I would like to draw your attention to the third round of the Evidence
Based Policy Fund.
This is an opportunity to bid for money for research projects which go
beyond single policies or individual government departments. The details
are outlined below.
Please note that the deadlines for proposals (about four pages long) is the
27th of November.
For further information, either visit the following website:
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/addingitup
or read below.
Tina Haux
Senior Research Officer
Tax Credit Analysis and Social Policy Team
Inland Revenue
ADDING IT UP
EVIDENCE BASED POLICY FUND
Overview
Selection Criteria
Selection Process
Indicative Themes
Application
OVERVIEW
The Evidence Based Policy Fund was launched in response to the Cabinet
Office report “Adding It Up” published in January 2000. It was conceived as
a seed corn fund to promote the supply of research and analysis for
crosscutting policy, and also as a means of strengthening links between
Universities, Research Institutes and Government through the financing of
applied research on some of the Government’s priority topics.
HM Treasury is now inviting bids for the third tranche of this fund. Over
£2million has already been committed from the Evidence Based Policy Fund,
to almost 30 research projects. This tranche makes available a further £1.9
million to advance the Government’s commitment to policy-making based on
sound evidence.
Proposals are invited for research in areas which span conventional
Departmental boundaries and which would therefore normally fall outside or
between the central focus of current departmental programmes.
An application form is available here.
Applications should be sent to [log in to unmask] by 27th
November 2001.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Key selection criteria for the Evidence Based Policy Fund are:
Policy Relevance
Proposals should show that research findings would be relevant to the
formulation/reformulation of specific policies, and explain the
relationship between the research findings and the design and effectiveness
of those policies.
Additionality
The Evidence Based Policy Fund finances research which would otherwise fail
to achieve funding from departmental research programmes. Proposals should
explain why research is of inter-departmental relevance. Also research will
be considered from longitudinal studies, which may be too long term to be
prioritised in departmental programmes.
Methodology and Feasibility
Proposals should convince the selectors that the researcher has a viable
and high quality research methodology, which will allow the policy question
to be addressed.
In addition to the criteria outlined above, the selection process will also
pay attention to value for money issues, although this is primarily the
role of the sponsoring department.
SELECTION PROCESS
Applications should be marked as either type 1 or type 2.
Type 1 applications are from researchers either with or seeking
departmental backing.
Type 2 applications are from a Government Department yet to identify a
researcher
All applications will be considered jointly in the first instance. Bidders
will be notified of the results of this initial process by mid December.
Type 1 applications progressing to stage two but yet to secure departmental
backing will then be put in contact with the relevant department to discuss
possible sponsorship, and invited to submit a full proposal, in February
2002 for consideration by a panel of referees.
Type 2 applications of an acceptable standard will be taken to competition
by departmental sponsors to identify the best available researchers.
Funding
The Evidence Based Policy Fund normally provides 50% of project costs, with
sponsoring departments providing matching funds. However, in exceptional
cases a larger share may be funded.
Independent researchers whose proposals progress through the initial
selection process will be put in contact with the relevant Department to
discuss sponsorship. Alternatively researchers seeking advice on securing
departmental sponsorship prior to initial proposals should contact
[log in to unmask]
Funding is from the Capital Modernisation Fund and can extend over more
than one financial year.
INDICATIVE THEMES
Below is a list of indicative themes, which has been based on
interdepartmental discussion of priority areas. It should be noted that
this list is not exhaustive and bids covering other areas may be selected
if they meet the selection criteria. Should a bid fulfil the criteria of
being policy relevant, crosscutting and filling a gap in the evidence base
it will be considered.
1. Regional Differences and National Welfare
The impact of social and cultural capital on regional development and
productivity
Causes and consequences of economic development and exclusion in rural
areas and the contribution of public infrastructure and services.
Obstacles and opportunities for using economic instruments to address
environmental externalities, particularly in rural areas.
Business regeneration of deprived/disadvantaged areas
Analysis of possible policy responses to local economic decline, across a
variety of different types of community.
2. Life Trajectories, Transitions and Outcomes
Impact on health inequalities of interventions in other policy areas.
Increasing social cohesion and civic participation within society through
policy interventions in areas such as health and crime.
Modelling of the sequence of causality in correlated indicators of well
being, e.g. income, educational attainment, health, criminality, assets.
Impact on migration of interventions in different policy areas.
Migration and the trend towards smaller households: an analysis of the
implications for policy
The impact of transport availability on government efforts to encourage
labour market participation.
The role of access to transport on poverty and low incomes
Key life transitions including in relation to savings behaviour, the impact
of retirement age.
The economic cost of crime.
Impact on crime and criminality of discrete interventions in other policy
areas.
3. Conflict and Crisis Management
Crisis prevention, identification and management (in the UK) – what works,
including risk assessment, infrastructure, equipment, readiness etc.
Conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction: the role and
effectiveness of the UK and multilateral response.
4. Organisational Options for Outcome Delivery
Types of partnership: evaluation of their advantages and characteristics,
their impact upon the issues they are set up to address, and wider linkages
to other programmes and partnerships.
Responsive Public Services: How might government organisations, perhaps
working in partnership with voluntary or local community groups, deliver
more responsive public services?
The recruitment and retention of public sector workers (education, health,
armed forces, police etc.) – what works: including pay, pensions, in-kind
benefits, actual and marketed job satisfaction, training, recruitment
drives etc.
Public Sector Productivity: how can we measure it, what are the biggest
obstacles to improvement, what can we learn from international experience?
APPLICATION
Type 1 Application
Type 1 Application
Title:
Researcher/Institution:
Address:
Email:
Sponsoring Department (If Known):
Departmental contact (If Known):
Attach initial proposal no longer than 4 pages in length.
Summary against decision criteria:
1 Policy relevance – what specific policies should be influenced by
the research findings?
2 Additionality – Why is the proposal of inter-departmental
relevance? Or why does it not attract funding from a departmental programme?
3 Methodology
4 Feasibility
5 Sponsorship** (If Known)
6 Time Span For Project
Cost: what is the total cost of the research work.
If co-funder has been identified, how much is being applied for from the
Evidence Based Policy Fund. (Detailed budgets elsewhere)
Total Cost: Bid from EBPF resources:
Co Funder 1:
Co Funder 2:
APPLICATION Type 2 application.
Type 2 Application
Title:
Department:
Departmental Contact:
Telephone No:
Attach initial proposal no longer than 4 pages in length.
Summary against decision criteria:
1 Policy relevance – what specific policies should be influenced by
the research findings?
2 Additionality – Why is the proposal of inter-departmental
relevance? Or why does it not attract funding from a departmental programme?
3 Methodology (if applicable)
4 Feasibility
5 Co-funding department (If applicable)
Dept:
Contact:
6 Time Span For Project
Cost: what is the total cost of the research work and how much is being
applied for from the Evidence Based Policy Fund and other co-funders?
(Detailed budgets elsewhere)
Bid from EBPF resources:
Co Funder 1:
Co Funder 2: Total Cost:
|