WORKSHOP: SDH RESEARCH MANAGEMENT

MANAGING FUND FOR RESEARCH PROJECT ON HEALTH AND ITS SOCIAL DETERMINANTS

Developed by

University of the Witwatersrand with support from GIZ

General Objective

To develop an understanding of research fund management

Overall Competency

After this workshop, the participant will gain insight into the concept of management of research funds including some understanding of fund management for SDH related research projects.

Presentation

Research fund management is a complex notion. It involves fundraising as well as management of the raised fund according to rules stipulated by the funders. In addition, it would also require an understanding basic financial and management accounting principles (such as budgeting; income and expenditure account; cash-flow management); A well-conceived project may fail due to management of the project research fund. This workshop will empower the participants to improve project financial management capacity in a research organisation dealing with SDH related research.

Thematic content

The researchers involved in public health projects need to understand the logic used by project finance managers. This will facilitate a better project management, in terms of improved efficiency and better results, as researchers focus on the core of research. Furthermore, a proper, transparent funds management would be well considered by funders, which will be more inclined in providing funds, where they are properly allocated for the needs of the project. This would assist the researchers to work in tandem with project administration.

Methodology

The workshop will include both theoretical and practical components. By blending classroom learning with examples in a SDH-related project, participants learn by doing. This provides hands on experience using data from real life problems.

Duration

The workshop consists of 3 modules each with 4 hours duration (first module on SDH is optional). Therefore, the total workshop should be 12 hours. It might be extended to longer hours to bring more richness to the content. An individual assignment at the end of the workshop would add value.

2

Target participants

- Researchers involved in SDH research - Managers involved with management of research funds

Evaluation

50% Group work 50% Individual work

Learning outcomes

To be able to identify challenges associated with fund management for SDH related research projects.

The development of the workshop material is supported by the European commission – the 7

th Framework

Programme ‘Building sustainable capacity for research for health and its social determinants in low and middle income countries (SDH-net) Contract no 282534

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Allowable costs: they are the reasonable costs (generally recognized as ordinary and necessary) and the allocable costs (allocable to a particular cost objective, such as a grant, contract, project, service, or other activity, in accordance with the relative benefits received). Budget: it is an estimation of revenues and expenditures over a specified future period of time. Cost of money: it represents the interest that could be earned if the amount invested in a business or security was instead invested in different financial activities. Cash flow: it is a revenue or expense generated by an investment or a business during a specific period. Financing: it is the act or process of providing money for a project. Fundraising: it refers to the organised activity of seeking for financial support for a project. Investment: it is the act of using a capital to make a profit, through a project or business. Reporting: it refers to provide periodic information on the use of funds linked to specific goals. Research Account: project budget available for the principal investigator Time value: it refers to the different value that the same amount of funds can have in different time periods. Toolkit: A Toolkit is a collection of documents, that can be used to inform others about a topic of interest. This toolkit is designed for researchers involved with health research.

3

MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO SDH (optional)

Background: Social determinants of health (SDH) function in a complex and dynamic manner at various nested levels of influence, requiring that strategies to address them are designed to affect the systems they operate in. As health inequities are complex and constitute a global challenge that extends beyond the influence of the health sector, linking expertise and exchanging experiences across sectors and countries is fundamental. Comprehensive strategies towards reducing health inequities need to address the interface between research and practice in order to guarantee evidence-based decision making. However, the health managers and professionals involved with management of funds are not always aware of various issues associated with an SDH project (such as equity and inequalities). Therefore, this module has been designed

for participants who are not familiar with concepts of SDH to develop a basic understanding.

Objectives:

To introduce the participants to Health and its social determinants

Module overview: - Disparity, inequity and social justice in the global arena - Understanding the main concepts of SDH - Incorporating the SDH approach in the conduct of scientific research

Required reading: - The Essentials of SDH (developed by INSP) -

Suggested addition reading - Marmot, M., et al. (2008). "Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on

the social determinants of health. On behalf of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health." Lancet 372(1661–69).

Duration: 4 hours

4

MODULE 2: BASIC FINANCING

Background: Within this section, students will be provided with the knowledge needed to analyse and build a financial plan for SDH research projects. Using a theoretical and practical approach, students will acquire the skills needed to plan, report and audit the use of financial resources. It is important to plan for specialised research activities that are likely to consume additional resources (e.g. measuring effects on equity). For example the measurement of socio-economic status (such as poverty index, deprivation index etc.) will require data from a household survey which may not be routinely available. Collection of this type of information would require additional resources and therefore financial planning should be done to set aside resources to support these activities. In addition, other planning activities might include stakeholder consultation such as cross-sectoral meetings (meetings across a range of Ministries; setting up an advisory committee comprised of different stakeholders).

Objectives: To introduce the participants to an understanding of financial planning and management of resources in a research project.

Module overview: - Estimation of research Budget - The Research Budget - Accounting reports - Accounting Procedures - Control of the Budget - The Work Plan - Stakeholder consultation

Required reading: - Management Sciences for Health. 2008. Managing Your Organization’s Finances

http://erc.msh.org/mainpage.cfm?file=2.2.0.htm&module=finance&language=English [accessed 03/06/2014]

- Toolkit: Research Fund management

Suggested addition reading - Varkevisser CM, Pathmanathan I, Brownlee A. 2003. Designing and Conducting

Health Systems Research Projects http://archives.who.int/prduc2004/Resource_Mats/Designing_2.pdf [accessed: 22/04/2014]

- USAID. 2012. The Health System Assessment Approach: A How-to Manual. Version 2.0 http://www.healthsystems2020.org/userfiles/HSAA%20Manual%20Version%202%20Sept%202012.pdf [accessed: 22/04/2014]

Duration: 4 hours

Assessment question: - Develop a financial plan for own institution

5

MODULE 3: FUNDRAISING

Background: The basic concept of fundraising, partnership building and management is presented in the first part of this section. Specific tools to be used for different donors (in terms of the nature, public or private) will be presented to students.

Objectives: To introduce the participants to an overview of fundraising

Module overview: - Fundraising activities - The Fundraising Pyramid - Donor Contribution - Funding and Scientific research Agenda - Addressing Barriers to Funding of SDH Research - Fundraising markets - Fundraising Tools

Required reading: - Management Sciences for Health. 2008. Managing Your Organization’s Finances

http://erc.msh.org/mainpage.cfm?file=2.2.0.htm&module=finance&language=English [accessed 03/06/2014]

- Toolkit: Research Fund management

Suggested addition reading - Varkevisser CM, Pathmanathan I, Brownlee A. 2003. Designing and Conducting

Health Systems Research Projects http://archives.who.int/prduc2004/Resource_Mats/Designing_2.pdf [accessed: 22/04/2014]

- USAID. 2012. The Health System Assessment Approach: A How-to Manual. Version 2.0 http://www.healthsystems2020.org/userfiles/HSAA%20Manual%20Version%202%20Sept%202012.pdf [accessed: 22/04/2014]

Duration: 4 hours

Assessment question: - Each participant should select one of the funders’ financial guidelines relevant

to their setting and develop a funding proposal accordingly.

6

ANNEXURE A: FUNDING ORGANISATIONS

Australia Tasmania Medicare: http://www.tasmedicarelocal.com.au/programs-and-services/social-determinants-of-health/social-determinants-of-health-project

South Africa Medical Research Council (http://www.mrc.ac.za); National Research Foundation (http://www.nrf.ac.za)

United Kingdom Joseph Rowntree Foundation: Poverty, place and ageing ... (http://www.jrf.org.uk); Liverpool Health Inequalities Research Institute https://www.liv.ac.uk/psychology-health-and-society/research/liverpool-health-inequalities-research-institute/, Policy Research Programme of the Department of Health for England (http://www.prp-ccf.org.uk)

United States of America Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: http://www.ahrq.gov; Funding: http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/index.html Association of American Medical Colleges: (https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/research/healthequity/350530/fundingandtrainingopportunities.html)

1. Global: Atlantic Philanthropies: (http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org). Funding: http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/funding-policy Kresge Foundation: http://kresge.org/programs/health/community-health-partnerships Funding: http://kresge.org/about-us/financial-statements Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (http://www.rwjf.org/en/grants/what-we-fund.html) Funding: http://www.rwjf.org/en/grants/grantee-resources.html

2. 3. Wellcome Trust (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk) Funding: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Funding

WK Kellogg Foundation: http://www.wkkf.org; Funding: (http://www.wkkf.org/grants)

There will be other funding bodies in other settings/countries and the facilitators should use examples relevant to their countries. We have attached an example of EC: Horizon 2020: The Horizon 2020 guidelines as an annexure.

7

ANNEXURE B: HORIZON 2020: THE EC FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION: HOW TO GET FUNDING? Following is an extract from the Horizon 2020: EC Framework programme1 Two year work programmes announce the specific areas that will be funded by Horizon 2020. Look out for them on the online Participant Portal as they can be used as a calendar for the calls for proposals (‘calls’), to be published during the year. The Participant Portal is your entry point for electronic administration of EU-funded research and innovation projects, and hosts the services for managing your proposals and projects throughout their lifecycle. Each call gives more precise information on the questions that the Commission would like you to address in your proposals. All calls can be found in the EU’s Official Journal – the official source for all EU documents – as well as on the Participant Portal THE APPLICATION PROCESS Submitting a proposal If a researcher wishes to respond to a call, they must submit a proposal before the deadline. The Participant Portal has clear instructions to guide them through the process. All proposals are submitted online. Finding partners Many calls require a team of at least three partners. If a researcher needs help to identify a potential partner with particular competences, facilities or experience, the partner search options can be used. Grant agreement Once a proposal passes the evaluation stage (five months’ duration), applicants are informed about the outcome. The European Commission then draws up a grant agreement with each participant. The grant agreement confirms what research & innovation activities will be undertaken, the project duration, budget, rates and costs, the European Commission's contribution, all rights and obligations and more. The time limit for signing the grant agreements is generally three months.

1 European Commission 2014. Horizon 2020: The EU Framework Programme for Research and

Innovation. How to get funding? http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/how-get-

funding [accessed 3/07/2014]

8

TOOLKIT FOR FUND MANAGEMENT

Developing a Fund management plan is a key part of the collaborative research planning process. It is better to initiate a sound fund management plan at the beginning of any project. Working through a fund management plan at the onset can assist the research team to focus on resource management which will also facilitate easy management and closure of a project. BACKGROUND Social determinants of health (SDH) function in a complex and dynamic manner at various nested levels of influence, requiring that strategies to address them are designed to affect the systems they operate in. As health inequities are complex and constitute a global challenge that extends beyond the influence of the health sector, linking expertise and exchanging experiences across sectors and countries is fundamental. Comprehensive strategies towards reducing health inequities need to address the interface between research and practice in order to guarantee evidence-based decision making. In 1996, a World Health Organization (WHO) ‘Ad Hoc Committee on Health Research Relating to Future Intervention Options’ made specific recommendations to support funding in capacity building. Following this, the Global Forum for Health Research was established to advocate the narrowing of the ‘10/90 gap’, and the Alliance for Health Policy and System Research (AHPSR) was founded in 2000 to support and advocate for knowledge generation and research capacity to address needs of health system development.

Since then, there has been an improvement in availability of funds to conduct research in health and its social determinants. However, a paradoxical situation exists. Most researchers spend an enormous amount of time on fundraising, but typically they have little time to prepare the institution for managing the fund they have secured. A well-thought-out approach to raising fund and managing them is essential to sustaining the research programs and increasing their impact. When they’re small, an organisation or a research unit often can meet their budgets by inspiring a handful of donors, seizing unanticipated funding opportunities, or cobbling together a mixed bag of funding sources and managing them. But as they get bigger, personal relationships and catch-as-catch-can (haphazard) solutions are rarely enough to sustain larger-scale fundraising needs and managing them. What’s required is a fund management model, which we define as a methodical and institutionalized approach to building a reliable management model that will support an organization’s core programs and services. A funding model has

9

three defining characteristics2:

Type of funding: The model typically revolves around a single type of funding, such as government or individual, which constitutes the majority of the organization’s revenue and which the organization invests disproportionately in developing. Other smaller sources often play complementary supporting roles but are not the focus of investment.

Funding decision makers: Within that principal source of funding, the model focuses on a particular set of people who dictate the flow of funds—perhaps government administrators or a few wealthy individuals.

Funder motivation: A funding model takes advantage of the natural fit that exists between funder motivations and an organizational mission and beneficiaries. These motivations range from altruism to collective interest to self-interest.

WHO IS THE TOOLKIT FOR? The toolkit is intended for use by anyone involved in research in the field of Health and its Social determinants. AIM AND CONTENT The toolkit is intended as an outline to guide the researchers, health professionals, and health managers for managing funding for research projects. It outlines key steps and issues and provides links to some relevant documents, manuals, reports containing more detailed and in-depth information. STRUCTURE The toolkit is divided into the following sections, which provide an (a) introduction to the steps of research funding (b) a bibliography of relevant sources which can be consulted for further references. This document should be read along with the Module 3 of the ‘Research Management for SDH research’ course titled Costing in SDH related Research Projects. DISCLAIMER This document is not an exhaustive source for all references and bibliography in this area. Its purpose is to provide an outline on research fund management.

2 Kim P, Perreault G, Foster W. 2011. Finding Your Funding Model: A Practical Approach to Nonprofit Sustainability. The Bridgespan Group.

10

INTRODUCTION TO THE STEPS OF RESEARCH FUNDING A research fund management process can be summarised under the following steps: Identifying correct the research fund; Applying for a research fund; Planning for implementation; Resource management; Quality management; Communication management; and continuation application.

Figure 1 Steps in Research funding A. IDENTIFYING CORRECT RESEARCH FUND Kim et al (2011) developed a six steps process for identifying and developing the right funding model for an organization. The six steps process includes developing an in-depth understanding of an organizational current funding strengths and weaknesses, identifying a variety of funding model options, vetting those options until you’re down to the most viable one or two, and then developing a plan for implementing them.

THE CONTINUATION APPLICATION

IDENTIFYING CORRECT RESEARCH

FUND

APPYING FOR A RESEARCH FUND

PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

QUALITY MANAGEMENT

COMMUNICATION

11

Figure 2 Identification of correct research fund

Organizational current approach to funding In Step 1, it is important to analyze organizational current approach to funding by assessing the reliability of the existing sources of funds, crystallizing why current funders support the projects, and evaluating fundraising capabilities of the organisation. This diagnostic will help an organization to identify strengths a future funding model could build on as well as weaknesses that may put certain funding models out of reach or signal the need for specific investments. This knowledge will help the organization on funding approaches that may be a good fit for the organization going forward. Learn from the funding approaches of peer organizations An organization should learn from the funding approaches of peer organizations. An organization should explore how any differences between peer organizations and its own might affect the relevance of their approaches. This will assist the organization to identify and narrow range of funding model options. An organization should screen for peer funding approaches that are both sustainable and replicable, and thus rise to the level of a funding model. In addition, it should make an initial assessment of feasibility of these models are for your organization, with the goal of selecting the two to four most applicable models.

12

Evaluating the revenue potential and costs of those short-list funding models Evaluating the revenue potential and costs of those short-list funding models will be the focus in the next step. The organization should develop an understanding of the funding available for each model and how much of that funding your organization could reasonably expect to secure given the competitive environment and its relative strengths and weaknesses. It should also estimate the investments (such as expanding into new program areas, adding staff, upgrading IT systems) it would need to make. This knowledge will put it in a good position to make an informed decision about which funding model(s) to pursue. Selecting funding models to implement This step will assist the organization to select funding models to implement. It should draw on all lessons learnt in Steps 1 through 4 and commit to pursuing one or two of the models on the short list. Develop an implementation plan for funding application Then in Step 6 the organisation should develop an implementation plan that will make the funding model plans actionable. The plan will describe in detail the investments an organization will need to make. It will also lay out a timeline for making those investments and implementing the funding model such as assigning accountability to appropriate team members and specifying milestones and a learning agenda that will make it easier to gauge progress and correct the course of action as necessary.

B. APPYING FOR A RESEARCH FUND

There are different stages of research fund application processes which are described below3: Before submission2

While many resources are available to assist researchers in obtaining funding (Bauer, 1984; Tornquist & Funk, 1990), there is not enough information available to help them manage after receiving a grant. Before submitting a proposal, it is better to contact the potential funding agency to ascertain that the research is of interest to the agency. The groundwork for implementing a grant must be laid before applying for funding to ensure that the organizations, agencies, and individuals affected by the grant will support its implementation. Commitments must be obtained from the own institution and from collaborating agencies so that resources needed to carry out the grant will be available when the grant is funded. Letters of commitment must be included in the grant application to assure the funding agency that the necessary resources (such as human resources; office space, furniture, and information and communication technology, and other items) that the funding agency may not provide, as well as access to research subjects and data sources will be provided (Selby, Riportella-Muller, and Farel, 1992).

3 AHRQ. Undated. Guidance for managing research grant. Agency for Health care research and quality.

http://archive.ahrq.gov/professionals/clinicians-providers/resources/nursing/funding/grants/grant-management.html#selby [accessed 31/12/2014]

13

The waiting period2

Many months may elapse from the time that commitments are made until a grant is funded. It is important to keep the involved individuals apprised of progress during the waiting period. After submitting the grant application, it should be ideal to send a letter of appreciation and a copy of the grant abstract to each person who facilitated grant submission by making a commitment to the project reconfirming the earliest possible start-up date and including a reminder that many first-time grant applications might require revision and resubmission, which postpones the start-up time. It would preferable to inform them about the expected date of next communisation and encouraging them to contact the Principal investigator if they have questions. These stakeholders, not just the PI, are affected by the funding agency's decision. The PI should check in periodically with them to see if any adjustments will be needed because of changes in personnel or policies at their institutions. Adjustments can be made more easily during the waiting period than in the rush to initiate a funded project. If PI has questions about his/ her application before the scientific review is completed, s/he should contact the funding agency's scientific review administrator. Responding to the scientific review2

When PI receives the summary statements from the scientific review, s/he should hold a debriefing session with the investigative team and discuss the chances for funding with the funding agency, as well as with other members of the team. If the priority score is poor or borderline, it may be advisable to submit a releases application immediately to avoid missing an entire review cycle. The feedback from the scientific review should be used to improve the application. The PI should ensure that each criticism is addressed even if it is unwarranted. If there was a misunderstanding about what PI meant in the original proposal, it is the responsibility of the research team to provide clarification. It is important to enlist the support of all collaborators in the resubmission process, as updated letters of agreement will be needed from all collaborators. The research team may need to work out logistical details associated with scientific revisions, such as an increase in sample size that may require the recruitment of additional research sites. C. PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION2 If the priority score indicates that funding is likely, plan for implementation. The official notice of funding may arrive only weeks or days before the scheduled start-up date. To avoid problems, it is important to work out logistical issues before start-up with each individual or agency involved, such as mechanisms to conduct interventions or to collect data. Institutional review board approvals for all performance sites should be reaffirmed at this stage. A meeting should be set with co-investigators to update them, to review the grant timeline, and to reconfirm and document roles and expectations. At that meeting the research team should discuss difficulties anticipated in meeting grant responsibilities and establish open communication to handle problems that may arise. The organisation should set up an administration structure to make plans to prepare the designated office space for occupancy. The team also make a plan for human resources including recruitment, interview, and selection of key staff in accordance with institutional and equal employment opportunity regulations and with the understanding that hiring is contingent on receipt of the grant award. It would be ideal to lay the groundwork with the personnel office prior to grant submission to avoid frustration and

14

delays, since the institutional processes for creating positions may be lengthy and cumbersome. The research team may need to make specific arrangements to ensure that project activities scheduled early in the grant period can be carried out. The grant may require budget adjustments. Officially, the budget is negotiated between the Funder and the research organization. In practice, the PI usually develops the budget adjustments and provides input to his/her institutional business office. Usually, the PI is responsible for ensuring that the research aims of the grant can be accomplished within the negotiated budget. Upon notification of funding, the organization may want to publicize the award. Work within institutional guidelines to do so and help ensure that the information presented is accurate. The organization should consider providing an orientation session or a manual for new PIs. Throughout the life of the grant, it is important to seek advice. Institutional officials, research team, other seasoned researchers, and funding agency can help the research team to avoid mistakes. When preparing for start-up of the funded grant, it is appropriate to call the funding agency to update them on the readiness for grant activities and to work out a plan for communicating with them over the course of the grant. Some agencies may require formal periodic reports; others prefer phone calls or informal conversations at regular intervals. By showing a willingness to communicate openly from the initial stage, a PI can help lay the foundation for a positive relationship in which the funding agency can become an advocate for the grant at the funding agency. D. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT2 Financial management For the grant to function, the research team must learn how to spend money in accordance with the rules of its own organization. Organisation’s finance office should create an account from which grant funds can be expended. The research team should study the budget justification, and budgetary revisions, and the funding agency's guidelines. The team should schedule routine orientation sessions and set up meetings with budget officials to learn the rules of the organization. During the meeting they should briefed about the description of the grant and soliciting support for operating within institutional rules to avoid accounting problems. The research team needs to ensure that expenditures are within the allotted budget and to compare expenditures with projected expenses at fixed times during the budget year (such as monthly, quarterly). It might be advisable to use analyses of past expenses to forecast recurring needs, judge whether unforeseen needs can be met, and plan future budgets. Human resources management The research team may need to meet with the personnel office to learn organizational rules for human resource management. There are organizational procedures and rules (and forms) for recruitment, payment, performance management and terminating employees. As with accounting, a chart or outline of these processes will be helpful. Follow up the personnel meetings in the same manner as the budget meetings. The need for support and advice from the personnel office will continue for the duration of the grant.

15

Personnel management in a research project carries special responsibilities not found in non-research settings. The research team is responsible for quality control in data collection, analysis, and interpretation. A minor error at any stage of the project can have major repercussions. Therefore, staff should be hired with the understanding that they must learn and abide by the special rules of the research project. A supportive environment in which mistakes are allowed, but are expected to be corrected, can foster learning and minimize negative consequences. While an atmosphere of respect for staff development helps to lessen employees turnover, disruptions caused by illness, maternity leave, the graduation of student employees, or other circumstances will occur. Therefore, plan for training replacements and retraining affected employees upon their return should be done with the research team. E. QUALITY MANAGEMENT2 Developing a policy manual to guide the scientific investigation is helpful. The manual should document methodological issues not outlined in the original research plan, as well as scientific decisions made in the course of implementing the grant. As a general rule, as long as the overall scope of the project is not altered, the funding agency allows the research team to make needed methodological or procedural changes. Significant changes should be discussed with the funding agency. Interim analyses should be done to ensure the quality of data. It enables the research team to determine accuracy of data entry, appropriateness of computer programs, and validity and reliability of data. In addition, periodic analyses are useful for monitoring process indicators and for assessing trends. If problems are uncovered, solutions can be developed more easily during the course of the grant than at the end. The effectiveness of grant management is judged partly by the ability to accomplish activities in accordance with the timeline specified by the grant. A proactive management style, with a view toward planning for unexpected events and verifying that tasks are completed correctly, helps to ensure adherence to the timeline. If the research team anticipates serious problems in accomplishing grant activities, it should be discussed the problems with the funding agency and their most viable solutions. Regardless of how well planning is done, problems occur. If they were handled positively, they can become valuable learning experiences for researchers. Documenting the problems encountered and their solutions is helpful for solving problems in the future and ensures an accurate record for reports and publications. F. COMMUNICATION To carry out grant activities on schedule and in accordance with the scientific research plan, the research team will need the continued cooperation, collaboration, and goodwill of many individuals from various agencies. The team must interact effectively and communicate grant needs appropriately to investigators, institutional officials, the funding agency and representatives of outside agencies. The team is responsible for keeping the funding agency appraised of progress in the manner agreed upon. A site visit by the funding agency provides an opportunity to communicate information about the project. Openness about problems and concerns is crucial. In an atmosphere of trust, a PO can help identify ways to overcome obstacles and can open doors to expand your research agenda. The success of a research project relies on the cooperation and goodwill of service agencies for access to data and subjects. Therefore, cordial and effective communication is essential.

16

Regular meetings should be scheduled to update funding agency personnel on progress and to allow them to provide feedback on how grant activities affect them. These meetings help them to develop a sense of partnership in the grant. G. THE CONTINUATION APPLICATION2 In the middle of a grant year, planning for the continuation application should be initiated, which usually must be submitted about three months before the end of a grant budget year. Although the format may vary across funding agencies, the application usually requires information on progress made in meeting grant objectives, managing activities, and allocating resources. It must include the next year's work plan, staff responsibilities, and a budget (within the previously approved amount) that is clearly justified by the work plan (Weston, 1985). To ensure timely submission of the application, a schedule should be prepared with interim deadlines for assembling the various components, such as face pages and bio-sketches for new key personnel. For the progress report, an outline of key points should be developed describing clearly how the grant accomplished the prescribed activities and intended aims including an explanation and justification of any changes in the original plan or budget. Significant changes should have been communicated to the funding agency previously and should not come as a surprise in the application. When a grant is completed, a research team must submit all required reports and arrange for the disposition or final allocation of property, equipment, and supplies, usually 90 days after the end of grant support. They should ensure to abide by regulations regarding accountability for equipment, retention of records, or a future audit. The funding agency can advise the team about the structure of the final report. Preparation should be made for next competitive proposal early in the last year of the grant, when the team will be in a favourable position to conduct further research. The experiences in carrying out the current grant will enhance its chances of future funding. When the grant ends, the team will have a seasoned investigative team that is even more knowledgeable about the research area, and, if the team has invested in staff development, the team will have excellent personnel resources. Successful experiences in managing funded research will lead to a smooth transition from the end of one grant to the beginning of another. The PO, your ally as a result of positive experiences with the grant, can help determine the most appropriate source of funding for research efforts that expand on the existing grant. One successful experience will lead to another as you work toward your goal of increasing knowledge about health and helping to improve the health of the population studied.

Tips for using your funds

Have an appropriate budget/forecast loaded into the finance system

Use funding in accordance with the conditions of your award

Use funding within the time frame allowed by the grant conditions

Use funding from the correct project This saves having to transfer expenditure to other accounts at a later time.

Don't use "old accounts" for other purposes after the original grant has expired After all funding has been used in accordance with your grant conditions or contract, arrange for your finance/admin staff to "inactivate" the project as soon as possible. In the case of surplus funding, arrange for your finance/admin staff to return the unspent monies to the granting body

17

and then "inactivate" the project.

COMMON ISSUES IN MANAGING RESEARCH FUNDS

The University of York provides a summary of common issues managing research funds4:

Element Problem How to Address

Grant application

Grant maintenance requests (grant extensions, communications on staffing issues etc) should be submitted according to Funder’s policy and guidelines.

PI should initiate the request and submit through normal institution submission process

Staffing Clear trails need to be kept for staff working on the grant particularly existing members of staff who are supported on several projects.

Departments need to inform Institution about staff who are working on the grant and any changes. Timesheets for part time staff are to be kept.

Ineligible costs General office stationery, postage, computer consumables such as Printer cartridges, memory sticks are deemed ineligible

check with Funding agency if unsure.

Charges for items incurred outside of dates of project

Costs can continue to be charged for few months after the project has ended though the costs themselves must relate to the period of the grant.

Equipment Charges made in the last months of the grant without permission are ineligible costs

PI should submit grant maintenance request to Funding agency in advance for approval.

Some Funding agency may require itemisation on final statement – check with RGC

Clear descriptions on Paper trail to be kept

Travel costs

Travel costs charged without a description of dates travelled or name of person travelling. Some agency require itemisation of destination, purpose, dates

Dates, name of traveller, destination to be included in description box on claim form going to Payments Office

Per diem charges

Budgets not being charged in full for departmental per diem costs facilities

Budget should be divided up over project lifetime and charged monthly

Common Points

Running the grant administration Cost for grant administration should be included

Budget management

Under/overspends not identified until the end of the grant

Budget spends analysis completed and sent to PI and Institutional administration for information of the final grant year.

4 University of York. Undated. Common issues in managing research council awards.

https://www.york.ac.uk/staff/research/external-funding/post-award/running-your-grant/common-issues-in-

managing-research-council-awards/ [accessed 31/12/2015]

18

University of Sydney also provided some guidelines for management of research funds5.

Ethics/Biosafety approval processes

It is the responsibility of PI to ensure that no research that requires ethics and/or other clearances is commenced until such clearances are obtained. Refer to the Research Support Ethics pages for details regarding Ethics/Biosafety approval processes..

Are other institutions involved?

Projects involving named-investigators from other institutions cannot commence until all collaborating institutions have entered into a written agreement which addresses the role of each institution on the project and any funds to be transferred. Sub-contracts may be required when funds will be transferred to collaborators.

Research data management

Any research data generated during the life of the grant must be stored, managed and backed up. All research data generated is required to be stored for a minimum of 7 years from the end of the grant.

Campus infrastructure

Organisational Infrastructure Services should be contacted at the initiation of the project their advice or assistance is needed regarding campus infrastructure or facilities in undertaking your project.

Purchasing Contact Organisational procumbent Services well in advance to obtain support and advice on how to proceed with procurement of any equipment in compliance with organisational policy.

5 University of Sydney. Undated. Managing your funding.

http://sydney.edu.au/research_support/funding/manage/index.shtml [accessed 31/12/2015]

19

REFERENCES AND BIBILOGRAPHIS

AHRQ. Undated. Guidance for managing research grant. Agency for Health care research and quality. http://archive.ahrq.gov/professionals/clinicians-providers/resources/nursing/funding/grants/grant-management.html#selby [accessed 31/12/2014] Bauer, D.G. (1984). The "How To" grant manual: Successful grant seeking techniques for obtaining public and private grants. New York: Macmillan. Kim P, Perreault G, Foster W. 2011. Finding Your Funding Model: A Practical Approach to Nonprofit Sustainability. The Bridgespan Group. Kim P, Perreault G, Foster W. 2011. Finding Your Funding Model: A Practical Approach to Nonprofit Sustainability. The Bridgespan Group. 31/12/2014] Selby, M.L., Riportella-Muller, R., Farel, A. (1992). Building administrative support for your research: a neglected key for turning a research plan into a funded project. Nursing Outlook, 40(2), 73-77. Tornquist, E.M., & Funk, S.G. (1990). How to write a research grant proposal. Image, the Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 22 (1), 44-51. University of Sydney. Undated. Managing your funding. http://sydney.edu.au/research_support/funding/manage/index.shtml [accessed 31/12/2015] University of York. Undated. Common issues in managing research council awards. https://www.york.ac.uk/staff/research/external-funding/post-award/running-your-grant/common-issues-in-managing-research-council-awards/ [accessed 31/12/2015] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1990). PHS Grants Policy Statement (HHS Publication No. (OASH) 90-50,000). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Weston, J. (1985, March). Project officer's handy dandy guide to project monitoring (revised). Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, U.S. Public Health Service (internal document, not available for distribution).