The question this answers
Do our guidelines actually meet the requirements we’re supposed to follow?
What the problem looks like without a Compliance check against CGRGs or state frameworks
Your guidelines have been through multiple rounds of drafting. Different people have added sections. Policy intent has evolved. The original structure was inherited from a previous grant program.
No one has checked, end to end, whether the guidelines still comply with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines, your state’s grants framework, or your own agency’s requirements.
You assume they do. But assumption isn’t documentation.
What I deliver
A line-by-line check of your guidelines against the relevant framework. For Commonwealth programs, that’s the CGRGs. For state programs, it’s the equivalent grants policy. For some agencies, there are additional internal requirements.
The deliverable is a short compliance report showing:
- Each relevant requirement
- Where it’s addressed in your guidelines (or whether it’s missing)
- Any gaps or risks
- Recommended fixes
It’s not a legal opinion. It’s a practical check that gives you confidence your guidelines meet the rules, and a clear list of what to fix if they don’t.
What good looks like vs what bad looks like
Bad: “The guidelines have been reviewed and are considered compliant with relevant frameworks.”
This provides no evidence and protects no one.
Good:
| Requirement | Source | Status | Location in guidelines | Action needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clear statement of program objectives | CGRGs 4.4 | Compliant | Section 1.2 | None |
| Eligibility criteria specified | CGRGs 4.5 | Compliant | Section 2 | None |
| Assessment criteria and weightings disclosed | CGRGs 4.6 | Partial | Section 5 (criteria listed, weightings not disclosed) | Add weightings or rationale for withholding |
| Conflict of interest management | CGRGs 4.9 | Missing | Not addressed | Add section on how COI is managed in assessment |
| Complaints and review process | CGRGs 4.12 | Compliant | Section 8 | None |
This gives you a checklist to work through and evidence you can show an auditor.
Why it matters
Frameworks like the CGRGs exist because grant programs have failed in the past. They’re not bureaucratic box-ticking. They’re the minimum standard for defensible public funding.
A compliance check protects you. It shows you’ve done the work. And it identifies gaps before an auditor or Ombudsman finds them for you.
Other Guidelines Development Deliverables
“Why don’t grant applicants understand your guidelines?” → Guidelines restructured so they communicate program design, not policy language. Applicants understand what the program is for, whether they are a fit, and what evidence they need to provide. Clarity comes from the structural logic behind the guidelines, not from simpler words.
“How do you brief stakeholders on grant guidelines changes?” → A design rationale document that explains the structural decisions behind the guidelines for executives, ministers, audit committees, and internal teams. This is not a summary of what changed. It explains why the program communicates differently and what that solves.
“Why do grant guidelines get worse each round?” → A design decision record showing the logic behind every structural change, suitable for audit, governance review, or onboarding new program staff. This is not tracked changes on a document. It is a record of why the program communicates the way it does.
“Can you prove what changed in your grant guidelines?” → A design decision record showing the logic behind every structural change, suitable for audit, governance review, or onboarding new program staff. This is not tracked changes on a document. It is a record of why the program communicates the way it does.
