Follow-up Financial Monitoring Review Carleton University February 2010

1. Follow-up Financial Monitoring ReviewCarleton UniversityFebruary 2010

2. Objectives of the Review • Review the effectiveness of policies, controls, and systems in place to ensure that the agencies’ policies and regulations are followed and that research funds are well managed. • Ensure that grant holders use their research funds in accordance with the agencies’ policies, regulations and guidelines. • Ensure that grant holders are properly supported by the institution in effectively managing the research funds. • Share and disseminate information on agency requirements.

3. Approach Pre-visit • Reviewed the questionnaires completed by the University prior to the visit • Followed-up with selected university officials to seek clarification on issues identified in the questionnaires On site • Met with officials and staff responsible for grant funds administration • Reviewed transactions from NSERC - SSHRC accounts for fiscal year 2008-2009 (October 1 to September 30) and followed-up on issues as they arose

4. Approach (con ’t) • Met with several grant holders to determine their satisfaction with the administrative support available to them to support proper management of their funds • Held an information session for faculty and staff on the use of grant funds. • Hold a debrief session with university officials to inform them of the review findings

5. Overall • Carleton University has clearly demonstrated that gaps identified in 2007 have been taken seriously and have been addressed accordingly. • The essential elements of a strong control framework are in place: • Roles and responsibilities • Training • Continuous oversight

6. Overall (Continued) • Comments received from various departments were consistent • New weaknesses identified during this review are minor or are being addressed. • The financial control framework of the institution pertaining to the management of grant funds is deemed to be FULLY satisfactory.

7. Findings – Good practices and strengths • Excellent process for tracking shared costs (chemical disposal and courier fees) • Release Time Stipend Confirmation form • Harmonization of all ethics committees’ processes • Control for the release of funds for grants with ethics requirements • Purchasing card reconciliation process • RTI grants verification process • Excellent organization of documents upon arrival

8. Remarkable!!

9. Status on the 2007 recommendations Roles and responsibilities • Research Accounting (RA) has taken a leadership role in the past two years to address weaknesses. • Roles and responsibilities are better disseminated through on-going communications with the Research office (CURO), the department deans, the ethics committees, Graduate Studies, etc.. • Processes are documented and communicated to staff involved. • RA has hired a resource with 50% of time allocated to training.

10. Status on the 2007 recommendations Roles and responsibilities (continued) • On-going and on-demand training is provided by RA, CURO and the ethics committees to the research community and the departments. • Most agency requirements are controlled centrally in RA which provides accurate oversight of research grant funds. • The agencies are satisfied with the changes implemented and the upcoming proposed changes. • Recommendation fully addressed.

11. Status on the 2007 recommendations Ethics review and release of funds • CURO has a well defined role as the link between the ethics committees and RA. • Good tracking and documentation of all projects requiring ethics clearance from the application stage. • Harmonization of annual reviews between committees. • No funds are released to researchers without appropriate clearance. Controlled on a yearly basis and as required. • Recommendation fully addressed.

12. Status on the 2007 recommendations Verification for compliance and eligibility on purchasing cards • Clear process in place for reconciling all purchasing cards on a monthly basis. • Verification for compliance and eligibility of all transactions that are charged to research accounts. • Recommendation fully addressed.

13. Status on the 2007 recommendations Research Time Stipends grants (SSHRC) • Good documentation of the process and adequate dissemination of responsibilities to faculty deans. • Excellent form to recognize actual costs. • Good reconciliation process to identify actual costs, institution’s contribution and residual funds. • Recommendation fully addressed.

14. Status on the 2007 recommendations Research Tools and Instruments grants (NSERC) • Better use of system’s capacity to store information and to retrieve it as needed. • Excellent process to track purchases made on a RTI grant account and verification against the grant awarded. • Process allows to verify that NSERC’s approval has been obtained when equipment purchased differs from Notice of Award. • Recommendation fully addressed.

15. Status on the 2007 recommendations Proceeds on sale of equipment • Risk that proceeds may not be reinvested in research is minimized by education done at department level by RA. • Departments interviewed were aware that proceeds must be used for research-related purposes. • Comments from researchers confirmed that not all are aware of the requirement. • University would benefit from formally addressing this issue and communicating it to the research community. • Recommendation appears to be addressed.

16. Status on the 2007 recommendations Agency salary/stipend limits • System-based control now in place for Master and Doctoral students • Risk identified with university-appointed post doctoral fellows (PDF). • Inconsistent use of the PDF status across departments • No control to ensure that amounts paid to PDFs (as defined by the agencies) respect the agencies’ limits • Recommendation is only partly addressed.

17. Status on the 2007 recommendations Approvals on copying charge expenses • All copying card approval forms are kept centrally in Graphics department. • Voice-services approval forms are kept in RA. • All transactions reviewed were properly documented and approved by the grant holder. • Recommendation fully addressed.

18. Status on the 2007 recommendations Supporting documentation (Travel-related expenses • Consistent and comprehensive review of travel claims done by RA. • Only a small percentage of travel claims did not contain all the required documentation/information. • Recommendation addressed.

19. New Findings Visiting researchers • No control in place to ensure that visiting researchers’ stipends are limited to $2,000 per month and up to 125 days per year.

20. Other Observation Sub-delegation • One instance where a delegated authority sub-delegated its authority to another individual without the grant holder’s written approval. • Ultimately, the grant holder is the person responsible for the management of the funds.

21. Researchers’ comments • Researchers are generally satisfied with the services they receive from the RA office and the CURO. • There was a general sense of dissatisfaction in regards to the financial information that is available to them from the financial system (FAST). • Efforts could be made to have more on-line expense processing capability (ie: travel claims, direct deposit).

22. Summary of transactions reviewed Out of the 173 transactions we reviewed: • 85% were eligible and compliant • 7% were non-compliant • 2% were ineligible • Thesis defence • Printing of grant applications • Office supplies • Basic software • 6% still under review

23. Next steps • Follow-up (1 month) • Clarification on one remaining issue • 10 transactions • Send initial report detailing our findings and recommendations to the institution • Issue final report once we have received and reviewed the institution’s response

24. Questions ?