THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH

Can Saygin, Ph.D.

Advisor to President on Strategic Initiatives (Former AVP-Research) can.saygin@utsa.edu 210-458-4340

Stacy Williams

Director, Research Quality Assurance & Risk Management stacy.williams@utsa.edu 210-458-4231

Arya Singh

Director, Research Computing and Communication arya.singh@utsa.edu 210-458-6186

Our Approach

Process Data Metrics

Continuous Improvement Actionable Information Operational Awareness and Accountability

2

Electronic Routing Form CAYUSE Proposal Award Project

PeopleSoft Dashboard

Proposal

ADMIN Fiscal Capacity & Capability F&A Return Expenditures Department College Centers & Institutes FACULTY

Processing Outside PeopleSoft

Account Set Up Expenditures Invoicing Technical Reports Financial Reports Close Outs

Expenditure Data Burn Rate Report F&A Return

PI/Co‐PI Info

• Shared Credit %

Dept

• College

Center/Institute Affiliation

Award FUNDING SOURCE (Agency)

Invoices & Reports & Misc Requests

Award Data Proposal Award Expenditure Research Service Center (RSC) TEAM Monthly Account Reconciliation Faculty/Personnel Contracts (Appointments) Summer & Academic Year Appointments Verify Expenditures Visibility Quality Assurance and Risk Management (QARM) TEAM Grants and Contracts Financial Services (GCFS) TEAM

OSPA OSPA OSPA 5 1 4 3 2 7 8 9 10

Basic Process Flow

4 6

Proposal Data

• Grant
• Contract

Electronic Routing Form CAYUSE Proposal Award Project

PeopleSoft Dashboard

ADMIN Fiscal Capacity & Capability F&A Return Expenditures Department College Centers & Institutes FACULTY

Processing Outside PeopleSoft

Account Set Up Expenditures Invoicing Technical Reports Financial Reports Close Outs

Expenditure Data Burn Rate Report F&A Return

PI/Co‐PI Info

• Shared Credit %

Dept

• College

Center/Institute Affiliation

Award FUNDING SOURCE (Agency)

Invoices & Reports & Misc Requests

Proposal & Award Data Proposal Award Expenditure Research Service Center (RSC) TEAM Monthly Account Reconciliation Faculty/Personnel Contracts (Appointments) Summer & Academic Year Appointments Verify Expenditures Visibility Quality Assurance and Risk Management (QARM) TEAM Grants and Contracts Financial Services (GCFS) TEAM

OSPA OSPA OSPA 4 1 6 5 7

7 Deadly Weaknesse Deadly Weaknesses

2

Corrections Data Validation Through Queries

7 Deadly Weaknesses 7 Deadly Weaknesses

Data Flow along CRITICAL PATH 3

Proposal • Grant

• Contract

5 STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES

1) Build an error‐proof “Critical Path” and maintain efficient and effective data flow. 2) Identify potential “error entry points” into the Critical Path and eliminate them (root cause). 3) Where Step 2 fails, identify errors as early as possible before they propagate and contaminate downstream processes. 4) Error Clean Up Priority: Always start with errors that are at upstream of critical path and work your way towards downstream. 5) Be quick but do not rush: Validate actions/reports via independent data points/attributes for 100% accuracy (in order to avoid future “rework” and “waste”)

UTSA Implementation

Burn Rate Report:

• Project‐level view of sponsored projects funding

utilization over time Purpose:

• Provides agility in addressing potential funding

utilization issues by showing a trend of spending patterns and helps to pinpoint data inaccuracies Users:

• PI’s, department administrators, and financial leads

UTSA Research

Burn Rate Report

UTSA Research

Burn Rate Report

UTSA Research

Burn Rate Report

Slicers are available so the data can be easily filtered.

UTSA Research

Burn Rate Report

Quality Control / Role Responsibilities

Role Assignment Things to Check RSC GCFS College/Dept/C&I Notes Total balance less than zero X X Reconcile F&A and determine direct cost overdraft to transfer off project Direct balance less than zero X X Reconcile F&A; rebudget funds or correct expenses as needed Indirect balance less than zero X X Reconcile F&A; rebudget funds or correct expenses as needed Project with zero budget and posted expenses X X Increase budget or correct expenses Cost share cost center with zero budget and posted expenses X X X Fund cost share cost center or correct expenses Negative encumbrance X X Contact back office processing department to resolve PO, travel & expense, or payroll negative encumbrance Unexpired (GM‐Approved) and slower spend (S‐) X X Alert PI; verify expenses are being appropriately charged to project and not parked on other funding source Three (3) months or fewer remaining X Send 30/60/90 day notices Unexpired (GM‐Approved) with reporting unit blank or null X Replace PI per sponsor's approval Months remaining zero, project status should not equal GM‐Approved X Update to GM‐Frozen status if not closed Months remaining zero, contract type fixed price X Prepare for closeout and transfer residual to cost center Months remaining zero, contract type prepaid, total balance greater than zero X Prepare for closeout and issue refund to sponsor Project status GM‐Closed, total balance is not zero X Should be no activity after closed; further analysis is needed and expenses may need to be removed Project status GM‐Receipts Only X Confirm final payment received and close project Project title missing or blank X Enter title

UTSA Implementation

Sponsored Projects Payroll Confirmation Report Effort Reporting Application:

• Salary charged and allocation percentages from

sponsored projects payroll within biannual certification periods. Purpose:

• Provides certification capability to PI with payroll details
• f all salary earned from a project within certification

period. Users:

• All principal investigators (PI), office of sponsored

project administration(OSPA).

UTSA Research

Sponsored Projects Payroll Confirmation Report Application

Step 1. Data Retrieval

UTSA Research

Sponsored Projects Payroll Confirmation Report Application

Effort data Effort data

Earning Code Payroll date Pay Group

Step 2. Filter the data

UTSA Research

Sponsored Projects Payroll Confirmation Report Application

Step 3. Data compilation into effort cards

UTSA Research

Sponsored Projects Payroll Confirmation Report Application

UTSA Research

Sponsored Projects Payroll Confirmation Report Application

Step 4. Approve/Deny and Submit

UTSA Research

Sponsored Projects Payroll Confirmation Report Application

UTSA Research

Sponsored Projects Payroll Confirmation Report Application

UTSA Research

Sponsored Projects Payroll Confirmation Report Application

Step 5. PI Support portal

Questions?

SUNY RESEARCH FOUNDATION SUNY BUFFALO

The Research Foundation for SUNY Implementation of Payroll Certification at University of Buffalo

Susan Zaffers Susan.Zaffers@rfsuny.org March 2018

Background

• The Research Foundation for SUNY
• Governance and Corporate systems
• UB
• FROM: 3x per year person driven effort certification

based on expenditure date

• TO: 2x per year award driven payroll confirmation based
• n date posted

Implementation Steps

• Developed a suggested method
• Went through the cohort developed internal controls

and mapped UB controls to this document

• Developed and implemented systems to support

method

• Roll out and communication/training

Development of Method

• Iterative
• Controls at the forefront
• Reviewed by external consultant
• Reviewed by internal audit

Internal Controls

• Formalized expected process
• Using cohorts identified controls covered all areas
• Tweaked process accordingly to gaps
• Key documentation

Systems

• The heaviest lift
• Two IT teams
• Data export
• Front end
• Data existed in the business system
• Building controls developed into delivery system

Communication and Training

• Campus newsletter
• Sponsored Program web page
• Emails
• Step by step instructions

Results

• Positive feedback from faculty
• Decrease in number of items faculty needs to

review

• Increased understanding of payroll charges and

improved dialog between faculty and sponsored programs office

• Fewer outstanding reviews
• Clean Single Audit

www.uga.edu

Alternatives to Effort Reporting Implementation Strategy and Impact

Im plem entation Strategy

www.uga.edu

• Dec 20 16 – started discussions with cohort leaders
• Feb 20 17 – decision to propose ATE as a viable path forward
• Mar 20 17 – reviewed with our internal and external auditors
• Apr-Jun 20 17 – six 2-hour workgroup sessions with faculty and staff
• Jun-Dec 20 17 – refined policy and procedures
• Jan- Feb 20 18 – documented new controls
• Nov-Jun 20 18 – develop new report for review/ certification w/ campus input
• Mar-Jun 20 18 – campus communications
• Jun 20 18 – training videos complete
• Jul 20 18 – cutover to new policy (coincides with new ERP go-live)
• Sep 20 18 – first annual certifications

Expected Im pact

www.uga.edu

• PIs, research/ lab techs, grad assistants, and other staff currently certify

monthly for salaries charged to any sponsored or cost share accounts

• Under ATE, only the PI will certify project salaries and expenditures

(rather than % effort) on an annual basis (rather than monthly)

• FY17: ~32,000 certifications
• Under ATE, expect more than 90% reduction in certifications
• This is expected to save thousands of hours for faculty and staff
• Faculty and staff reaction has been uniformly and overwhelmingly

positive

Questions

www.uga.edu

UGA Cohort Contact Shawn Hill shawnh@uga.edu 706.542.9271

UCSF Approach to Compensation Compliance Under Uniform Guidance

Award Verification Project

March 6, 2018

MC Gaisbauer, Assistant Controller, Controller’s Office mc.gaisbauer@ucsf.edu

UCSF Background

• Awards Setup:

7,930

• Cash Collected / Revenue Generated: $ 1,337 million
• Federal:

$ 695 million

• State:

$ 71 million

• Local:

$ 181 million

• Private:

$ 390 million

• Compliance Audit Report Card: A
• Financial Reports Filed: 1,626
• Effort Reports Generated / % Certified: 10,958 / 97%

Fiscal Year 2016‐17 Portfolio

Award Verification Project 37 March 6, 2018

Agenda

• UCSF Background
• Journey to Project
• Project Overview
• High Level Pilot Project Timeline
• Project Organization
• Project Roles & Responsibilities
• Current State and Technology Summary
• Q&A

Award Verification Project 38 March 6, 2018

Journey to Project

• Under Uniform Guidance, UCSF has the opportunity to:
• Eliminate administrative burden of effort reporting and costs associated with

supporting the Effort Reporting System (ERS)

• Replace separate project compliance tasks with one simplified, automated, and

auditable task that verifies expense at the award level

• Enable award management conversations between PI and RSA
• Significantly improve the process and reduce time spent on compliance efforts by

UCSF – PI, RSA, and Central Offices

An Opportunity to Improve

Award Verification Project 39

Opportunity statement: no certifications are required, and effort is no longer the focus.

March 6, 2018

Journey to Project

• Contracts and Grants Accounting, in collaboration with the Office of

Sponsored Research, approached the academic leadership of UCSF Research Advisory Board RAB (June 2015)

• Informal assessment of control environment
• Joined the cohort (Oct 2016)
• With concurrence of RAB leadership, the proposal was brought to the full

RAB (Oct 2016) and executive committee was formed

• Further concurrence to move forward was sought from UCSF campus

financial leadership team (CPFO) (Jan 2017)

• Executive Committee researched tools and approaches being used peers
• In collaboration with the school financial leaders, pilot participating

principal investigators were identified (June 2017)

Award Verification Project 40 March 6, 2018

Journey to Project

• Today, UCSF PIs are asked to perform many separate tasks:
• Effort reporting
• Twice a year based on the calendar
• Subcontract invoice approval
• As invoices are presented for payment by the subcontractor
• General Ledger Verification (GLV)
• Each accounting period
• Financial Status Report / Final Invoices
• Award budget period

Current State: Effort Reporting and Other PI Responsibilities

Award Verification Project 41

These tasks are in addition to the program tasks related to the award, such as progress reports

March 6, 2018

Project Overview

Vision:

Through an on‐line tool that facilitates collaboration with the RSA, replace the multiple verifications and sign‐offs performed by the PI with a single verification of all expenses, payroll and other costs, that is performed on a cycle aligned with the other PI required activities of an award, such as progress reports.

Award Verification Project 42 March 6, 2018

Project Overview

Goal: Develop and implement a process and technical solution that leverages existing controls to verify all project expenses on an award in an efficient and transparent manner Objectives:

• Reduce the administrative burden felt by PI and RSA
• Retire the Effort Reporting System and expand verification beyond payroll

expense

• Meet compliance and audit requirements of Uniform Guidance
• Leverage PI knowledge to validate expense on all projects across an award
• Increase the effectiveness and rate of compliance with Uniform Guidance
• Ensure appropriate integration with GLV process and leverage other UCSF

systems

Implement Award‐Based Verification

Award Verification Project 43 March 6, 2018

9 Award Verification Project March 6, 2018

High‐Level Pilot Project Timeline*

Award Verification Project 45 March 6, 2018

Project Approach

• Internal audit review and verification of internal controls over

compensation

• User‐based requirements gathering for new process and technology
• Develop technical solution for an Award Verification system that provides

transparency into the process for PI and RSA collaboration

• Pilot and phased implementation of new process and technology
• Retirement of the Effort Reporting System

Award Verification Project 46 March 6, 2018

Institutional Controls

COHORT INTERNAL CONTROL FRAMEWORK

Payroll Process Controls System Controls

• 1. IBS Policy: Pay Codes
• 2. 100% IBS is identifiable
• 3. Allocation of 100% IBS sources
• 4. Pay within Project Period
• 5. Cost Transfers identify earning period

ENFORCEMENT CONTROLS

• 16. Cost Transfer restrictions if

controls failed

• 17. Spending restrictions for

non-compliance COMPLIANCE MONITORING

• 22. Confirm controls work as

intended or perform additional controls for higher risk processes EDUCATION AND TRAINING

• 23. Responsibilities of individuals

performing controls are understood ADMINISTRATIVE (NON- FINANCIAL CONTROLS)

• 18. Agency Salary-Cap

restrictions

• 19. Committed Cost Sharing
• 20. Minimum devotion of time
• 21. Reduction of 25% PI/PD time

ESTIMATE PAYROLL 6. Initial allocation

• f payroll

7. Allocation review and approval REVIEW PAYROLL 8. Reconciliations 9. Payroll Reports

• 10. After‐the‐fact review

(charged estimates determined accurate)

• 11. Individual payroll

cross project coordination (if necessary)

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

 UCSF already had all these existing controls, no improvement needed ADJUST PAYROLL

• 12. Reallocate estimates or

charges

• 13. Cost Transfers of payroll

already reviewed for accuracy

• 14. Cost Transfer over 90 days of

payroll determined accurate

• 15. Extra Compensation review

and approval  UCSF already had all these existing controls, no improvement needed  UCSF already had all these existing controls, no improvement needed

March 6, 2018 Award Verification Project 47

Cost Transfer Data

Given the control environment, why the cost transfer volume?

Award Verification Project 48 ‐ 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 $‐ $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 $80,000,000 $90,000,000 $100,000,000 9‐16 10‐1611‐1612‐16 1‐17 2‐17 3‐17 4‐17 5‐17 6‐17 7‐17 8‐17 9‐17 10‐1711‐1712‐17 1‐18 2‐18 3‐18 4‐18 5‐18 6‐18 7‐18 8‐18 545 547 548

Internal Audit Assessment of Sponsored Award Compensation Expense Controls

Objective: Document current compensation process(es) and assess controls are sufficiently designed

Award Verification Project 49

• Scope
• Current (at January 1, 2018) compensation procedures for academic and staff employees
• Compensation includes both salary and fringe benefits (2 CFR 200.430/431)
• Excludes compensation based on contracts (personal services, etc.) where the contract

serves as time and effort documentation

• Procedures to be Performed
• Document existing processes related to compensation (salary setting, timekeeping &

payroll)

• Conduct interviews and walk‐throughs of activity being conducted to assess adequacy of

process controls

• Assess internal controls using the COSO framework
• Deliverables
• Process flow map(s)
• Process controls narrative and controls assessment matrix

March 6, 2018

SAS 115 General Ledger Verification (GLV)

• 2015 Internal Audit concluded that only 46% of departments were

complying with the campus’s GLV policy

• Main barrier to compliance was the manual process
• 2016 project to create an online tool to streamline the GLV process was

kicked off

• It identifies the high risk transactions for verification
• It easily shows the completion status of verification
• High risk criteria examples
• Abnormal account usage
• Unallowable accounts
• Unusual spending trends
• Payroll allocation changes

Award Verification Project 50

Award Verification Design

Provides an enhanced interface overlay, leveraging the GLV, to meet the PI’s requirements

• PI’s do not find the GLV interface intuitive – requested a

dashboard view

• PI’s desire an interface that provided not just transparency into the

staff’s reconciliations but the ability to collaborate about the data

• PI’s desire to see their entire portfolio: federal, non-federal, and

non-sponsored

Award Verification Project 51 March 6, 2018

Award Verification Process

• After the fact review by project using dollars
• No longer doing effort certification by individuals using % effort
• Includes drill through views of 100% allocations of each person
• After the fact review is complete by review quarterly
• After monthly GL verifications of project expenses by finance

staff

• GL Verification process will highlight unallowable and high risk

activity for review

• GL Verification process will create Cost Transfers
• Policy only applies to federal activity but tool includes all PI funds,

even non‐sponsored

Award Verification Project 52 March 6, 2018

Questions?

53 March 6, 2018 Award Verification Project

General Ledger Verification Beta- Testing Snapshots

March 6, 2018 Award Verification Project 54

GL Verification Demo

• Provides summary display of totals by Transaction Type of the items selected for GL Verification
• As transactions are reviewed and verified, the % GL Verification Items Completed provides a graphic indicator of the completion percent for each Transaction Type

Award Verification Project 55 March 6, 2018

GL Verification Demo

• Shows the details within each transaction type of the amounts Not Verified by Source Code
• Drill through to Verify GLV Items report

Award Verification Project 56 March 6, 2018

GL Verification Demo

• Allows the user to verify whether each transaction item was accurately recorded

Award Verification Project 57 March 6, 2018

GL Verification Demo

• Displays total monthly FTE and total monthly Salary expense for the last 12 months

Award Verification Project 58 March 6, 2018

GL Verification Demo

• Displays 3 months of detail monthly pay and distribution data for each employee
• Employees with pay or distribution changes in the current month are noted in the Chg column, and the highlighted changes

Award Verification Project 59 March 6, 2018

Award Verification Preliminary Mock-Up

March 6, 2018 Award Verification Project 60

Award Verification Mock‐Up

Award Verification Project 61 March 6, 2018

Award Verification Mock‐Up

Project Dashboard

Award Verification Project 62 March 6, 2018

Award Verification Mock‐Up

Spend Drillthrough

Award Verification Project 63 March 6, 2018

65

Break

Colorado State University

Dave Schmidt David.Schmidt@colostate.edu

Project Based Certification and Reporting

What We’ve Done, Where We’re Headed

• Switched from paper certification to electronic system and moved to an alternative project based certification methodology
• Evaluated options of:

– Traditional Effort Certification – Project Confirmation – Hybrid Model (Effort for faculty, Project for staff)

• Phase 1: Move from quarterly (based on fiscal year) effort certifications per person to effort confirmation by project for all employees

– Reduced number or certifications per quarter by more than 1,000 – from over 2,700 to less than 1,700 – System went live in January 2018

• On-time certification completion rate at end of initial period was 99.3%!

– Lessened administrative burden for PIs

• PI certifies for all employees on a project at once
• Reduced time required for PIs to complete certification
• Provides more transparency and understanding of project expense activity
• Easy-to-use resource to view personnel costs on each project; showing dollar amount and percent effort

– Improved internal controls for OSP – Changes to effort trigger necessary cost transfers – Greater use of cost-share accounts and advance start accounts

• Phase 2: Move to annual confirmation by budget year, with quarterly review

Project Confirmation Data Overview

The ecrt system integrates with Colorado State University’s financial, payroll, HR and research administration systems to maximize compliance with documentation standards for personnel expenses as prescribed by federal regulation.

Implementation Timeline

PI Home Page

The PI home page lists the PI’s statements that are ready for

• certification. In this

example, the PI has 7 Project Statements and 2 Associated Project Statements. An Associated Project is part of the PI’s award but is led by a different PI. The Lead PI of that project is required to certify that statement.

Project Statement

The project statement lists all individuals for the period of performance who have payroll or cost share effort. The PI is responsible for certifying/confirming the payroll charges on their specific project. The PI can view multiple project statements at a time and has access to notes, attachments and transaction history.

To certify/confirm the statement, the PI would check off the Certify boxes, click Confirm and then I Agree on the ensuing attestation page.

Project Statement Hover Over

Selecting the scroll icon displays the total funding for the employee.

The project statement hover over shows the 100% payroll breakdown for each employee charged to the project for the period. The hover over ensures that the PI is aware of all of their staff’s salary activity.

Thank you

Research Finance Operations

ALTERNATIVES TO EFFORT REPORTING

TRACEY VOLZ TRACEY.VOLZ@NYUMC.ORG

75

Understanding the Possibilities

76

Traditional Effort Reporting vs Payroll Verification Method

Description Effort Certification (A-21 Circulars) Payroll Verification (Uniform Guidance) Review Basis Individuals Grant/Contract (award) Certification/Review Cycle Fiscal Year – Once a Year Monthly payroll review Approver Individual/PIs/DAs Department and PIs Certification/Review Focus Individual’s percentage of effort is reasonable based on

• verall effort

All salaries/wages directly charged to the award are reasonable based on work performed Type of Funds All sponsored funds All sponsored funds

Effort Certification Quick Guide

Timeline:

• Oct. 2nd to Oct. 13th : DAs review and

comment on efforts in the Professional Time and Effort Tool Oct 16th to Nov. 17th: Effort Certification Period Nov 20th to Mid-Dec: RFO reviews all effort certifications Mid-Dec: Time and Effort Reporting Tool finalized and closed

RFO Contacts for Questions:

Maria Shrestha – maria.shrestha@nyumc.org 646-754-4678 Tim Fitzsimmons – timothy.fitzsimmons@nyumc.org 212-404-4285 Tracey Volz – Justine.volz@nyumc.org 646-754-5294

Professional Time and Effort Tool Link:

https://toolsx.med.nyu.edu/ProfTimeAndEffort

Effort Certification Process

Step 1: Log into the Effort Reporting Tool using your Kerberos ID and email password Step 2: In the “Certification Section,” enter Actual Effort Percentage in the “Actual Effort %” column and be sure the column totals to 100% Step 3: Review “Payroll Allocation %” for each account and determine if your actual effort over the reporting period was the same as the payroll percentage Step 4: For each account, you can use the “Explanation/ Comments” field to provide comments when necessary Step 5: If a chartstring is missing, click “Add Chartfield” to enter the chartstring, payroll information and Actual Effort % Step 6: Complete the certification process – check the “I certify” box and once you have done this, click the “Save Button” to complete the certification process

Please keep in mind:

• NIH Cap: when calculating the effort on a federal grant, use the

following calculation: Payroll Amount ($) /NIH Cap ($186,331**) = min % Effort Required at Cap Example: $37,400/$186,331 = 20.1% effort

• If effort was reported and no salary was charged to the grant, please

provide an explanation in the comments section **Note: $186,331 = the adjusted NIH salary cap for FY17 reporting period

78

Existing Internal Controls

• Peoplesoft HCM – MSS Transactions

– Payroll allocation % cannot exceed 100% – Shows payroll allocation across all funds

• RFO Compliance Review of payroll adjustments that impact sponsored

projects

• Updated Cost Transfer Policy

– Does not allow adjustments that impact a prior fiscal year 90 days after fiscal year ended

• Payroll Suspense Account
• Cost Sharing

– Tracked using the companion account code for mandatory cost shares

• Expired fund report to departments
• SPA reviews Progress Reports with Department

79

Added Internal Controls

• Monthly review of payroll charges by departments
• Alternative to Effort Reporting payroll report shows employees on PI’s

projects and the entire allocations for the employee

• MSS retros – aligns with the cost transfer policy

Benchmarking – what other institutions have done

80

81

SUNY Buffalo

• System Name: Payroll Review

– Reflects an after‐the‐fact payroll review of payroll expenditures paid on an award to ensure it reflects the work performed – PI of a sponsored award confirms the payroll expenditures

• Two reporting periods (based on a calendar year)
• PI is required to review payroll charges and check an “Agree” or “Disagree” box

to verify payroll charges are correct. Their payroll system also shows indirect and fringe

• SUNY Buffalo also has a report that includes a Total Salary amount for the

salary charges for all employees and total salary adjustments amount

82

Michigan Tech

• Name: Project Payroll Certification

Document (PPCD) (not a system)

– PI and/or co‐PI of a sponsored project certifies annually for multi‐year projects, and upon completion of each project – Project Payroll Certification is annual based

• n the start date of the award and will also

coincide with when progress reports may be due

• Michigan Tech aligns this process with progress

reports/financial reports

• Michigan Tech provides monthly salary and

wages reports to the PIs for review – this does not require certification

• This applies to all sponsored projects

83

Pilot Workgroup

• 6 Departments: Biochemistry and Pharmacology,

Environmental Medicine, Orthopedic Surgery, Pathology, Pediatrics, and Medicine

• Expectations: Each department in the pilot is expected to

conduct a monthly review of payroll charges for each PI in their department and provide feedback on the process

• Monthly payroll verification reports sent to each

department to regularly review and verify that the payroll allocation is reflective of the work performed

NIH Steps to Enhanced Financial Integrity

Cash Management

• Tracks Spend by

Dollar

• Spend Rate by

Project

• Crosschecks

Reported vs Actual Spend

Progress Reports

• Estimated Balances

& Projections

• Reported Effort &

Spend to Actual

• Justification for

balances greater than 25%

Unilateral Closeout

• Submission of

Progress and Invention Reporting

• Non‐compliance

impacts current and future funding

VISIBILITY

ACCURACY TIMELY

SUBMISSION

Increased Transparency from NIH

85

Payroll Verification Report

86

Process for Alternatives to Effort Reporting

Monthly payroll verification report sent to departments Department reviews payroll allocation percentage to verify payroll amount PIs review payroll allocation on PIs grants is accurate and reasonable to work performed Pilot workgroup submits payroll adjustments immediately upon discovery of an incorrect payroll charge Monthly reviews aligns with the project’s budget period and applies to all sponsored projects

87

MSS Statistics

29 40 37 41 351 316 308 303 49 90 45 16 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Over 90 Days Retros Less Than 90 Days Proactives

Number of MSS transactions that are: Over 90 days, Retros Less Than 90 Days, and Proactives

88

Cost Transfer Statistics

Number of Cost Transfers that are: Approved, Sent Back for Revisions

105 127 86 95 95 130 64 78 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Approved Sent Back for Revisions

• Regular review of project expenses will decrease frequency of

cost transfers and will increase timeliness of MSS changes

• Increase accuracy of RPPRs:

– Effort percentages align with payroll records – Expenses are already in ledger‐ decreasing incorrect expense projections

Benefits

89

• Annual Effort Certification vs Monthly Review and

Recurring Reconciliation

• System Solutions
• Payroll Security
• Perception of Added Busy Work
• Fear of Accountability
• Defining Cost Share
• Change Management

Ongoing Challenges

90

THANK YOU! QUESTIONS?

91

THE NEW SCHOOL

92

00.00.2015 David Ngo, Associate Provost The New School Provost’s Office - Research

Mission: Research Support provides service to facilitate the advancement of The New School social research and sponsored activities, while ensuring the integrity of the institution's research enterprise through proper stewardship of extramural funding.

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

• Discussion to examine national dialogue and Cohort

movement

• Provost Office: Faculty Affairs, Academic Affairs,

Research, Faculty Development

• Finance
• Grant Accounting
• IT
• Internal Audit/Compliance
• Questions:
• Challenges/how can we help?
• What is best?
• What should we do?

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Customer Service Efficiency & Consistency Alleviate Burden

• Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

2012 2014 2016 2017

FDP Pilots: Payroll Certifications - A proposed alternative to effort reporting NSB: Reducing Investigators’ Workload for Federally Funded Research Cohort Deliverables

• Policy Matrix,
• OIG Analysis,
• Audit and Agency

Review,

• Internal Control

Framework Paul Coleman Report Cohort Survey #1 Cohort Phase II NAS: Optimizing the Nation’s Investment in Academic Research UT System Sunset of UTS 163 (Effort Reporting Policy) w/o replacement Cohort members begin ATE

COHORT FOR ALTERNATIVES TO EFFORT REPORTING - MODEL POLICY AND COMPENSATION STANDARDS FOR THE REDUCTION OF FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN

NCURA Proposal: Cohort Phase I FDP Faculty Workload Survey SUNY Buffalo Passes external UG Single Audit

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

More info: https://researchadmin.asu.edu/cohort

Assess the risk…

• Challenge: How to make

sense of regulatory requirement and audit climate in the context of your institution?

• One solution: Consider

impact and probability

– Impact—what will the consequence be to the institution if the action(s) in question happens without policy or controls in place? – Probability—how likely is it the action(s) in question will

• ccur?

Probability Impact High Low High High Risk Medium Risk? Low Low Risk? Low Risk

System Controls

A

COHORT INTERNAL CONTROL FRAMEWORK

Institutional Controls

C B

Payroll Process Controls

• 1. IBS Policy: Pay Codes
• 2. 100% IBS is identifiable
• 3. Allocation of 100% IBS sources
• 4. Pay within Project Period
• 5. Cost Transfers identify earning period

ENFORCEMENT CONTROLS

• 16. Cost Transfer restrictions

if controls failed

• 17. Spending restrictions for

non-compliance COMPLIANCE MONITORING

• 22. Confirm controls work as

intended or perform additional controls for higher risk processes EDUCATION AND TRAINING

• 23. Responsibilities of

individuals performing controls are understood ADMINISTRATIVE (NON- FINANCIAL CONTROLS

• 18. Agency Salary-Cap

restrictions

• 19. Committed Cost Sharing
• 20. Minimum devotion of time
• 21. Reduction of 25% PI/PD time

ESTIMATE PAYROLL

• 6. Initial allocation of

payroll

• 7. Allocation review and

approval REVIEW PAYROLL

• 8. Reconciliations
• 9. Payroll Reports
• 10. After-the-fact review

(charged estimates determined accurate)

• 11. Individual payroll cross

project coordination (if necessary) ADJUST PAYROLL

• 12. Reallocate estimates or

charges

• 13. Cost Transfers of payroll

already reviewed for accuracy

• 14. Cost Transfer over 90 days of

payroll determined accurate

• 15. Extra Compensation review

and approval

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

TNS already had all these existing controls, no improvement needed TNS only had control #10 in place w/some semblance of

• ther controls. Overall desire

to improve and implement these controls (especially cost transfer policy and making #10 be something other than effort based/paper/semesterly). TNS had some semblance of these controls, but not taken seriously, esp #23. Deisire to improve and implement all of these controls.

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Design Characteristics and Outcomes

• After the Fact Review by project using dollars
• (no longer doing effort certifications by individuals using % effort)
• After the Fact Review is completed by PI
• (no longer having each key personnel member involved)
• After the Fact Review interval is 1 time per year, at sponsor project budget period

annual/final reporting stage (programmatic + financial)

• (no longer doing semester effort certification)
• Monthly Monitoring and Quarterly Reconciliation for all accounts
• (no longer waiting until end of FY or end of award to cleanup fiscal matters, started using Cohort ICF)
• Allowable Cost Guide and Cost Transfer Policy for all accounts
• (no longer leaving questioned costs as unjustified and no longer allowing cost transfers > 90 days from

date of discovery without additional justification, started using Cohort ICF)

• Apply 200.430 Compensation Compliance policy to only Federal Accounts (to

minimize audit scope and overall audit risk)

• (no longer extending fed policy to non-fed accounts, although an after the fact review, as best practice,

can be performed on non-fed accounts even though not required, started using Cohort ICF)

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Administrative

General institutional information Performance site(s) Administrative contacts Institutional certifications

Scholarly

Abstract/Summary Specific Aims Research Strategy/Scope of work Compliance plans

Programmatic

Key Personnel biosketches and

• ther support

Facilities and other institutional resources Resource Sharing plans Letters of Intent or Collaboration

Financial

Detailed budget Budget Justification Supporting documentation (if applicable)

Research Incubator Series

1. Informal community building events to foster collaboration (meet/greet, brainstorm, idea vetting, sift/winnow) 2. Formal Working events (grant writing/editing, peer review/internal study section, proposal best practices/tutorials/samples) 3. Faculty Development workshops 4. Research cultivation office hours 5. TNS Symposium - local area VPR's would hold a summit/forum, to showcase exciting and successful projects (scholarship, research and creative practice)

Finding Funding Sources/Opportunities

1. Prospectus (1:1 Info Gathering Meeting + Staff Perform Searches) 2. Solicitation Repository (Newsletter + Website + Existing Faculty Meetings) 3. Targeted Leadership Outreach to Faculty 4. PI Best Practices for Sponsor Meetings 5. Research Administration Demonstration

Proposal Creation

1. PI Intent to apply 2. PI Consultation/Sponsor Solicitation Assessment 3. Customized PI Support Plan 4. Proposal Development and Review

• Why do this?
• National Dialogue
• Cohort Model (opinions with research basis/foundational studies)
• How to do this?
• ICF
• Audit Community Engagement
• Other schools implementations
• What do to?
• Research financial compliance
• Post award management
• Internal controls
• ATE
• Desired outcome?
• Transform, pioneer, drive growth,
• Propel, galvanize

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

• Existing controls to support payroll charges on federal

grants likely already exist at your organization

• Other institutional requirements may be dependent on your

effort reporting, e.g., Medicare/Medicaid cost reporting, annual budgeting models, etc.

• Technology capabilities should not drive your control

environment but technology is important in creating controls and providing meaningful reports

• Education, communication, and monitoring is usually the

larger gap for most organizations

• Internal controls are not just about policing but rather

developing and documenting efficient processes

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

• Evaluate institutional environment
• Control environment
• Risk tolerance
• Competing priorities
• Resources
• Identify stakeholders including a project champion
• Pros/Cons for each stakeholder group
• Create a detailed project plan
• Phased approach
• Outside assistance

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

• Questions?
• Contact info:
• ngod@newschool.edu
• Text: 608-213-6111
• #BOBD #cbs #wbs #ngotorious #aftermath
• Cohort website: https://researchadmin.asu.edu/cohort

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Alternatives to Effort Cohort Workshop

Sarah Panepinto Sarah.Panepinto@uta.edu Jeremy Forsberg j.forsberg@uta.edu

93

UTAs Control Framework ‐

a few highlights

• Monthly account reconciliations (not new)
• Monthly cumulative compensation report
• Ability to review 100% compensation
• After the fact review Policy/Procedure:

– By project at annual budget cycle – Required by Policy for projects governed by 200.430, but provided to all sponsored projects by procedure. – Confirmation vs. certification

94

Transition Plan

• Update documentation – policy and

procedures

• Communication to our constituents
• Our last “Effort” period ended 2/28/2017 so

confirmation starts 03/01/2017 for all projects

• PeopleSoft Backend – created homegrown

electronic confirmation reports

95

Lessons Learned

• Challenge with enhanced retros in

peoplesoft

• IBS – identifying and obtaining the right data
• Allocation support/documentation of hourly

employees involving the PI.

• Salary Cap and Cost Share accounting
• Time management – start early

96

Planned Monitoring Activities

• Identify faculty

positions that are 90%

• r more on Projects

during an academic month

• Review the review of

payroll at regular intervals

97

Monthly Project Payroll

98

Monthly Project Payroll

• What are your institution’s fringe rates?

Agreement or estimate?

• What is your institution’s Facilities and

Administration (i.e., F&A, indirect, or

• verhead) rates?
• Does you institution require tuition be

budgeted for student employees?

• Are any expenses normally excluded from
• verhead by your institution?

99

Monthly Project Payroll

100

Cumulative Project Payroll Confirmation

101

Regulatory Landscape and ICF Update

102

Recent Updates – Regulatory Landscape

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

• 6/21/17 - NSF memo to OMB for their

request of recommendations for FDP Pilots to comply with UG:

– Addition of reconciliations of budget to actual to help ensure annual certifications are reasonable. – Provide PIs with information that reflects full allocations of payroll to ensure no more than 100% of salary was charged to Federal awards. – Regular monitoring as part of strong internal controls.

• 11/30/17 NIH posted Standards for

Documentation of Personnel Expenses

– In accordance with 21st Century Cures Act (section 2034e) for the reduction of administrative burden, NIH recognizes the flexibilities the UG provides for documenting compensation charges. – Refers to the exact language of the UG .430.

• DOJ and USDA NIFA have posted guidance

related to compensation that described standards above and beyond those required in 200.430.

Recent Updates – Regulatory Landscape

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Current Environment, Tools and Services

105

What You should know Before a Compensation Audit

What do Auditors Want

System that is reasonably Auditable

• Policies and Procedures are

legible, clear, used by staff.

• Compensation charged – related –

allowable - reasonable

• Documentation is reliable
• Payment transactions are accurate

Audit Questions and Findings

Timeliness – 30-90 days/over 90?

• 6-12 months – Pre/Post/Late Term

Cost Transfers/Journal Entry

• Timeliness/Justification
• Types of Accounts

Support – budgeted/approved

• Admin/hourly/temporary/amounts

OIG Audits of FDP Pilots

HHS – UC Irvine – Dec 2014

• Could not be assessed?

NSF – George Mason – July 2015

• Did not comply with internal policy

NSF – Michigan Tech – Sep 2015

• Provided Accountability/did not follow

internal policies and procedures.

• Certifications did not include effort for

all projects

HHS – UC Irvine – Feb 2017

CERTIFICATION SYSTEM DID NOT PROVIDE ACCOUNTABILITY OVER PAYROLL CHARGES TO FEDERAL AWARDS

Recent NSF-OIG Statements

AIG Audits – To OMB – June 2017

• Interim Budget to Actual analysis
• Provide PI with 100% of

employees effort on Fed awards NSF COGR Presentation Feb 2018

• Guilty Plea for false effort reports
• $2.2mil returned for Admin Salary

How can you prepare

They will Audit your Policies, Procedures, Practices

• Clear, simple, some flexibility
• Required Training Programs
• Process to share Best Practices
• Additional Controls to verify and

test transactions for accuracy

Additional Controls

Compliance Programs based on Analytics

• Compensation transactions timeframe
• Perform Data Analytics on transactions
• Identify Patterns and Outliers
• Identify Red Flags
• Request support for % of transactions
• Question Unsupported transactions

Red Flags

• Cost Transfers/Correction ratios
• Spend Patterns/Budget to Actuals
• Pre‐award/Post‐award expenses
• Late term charges/last 90 days
• High Risk Transactions
• Admin salary/large or one time payments
• Are Expenses

Reasonable/Allowable/Allocable?

Questions ?

pauljcoleman.com. pcoleman@pauljcoleman.com

Next Steps and Future Activities

116

Do you want to learn more and see details

• f TNS operations after we implemented

Cohort Model + ICF + ATE?

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

• Dr. Waters is studying Another Brick Wall and has a

grant from The Gates Foundation that spans 2/1/18 to 1/31/19.

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

  

     

A-21 = “The Old Way” = 3 Steps UG = “The New Way” = 2 Steps

• At Time of Award:
• Source payroll in accordance with the awarded budget for all personnel working on the

award

• Confirm the salary budget per WorkDay agrees with the awarded budget and all

personnel working on the award are encumbered accordingly

• Monthly:
• Review payroll transactions to confirm payroll posted in accordance with sourcing,

adjusting sourcing as needed to reflect work performed

• Request changes to awarded salary budget as needed to reflect work to be performed
• Maintain records that reviews were conducted
• Annually:
• PI reflects the work performed in the annual progress report
• Review the annual/final financial report to confirm payroll is posted to the award

according to work performed

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

 Subjectivity: my 10% is not the same as my colleague’s 10%  Integrity: I already did the financial report and progress report, why do I have to redundantly prove that I did my job? How much is needed for people to believe I did my job?  The due dates of certification are so arbitrary and don’t align with my research timelines  I just push the button, it doesn’t mean anything and I don’t know about accuracy b/c I don’t understand the confusing concept

• f % effort.

 I use the CAS principles for all charges to indicate the amount is reasonable, allowable, allocable, consistent).  For compensation, I focus on $ paid.  The monthly monitoring/quarterly reconciliation helps to ensure the charges reasonably reflect the work performed AND, I get my monthly balance statement to know how much money I have left!  The financial report and programmatic report, due at the sponsor project budget period, tell the story that I completed my obligations and my grant is not overcharged (faculty output is at least the amount charged)

A-21 = “The Old Way” = Faculty UG = “The New Way” = Faculty

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

   

  

A-21 = “The Old Way” = Admin UG = “The New Way” = Admin

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Central Office - ORS Academic Units – Dean’s Offices PI (or Delegate)

• Manage obligated activities

with sponsor

• Manage reports/systems
• Send reminders to customers
• Answer questions about

associated principles and process

• Monitor the compensation

reporting process

• Review compensation reports

for compliance with University Policy

• Archive compensation reports
• Manage payroll distribution
• Facilitate the review of

compensation reports.

• Is a cost transfer needed?
• Execute cost transfers in

accordance with university policy.

• Retain supporting

compensation documentation (per policies)

• Review activities listed on the

report and the amount of salary charged.

• If not accurate, add any

missing activities and/or correct monies.

• Ensure all salary distribution

reflect actual work on each activity.

• Sum total monies to 100%.
• Read the report and review for

accuracy.

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

 

   A-21 = “The Old Way” = Paper UG = “The New Way” = Electronic

• Review, Negotiation, Setup
• WorkDay Account
• Award Kickoff Meeting
• Congratulate PI!
• Manage expectations
• Agree on who is responsible for what
• Review award terms/conditions
• Establish WorkDay milestones
• Establish key project due dates
• Answer any ‘how to’ questions and provide ‘tips’
• Review TNS Allowable Cost Guide and Cost Transfer Guide

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

• Reasonable: A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that

which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost.

• Necessary: A cost is necessary if the objectives of the project cannot be met without

incurrence of the cost.

• Allowable: A cost is allowable if it is in conformity with governing laws and the policies

and procedures of the institution.

• Allocable: A cost is allocable if it is assignable to a specific cost objective in reasonable

proportion to the benefit provided to the project to which it is charged. If a cost benefits two or more projects in proportions that cannot be determined because of the interrelationship of the work involved, the cost may be allocated or transferred to the benefitted projects on any reasonable documented basis (200.405 (d)).

• Institutional Base Salary (IBS): The annual compensation paid by The New School for an

individual's appointment, whether that individual's time is spent on research, instruction, administration, or other activities. IBS excludes any income that an individual earns

• utside of duties for The New School. IBS includes: regular salary, summer salary,

regular hourly wages, overtime wages (for hourly employees), sabbatical leave, paid professional leave (sick, vacation, holiday). This represents the individual’s full IBS workload at The New School. By definition, IBS must equal 100% - never more or less – regardless of the number of hours worked or the appointment percent.

Can I Charge to a Sponsored Project?

39

Follow University policy; charge to a non-grant account Obtain sponsor/institutional approval or charge to another account if allowable Don’t charge it to project/grant account, use another account Charge it to the appropriate grant account following A-21/Uniform Guidance Is the expense on a sponsored project? Is the cost allowable per the terms/conditions of the award and institution? Is the cost allocable, reasonable, and consistently treated? Is the project Federally-funded? NO NO NO NO Charge it to the appropriate account YES YES YES YES

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

• Monthly Monitoring and Quarterly Reconciliation for ALL expenses
• Post Award serves as a financial advisor, showing the PI what has been spent and what is left for spending.
• Post Award helps support future programmatic items by organizing logistics and/or financial items (ex: Planning
• ut the purchase of a piece of equipment)
• WorkDay Reports
• PI All Funds (award amount – expenses = funds available for spending)
• Details of expenses (journal ID, entry desc, dates, etc.)
• Budget v. Actuals Variance Analysis
• Burn Rate Analysis
• Research Revenue Cycle (Invoice Statuses, AR/AP)
• Subrecipient monitoring
• CAS Review
• Allowable, allocable, reasonable, consistent
• Service dates are within project period
• Direct Cost Justification
• Normally allowable expense codes route automatically from initiator/approver to GL
• Normally unallowable expense codes are flagged for additional review by Post Award before hitting

GL

• Some expenses may require a direct cost justification form to be filed
• Strategic scrub of high risk items (high probability/high impact)
• Ex: Salary Cap, Cost Transfers beyond 90 days from discovery need additional justification, Mandatory

cost share

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

• 90/60/30 day reminders before Award End Date
• If award continues, hand off to Pre-Award to secure next increment
• f funding
• If award ends, hand off to Grant Accounting for Financial Reporting

and Closeout (reconcile spending/encumbrances, final bill/invoice, etc.)

• 25/50/75 day reminders after Award End Date
• Goal to submit financial report and programmatic report together,

90 days after Award End Date

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

• PI Performs After the Fact Review (by project in

accordance to sponsored project budget period)

• Annual/final financial report
• Annual/final programmatic report
• Approval is routed/tracked/approved in WorkDay for audit

trail:

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo

• During Winter 2017- Spring 2018, ORS provided a number of

trainings for both ORS staff and for campus administrators.

• Over 200 faculty/staff participated by attending individual workshops,

webinars, conferences, group presentations, office hours, etc…

• In addition, ORS staff attended over 25 campus offered trainings through HR or internal ORS

settings.

• ORS offers the following training opportunities for all

administrators:

• Research Administration Demonstration

(RAD) national series

• E-System training
• Brown Bag training
• Financial Grants Management/Expense

monitoring courses

• Office Hours – daily on campus

Cohort For Efficiencies in Research Administration, J. Forsberg, L. Mosley, D. Ngo