Unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 3 by demonstrating experience in having successfully delivered or implemented the proposed activity or similar activities, rather than demonstrating an understanding of what intended outcome the activity will achieve. Criterion 4 Sustainability how the proposal will ensure impact, knowledge, skills and processes will be embedded at an individual, organisational and/or community level and retained to be utilised over time and how this may reduce demand for formal individualised funded supports over time. consideration of how the Activity will contribute to outcomes for people with disability and/or community beyond the life of the grant; and how any risks associated with the proposed Activity will be mitigated. Strength Example Preferred applicants clearly demonstrated how Responses discussed how the outcomes of the the proposal will ensure impact, knowledge, activity will be sustainable over time as it is skills and processes will be embedded at an embedded at an individual, organisation and/or individual, organisational and/or community community level. level and retained to be utilised over time and how this may reduce demand for formal individualised funded supports over time. Responses clearly described: how will be appointed as necessary Preferred applicants clearly demonstrated as in-kind contribution; consideration of how the activity will contribute improving key relationships in an to outcomes for people with disability and/or individual’s life and in building peer community beyond the life of the grant. support and natural networks; providing ongoing support outside the term of the grant. Preferred applicants clearly demonstrated how Responses clearly described the use of existing any risks associated with the proposed activity organisational governance structures to will be mitigated. mitigate risk. Areas for improvement Unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 4 by providing further information about how the activity will be sustainable into the future, for example embedding the activity into an organisation’s existing business.
Unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 3 by demonstrating experience in having successfully delivered or implemented the proposed activity or similar activities, rather than demonstrating an understanding of what intended outcome the activity will achieve. Criterion 4 Sustainability how the proposal will ensure impact, knowledge, skills and processes will be embedded at an individual, organisational and/or community level and retained to be utilised over time and how this may reduce demand for formal individualised funded supports over time. consideration of how the Activity will contribute to outcomes for people with disability and/or community beyond the life of the grant; and how any risks associated with the proposed Activity will be mitigated. Strength Example Preferred applicants clearly demonstrated how the proposal will ensure impact, knowledge, skills and processes will be embedded at an individual, organisational and/or community level and retained to be utilised over time and how this may reduce demand for formal individualised funded supports over time. Responses discussed how the outcomes of the activity will be sustainable over time as it is embedded at an individual, organisation and/or community level. Preferred applicants clearly demonstrated consideration of how the activity will contribute to outcomes for people with disability and/or community beyond the life of the grant. Responses clearly described: how will be appointed as necessary as in-kind contribution; improving key relationships in an individual’s life and in building peer support and natural networks; providing ongoing support outside the term of the grant. Preferred applicants clearly demonstrated how any risks associated with the proposed activity will be mitigated. Responses clearly described the use of existing organisational governance structures to mitigate risk. Areas for improvement Unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 4 by providing further information about how the activity will be sustainable into the future, for example embedding the activity into an organisation’s existing business.
2016-840_feedback_-_implementing_information_linkages_and_capacity_bui.docx