Summative Evaluation of the Regional Partnerships Program (RPP) - Final Report: Part 4

Return to Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Views of the Beneficiaries
Summary of Survey Findings
Recommendation
Management's Response

Views of the Beneficiaries

Three Web-based surveys were undertaken. At this time only the views of the Principal Investigators, with an 83% response rate, have been analyzed. The response rates for the Other Researchers and for the Project Partners are about 50% and are less representative of their respective target populations. They will be reported separately.

Summary Of Survey Findings

The following findings are based on the views of a representative sample of the population of Principal Investigators.

Migration

• According to the PIs, RPP had not attracted them to their province. For 96% of the PIs, their current province was their province of residence for at least six months prior to their grant application submission. Ninety-eight per cent of the PIs received the grant or the award at their "home" institution - and have remained in the same job.
• RPP has had almost no influence in attracting PIs to a province and only a small influence in retaining PIs in a province. Only five have recently moved to the province and of these five, only three said that RPP funding had even a partial influence on their move.
• About one-quarter, 27 out of 116, of the PIs said that they had considered leaving the province and that RPP had an influence in keeping them from leaving. Of these 27, 21 said the RPP grant or award somewhat influenced their decision and four said that the RPP was very influential in the decision not to leave. Fifty-nine per cent say that they plan to stay in their province regardless of success or non-success in obtaining grants and/or awards; however 27% plan to stay only if successful in obtaining grants and/or awards.

Career Stage

• These PIs are not recent graduates. For 96%, at least five years have passed since their highest degree was obtained: more than 20 years for 42%; from 10 to 15 years for 38% and from 5 to 10 years for 16% of these researchers.
• The PIs obtaining RPP projects are not, in general, researchers without experience in obtaining grants and awards. Sixty-two per cent had obtained a national research grant or salary award within the year before receiving their RPP grant/award and many had obtained two or more awards.
• Since their RPP, 80% received other awards which, in two-thirds of the cases, were of three or more years duration.
• RPP requires partner funding; 75% did not have to search for a partner. The majority of PIs were provided with a partner, the rest had an existing relationship with a partner, which was maintained on this project as well. Slightly more than one-fifth (22%) had to search for a partner - the majority (17%) did so using their own resources and (5%) searched for a partner from among choices offered to them.

Impacts

• The very strong opinion was that the RPP grant/award had a positive impact upon enhancing or sustaining their research. They rated the impact as 4.8 on a scale with a maximum value of 5.0.
• As a result of the RPP grant, about 77% engaged technicians, 60% engaged Master's level students and 50% engaged PhD students. Obviously, many of the PIs were engaging people for their RPP project at more than one level.
• Although 89% of these PIs said that their involvement on their RPP grant/award led to research opportunities or benefits that might not have occurred without it, 45% said that involvement on their RPP grant/award did not affect or change their research or career plans in any important way.
• The PIs credited their RPP projects with having a primary influence on scientific presentations (96%), publications (84%) and commercialization opportunities (17%).

Assessment of RPP

• The PIs considered RPP, as a whole, to be a very positive influence on the enhancement of health research in their province; they rated this dimension as 3.8, average, on a scale with a maximum value of 4.0.
• They gave an average rating of 3.5 out of a maximum of 4.0 when they rated the impact of the RPP program as a whole in encouraging health researchers to stay in the province. However, when asked how they rated the impact of the RPP grant and/or award in encouraging themselves to stay in this province, their average rating dropped to 2.7 on the same scale with a maximum of 4.0.
• When asked if RPP played a "bridge" role in maintaining research programs that otherwise would likely have wound down, 78% said Yes.
• A clear majority (94%) think that the RPP is successful in building a critical mass of health researchers within their province such that they can successfully compete for grants and awards from CIHR.
• Two-thirds (65%) say that the operation of the RPP program could be improved within the province. The two most important areas for improvement are 'easier access to partners with matching funds' and bringing individual project funding from CIHR to 'a level sufficient for project objectives'.

Recommendation

Renew RPP for another five years.

Progress has been made relative to the RPP intention of supporting Advisory Committees to develop research strengths in their jurisdictions. This objective would be achieved once the researchers of these provinces are able to sustain success in CIHR competitions proportionate to the expectations for that province. That has not yet happened. However the need continues to be relevant.¹⁹ There are no other CIHR programs of significance that address this need. Therefore RPP, with some design modifications, is recommended for continuation.

Management's Response

CIHR Management agrees to renew the Regional Partnerships Program in its current form for two years with the expectation that a renewed program design, resulting from detailed discussions with stakeholders and analysis of desired program objectives and mechanisms, will be drafted within one year.

---

¹⁹ Two of the objectives mandated in Section 4 of Bill C-13 (the CIHR Act) are relevant to RPP. Neither specifically mandates working with provinces, or within provinces, to develop or enhance health research capacity. Both may be understood to support such activity. (d) (iii) work in collaboration with the provinces to advance health research and to promote the dissemination and application of new research knowledge to improve health and health services;
and
(j) building the capacity of the Canadian health research community through the development of researchers and the provision of sustained support for scientific careers in health research.

[Table of Contents] 
[1] [2] [3] [4]
[Appendix A]
[Appendix B]