Ideas to improve the selection of NHMRC Project Grants

The starting point for this presentation is that applicants provide a large surplus of information when submitting a NHMRC Project Grant proposal for funding. This is costly in their time, attracts high administration costs, makes the task appear daunting for peer reviewers and may reduce the quality of the peer review leading to less than perfect reliability in decision making. We are currently experimenting with alternate models to see whether similar reliability in funding outcomes are achieved at less cost. We will compare traditional NHMRC Grant Review Panels (GRPs) with panels that use less information and journal style panels. By way of background to this experimental work, we will show some results on current levels of reliability for GRPs, the costs incurred by all who participate in Project Grant selection, and the level of reliability acceptable to researchers. By experimenting in this way and building an evidence base for how research funding should be allocated, the NHMRC is showing international leadership in this important field.

Evolving a synergistic approach to road safety : an appraisal of the project management, stakeholder engagement and change facilitation (PSC) approach by means of two case studies

Existing research and best practice were utilized to develop the Project Management, Stakeholder Engagement and Change Facilitation (PSC) approach to road safety infrastructure projects. Two case studies involving Queensland Transport and Main Roads demonstrated that use of the PSC has potential to create synergies for projects undertaken by multi-disciplinary road safety groups, and to complement Safe System projects and philosophy. The case studies were the North West Road Safety Alliance project, and the implementation of Road Safety Audit policy, and utilised a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods including interviews and surveys.

Government grants - an abrogation or management of risks?

New public management (NPFM), with its hands-on, private sector-style performance measurement, output control, parsimonious use of resources, disaggreation of public sector units and greater competition in the public sector, has significantly affected charitable and nonprofit organisations delivering community services (Hood, 1991; Dunleavy, 1994; George & Wilding, 2002). The literature indicates that nonprofit organisations under NPM believe they are doing more for less: while administration is increasing, core costs are not being met; their dependence on government funding comes at the expense of other funding strategies; and there are concerns about proportionality and power asymmetries in the relationship (Kerr & Savelsberg, 2001; Powell & Dalton, 2011; Smith, 2002, p. 175; Morris, 1999, 2000a). Government agencies are under increased pressure to do more with less, demonstrate value for money, measure social outcomes, not merely outputs and minimise political risk (Grant, 2008; McGreogor-Lowndes, 2008). Government-community service organisation relationships are often viewed as 'uneasy alliances' characterised by the pressures that come with the parties' differing roles and expectations and the pressures that come with the parties' differing roles and expectations and the pressurs of funding and security (Productivity Commission, 2010, p. 308; McGregor-Lowndes, 2008, p. 45; Morris, 200a). Significant community services are now delivered to citizens through such relationships, often to the most disadvantaged in the community, and it is important for this to be achieved with equity, efficiently and effectively. On one level, the welfare state was seen as a 'risk management system' for the poor, with the state mitigating the risks of sickness, job loss and old age (Giddens, 1999) with the subsequent neoliberalist outlook shifting this risk back to households (Hacker, 2006). At the core of this risk shift are written contracts. Vincent-Jones (1999,2006) has mapped how NPM is characterised by the use of written contracts for all manner of relations; e.g., relgulation of dealings between government agencies, between individual citizens and the state, and the creation of quais-markets of service providers and infrastructure partners. We take this lens of contracts to examine where risk falls in relation to the outsourcing of community services. First we examine the concept of risk. We consider how risk might be managed and apportioned between governments and community serivce organisations (CSOs) in grant agreements, which are quasiy-market transactions at best. This is informed by insights from the law and economics literature. Then, standard grant agreements covering several years in two jurisdictions - Australia and the United Kingdom - are analysed, to establish the risk allocation between government and CSOs. This is placed in the context of the reform agenda in both jurisdictions. In Australia this context is th enonprofit reforms built around the creation of a national charities regulator, and red tape reduction. In the United Kingdom, the backdrop is the THird Way agenda with its compacts, succeed by Big Society in a climate of austerity. These 'case studies' inform a discussion about who is best placed to bear and manage the risks of community service provision on behalf of government. We conclude by identifying the lessons to be learned from our analysis and possible pathways for further scholarship.

Factors Driving Stock Option Grants - Empirical Evidence from Finland

This study contributes to the executive stock option literature by looking at factors driving the introduction of such a compensation form on a firm level. Using a discrete decision model I test the explanatory power of several agency theory based variables and find strong support for predictability of the form of executive compensation. Ownership concentration and liquidity are found to have a significant negative effect on the probability of stock option adoption. Furtermore, I find evidence of CEO ownership, institutional ownership, investment intensity, and historical market return having a significant and a positive relationship to the likelihood of adopting a executive stock option program.

Grants for Libraries

More and more libraries, museums and cultural institutions rely on fundraising and grant writing to sustain their services, special projects, or new initiatives Since most MLIS programs do not include grant project planning and proposal writing as part of their curriculum, librarians learn the process through trial and error, or continuing education classes. There are numerous books and websites that can assist the novice grant writer. We hope to provide beginners with basic information on the types of grants available, where to look for funding agencies, selected grant writing resources, and a few helpful grant writing hints to get you started. The presentation will be a three-person panel providing a short overview of the areas mentioned above, and discussion of sample grants submitted or received. The overview will be presented in Power Point format with an accompanying handout for each attendee.

Annual report to the PSC on the year 2012

Progress and Outputs: summary of 2012, progress of project logframe targets in year 4, events diary,activities within each sub-component. Risk assessment. Project finances. List of documents.

Evaluating Stakeholder Engagement in North Carolina Sea Grant’s Strategic Planning Process

In order to develop a strategic plan that will guide their priorities and resource allocation for 2018-2021, North Carolina Sea Grant has implemented a multi-stage process designed to increase stakeholder engagement and to better assess and serve the coastal priorities of North Carolinians. This project explores strengths and potential areas for improvement within NC Sea Grant’s planning process with a specific focus on maximizing stakeholder engagement. By interviewing staff, observing focus groups, and creating a survey instrument for public distribution, we developed a set of recommendations highlighting the ways that NC Sea Grant can better facilitate inclusion of stakeholder, public, and staff input in its strategic planning process, such as holding some stakeholder events outside of typical business hours and discussing ways to incorporate diversity into the strategic plan.

L'investissement socialement responsable imposé aux gérants de portefeuille: vrai réforme ou faux semblant de la loi "Grenelle II" en faveur de l'ISR?

L’article L. 214-12 du Code monétaire et financier modifié par la loi du 12 juillet 2010 portant engagement national pour l’environnement met à la charge des SICAV et des sociétés de gestion une obligation de prendre en compte et de divulguer les critères extrafinanciers utilisés dans leur choix d’investissement. Cette réforme législative vient enrichir la thématique de la responsabilité sociale des entreprises devenue aujourd’hui incontournable en s’intéressant à son aspect financier : l’investissement socialement responsable (ISR). Destinée à donner de l’ampleur à l’économie verte, cette position rompt avec la posture traditionnelle réservée que le droit français observait en la matière. Toutefois, elle est dans le droit fil de nombreuses réglementations étrangères et de recommandations d’organisations et d’associations professionnelles tant nationales qu’internationales mais dans le même temps va bien au-delà. Cette étude analyse le corpus et les implications de la nouvelle rédaction de l’article L. 214-12 du Code monétaire et financier. Bien que cette évolution issue de la « Loi Grenelle II » augure de conséquences positives pour l’avenir de la finance responsable, elle laisse place à de nombreux doutes susceptibles d’empêcher le droit de produire les effets désirés.