Audit of Funding Opportunity Design and Delivery
Audit Report, June 2024

Contents

• 1. Executive Summary
  • 1.1 Background
  • 1.2 Why this is important
  • 1.3 Objective and scope
  • 1.4 Overall audit opinion
  • 1.5 Key audit findings
  • 1.6 Statement of conformance
• 2. Detailed report
  • 2.1 Background
  • 2.2 About the audit
  • 2.3 Significance of the audit
  • 2.4 Audit objective and scope
  • 2.5 Audit criteria and methodology
  • 2.6 Findings and recommendations
  • 2.7 Conclusion
  • 2.8 Management response to recommendations
• Appendix A: Color coding of recommendations
• Appendix B: Relevant audit criteria
• Appendix C: Audit of FODD survey: detailed survey results
• Appendix D: Details of the FODD process

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Background

CIHR is Canada's federal funding agency for health research, mandated to "excel in the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for Canadians, more effective health services and products, and a strengthened Canadian health care system". Accordingly, CIHR invests approximately $1.3 billion each year to support health research through the administration of funding opportunities (FOs) to the research community. FOs are competitions for both grants and awards. An FO can have one single grant/award or a collection of several grants/awards that can be used to fund several researchers. CIHR is responsible for ensuring that the design and delivery of these FOs is performed in the most efficient manner to meet the Agency's mandate and achieve its objectives, according to the Acts and policies which govern grant funding activities and while providing responsible stewardship over taxpayer funds.

1.2 Why this is important

An audit of funding opportunity design and delivery (FODD) was selected as part of CIHR's Risk-based Audit Plan (2022-24).  Despite FO design and delivery being the Agency's core business, the framework had not been comprehensively audited since the Agency was established in 2000. Furthermore, the Agency has agreed to 'modernize internal operations' within its 2021-31 Strategic Plan, a key commitment to the research community and the stakeholders it serves.

1.3 Objective and Scope

The objective of this audit was to provide independent assurance that the framework for designing and delivering FOs was adequately developed and operating as intended. The scope of this audit included governance, the effectiveness and efficiency of the design and delivery process and human resource (HR) capacity.  The audit covered the last three fiscal years (2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23).

1.4 Overall Audit Opinion

While the Agency continues to design and deliver quality FOs to support the research community, there is an opportunity to make strategic improvements by integrating functions, streamlining processes and repositioning the business to better consider costs, benefits and the organization's capacity to deliver.

1.5 Key Audit Findings

CIHR has experienced and knowledgeable staff^{Footnote 1} designing and delivering FOs. Key stakeholders^{Footnote 2} in both interviews and surveys expressed their appreciation for the hard work and dedication of staff, with a particular focus on Program Design and Delivery (PDD). Additionally, despite delays and inefficiencies in the process, 90% of survey respondents indicated that their team completes the design and/or delivery tasks for which they are accountable within established timelines. This suggests that despite the challenges identified in this report, organizational commitment is high, and new and ongoing health research continues to be funded.  The recommendations that flow from the following findings are intended to,

• build upon the good work of the staff supporting FO design and delivery and to facilitate continuous improvement; and,
• assist senior management in modernizing internal operations, a key commitment under "organizational excellence" in the 2021-31 Strategic Plan.

Finding 1) FODD does not operate within an integrated governance framework.

• CIHR had not implemented a formal integrated governance framework for designing and delivering FOs.  As such, authorities and accountabilities for key elements of good governance were not clearly defined and communicated.

Finding 2) CIHR does not have a single, commonly understood process for designing and delivering FOs.

• The audit found that the FODD process was not operating effectively for many stakeholders involved in the design and delivery of FOs. The FODD process was found not to be working well because the Agency had not established a single, integrated and commonly understood end-to-end process for designing and delivering FOs. In the absence of a formal and integrated process, teams maintained their own internal processes with varying degrees of rigour and detail, creating inconsistency and confusion.

Finding 3) The Agency does not have a formal FODD tracking system and does not maintain a central repository of key FO documents.

• CIHR did not manage the design and delivery of FOs using a formal and common tracking system, or a central repository of key documentation. As a result, a review of a representative sample of 36 FOs (2019-2023) found that 83% of the FO files were incomplete. Fragmented and manual systems of tracking tend to be time-consuming and error-prone, reducing an organization's ability to use information for business planning purposes or to demonstrate their due diligence.

Finding 4) FOs are not designed and delivered with regard for cost-benefit. 

• CIHR had not analysed the amount of time or human resources required to design, deliver and maintain an FO through its lifecycle.  Furthermore, the Agency had not established criteria for accepting or rejecting FOs based on cost-benefit, complexity or the capacity of the Agency to deliver. Without a basis for rejecting FOs, CIHR did not have a method for controlling the high volume of new FO requests coming into the Agency, placing a great deal of operational pressure on the teams supporting the business.

Finding 5) The Agency does not have a formal strategy to address human resource challenges.

• The audit found that CIHR had not implemented a human resource strategy to address key challenges facing teams supporting FO design and delivery. As such, known risks related to high vacancies, a heavy reliance on term positions, and insufficient training had gone unmitigated, creating a "people-related" vulnerability within the core of the Agency's business.

Management's response to the audit findings and recommendations can be found in Section 2.8.

1.6 Statement of Conformance

The Audit of FODD conforms with the Policy on Internal Audit as supported by the results of the quality assurance and improvement program.

The Office of Internal Audit (OIA) thanks management and staff for their assistance and cooperation throughout the audit.

John-Patrick Moore
Chief Audit Executive, Office of Internal Audit
Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Tammy Clifford
Acting President
Canadian Institutes of Health Research

2. Detailed Report

2.1 Background

CIHR is Canada's federal funding agency for health research, mandated to "excel in the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for Canadians, more effective health services and products, and a strengthened Canadian health care system". Accordingly, CIHR invests approximately $1.3 billion each year to support health research through the administration of funding opportunities (FOs) to the research community. FOs are competitions for both grants and awards. An FO can have one single grant/award or a collection of several grants/awards that can be used to fund several researchers.  CIHR is responsible for ensuring that the design and delivery of these FOs is performed in the most efficient manner to meet the Agency's mandate and achieve its objectives, while providing responsible stewardship over taxpayer funds.

FOs are administered through a series of 15 phases. However, the design and delivery of FOs is performed in phases 1 through 5, which were the focus of the audit (see Figure 1 below). FO "design" begins with the identification of an area to fund and includes the planning, review, vetting and launching of the FO to the community.  FO "delivery" refers to activities that occur after the launch which are mostly related to the collection and processing of applications in preparation for peer review. While certain groups such as Institutes, Institute Management and Initiative Support (IMIS), Learning Health Systems (LHS), Finance, Funding Opportunity Management, and the Contact Centre, all play key roles in the process, the Program Design and Delivery (PDD) Branch has overall responsibility and accountability for FODD (see Appendix D for more details).

2.2 About the Audit

This report presents the results of the internal audit of funding opportunity design and delivery (FODD). The audit was undertaken by the Office of Internal Audit (OIA) of CIHR between February 2023 and September 2023 as part of the 2022-2024 Risk-Based Audit Plan, as approved by Governing Council. The purpose of the audit was to assess the adequacy and efficiency of CIHR's framework for designing and delivering FOs.

2.3 Significance of the audit

An audit of FODD was identified as a priority engagement as part of CIHR's Risk-based Audit Plan (2022-24). Despite FO design and delivery being the Agency's core business, the framework has not been comprehensively audited since the Agency's creation in 2000.

As the Government of Canada's trusted steward of health research funds, it is crucial that CIHR has adequate processes and procedures to support the effective and efficient design and delivery of each FO. Assessing efficiencies in the design and delivery of FOs will directly support management in its efforts to strategically review its operations and ensure the Agency's business is functioning optimally. Furthermore, the audit will directly support senior management in its commitment to 'modernize internal operations', as communicated in the Agency's 2021-31 Strategic Plan.

2.4 Audit Objective and Scope

The objective of this audit was to provide independent assurance that the FODD framework was adequately designed and operating as intended.

The scope of this audit included,

• Governance framework;
• Effectiveness and efficiency of the FODD process;
• Human resource (HR) capacity.

The audit covered the last three fiscal years (2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23), with other information scoped in as needed to address the key areas above.

2.5 Audit Criteria and Methodology

Audit criteria were selected based on a preliminary risk assessment. The sources of criteria included:

• Office of the Auditor General (OAG) – Audits of Grant or Contribution Programs Guidance document.
• Management Accountability Framework 2021-22 (MAF) – Financial management, people management, and management of acquired services and assets.
• Natural Resources Canada – Audit of NRCan's Grants and Contributions Processes and Activities.

Please refer to Appendix B for the detailed audit criteria. The criteria guided the audit fieldwork and formed the basis for the overall audit conclusions.

The audit used four principal methods to collect and assess the evidence against the audit criteria:

• Review of documentation (e.g., policies, guidelines, processes and procedures, committee materials, communications, financial information);
• File review of a sample of FOs;
• Survey research – the Audit of FODD Survey (response rate of 69%) was developed by the OIA to seek insight from CIHR employees and Institute staff directly involved in the FODD process; and,
• Interviews with key stakeholders, including management and staff within PDD, senior management, Finance, and other operational areas.

2.6 Findings and Recommendations

CIHR has experienced and knowledgeable staff designing and delivering FOs. Key stakeholders in both interviews and surveys expressed their appreciation for the hard work and dedication of staff, with a particular focus on PDD. Additionally, despite delays and inefficiencies in the process, 90% of survey respondents indicated that their team completes the design and/or delivery tasks for which they are accountable within established timelines. This suggests that despite the challenges identified in this report, organizational commitment is high, and new and ongoing health research continues to be funded. 

The findings and recommendations in the following section are intended to:

• build upon the good work of the staff supporting FO design and delivery and to facilitate continuous improvement; and
• assist senior management in modernizing internal operations, a key commitment under "organizational excellence" in the 2021-31 Strategic Plan.

Governance

Expectation: A formal integrated governance framework has been established and communicated to key stakeholders and includes,

• Clear roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities for key elements of good governance (e.g. oversight of the FO framework, setting goals, business planning, performance management and reporting, risk management and continuous business improvement).
• Processes and procedures to support end-to-end FO design and delivery that are aligned with the governance framework.

Finding 1) FODD does not operate within an integrated governance framework. Urgency: Moderate^{Footnote 3}

The business of FO design and delivery is complex in that it requires the coordination of various functional authorities, teams and committees from across the Agency to work together, each serving an important and unique purpose in ensuring FOs are delivered to the research community. Despite these complex interdependencies, the audit found CIHR had not implemented a formal integrated governance framework^{Footnote 4} for designing and delivering FOs.  As such, authorities and accountabilities for key elements of good governance were not clearly defined and communicated outside of job descriptions.

Impact
Good governance is the foundation of efficient and effective operations. Unclear governance is likely a root cause for findings 2-5, as detailed in this report.

Finding 2) CIHR does not have a single, commonly understood process for designing and delivering FOs. Urgency: Moderate

The audit found that the FODD process was not operating effectively for many stakeholders involved in the design and delivery of FOs. In a survey administered as part of the audit, large proportions of survey respondents reported that key parts of the process were not working well [i.e., identification of an FO (45%); initiation of the work (34%); reviews and vetting (41%); FO approval (38%) and delivery (20%)]. It was noted that the existing process often led to confusion, excessive consultation and a lack of understanding where (and if) decisions were being made.

The FODD process was not found to be operating optimally because the Agency had not established a single, integrated and commonly understood end-to-end process for designing and delivering FOs. In the absence of a formal and integrated process, teams maintained their own internal processes with varying degrees of rigour and detail. Furthermore, often times the team's own processes were not followed (e.g., overall, 24%; 75% in LHS; 62% in IMIS). Findings suggest that FOs have been designed and delivered outside of a formal structure that would ensure quality, consistency and timeliness.

Impact: The absence of a clear and integrated end-to-end process creates a business environment where duplication could occur, service delays may be incurred, and resources could be wasted.

Recommendation

1. The VP Research Programs should, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, implement a formal integrated governance framework which includes a commonly understood end-to-end process for designing and delivering FOs.

Effectiveness and efficiency of the process

Expectation: Established performance objectives are met in a manner that is timely and consistent, ensuring the appropriate level of organizational resources is used to achieve the best results.

Finding 3) The Agency does not have a formal FODD tracking system and does not maintain a central repository of key FO documents. Urgency: Moderate

In order for FOs to be managed effectively, a tracking method needs to be established to understand the number and types of new and ongoing FOs in the system and where a particular FO is in the process at any given time. Tracking an FO through the design and delivery phases can help support business planning, file prioritization and operational decisions that need to be made around specific FOs. The foundation of good tracking is a central repository of key documents. A central repository ensures that relevant information is stored and maintained in a common location, supporting timely information retrieval, and reducing the risk of using old or inaccurate information.

The audit found that CIHR did not manage the design and delivery of FOs using a formal and common tracking system or a central repository of key documentation. Moreover, CIHR had not clarified basic expectations around FO information management (e.g., identifying who is responsible for entering specific documents, articulating which documents need to be retained, naming conventions, format requirements). Instead, different teams used their own methods of tracking and managing FO documentation, meaning information was dispersed in various locations (e.g., personal emails, personal folders, InfoNet folders, corporate memory of individuals, etc.). As a result, a review of a representative sample of 36 FOs (2019-2023) found that 83% of the FO files were incomplete (e.g., key approvals not documented, steps in the FODD process appear to have been missed without a documented justification).

Impact: Fragmented and manual systems of tracking tend to be time-consuming and error-prone, reducing an organization’s ability to use information for the purposes of business planning or to demonstrate their due diligence, as per policy requitements.^{Footnote 5}

Finding 4) FOs are not designed and delivered with regard for cost-benefit.Urgency: Low

In recent years, CIHR has designed and delivered hundreds of unique FOs for the research community. However, in a survey administered as part of this audit, 45% of respondents found the associated workload unmanageable, suggesting the amount of work taken on by the Agency may not be aligned with its capacity. The audit noted that workload pressures came from two sources, both of which demand significant time and organizational resources. 

1. An increasing volume of new FOs with a low-monetary value; and,
2. Numerous FOs involving partners.

Increasing volume of new, low-monetary value FOs

As illustrated in Chart 1^{Footnote 6}, 14% (or 1 in 7) of all new FOs processed in 2022-23 were under $50,000^{Footnote 7} (the smallest FO was for under $4,000^{Footnote 8}), a proportion that has doubled since 2019-20 (7%).  Moreover, FOs under $50,000 made up just 0.05% ($804K) of CIHR's anticipated research funding in 2022-23 ($1.7B, including future, multi-year funding).  Data suggest that low-monetary value FOs are a growing part of CIHR's business; and a considerable proportion of CIHR's business resources have been used to administer a very small amount of funding.

The audit found that despite their low-monetary value, FOs under $50,000 could be just as resource intensive to design and deliver as a high-value FO. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) required that all FOs- large or small- go through a similar review, vetting and approval process.  As such, an FO for a small dollar amount could require a similar amount of time and resources as a high dollar value FO (e.g., $1M+). CIHR did not use a tailored approach to ensure the amount of work and effort to design and deliver an FO was commensurate with its dollar value and complexity (e.g., employing a less resource-intensive approach for low-monetary value FOs).

Numerous FOs involving partners

In addition to a high volume of low-monetary value FOs, CIHR also designed and delivered a high volume of new funding through FOs involving partners^{Footnote 9}.  Partnership FOs were noted as particularly complex and time consuming because most required a tailored Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), stipulating the contributions of each party and detailed parameters for how CIHR and the partner would work together. Furthermore, some of these FOs involved multiple partners across various sectors, each with their own set of rules and regulations.  As such, partnership FOs often involved extensive consultation, complex negotiations, and several iterations of vetting and approval before an agreement could be reached.

Of the 906 new FOs designed and delivered between 2019-2023^{Footnote 10},  almost one in five (19%) included a partner. In 2022-23, CIHR funding for FOs where partners were involved made up 4.7% ($80M) of CIHR's anticipated research funding ($1.7B, including future planned multi-year funding). Similar to low-monetary value FOs, data suggests that a great deal of organizational effort was expended on work related to a small proportion of the Agency's total funding envelope.

Contributing factors

The audit found that the operational pressure resulting from high volume of low-monetary value FOs and FOs involving partners was related to two key factors:

1. Costs were unknown – CIHR had not analysed the amount of time or human resources required to design, deliver and maintain an FO through its lifecycle.  As such, decisions to take on new work could not be guided by limitations to the Agency's resource capacity.  At the time of the audit, CIHR had implemented Unanet, a software intended to capture the time staff were spending on particular FOs.  However, data had not been entered consistently, and therefore, could not support analysis or decision-making; and,
2. No basis for accepting/rejecting FOs – the Agency had not established criteria for accepting or rejecting FOs based on cost-benefit (i.e., the benefit of the research generated by the FO is estimated to be greater than the cost of administering it), complexity (e.g., steps, involvement of internal and external players, amount of consultation, committee involvement), or the capacity of the Agency to deliver (e.g., human and financial resource limitations). Without a basis for rejecting FOs, CIHR did not have a method for controlling the high volume of new FO requests coming into the agency.

Impacts:  Accepting a large volume of FOs without knowing the cost or without having completed the appropriate analysis leaves the Agency vulnerable to over-committing resources, and hinders its ability to demonstrate that resources have been used to design and deliver FOs with the highest potential for achieving results.

Recommendations

2. The VP Research Programs should, in collaboration with FODD stakeholders, implement an FO tracking system that includes a central repository for key FO documentation, supported by an information management protocol to ensure files are complete.
3. The VP Research Programs should, in collaboration with FODD stakeholders, assess the cost of designing and delivering FOs.
4. The VP Research Programs should, in collaboration with FODD stakeholders, develop criteria for accepting and rejecting FOs, with a consideration for cost-benefit, complexity and organizational capacity.
5. The VP Research Programs should, in collaboration with FODD stakeholders, update SOPs to ensure the rigour of the process applied to design and delivery considers the monetary value and complexity of FOs.

Human resource capacity

Expectation: A strategy is in place and clearly communicated to address capacity, current and future FTE needs, training, retention and succession planning.

Finding 5) The Agency does not have a formal strategy to address human resource challenges. Urgency: Low

At the time of the engagement, management was dealing with three key human resource challenges in the FODD space, as described below. Despite these challenges, the audit found that CIHR had not implemented a human resource strategy^{Footnote 11} to manage the risks associated with each over time. It is noteworthy to mentioned that the absence of strategic resources planning has also been identified as a main driver behind CIHR's top organizational risk (corporate prioritization), as described in the Corporate Risk Profile (2023-24 & 2024-25).

A. Insufficient resources

In a survey of FODD stakeholders, approximately one-half reported that high staff turnover (51%) and not enough staff to do the work (47%) were top challenges putting pressure on the Agency's capacity to deliver. A review of organizational charts supported that some teams were under pressure at the time of the audit.  For example, in September 2023, vacancy rates in PDD (15%) and IMIS (31%) were considerably higher than what CIHR's Human Resource Branch (HRB) reported as the Agency's average vacancy rate (8%, August 2023). As a result, a large proportion of respondents reported that their workload had become unmanageable (45%).

• Note: While it was clear that many felt their workload was heavy, recent data from the 2022 Public Service Employee Survey showed that a very large proportion of those working in Research Programs and Learning Health Systems, the portfolios most implicated in FO design and delivery, liked their jobs (91%) and reported their mental health was good to excellent (81%).

Findings suggest that while teams supporting FODD were under considerable pressure to deliver and some may have been under resourced due to high vacancies, their challenges did not necessarily translate into immediate job dissatisfaction or poor mental health.

B. Reliance on term positions

As a means of ensuring that FOs are designed and delivered effectively and within established timelines, CIHR frequently relied on employing term staff. In addition, to ensure that teams were not left with gaps in key positions, the Agency employed acting assignments to temporarily promote employees until suitable candidates were found or the employee permanently occupying the position returned (e.g., parental leave).

While some use of term and acting assignments is inevitable, this audit found that the Agency relied heavily on terms and acting assignments in branches supporting FO design and delivery, as indicated in organizational charts from September 2023^{Footnote 12}:

• LHS^{Footnote 13}: 52% of positions (11 terms and 5 acting out of 31 positions)
• PDD: 32% of positions (28 terms and 10 acting out of 118 positions)
• IMIS: 9% of positions (2 terms and 1 acting out of 35 positions)

The Agency's high use of term positions and acting assignments suggests there that has been a heavy reliance on temporary measures to address human resource challenges.  The heavy reliance on terms is particularly problematic because,

• Term positions are often associated with frequent turnover (e.g., a two-year term position could see three candidates hired over the course of the term).  Each time an individual is hired on a temporary basis for the same position, additional administrative burden is created for HRB, Finance and the hiring managers (e.g., recruitment, hiring, compensation and benefits, onboarding, training, and performance management). This burden can slow service delivery in corporate areas and take time away from higher-priority strategic initiatives.
• A high number of temporary employees in a workplace over the long-term could adversely impact team dynamics, employee engagement, and organizational morale^{Footnote 14}.

C. Insufficient Training

While the audit found that training materials were provided to staff (such as SOPs), particularly during onboarding, four out of ten (42%) survey respondents indicated that they had not been provided with adequate training to effectively perform their tasks, and almost two-thirds (63%) did not feel that the Agency was responsive to the training needs of their team. Findings suggest that staff working on FO design and delivery may have unmet training needs that could be impacting their ability to work efficiently.

Impact: The absence of a formal strategy to systematically address key human resource risks within the FODD space means the Agency's core business is vulnerable to both shifting internal (i.e., departures) and external forces (e.g., labour market availability, competition). Shifting forces that are not well controlled may reduce employee wellness over time and make it difficult to recruit and retain talent. Furthermore, in the absence of a formal human resource strategy, the Agency risks not delivering on its commitment to 'organizational excellence' outlined in its 2021-31 Strategic Plan. Central to this specific commitment is the strengthening of planning and prioritization to modernize operations and improve workload management.

Recommendation

6. The VP, Research Programs should, in collaboration with stakeholders, implement a strategy to address key human resources challenges related to capacity, the use of terms and training.

2.7 Conclusion

While the Agency continues to design and deliver quality FOs to support the research community, there is an opportunity to make strategic improvements by integrating functions, streamlining processes and repositioning the business to better consider costs, benefits and the organization’s capacity to deliver.

2.8 Management Response to Recommendations

Appendix A: Color coding of recommendations

It is good practice that all recommendations be cleared within an 18-month window of the approval of an audit report. To that end, the OIA uses a color-coded system to assist management with the prioritization of remedial actions.

The color-coding, outlined below, takes into consideration the urgency with which recommendations should be addressed, the complexity of the recommendation and/or the underlying issues or causes for concern, and the level of risk to which the Agency is exposed as a result of the issue identified.

Appendix B: Relevant Audit Criteria

The criteria used for assessing the audit objectives were informed by the following sources:

• Audits of Grant or Contribution Programs
• Management Accountability Framework 2021-22 (MAF) – Financial management, people management, and management of acquired services and assets
• Natural Resources Canada – Audit of NRCan’s Grants and Contributions Processes and Activities

The following are the key criteria used for the audit report. They have been simplified for reporting purposes.

Appendix C: Audit of FODD Survey: Detailed Survey Results

Please identify your current group (151/218 respondents = 69% response rate)

FOs are designed and/or delivered according to the documented procedures and processes of my team.

My team completes all our design and/or delivery tasks for which we are accountable, within established timelines.

To what extent do you agree that the following steps in the design and delivery process are effective?  Identification of an FO.

To what extent do you agree that the following steps in the design and delivery process are effective?  Initiation of an FO.

To what extent do you agree that the following steps in the design and delivery process are effective?  Review of an FO.

To what extent do you agree that the following steps in the design and delivery process are effective?  Approval of an FO.

To what extent do you agree that the following steps in the design and delivery process are effective?  Delivery of an FO.

To what extent do you agree that you have been provided with adequate training to effectively perform your tasks related to the design and/or delivery of FOs to the best of your abilities?

To what extent do you agree that your workload related to the design and/or delivery of FOs is manageable?

I believe CIHR is responsive to the human resourcing and training needs within my team that are related to the design and/or and delivery of FOs.

What are the biggest challenges related to human resource capacity that your team is currently facing regarding the design and/or delivery of FOs?

Appendix D: Details of the FODD Process

FOs are managed through a series of 15 phases; however, the design and delivery FOs are covered in phases one through five, which were respectively the focus of the audit. As a result, phases six through 15 have been excluded from the engagement. More information on the first five phases is provided below:

The 5 phases described above are largely carried out by the following stakeholders, with roles and responsibilities summarised below:

For more details and a Funding Overview of CIHR, please consult: Funding overview.

Date modified:

2024-09-17