Self-assessment · Australian not-for-profits
Twenty-two governance policies, checked against the ACNC Governance Standards and the obligations that sit alongside them. Each policy carries a risk ranking, and your report orders the findings by that ranking rather than by category, so the first item you see is the first one to raise. Answer honestly and you will finish with a dated report you can table at your next board meeting.
Each policy carries one of three rankings. Your report lists findings in this order, so the most consequential gap appears first rather than the one that happens to come first alphabetically.
Absence exposes people to harm, exposes directors to personal liability, or puts your registration, endorsement or licence at risk. These are matters a regulator can act on directly.
Absence creates material financial, legal or reputational exposure, or the policy is commonly required by funders, insurers and auditors. Problems here are recoverable but expensive.
Absence weakens governance and will eventually cause difficulty, but consequences accumulate slowly and are usually contained. Worth addressing, rarely worth addressing first.
These rankings are indicative only. They reflect general patterns across the Australian not-for-profit sector and do not take account of the particular risks facing your organisation. Your size, activities, funding mix, client cohort, jurisdiction and existing controls all change the picture. A policy ranked moderate here may be the most urgent thing on your list, and one ranked critical may already be well covered by other controls you have in place. Treat the order as a starting point for a board discussion, not as a conclusion.
Findings are ordered by a general risk ranking that reflects sector-wide patterns. It does not take account of the particular risks facing this organisation, including its size, activities, funding mix, client cohort, jurisdiction and existing controls. The order is a starting point for discussion, not a conclusion.
