
Specific feedback is provided below against each of the assessment criteria. While these criteria are presented separately in this document, it should be noted that applicants often addressed the criteria throughout their applications in answers to one or more questions. All relevant information provided by an applicant was taken into consideration as part of the assessment process.
This feedback provides advice to applicants in the 2013 Commonwealth HACC funding round regarding the areas in which applications could have been strengthened. The department encourages applicants to review this information in conjunction with their application, the ITA and the Commonwealth HACC Program Guidelines.
Criterion 1
Appropriateness of the proposal to the objectives of the activity under the Commonwealth HACC programme.
1.1 Proposal is clearly defined and described and is evidence-informed
1.2 Community affected by the proposal is addressed
1.3 Outcomes for the proposal are clearly described and the proposal includes ongoing assessment of those outcomes
This criterion related to questions 2C, 2D(i) and 2D(ii).
Applicants could have strengthened their responses by:
· by detailing what activities the service types being sought would deliver.
· clear alignment with the objectives of the Commonwealth HACC programme.
A strong application would also be expected to succinctly include details of:
· how the organisation would monitor the services delivered
· how the service delivery model would focus on the individual client’s needs including accepting referrals; development of care plans and how the services will be reviewed
· where special needs groups or specific locations had been identified, how the service delivery model would meet the needs of those groups or locations.
Criterion 2
Potential for the proposal to meet the objectives of the activity under the Commonwealth HACC programme.
2.1 Proposal is suitably planned and scoped
2.2 If a new service, implementation is addressed
2.3 Links with the community addressed
This criterion related to questions 2A(ii), 2D(i), 2D(ii) and 2D(iii).
Applicants could have strengthened their responses by:
· providing details of planning and key milestones for the implementation of the new service delivery, giving examples such as staff recruitment and training
· proposing a competitive timeframe for the commencement of the new services.
A strong application would also be expected to succinctly include details of:
· service delivery infrastructure
· an understanding of the local community and demonstrated links with the community, such as by providing examples of links that were set-up or could be established and how they will be maintained
Criterion 3
The need for the proposal to be carried out.
3.1 Demonstrates and provides evidence of the need
3.2 Demonstrates how the proposal will address the need
NOTE: This criterion was only applicable for applications for service types that were not identified as a regional priority (i.e., Part Three applications).
This criterion related to question 3D in the Part Three application form.
Applicants could have strengthened their responses by:
· detailing an understanding of the gaps in service provision in the community and how urgently the gaps needed to be addressed
· providing evidence of a collaborative relationship with the community, targeted to addressing the gaps in service delivery.
A strong application would also be expected to succinctly include details of:
· the evidence that there is a need for this service type in the region, including the basis of this evidence
· the magnitude of the need
· the impact on clients if the need is not met.
Criterion 4
Governance, expertise and capacity of the applicant to meet the objectives of the activity under the Commonwealth HACC programme and/or other relevant programmes
4.1 Demonstrates management expertise, skills, qualifications and experience
4.2 Demonstrates staff skill levels, qualifications and experience
4.3 Demonstrates capability to meet specific programme requirements (e.g., complaints and quality)
4.4 Demonstrates capability to meet general obligations under the contractual arrangements (e.g., reporting and financial management)
This criterion related to questions 1F(ii) and 1F(iii) in the Part One application form.
Applicants could have strengthened their responses by:
· providing a clear overview of the organisation’s corporate structure and governance arrangements
· identifying the composition of the service delivery team, including any volunteer components
· describing the link between organisational systems, policies and procedures and the Home Care Standards (previously the Community Care Common Standards)
· demonstrating evidence in meeting contractual requirements, such as providing examples of past performance.
A strong application would also be expected to succinctly include details of:
· the experience and qualifications of the management team in relation to delivering HACC services or other related care within a supported environment
· the experience and qualifications of the staff engaged to deliver services
· the organisation’s strategies in place to ensure it meets specific programme requirements (such as the Home Care Standards, police certificate guidelines, complaints guidelines)
· the organisation’s corporate structure and governance arrangements to ensure it meets the requirements of the Aged Care Funding Agreement, (such as financial and performance reporting, privacy and insurance requirements)
· any strategies for organisational improvement.
Criterion 5
The applicant’s proven track record in meeting the objectives of the activity under the Commonwealth HACC programme and/or other relevant programmes.
5.1 – Departmental assessment and rating of track record
Applicants were not asked a question in relation to this criterion. As part of the assessment process, the department considered the record and conduct of existing Commonwealth aged care providers. The applicant’s rating is not affected by the quality of the application but by the quality of their service delivery in the time before and during the funding round.
Applicants needed to be aware that any matters of non-compliance with responsibilities either under funding agreements or under the Aged Care Act 1997 would be taken into account in considering which applications would be funded. Where an applicant had, for example, recent sanctions or notices of non-compliance, in submitting an application for the funding round there was a lower likelihood of success.
As set out in the ITA, applicants that did not have a record were not assessed in relation to this criterion. This approach ensured that no applicant was disadvantaged in the department’s consideration of track record.
Criterion 6
How the applicant will ensure its long-term financial and organisational viability.
This criterion related to questions 1F(i) and 1G in the Part One application form.
Applicants could have strengthened their responses by:
· describing the organisations secure financial position
· detailing the sources of the organisation’s income, including government sources of funding (if any).
A strong application would also be expected to succinctly include details of:
· the governance arrangements of the organisation
· the organisation’s strategic planning and reporting processes
· financial risk, audit and fraud management processes
· financial capacity.
Overarching criterion
Value for money
Value for money is defined as the efficient and effective use of funding that is consistent with the objectives of the Commonwealth HACC programme.
In considering value for money, the department took into account the five components of this overarching criterion, set out below. The overall score for any proposal was increased by a factor relevant to each of the components demonstrated by that proposal.
1. The relative merit of the proposal – this component related to the proposal’s assessment against the assessment criteria.
2. The relative cost of the proposal – this component related to the total amount of funding sought for the proposal.
3. The geographic location of the proposal – this component related to the Australian Statistical Geography Standard, the Australian Standard Geographical Classification or other indicator of the location of the service.
4. The community that would benefit from the proposal has poor access to Commonwealth HACC and/or other aged care services – this component related to the extent to which the application demonstrated that the community affected by the proposal had poor access to Commonwealth HACC and/or other aged care services.
5. The community that would benefit from the proposal has high levels, or high anticipated growth, of the target population or of a special needs group – this component related to the extent to which the application demonstrated that the community affected by the proposal had high levels, or high anticipated population growth, of the target population or of a special needs group.
Feedback – 2013 Commonwealth HACC funding round 1