Transcript Slide 1
NWDA / ERDF Funding •Who am I? •ERDF What is it? •NWDA What is it? •Why does it matter? •What do you (and your School academics) need to know about it? • • • • Jacqui Grant B10 Sackville St Building Ext 63126 [email protected] • Based in EPS Faculty Finance but working on ERDF for whole university. • European Regional Development Fund • Northwest Regional Development Agency Advancing the Manchester 2015 Agenda Goal 1 RESEARCH STRATEGIES FOR RESEARCH 3. To broaden the range of research funding sources, especially by placing greater emphasis on European funding and funding from industry sources. ______________________________________________________ Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences Operational Priorities 2009-10 • Key Milestones / Actions • Increase the proportion of awards from non-research council sources, targeting EU and industrial funding; The NWDA is to start calling for ERDF bids in the areas Developing High Value New Enterprise Exploiting the Science and R&D Base of the Region: Higher Education Specific Schemes Encouraging Innovation to Improve Productivity in all Companies: Knowledge to Innovate Encouraging Innovation to Improve Productivity in all Companies: other Advice Services NWDA need new industry start ups and are favouring New Industry New Jobs in: Low Carbon Industrial Strategy Ultra Low Carbon Vehicles Digital Britain Life Sciences and Pharmaceuticals Advanced Manufacturing including aerospace, composite materials, industrial biotechnology sector, plastic electronics Professional and Financial Services Engineering Construction Industrial Opportunities in an Ageing Society However, as we expected, they are going to clobber any new projects with major outcome targets. {my highlights} OUTPUT FRAMEWORK These projects are not about research. The outputs expected are in terms of Jobs created in the North West and Merseyside SMEs assisted to achieve greater productivity Developing a supply chain network Business attracted to the North West Knowledge transfer from university to industry Public (e.g. HLF) and private (company) leverage as ‘match’ funding. NWDA OUTPUT FRAMEWORK to demonstrate Return on Investment (ROI) and justify the impact of £ public money spent, requires outputs to reflect: RES priorities and outcomes NWDA Corporate Plan objectives NWDA investment priorities – Express the benefits; – Assess value for money; – Assess the Impact upon regional economy (GVA) NWDA OUTPUT FRAMEWORK Consequences for you are Intensive Financial Monitoring Detailed and accurate forecasting Quarterly Progress Monitoring reports Quarterly Claims Output Beneficiary Monitoring Verification by auditors / NWDA / EU Commission Auditors NWDA OUTPUT FRAMEWORK Integration of Single Programme and ERDF outputs require new and increased levels of data information from grant holder (from April 2009) NWDA OUTPUT FRAMEWORK Beneficiary monitoring introduced for business and people outputs: Gender Age Race Disabled NWDA OUTPUT FRAMEWORK Data Collection Systems • Are the appropriate output definitions understood and in use? • Is all the necessary output data being collected? • What systems are being used to collect data? Are they robust and secure? Output Evidence • What verification evidence is being collected? • Is it acceptable in relation to types of evidence / authenticity? • How is this information being stored? • Is it easily accessible for checking? • Have adequate consents been obtained from individuals? ‘Single Pot’ refers to projects funded by NWDA own funds. It is less heavily monitored and restrictive than projects with an element of ERDF money. ERDF input ‘contaminates’ all other funding with increased monitoring. A fundamental difference to other funding, e.g. RCUK, Wellcome Trust, industrial, is that funds are claimed against defrayed costs and everything has to be evidenced.* (including timesheets for any staff not 100% on project). Cross cutting themes / policies Sustainability Green travel plan Equal opportunities Procurement Document retention (to 2025) There are pockets of expertise around the university where projects are or have been running FLS MACE John Ryland University Chemistry CTF Problems stem from Lack of appreciation of the ‘strings’ that come with these funding sources Underestimating administration and financial management of these projects In brief (depending on time) Procedure Expression of Interest EoI Concept Proposal Development and Appraisal D&A Monitoring and Evaluation M&E Grant Funding Agreement GFA Exit Strategy In brief (depending on time) Organisation charts, job descriptions, contracts Project Board constitution / letters of appointment Policies Publicity and use of logos Financial – apportionment methodology / overhead calculations / original invoices / payroll / bank statements / ledger prints / timesheets / tender documents / asset register Evidence to support outputs e.g. company accounts for GVA Progress monitoring – risk registers / business plan and revisions / milestones / budgets / minutes NB - Equal requirements for ‘match’ funding. So, to steal the tag line from one of our emergency services: If an academic mentions “NWDA / ERDF Funding” If s/he doesn’t want to get out And isn’t going to stay out Then, call me out