Follow-up Financial Monitoring ReviewCarleton University

February 2010

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Remarkable!!

Status on the 2007 recommendationsRoles 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Status on the 2007 recommendations

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.

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.

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).

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

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