1 / 10

SUMMATIVE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMATIVE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. CAURA ONTARIO – NOVEMBER 30, 2009 CAURA WEST – DECEMBER 4, 2009. SUMMATIVE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENTATION. Recommendation 1 That the Government of Canada maintain the Indirect Costs Program for college and university research. Recommendation 2

rtune
Download Presentation

SUMMATIVE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SUMMATIVE EVALUATIONAND RECOMMENDATIONS CAURA ONTARIO – NOVEMBER 30, 2009 CAURA WEST – DECEMBER 4, 2009

  2. SUMMATIVE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENTATION Recommendation 1 That the Government of Canada maintain the Indirect Costs Program for college and university research. Recommendation 2 That, in the absence of compelling evidence suggesting that change is required, the existing approach used in dealing with affiliated health research centres be maintained. Recommendation 3 That, in the absence of compelling evidence suggesting that change is required, the current formula for a progressive range of ICP funding rates be maintained. Response Management supports these three recommendations. 2/2

  3. SUMMATIVE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation 4 That the questions in the reporting form be reviewed to better assess the incremental impact of the program. Response Management supports this recommendation and will prepare an action plan to review the performance indicators with grant recipients and stakeholders. Action Plan • Consulted with vice-presidents (research) • Reviewed questions in Outcomes Report and made some changes • Revised form to be released to institutions by April 1, 2010 for reporting on FY 2009-2010

  4. REVISIONS TO OUTCOMES REPORT • Removed signature boxes – not needed given that form is electronic • Data on expenditures by health affiliates moved to first page. • Program indicators consolidated at the beginning of the report and mandatory for all grant recipients whether or not ICP grants covered such expenditures.

  5. REVISIONS TO OUTCOMES REPORT (2) • Facilities – asking for data in square meters of research space, instead of square feet. • Research Resources – added monographs, and separated ‘traditional’ from electronic holdings. • Management and Administration – no changes • Regulatory Requirements and Accreditation – separated data for animal care and ethics; identified 10 organizations with whose requirements universities might have to comply. • Intellectual Property – separated the data for technology transfer and knowledge transfer and mobilization.

  6. REVISIONS TO OUTCOMES REPORT (3) • Impact Statement • Facilities – added questions regarding cost drivers and the percentage of O & M in support of CFI-funded equipment. • Research Resources – added questions regarding cost drivers, % of acquisitions and operating budget covered by ICP, and participation in inter-institutional consortia or partnerships. • Management & Administration – added questions regarding cost drivers, and participation in inter-institutional consortia or partnerships.

  7. REVISIONS TO OUTCOMES REPORT (4) • Regulatory Requirements and Accreditation – added questions regarding cost drivers, the extent to which compliance with Canadian and international requirements necessary to access research funds from international sources. • Intellectual Property – added questions regarding cost drivers

  8. SUMMATIVE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation 5 That, in collaboration with postsecondary institutions, the granting agencies support the development of a methodology to establish a baseline measurement of the state of research environments. Response Management supports this recommendation and will prepare an action plan todealwiththis issue. Action Plan • Retained the services of a consultant to review literature as it relates, and consulted with CFI, CAUBO, CAURA, AUCC, CARL regarding the data they collect to the five areas covered by the Indirect Costs Program. • Involved university partners via a workshop in Ottawa on October 21, 2009. • Set up a working group of stakeholders (VPRs, CAURA, CAUBO and AUCC representatives) to look at possible baseline metrics, sources for data, and ways in which the ICP and universities could be more transparent in how the monies are used and their impact.

  9. SUMMATIVE EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation 6 That the level of funding for ICP operations be reassessed to ensure sufficient resources are available to meet due diligence, program oversight, and monitoring requirements. Response Management supports this recommendation. It will develop a three-year business plan to address the immediate recommendations in this report, as well as to identify future directions which will be pursued to ensure the program achieves its strategic objectives.

  10. To obtain more information on the IC Program, contact: • Lorrie Lafrance • Lorrie.lafrance@indirectcosts.gc.ca • or 1-613-995-3236

More Related