+ When Should the Next CBCRP Priority-Setting Retreat be Held? - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

when should the next cbcrp priority setting retreat be
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

+ When Should the Next CBCRP Priority-Setting Retreat be Held? - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

+ When Should the Next CBCRP Priority-Setting Retreat be Held? December 2015 + Should CBCRP hold the next Priority-Setting Retreat in: 5 years / 2020 7 years / 2022 or 10 years / 2025? + Background 2004 Set-aside 30% of research


slide-1
SLIDE 1

+

When Should the Next CBCRP Priority-Setting Retreat be Held?

December 2015

slide-2
SLIDE 2

+

Should CBCRP hold the next Priority-Setting Retreat in:

 5 years / 2020  7 years / 2022 or  10 years / 2025?

slide-3
SLIDE 3

+ Background

2004

 Set-aside 30% of research funds for program-directed research

into the environmental links to breast cancer and the unequal burden of the disease.

 Eliminated the following award types: New Investigator, Career

Enrichment, Training Program, RFA, Scientific Perspectives Research Collaboration (SPRC)-pilot and full, Translation Research Collaboration (TRC)- pilot and full. 2010

 Set-aside 50% of research funds for program-directed research.

Continued to focus on environmental links and disparities, and added a focus on prevention (strategies for high-risk individuals and population-level strategies).

 Eliminated the following award types: Postdoctoral Fellowships,

Dissertation.

 Instituted LOI requirement for IDEAs.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

+

2015

 The 2015 process took 2 years to implement.  Continued 50% set-aside. Continued focus on environment,

disparities, and population-level prevention strategies. Eliminated strategies focusing on high-risk individuals.

 Continued existing award types: Pilot and Full CRCs,

Translational Awards, IDEAs, and Conference Awards. Implemented Policy Award.

Background: (Continued)

slide-5
SLIDE 5

+ Overview of the Process

Five major steps:

① Review the CBCRP mission statement. Make revisions to the

mission as deemed necessary.

② Review and revise the program goals, as well as review and

revise as necessary the data collection questions corresponding to each program goal.

③ Gather and analyze pertinent data as indicated by the program

goals and data collection questions.

④ Identify and make decisions on long-term (5 years) priorities

through a data-driven, group decision-making process.

⑤ Incorporate priority decisions into CBCRP operational plans

and award cycles.

slide-6
SLIDE 6

+ Questions (and Resulting Data) That Committee Considered*

 1. When will we need to start?  2. What data will be available? Is it enough?  3. What evaluations are already planned?  4. What data will be captured automatically by the new

electronic grants management system?

 5. Are there any other significant events planned in the next five

years that may provide challenges to implementing priority- setting?

 6. Does the field change rapidly enough to warrant a significant

review every 5 years?

*Please see the attached word document for an in-depth summary of data

slide-7
SLIDE 7

+ Potential Timing of Process

Retreat Year Process Will Initiate 2020 Early 2018 2022 Early 2020 2025 Early 2023

slide-8
SLIDE 8

+ Pro’s

5 Years (2020)

 Will have evaluation data for Translational awards in 2017.  Keeps schedule as it has been.  Other BC funders change priorities annually.

7 Years (2022)

 Will have good amount of funding data for: CRC Full, CRC Pilot, IDEA,

Translational, Conference, Policy, SRI, and some data for CBCPI.

 Will have evaluation data for Translational Awards, and time to conduct

evaluations of all other mechanisms.

 Outcomes data from internal data base will likely be online and helpful.  Tech advances likely to facilitate outcome data mining.  Parallels the timeframe for Program Initiatives set-aside PI 3.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

+ Pros (Continued)

10 Years (2025)

 Lots of data for evaluating mechanisms, including current PI 3.  Internal database to track outcomes online.  Time to implement tech advances to cull outcomes from research.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

+ Cons

5 Years (2020)

 Limited data for Program Initiatives  Limited data for changes to the field  Program is in a stable place. Is it worth it so soon?

7 Years (2022)

 Large lag time between when evaluation of Translational Awards is

complete (2017) and decision making (2022).

 There will be some Council members who will not have the opportunity to

participate in Priority-setting at all.

10 Years (2025)

 Significant lag time between when evaluation of Translational Awards is

complete (2017) and decision making (2025).

 Several years between priority-setting processes without an opportunity for

Council members to significantly shape the strategic direction of the Program.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

+ Points to Keep In Mind

Council has the ability to course-correct between now and the next Priority Setting Retreat, whenever it is held. Because of CBCRP & CBCRC structure and yearly workload there are many ways for Council members to impact the Program, even if they are not a part of the Priority-Setting data collection.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

+ Recommendation from the Evaluation &

Priority-Setting Committee

 After considering the data and the resulting pro’s and cons of

the 5/7/10 year target, the Evaluation & Priority-Setting Committee recommends that CBCRP hold its next Priority- Setting Retreat in 7 years (2022).