• Table 1: Evaluation Questions
• Table 2: Summary of CCSIF applications and grants awarded, by province (2017-2023)
• Table 3: Summary of CCSIF applications and grants awarded, by competition year (2017-2023)
• Table 4: Summary of TAC grants awarded and TAC renewals, by competition year (2010-2022)
• Table 5: Number of applied research products and dissemination events for CCSIF (2017-2022)
• Table 6: Operating ratio for the CCIP between 2017-18 and 2022-23
• Table 7: Summary of Evaluation Methodology
• Table 8: Response Legend for Qualitative Data Reporting
• Table 9: Summary of Evaluation Limitations and Mitigation Strategies

• Figure 1: Number of Colleges Eligible to apply for CCI funding (2015-2024)
• Figure 2: Impact on TAC client products, prototypes, services and/or technologies, as reported in 2017-18 and 2023-24
• Figure 3: Impact on TAC client processes and/or practices, as reported in 2017-18 and 2023-24
• Figure 4: Impacts on TAC client processes and/or practices, as reported in 2017-18 and 2023-24
• Figure 5: Impacts on TAC client organization R&D, as reported in 2017-18 and 2023-24
• Figure 6: Economic impacts of working with a TAC, as reported in 2017-18 and 2023-24
• Figure 7: CCSIF Success Rates (2017-2023)

ARD

NSERC’s Applied Research and Development Grants

CCIP

College and Community Innovation program

CCSIF

College and Community Social Innovation Fund

CCTT

Centres collégiaux de transfert de technologie / College Centres for the Transfer of Technologies

CFI

Canada Foundation for Innovation

CICan

Colleges and Institutes Canada

CIHR

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

CU-I2I

College-University Idea to Innovation

EDI

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

EDI-CAP

NSERC’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Institutional Capacity Building Grant

HQP

Highly Qualified Personnel

IRAP

National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program

NFP

Not-for-profit

NGO

Non-governmental organization

NSE

Natural sciences and engineering

NSERC

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

R&D

Research and development

RP

Research Partnership

SME

Small and medium-sized enterprise

SSH

Social sciences and humanities

SSHRC

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

TAC

Technology Access Centre

The College and Community Innovation program (CCIP) was launched as a Tri-agency program in 2004 and is administered by NSERC, in collaboration with CIHR and SSHRC. A key objective of the CCIP is to support Canadian colleges in developing and strengthening their capacity for applied research, and to encourage collaboration with partner organizations from academia, private, public, and not-for profit sectors in order to facilitate commercialization resulting in the adaptation and adoption of new technologies in priority R&D areas. Between 2019-2021, the 14 grants that comprised the CCIP were simplified and streamlined into a suite of 5 grants. In addition, reporting requirements were reduced and new criteria were implemented regarding student training and equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI). This evaluation highlights the CCIP’s ongoing relevance and contributions, particularly of its Technology Access Centre (TAC) and College and Community Social Innovation Fund (CCSIF) grants, and identifies key areas for improvement to ensure the programs’ continued effectiveness and alignment with federal government priorities in supporting applied research, innovation, and creation of economic and community impacts.

This evaluation found that The College and Community Innovation Program (CCIP) continues to play a vital role in supporting Canadian colleges with respect to supporting applied research activities and capacity building, collaboration with community and industry partners, and addressing local and regional challenges. Its alignment with federal priorities, especially regarding student training and equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), remains strong. The program is unique in the Canadian postsecondary landscape as one of the few dedicated funding sources for college-based applied research. Since the last evaluation of the CCIP in 2017-18, applications for funding have continued to increase and success rates for many grants have decreased, underscoring the program’s ongoing relevance and the high demand for funding to meet applied research needs in Canadian colleges.

This evaluation found that the CCIP, and in particular TAC and CCSIF grants, are successfully enabling collaborations between colleges and diverse partners across private, public, and not-for-profit sectors, and these partnerships are facilitating applied research with real-world impact. The CCSIF grants are supporting social innovation by funding diverse projects that are focused on contributing to positive social outcomes across a variety of communities. The TAC grants aid business innovation, enhancing product development, competitiveness, and economic growth, and are contributing to measurable increases in revenues and employment for small companies engaged with TACs. This evaluation also found high student engagement with both TACs and CCSIF-funded projects. Students are benefitting from hands-on applied research experience obtained through their involvement with these grants, gaining valuable skills and improved employment or educational prospects.

Despite many positive features of these grants, there is high demand and competitive pressure, especially for TAC grants, and calls for more transparent adjudication processes for new vs. renewing TAC applicants. Additionally, the value of the TAC and CCSIF grants has remained static since their inception, which may impact the extent to which they are able to achieve expected outcomes and remain competitive within Canada’s research innovation ecosystem. Findings related to these features, as discussed in this report, led to the identification of three areas of recommendation to help ensure that the CCIP, and in particular the TAC and CCSIF grants, continue to support the development of partnerships and conduct of applied research within Canadian colleges.

Review the value and number of TAC and CCSIF grants as well as the design and delivery of the TAC grants, considering the evolving innovation ecosystem and maturing college applied research capacity, to ensure it aligns with Canadian federal government priorities. This includes consideration of the distribution of TAC grants across Canada and the possibility of a single funding model for all TACs, as well as clarifying the process for assessing TAC renewals vs. new TAC applications. 

One of the most notable opportunities for improvement identified throughout the evaluation was the value of the TAC and CCSIF grants, which has not changed since their inception in 2010 and 2016, respectively. Therefore, the grants have not kept up with inflation and have approximately 30% less purchasing power than they did when first implemented. The evaluation found that the static amount of the grants has resulted in challenges for TACs and CCSIF project leads to cover the increasing costs associated with conducting applied research, including difficulties for TACs with respect to hiring and retaining research personnel, managing operational costs and branching into new areas of R&D. Such challenges could negatively impact the extent to which TACs are able to meet the innovation needs of Canadian organizations and generate economic and social benefits for Canadians. Given the high demand and competition for both TAC and CCSIF grants, NSERC could also consider reviewing the number of grants awarded. In the absence of new funding for the program, however, any decisions regarding the value and number of grants would need to be considered in tandem and considered in conjunction with the demand for other CCI funding opportunities.

When making decisions about the value of the TAC grants, the CCIP should consider potential changes to the grant funding model including the number of grants that will be funded across regions and the possibility of a single funding model for all TACs. The program should also consider clarifying the process for assessing TAC renewal applications against applications for new TACs and considering separate processes for these two given their respective stages of development, value propositions and available performance data. These considerations have implications for the overall TAC budget, and potential future criteria for assessing grant renewals and new TAC applications. Any decisions made regarding the funding model (including the number and value of grants), objectives, and selection criteria for the TAC grants should be clearly communicated to Canadian colleges and their stakeholders.

Update the reporting instruments for the TAC and CCSIF grants to reflect expected program outcomes and improve performance monitoring. This includes clarifying definitions of students and partners, integrating clear metrics regarding EDI and student training, and considering ways to further improve the systematic collection of quality data across CCIP grants.

There is an opportunity for NSERC to further strengthen the extent to which reporting instruments for the TAC and CCSIF grants reflect and align with the CCIP objectives and logic model. In particular, NSERC could examine opportunities to further integrate and streamline criteria related to EDI and student training into the program’s reporting instruments (e.g., end of grant reports), which are relatively new considerations for the CCIP. This examination is also an opportunity for the program to review the current reporting instruments for the TAC and CCSIF grants as the evaluation identified several inconsistencies across these instruments including their terminology and metrics, which challenges the utility of the data. For instance, there are opportunities for NSERC to clarify the definitions of students and partners, and what information is sought to better understand the integration of EDI in TACs and funded applied research projects. Changes to the reporting instruments should ensure that measures are clear, feasible to collect and useful for supporting learning and decision-making by the college and NSERC. Revising these instruments would allow the program to align the various reports across stakeholder groups and points in time, as well as with similar instruments for other grants within the CCIP and other programs within SSHRC, CIHR, and NSERC’s Research and Technology Partnerships Directorate.

Strengthen communications with and to the college community with a focus on clarifying information about the CCIP, namely the TAC and CCSIF grants. This includes improving the transparency, consistency and clarity of information about the application process, selection criteria, and the review process for TAC and/or CCSIF grants. There are also opportunities to clarify program expectations and objectives of the TAC grants in order to better support Canadian colleges with respect to change management and the evolving college funding landscape. 

The evaluation found that in recent years there has been some confusion among TAC and CCSIF grant recipients and stakeholders regarding the application, selection and review processes for the TAC and CCSIF grants, including some confusion on changes made to one or more of these processes. For instance, it was unclear why partners were now required to participate in the application process, which created delays and sometimes deterred partners from engaging with colleges on an applied research project. Given recent changes to the TAC grants (e.g., reduced reporting requirements, addition of student training and EDI criteria, expansion of eligible partner types) combined with a more competitive application process, some interviewees feel that the objectives of the TAC grants are no longer clear. Specifically, it would be helpful for NSERC to communicate any shifts in objectives or expectations for these grants, and to clarify whether the priority of the grants is to support the establishment of new TACs, to maintain existing TACs that continue meeting industry needs, or to encourage further innovation and growth of expertise at existing TACs (for example, through reaching new markets, expanding EDI efforts or services offered, etc.).

Additionally, while most TAC Directors, CCSIF project leads, institutional representatives and representatives from advocacy associations spoke positively about their relationship with NSERC and the support received, they also noted some opportunities for improvement. In particular, some TAC Directors and stakeholders felt that that the absence of NSERC’s participation on the TAC advisory boards and discontinuing the mid-grant report reduced NSERC’s presence and sometimes perceived support of TACs. As a result, it was felt that TACs had less access to NSERC and were not aware of expectations for grant renewal. It was suggested that NSERC examine opportunities to revise the literature for the TAC and CCSIF grants, to clarify its adjudication processes and criteria for funding and renewals, as well as to clarify program expectations for TACs (e.g., clear articulation of how many centres will be funded, expected rate of growth for new TACs). Furthermore, there is an opportunity for the agency develop or expand its presence and support for colleges, by offering increased guidance, tools, and training for applicants and selection committee members to help each group navigate the application and review process.

This report presents findings from the evaluation of the College and Community Innovation Program (CCIP). This evaluation was conducted jointly by the Evaluation Division of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and Goss Gilroy, Inc. (GGI), an independent consulting firm specializing in program evaluation.

The evaluation reviewed the CCIP’s activities between April 2017 and March 2024 and was designed in adherence to the requirements of the Treasury Board’s Policy on Results (2016) and Section 42.1(1) of the Financial Administration Act, which requires grants and contributions programs to be evaluated every five years. Areas examined for the evaluation include the achievement of the CCIP’s expected outcomes and objectives, the extent to which the program’s objectives continue to be relevant, and the efficiency of the program’s design and delivery, including the implementation of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) requirements.

Between 2019 and 2021, the CCIP underwent an evolution to improve the program’s flexibility and ability to address the needs of Canadian colleges. Part of the evolution involved streamlining and consolidating the program’s 14 grants into five grants1.  At the time of this evaluation, it was too early to examine grants that were newly developed or revised as part of the evolution. However, because the Technology Access Centre (TAC) grants and College and Community Social Innovation Fund (CCSIF) grants remained relatively unchanged, although the evaluation covers the entirety of the CCIP, these two grants became the focus of the evaluation as it was possible to examine their ongoing and longer-term outcomes2.

Data were collected across multiple lines of evidence including a literature and document review, a review of NSERC administrative data, final reports for TACs and CCSIF projects, an environmental scan, and a cost efficiency analysis. Data were also collected through:

• 13 case studies with a sample of colleges that received one or more TAC and/or CCSIF grants. Case studies involved a review of program data and documents, as well as interviews with TAC Directors, TAC clients3, CCSIF project leads, CCSIF partners, institutional representatives4, and/or students working with TACs or involved with CCSIF projects;
• 36 key informant interviews with TAC Directors, CCSIF project leads5, CCSIF partners, college advocacy associations6, Tri-agency staff and management, and CCIP governance committee members7, 8, and;
• a survey of TAC clients (n=328).

Additionally, an econometric study was undertaken, in collaboration with Statistics Canada, to identify potential economic impacts experienced by organizations that have worked with a TAC (e.g., increased revenues, hiring, etc.), relative to comparator organizations that have not worked with a TAC. The econometric study data may also help contextualize information gathered through TAC client interviews and the TAC client survey. Data were analyzed by triangulating information gathered from the different lines of evidence, with the intention of increasing the reliability and credibility of evaluation findings and conclusions. Please see Appendix C for further details on the evaluation scope and methodology.

Evaluation questions were designed in collaboration with Tri-agency management and CCIP staff and are presented in Table 1.

Launched in 2004, the CCIP is a Tri-agency program administered by NSERC, in collaboration with CIHR and SSHRC. A key objective of the CCIP is to support Canadian colleges9 in developing and strengthening their capacity for applied research, and their collaborations with partner organizations from academia, private, public, and not-for profit sectors to facilitate commercialization resulting in the adaptation and adoption of new technologies in priority R&D areas. Given today’s highly competitive global economy, the CCIP plays a central role in supporting Canada’s college innovation ecosystem by training students in essential technical skills required by potential employers, encouraging collaborations between colleges, universities and partner organizations, providing partner organizations with access to the expertise and knowledge available at colleges which can result in economic, environmental, health and/or social benefits for those organizations and for Canadians. As of 2024, 122 colleges are eligible to apply for CCIP funding, the majority of which are located in Québec (n=54, 44.3%) and Ontario (n=24, 19.7%).

In addition to consolidating the number of grants from 14 to five, the CCIP evolution included several other changes to streamline the program and increase its flexibility. A key change was broadening the definitions of ‘partner’ and ‘client’ for all grants from a focus on industry and private sector organizations to include not-for-profits, hospitals, and public sector organizations10. It was expected that these broadened definitions better reflect the Tri-agency nature of the CCIP and would allow the program to adopt a more inclusive approach to innovation, recognizing, for example, social and health outcomes enabled by the various CCIP grants in addition to projects that support business innovation.

Additionally, monitoring and reporting processes and requirements were streamlined for several CCIP grants. For instance, the mid-term reports for the TAC and CCSIF grants were eliminated, as was NSERC’s requirement for TACs to maintain an advisory board. Reporting was also moved to an online platform (CCSIF in 2022 and TAC in 2023), and the CCSIF reports were simplified. Another important change as part of the CCIP evolution was the introduction of formal selection criteria across all grants related to considerations around student training and EDI within research teams and activities. These criteria were introduced to further align the CCIP with the Tri-agency commitment to supporting a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive Canadian research enterprise11.

The CCSIF are institutional grants, valued at up to $120,000 a year for up to three years. Funded projects should facilitate collaborative and innovative R&D that brings together researchers, students and partners to address challenges in community innovation in the social sciences, humanities, health sciences, natural sciences and/or engineering research fields. By increasing the capacity of colleges to engage in partnerships that support community-focused, social innovation projects, CCSIF is expected to generate benefits for the community and community partners, while increasing the ability of communities to act collectively to promote solutions to accelerate technological and other forms of innovation. Between 2017 and 2023, NSERC received 528 applications for a CCSIF grant, with the majority of applications submitted by colleges in Ontario (n= 247; 46.8%), Québec (n= 99; 18.8%) and British Columbia (n= 62; 11.7%). A total of 177 CCSIF grants were awarded between 2017 and 2023, for a success rate of approximately 34%. At the time of this evaluation, 29 of these projects had been completed, and 148 projects were ongoing12. A summary of applications and grants awarded by province is presented in Table 2, and by competition year13 in Table 3.

Source: CCIP administrative data

Source: CCIP administrative data

Almost all interviewees noted that CCSIF was the only grant supporting applied research in Canadian colleges with a specific focus on social innovation14. This perception is consistent with findings from the previous evaluation of the CCIP. Specifically, the CCSIF grants were described as offering relevant and meaningful support for addressing the needs of community organizations with a particular focus on increasing awareness and appreciation for the social sciences and humanities in the applied research ecosystem. The CCSIF grants are also perceived to be unique because of their flexibility regarding the types of partners who can be involved with projects15 and the permitted use of funds to offset a portion of an employee’s salary from a partner organization16. Several CCSIF project leads commented that the flexibility of these grants has allowed them to pursue inter and/or multi-disciplinary work by bridging programs that are not easily definable within a set discipline, or that would not normally “fit together”, by blending technical expertise with social sciences (e.g., construction program with health program researching workplace injuries, graphic design with education to develop classroom learning technologies, etc.). These grants, therefore, continue to be recognized by colleges as filling an important gap in their funding ecosystem.

TACs are specialized centres of expertise that are designed to work with local companies and community organizations to address their innovation challenges by enabling clients to take advantage of the college’s expertise, technology and equipment, leading to beneficial economic, social and/or health outcomes for Canada. In particular, TACs provide capabilities that serve their clients’ applied R&D and innovation needs including advice on specific organizational challenges, conducting applied research projects, or providing specialized services and training. The CCIP TAC grants support the core operations of the centers by offering up to $350,000 a year for TACs located in colleges across Canada, with the exception of TACs located in Québec, which are eligible to receive up to $100,000 a year17. The grant duration is five years, and it is renewable to provide continued support for the activities of an established TAC. The renewal of a TAC is based on review of several merit criteria, including demonstrated value to their region’s innovation capacity, student training, applied research competence, ongoing strength of the Centre’s organizational structure and delivery plan, and an assessment of how well the TAC met their stated objectives over the previous funding term18. Colleges are limited to holding three TAC grants at the same time.

TAC grants are five-year grants. At the time of this report, a total of 64 TACs had received funding from the CCIP, with the majority of TACs located in Québec (45.3%), followed by Ontario (23.4%), Alberta (12.5%), the Prairies (7.8%), Atlantic Canada (6.3%) and British Columbia (4.7%) Forty-four Centres reached the end of their original 5-year funding term and applied for renewal between 2017-2023. Of these, 40 (91%) were renewed for a second 5-year term19. Twenty-one TACs had completed two funding terms as of 2023-2024, and 16 of these (76.2%) were renewed for a third 5-year term. A summary of the number of TACs funded and renewed by competition year is presented in Table 4.

Source: CCIP administrative data

The TAC grants are perceived by key informants and case study participants to play a distinctive role in the college funding environment. In particular, it was noted that there is no other comparable funding that offers a steady form of base funding that allows colleges to develop their capacity in applied R&D and meet the innovation needs of local organizations. According to many TAC Directors across several geographic regions, the TAC grants helped to offset operating costs, thereby creating space for staff to take on a higher number of activities (e.g., applied research projects, provision of technical services, etc.) to generate additional revenue from clients, as well as to seek out other funding to support applied research activities. Moreover, several TACs reported that the prestige of holding the grant and the accompanying TAC designation facilitated their ability to leverage additional funding from other sources.

The importance of innovation21 has become increasingly apparent as studies have shown it to have significant long-term implications for the country’s economic growth and social well-being22, 23. Within the innovation ecosystem, investment in R&D is considered an indicator of strong innovation capacity, as it can result in tangible outcomes such as the development of new products, services and processes24. Despite the Government of Canada’s commitments to innovation25 Canada lags in R&D investment, ranking 15th of 20 peer countries26. According to the Conference Board of Canada, this ranking is largely driven by low and steadily declining investments in R&D on the part of both government and Canadian businesses, combined with low patent, trademark and manufacturing performance. Improving Canada’s performance in these areas may “start with improving business R&D and collaborations with post-secondary institutions to move research into innovative products and services”27.

Colleges are well placed to engage in applied research activities to develop innovative solutions to local and regional challenges, as they tend to be more embedded within local communities relative to their university counterparts and often design their applied research and training programs both with and around local industry and community needs28. As a result, colleges are strongly positioned to partner with Canadian organizations and respond to their applied research and innovation needs in unique ways29. The ability of Canadian colleges to partner with organizations to engage in applied R&D activities that encourage innovation aligns with several key priorities of the federal government. For instance, these activities support the government’s focus on building a stronger economy by helping Canadian businesses to grow, innovate, and export their products in order to create good quality new jobs and wealth for Canadians30. The important role of applied research in supporting a strong economy has been underscored by stakeholder organizations such as Colleges and Institutes Canada (CICan), which noted that applied R&D continues to be a “key driver in strengthening small and medium-sized enterprises’ (SME) economic resiliency and competitiveness and plays a vital role in shaping sustainable and prosperous communities”31.

By supporting applied research activities at Canadian colleges, the CCIP helps to support NSERC’s strategic vision and expected outcomes, including the use of natural sciences and engineering research to help solve today’s most pressing challenges, and bolster Canada’s economic competitiveness and prosperity, thereby strengthening its place in an increasingly unpredictable global environment32. Moreover, the program’s increased focus on student training and supporting EDI considerations in applied research reinforce NSERC’s goals of expanding, diversifying and nurturing Canada’s talent pool. CCIP’s support in growing this talent pool will in turn contribute to the global knowledge economy, to deliver ground-breaking technologies and to provide essential knowledge for decision-making33.

Some key informants and documents from advocacy associations have indicated that over time, Canadian colleges have increased their applied research capacity and have carved out a more significant role within the national research and innovation system34. This may help explain why an increasing number of colleges are seeking eligibility to access CCIP funding, as evidenced by NSERC administrative data. As shown in Figure 1 below, the number of colleges eligible to apply for CCIP funding has increased modestly but steadily in the last decade, from 107 institutions in 2015, to 122 in 2024, which represents an increase of 12.3%. The majority of eligible colleges are located in Québec (44.3%), followed by Western Canada (22.9%), Ontario (19.7%), Central Canada (7.4%), Atlantic Canada (4.1%) and Northern Canada (1.6%)35.

Figure 1: Number of Colleges Eligible to apply for CCI funding (2015-2024)

Source: CCIP administrative data

Year	2015	2018	2021	2024
Eligible Colleges	107	109	116	122

In addition to the increase in number of colleges eligible for funding, the CCIP has also experienced increases in its budget during the evaluation period. For instance, in 2017, the federal government invested an additional $10 million over two years (until 2019) to continue the CCSIF grants36, followed by an additional $140 million over five years, starting in 2018-19, to increase support for collaborative innovation projects involving businesses, colleges and polytechnics through the CCIP37.  In 2021, the government invested $46.9 million in the CCIP for another two years to enable Canadian colleges to work with local and regional organizations to increase innovation within their communities38. When this increase ended, the federal government continued to provide additional funding with a commitment of $108.6 million over three years (until 2026-27) announced in Budget 2023 to support program expansion39. Despite these increases, the CCIP budget continues to represent a very small proportion of the overall budget for the three granting councils at approximately 2-3%, and most of the new funding received was time limited. Consequently, while the additional funding allows NSERC to continue supporting applied research activities at Canadian colleges and expand the reach of the CCIP (e.g., new colleges, more grants) it does not offer long-term stability for these activities, and the program may be limited in how the funds are used. For instance, it is difficult for the CCIP to make long-term funding commitments to establish additional grants (particularly TACs, which are 5-year grants), given only temporary budget injections that might not be renewed in future years. 

Results from the environmental scan and interviews indicate that in addition to the CCIP, the National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) and the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) College Fund are the primary federal funding programs supporting applied R&D at Canadian colleges. Other federal sources of funding identified by key informants include, but are not limited to, the Canada Council for the Arts, Employment and Social Development Canada (e.g., grants for community-based projects), regional development agencies (e.g., Federal Economic Development Agency of Southern Ontario, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), and grants offered by SSHRC. However, none of these funding sources are exclusive to colleges or organizations working with colleges, with the exception of the CFI College Fund. Some interviewees noted that colleges, at present, are only eligible to apply for a sub-set of federal funding opportunities, and many of those have been designed for university research programs (e.g., SSHRC grants) that often do not reflect the needs, strengths, structure and context of colleges.  Some believe that the lack of dedicated funding for college research, restrictions on eligibility, and the university-focused design of many existing grants places colleges at a disadvantage, as they are unable to compete against universities when seeking funding.  Consequently, colleges may be discouraged from applying. A review of SSHRC application data shows that between 2018 and 2023, Canadian colleges received a total of 59 SSHRC grants. These include 41 grants awarded to 23 unique institutions for supporting partnership research40, and 18 Insight grants41 awarded to 11 unique institutions. These awards to colleges represent a very small proportion (less than 2%) of total grants awarded by SSHRC during this time.

In addition to the federal government, colleges may seek funding for applied research from not-for-profits such as MITACS and Genome Canada, and researchers may be able to apply for internal funding from the colleges themselves. Colleges may also seek funding from provincial and territorial programs such as Alberta Innovates, the Ontario Research Fund and Fonds de recherche du Québec. During the evaluation it was noted by some key informants that although the provinces and territories are often the largest benefactor of college outputs, funding for applied research is uneven across provinces and territories, is often linked to rapidly changing political landscapes and can have requirements that impact participation (e.g., strict cost-sharing requirements that may impede participation of some community organizations or start-up companies). The CCIP was described as desirable in this regard, as it offers flexibility to engage different partner types and greater stability (via mid to longer-term grants) to help offset inter-provincial differences or shortfalls in funding.

The development of strong partnerships to advance applied research in service of local communities is a key objective of the CCIP. A review of CCIP file data illustrates that TACs and CCSIF projects have engaged many clients and/or partners during the period of the evaluation. In reports submitted to NSERC, TACs identified working with a wide range of clients, including clients from the private sector, not-for-profit organizations, NGOs, and provincial, municipal and federal governments. A large majority of clients who responded to the TAC client survey indicated they were from the private sector (83.4%), followed by not-for profit organizations (5.5%) and various levels of government (2.4%). Projects funded with a CCSIF grant are also likely to involve multiple partners. As reported by CCSIF project leads in their final reports (n=31), the majority of partners involved with CCSIF projects are not-for-profit organizations (44%) followed by industry (20%), other post-secondary institutions (11%) and government (5%), indicating diversity in the types of partners engaged in funded projects42.

According to the TAC client survey (n=328) and case studies, clients frequently collaborate on more than one project with their TAC, are involved in the planning of their applied research project and continue to participate in regular discussions with TAC staff throughout the project. Approximately half of TAC client survey respondents also indicate they conduct some of the research activities that are integral to the project (54%) and provide materials, equipment or facilities in support of their collaboration with the TAC (46%). Half of TAC client survey respondents (50%) also noted they became involved because of a previous collaboration with college faculty or TAC staff, while about a quarter of respondents (22%) were referred by a business contact. Prior collaborations were an important facilitating factor for a client’s ability to participate in a project with the Centre, along with the skills and facilities available at the TAC. The requirement of a cash contribution (e.g., fee for service or partnering costs) was the most important inhibiting factor affecting client’s ability to collaborate with a TAC, noted by 26% of TAC client survey respondents.

Similarly, many CCSIF partners reported significant involvement in research activities, including the provision of input into the project design and/or methodology and regular communication with project leads. Several partners also described hands-on participation with data collection, including working with students and youth in classroom settings to pilot new training modules and technologies, helping to conduct focus groups with community stakeholders, discussing emerging findings with project leads and researchers, and collaborating on the preparation of reference materials and resources (e.g., toolkits).

Most TAC Directors noted that their TAC was strongly integrated with the host institution, including alignment between the TACs applied research activities and key areas of education and training offered by the college. Almost all TAC Directors reported that faculty at their college will engage in TAC-related applied research activities, use TAC-related resources to increase the quality of their course work, or share research and program space with the TAC. This level of integration and partnership between the TACs and their college was found to create mutual benefits including enriching student education and training. Through case study interviews, five TAC Directors described how new courses had been developed or substantively improved at their host college because of work being conducted through the TAC. As illustrated by one TAC Director, faculty at their college worked with the TAC to co-develop new academic programs, in the interest of strengthening the connection between research and academics at their institution. Faculty members supplied base content from existing courses, which was revised and expanded by researchers at the TAC to include practical examples and hands-on modules/training activities. This collaboration led to the development of two new post-graduate certificate programs at the college. In line with their mandate to “actively collaborate with other available expert resources (e.g., other TACs, universities, private and public research centres, specialized consultants, etc.) to benefit clients and partners”43. Two TAC directors also described ongoing collaborations with university research teams, and others spoke about positive working relationships and collaborations with other TACs. For example, case study participants described how two of the TACs at their institution have recently worked together to provide support to clients, completing a joint project to bridge their respective expertise in food innovation and mechanical design to build a tofu press for a client organization.

Similarly, in their final reports to NSERC, 23.1% of CCSIF project leads reported that their funded project(s) had contributed to the development of new courses at their college, 45.2% indicated they had new equipment or material as a result of their project, and over half (58%) indicated that their project had resulted in the creation of new content for existing courses. In some cases, CCSIF project leads described collaborations with other faculty or departments within their college, often to support multi or cross-discipline applied research projects, or with researchers at other academic institutions. Within some regions and/or fields of study (e.g., marine science and water quality research in Atlantic Canada), CCSIF project leads described ongoing collaboration between college and university researchers as well, which has facilitated access to university students, introduced opportunities for field work in different regions, and allowed institutions to leverage and share expertise, equipment and resources. Two CCSIF project leads indicated that they plan to continue their collaborations with university research teams and indicated that they would be open to future university collaboration.

As evidenced across multiple lines of evidence, perceived benefits of partnerships resulting from CCIP grants include network development, collaborative relationships, and capacity building through the development of strong community engagement and community-driven R&D. Findings from the case studies and key informant interviews further illustrate that a high level of engagement from partners facilitated the applied research activities conducted within TACs and CCSIF projects and supported the achievement of business or social innovation to address community-focused concerns. This occurred in part because the partnerships allowed TAC Directors and CCSIF project leads to better understand the needs of their clients and partners and the potential impact of their applied research activities within real-world social and business environments.

It was noted by some CCSIF project leads that their partnerships with local and regional organizations allowed them to address specific applied research needs, identify key findings, and mobilize these findings to support practical changes and improvements for these organizations and their communities. Other benefits of the partnerships between colleges and community organizations include increasing awareness about opportunities to work with colleges, exposing partners to the value of engaging in applied research and helping them to improve their services through the development or improvement of resources (e.g., toolkits) and technologies to address practical considerations, gaps, and accommodations to support their communities. In several cases, partnerships also resulted in some key benefits for CCSIF project leads and their host institution including publishing, the expansion of existing partnerships, and the development of broad community-based networks to further identify potential partnerships and opportunities for collaboration to address community needs.

With regards to the TACs, some TAC Directors reported that partnerships allowed them to further develop existing relationships, foster new connections, and in some cases to help clients carve out new niches in applied R&D. For example, one TAC reported building a long-lasting collaboration with an early adopter of data analytics as they evolved into a significant market influencer within their sector. The TAC was able to connect this client with other local players in the sector to assess and improve on existing technologies. These improved technologies are now being used more broadly within the sector to improve efficiency and decision making. Some TAC Directors also noted that as a result of their partnerships with clients, the latter could learn how to use specialized software and test equipment housed at the TAC on a trial basis to see if purchasing it would be useful for their organization.

While partnerships between colleges and organizations resulted in many benefits, there were some challenges that impacted TAC activities and CCSIF projects. For instance, some CCSIF project leads indicated that representatives from the partner organization were unable to be continuously involved with the project as they were often doing this work in addition to their regular job. Consequently, CCSIF project activities could be relegated to a lower priority for these representatives, which sometimes delayed project timelines. Timelines were also flagged as a challenge for some TAC projects, with some clients noting that their projects did not move fast enough and that results were not timely in terms of meeting their needs. Some TAC Directors noted that this was because clients did not always understand the applied research process, and as such their expectations did not align with realistic project timelines. Some felt that this lack of understanding of the applied research process could help to explain why TACs sometimes experience challenges recruiting clients to engage in projects, requiring TACs to spend more time and resources on educating potential clients and increasing awareness of this process.

Other challenges experienced by TACs that impacted their relationships with clients included staff turnover, which created difficulties in maintaining the expertise required to carry out projects and ensure continuity of services, and a disconnect between the results of the applied research project and the expectations of the client. As per the experience of one interviewee, clients may seek positive results from the product testing done by the TAC to support marketing and commercialization efforts and may not be receptive to results that suggest further product development is required. Both situations have the potential to challenge the continuity of the relationship between TACs and their clients (e.g., additional projects).

Despite these challenges, the majority of case study and interview participants described the importance and valuable role that partnerships can play in advancing applied research. As noted earlier, there is low investment by Canadian organizations in R&D, and research has shown that due to their size, many start-up companies and SMEs lack the capacity and resources to conduct their own R&D activities44. Through partnerships, colleges can take on the role of innovation catalysts and accelerators that help organizations overcome internal resource and capacity barriers to R&D45 and help find solutions that respond to the needs of community partners and local organizations.  Additionally, these partnerships allow colleges to gain insights that may place them in a stronger position to identify priority areas for R&D, increase the quality of applied research activities and results due to knowledge and resource sharing and tailor the education and training of students in a manner that remains “relevant and responsive to the labour market”46.

It was noted throughout the evaluation that the CCSIF grants are the key mechanism of Tri-agency support for colleges with respect to applied research activities that contribute to social innovation and community development. As illustrated in Table 5, projects funded by the CCSIF grants resulted in a number of products and events to share applied research findings, the most notable of which include blogs and other forms of social media, formal and informal meetings with community knowledge users, as well as various items of grey literature including reports, briefs, manuals, worksheets, checklists, pedagogical tools, best practice guides or case studies. Through the case studies and interviews, CCSIF project leads and partners provided examples of the products generated from CCSIF projects and how the applied research was used to build capacity and/or support decision-making amongst the project partners and their program or organization’s stakeholders. For example:

• One CCSIF project aimed to identify the needs of future agricultural businesses to help a municipality develop an appropriate rental/lease program for agricultural lands in their jurisdiction. The research team interviewed several students and business owners to identify needs and challenges in this sector. The research team presented their results to the regional municipality to guide their decision-making, and prepared both a video and a guide for emerging agriculture operators;
• Another CCSIF project focused on maintaining self-esteem and positive identity in young girls approaching or just entering high school. The researchers developed a series of activities for adolescent girls that explored topics such as self-worth, identity, relationships and social competence. Adolescents who participated in this study showed improvements in these measurement areas, and these effects were maintained from the start of the project up to two years after the research grant ended. Results of this project were published in a peer-reviewed journal, and a training manual was produced for educators to incorporate these modules into their classrooms. This manual has subsequently been adopted by school boards in other provinces.

Source: CCSIF final reports (n=31)

In their final reports, CCSIF projects leads identified the outcomes of their research projects with the majority reporting training and skills development (84%), enhanced professional practice (84%), educational outcomes (74%), critical knowledge (71%), and improved quality of life/wellbeing (68%). Other outcomes reported by CCSIF project leads included cultural (48%) and/or behavioural (45%) outcomes, enriched public discourse (45%), technological outcomes (38%), enhanced policy (32%) and healthcare outcomes (25%). When asked to provide more specifics regarding project outcomes, a common thread was the impact of the research on students including their engagement in the projects, the skills and knowledge they acquired, and the extent to which the projects influenced students to continue their education and/or involvement with the social sector. The relationship between the CCSIF grants and student training is explored further in a later section of this report.

The data from the CCSIF final reports were corroborated and further illustrated through case studies and interviews, with many CCSIF project leads and partners describing how the grants enabled colleges to engage in applied research in the social sciences and humanities, which generated tangible results for communities. For example:

• A CCSIF project through one college provided support to long-term care (LTC) homes that wanted to improve the job experience for staff. The college partnered with Concerts in Care Ontario (CiCO), a program that brings musicians to perform in senior’s and long-term care homes in Canada. The positive experiences reported for staff and residents at these facilities encouraged CiCO to roll out the model more broadly. Through the COVID-19 pandemic, the world watched as LTC staff became exhausted, over-extended, and yet remained so compassionate with their charges. The CCSIF project will encourage staff to use the arts and self-expression to support their recovery from potential trauma experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. This support is also meant to help caregivers connect with their residents on a deeper, personal level, supporting a more holistic model of care in the long-term care space47.
• One CCSIF project began as an NSE-focused project on water filtration, but researchers began to question how portable filtration technologies could be deployed to benefit communities as well. This prompted reflection and discussions around environmental racism, and how some local communities had persistently worse water quality compared to others. These discussions prompted the CCSIF project to evolve to address broader social questions as well, bring in resources with social science expertise (i.e., qualitative methodology, experience working with communities). The project was ultimately viewed as having both significant NSE and societal impacts48.

CCSIF project leads shared a variety of insights pertaining to project outcomes and noted that the grant’s structure (e.g., ability to focus on one project) and partnership mobilization, supported and facilitated the success of their projects’ outcomes.

Key informants and case study participants identified several ways in which their grants supported business innovation and economic development for clients and partners. It is also important to note that some projects funded by the CCIP address both social innovation and business innovation, illustrating that these are not mutually exclusive outcomes. For example, one CCSIF project lead described how they had worked with a start-up therapeutics company and a local university to develop AI-based applications for long-term care staff. This company has now secured over $3 million in additional funding to conduct further clinical research focused on developing therapeutic applications for patients suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s Disease.

TAC Directors suggested that the TAC grants allowed their centres to act as a source of support to client initiatives that generate local impact, and in some cases that extend to organizations outside their local boundaries, including other regions, across Canada and internationally. For example, through TAC funding, TAC Directors reported supporting Indigenous artists to produce marketable products in greater quantities; the launch of Indigenous food distribution companies; the testing and launch of a medication that can target specific organs rather than the whole body to treat against cancer and other illnesses; the manufacturing of equipment that can quickly respond to infrastructure failures; and the development of a drone that has the capacity to inspect windmill installations and allow for remote monitoring.

All TAC clients that participated in the evaluation echoed the assertion that TACs support client initiatives and reported benefits of working with a TAC. For instance, the TAC client survey asked respondents to rate the success of their projects in terms of achieving specific outcomes. As in the previous evaluation, the majority of TAC clients reported that their project with the Centre either had an impact (47%; n=154) or is likely to have an impact (20%; n=64) on products, prototypes, services, and/or technologies, as shown in Figure 2, below. More specifically, 27% of respondents noted that their project resulted in a new product, prototype, service or technology, while a third (31.3%) noted that that their project with the TAC improved an existing product, prototype, service or technology. Twenty-four percent of respondents reported that their new or improved product, prototype, service or technology had been brought to market.

Figure 2: Impact on TAC client products, prototypes, services and/or technologies, as reported in 2017-18 and 2023-2449

Source: TAC client survey (n=203 for the 2017-18 survey and n=328 for the 2023-24 survey)

Response	2023-24	2017-18
Has happened	47%	47%
Not yet but likely to happen	20%	22%
Not likely to happen	10%	8%
To soon to tell	10%	13%

As in the previous evaluation, the majority of surveyed TAC clients also indicated that their project with the TAC had an impact (37%; n=120) or is likely to have an impact (23%; n=74) on processes and/or practices, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Impact on TAC client processes and/or practices, as reported in 2017-18 and 2023-24

Source: TAC client survey (n=203 for the 2017-18 survey and n=328 for the 2023-24 survey)

Response	2023-24	2017-18
Has happened	37%	37%
Not yet but likely to happen	23%	28%
Not likely to happen	11%	9%
To soon to tell	10%	16%

With respect to the success of projects in achieving specific outcomes, many TAC clients reported that working with a TAC has (30%; n=97) or will have an impact (26%; n=84) on future business or R&D directions; has (28%; n=91) or will (19%; n=63) accelerate the time to bring a product, service, and/or technology to market; has had (25%; n=82) or is likely to have (18%; n=59) an impact on productivity; and helped improve (24%; n=79) or is expected to help improve (24%; n=79) their company’s competitive position. The reported success of TAC projects in achieving these outcomes over time is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Impacts on TAC client processes and/or practices, as reported in 2017-18 and 2023-24

Source: TAC client survey (n=203 for the 2017-18 survey and n=328 for the 2023-24 survey)

Impacts	Year	Has happened	Not yet but likely to happen	Not likely to happen	To soon to tell
Impact on future business or research directions	2017	31%	21%	8%	10%
	2024	30%	26%	9%	11%
Accelerated time to bring a product/service/technology to market	2017	29%	20%	10%	9%
	2024	28%	19%	13%	11%
Impact on productivity	2017	25%	18%	9%	9%
	2024	25%	18%	13%	12%
Improved organization's competitive position	2017	24%	26%	10%	8%
	2024	24%	24%	10%	16%

The impacts TACs may have on their clients are not limited to specific innovations alone, as a large majority of survey respondents indicated that working with a TAC enhanced the knowledge base of their company (63%; n=205) or is likely to do so in the future (12%; n=39). When asked to describe the impacts that their project with a TAC had on their company’s R&D, 30% (n=98) indicated that it increased their overall R&D capacity, while just under a quarter (23.2%; n=76) noted that their TAC project increased their organization’s receptivity to R&D. Smaller proportions of respondents reported the project improved R&D management (19%n=62), increased investment (17.7%; n=58) and internal capacity (16.5%; n=54) in R&D. The reported impacts of working with a TAC on R&D capacity, R&D investment, R&D management, and knowledge base R&D were similar to those reported in the 2017-18 survey, indicating relative consistency in these ratings over the past five years (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Impacts on TAC client organization R&D, as reported in 2017-18 and 2023-24

Source: TAC client survey (n=203 for the 2017-18 survey and n=328 for the 2023-24 survey)

Impacts	2017	2024
Increased overall R&D capacity	38%	30%
Increased receptivity to R&D	37%	23%
Improved R&D management	25%	19%
Increased investment in R&D	21%	18%
Increased internal capacity in R&D	22%	17%
Enhanced knowledge base	65%	63%

In addition to the TAC client survey data, several examples of the impacts of the TACs in support of business innovation were noted through the case studies across a wide variety of sectors. These included development of novel products, provision of critical services, bringing new products to market, and increasing the efficiency of products and processes. In some cases and in some sectors, the TACs are the only specialized centres of expertise available to partners. For example:

• The National Bee Diagnostic Centre (NBDC) at Northwestern Polytechnic50 is the only facility of its kind in Canada. The flexibility and long-term nature of TAC funding has allowed the NBDC to develop a wide range of services for the apiculture industry Canada-wide, including those in the far north. These include diagnostic testing for destructive pests and pathogens, quality assurance for commercial products, and testing and proof of concept for novel products in development. The NBDC often works to design and conduct collaborative projects with other organizations, including universities and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (with which NW Poly has a formal agreement, and the TAC is situated on AAFC property).
• Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT)’s Boreal Forest TAC uniquely works to develop improved land reclamation methods for the resource extraction industry. In particular, they harvest, store, plant, and nurture seeds from native species in the far north that are best suited to this purpose. In this, they work hand-in-hand with industry associations and individual firms, as well as Indigenous groups and Indigenous-led start-ups that supply seedlings and planting services to these projects. In this work, the traditional knowledge of Indigenous elders is often relied upon to identify appropriate species, regions, etc., and NAIT actively engages in community network building.

When clients were asked about the economic impacts resulting from working with a TAC, approximately 14% of survey respondents indicated that their company’s revenue had increased. The most common margin of increase was between one and ten percent (13%; n=41) Almost a quarter of respondents (23%) noted that they hired one or more new employees as a result of their TAC project, for a total of 177 new hires, and 9% of client organizations indicated they had hired college students or recent graduates who had been involved with the Centre. Some other notable areas of impact resulting from working with a TAC include accessing new markets (15%; n=49), the attraction of new investment (11%; n=37) and increasing their company’s profitability (13%; n=42). A summary of reported economic impacts over time is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Economic impacts of working with a TAC, as reported in 2017-18 and 2023-24

Source: TAC client survey (n=203 for the 2017-18 survey and n=328 for the 2023-24 survey)

Impacts	Year	Has happened	Not yet but likely to happen	Not likely to happen	To soon to tell
Increased organization's profitability	2017	19%	25%	10%	10%
	2024	13%	25%	13%	21%
Enhanced organization's position within the production chain	2017	17%	20%	11%	7%
	2024	17%	23%	11%	16%
Accessed new markets	2017	17%	22%	13%	10%
	2024	15%	26%	13%	14%
Increased revenues	2017	16%	23%	10%	10%
	2024	14%	27%	12%	18%
Helped attract new investment	2017	10%	15%	13%	11%
	2024	11%	18%	16%	16%

Several examples of economic benefits were also identified through TAC client interviews, including improved productivity and manufacturing rates (e.g., scaling up recipes and production rates), increased revenues, and expansion to new markets. Through case study interviews, one organization described significant economic benefits stemming from their work with a TAC on multiple (>12) applied research projects. Specifically, the organization was able to reduce their production costs by removing the need for pasteurization on a key product line, and brought over ten new products to market. This growth in their product line allowed the organization to hire additional staff, to expand their business to new Canadian and international markets, and to increase their revenues three-fold.

These reported economic benefits were supported by the econometric study, which examined longitudinal financial data collected by Statistics Canada between 2006-2020. This analysis showed strong positive effects of TAC involvement on both sales and employment for small companies (≤50 employees) and low revenue-generating companies (≤$4 million in annual revenues). In other words, SMEs of this size that partnered with a TAC showed increases in both their average sales and employment in the years following their first involvement with a TAC, relative to matched SMEs51 who had not engaged the services of a TAC. Specifically, small companies showed an average increase of 143% in sales, and an average increase of 69% in employment in the years after working with a TAC, while companies that were lower revenue-generating at baseline showed average increases of 98% in sales and 53% in employment after working with a TAC. These data suggest the TACs are providing relevant services and expertise that are contributing in measurable ways to the economic growth of many SMEs, particularly small and under-resourced companies. 

Almost every client and partner consulted through the case studies reported very strong positive impacts of working with the colleges, both through the TACs and via CCSIF projects. All of the projects that interviewees referenced were described as successful, and as having met their objectives. For both TACs and CCSIFs, interviewees described the value of “hands-on” applied R&D with partners, citing this as far more applied and hands-on than lab-based university research. The long-term nature of these relationships was also described as “game changing” for both sides. As examples:

• One TAC offers a wide range of services to the aeronautical sector, including systems analysis, component fabrication, metrology, automation, industrial robotics, non-destructive testing, and artificial intelligence. This TAC also has specialized equipment that is available for client use, including two robots that can work machine parts in tandem. The TAC Director and client interviewees identified this as a unique “value add” feature that often attracts industry to the centre, as it allows companies a low-risk and hands-on opportunity to test specialized equipment. Very often, when successful, clients will purchase similar equipment on their own afterwards.
• Another TAC is actively working with a local First Nation to help them develop a First Nation-led SME with agency for native seed collection and storage, and potentially for downstream germination, seedling growth, and reclamation. From this start, there is now an office in the First Nation’s community that is renting tools for seed processing and developing many new techniques. The TAC arranged freezer space for the community to enable them to follow the seeds all the way through to the lab, (e.g., for purity testing, etc.)  The SME is now signing an additional contract with the TAC to build upon these activities and further develop capacity, demonstrating satisfaction with services and a desire for repeat/continued business with the TAC.

A high level of satisfaction was also reported through the TAC client survey. A majority (86.6%) of respondents reported satisfaction with their overall experience working with a TAC. When asked about specific features that drove this rating, survey respondents cited ease of access to the TAC (89.6%), facilities and equipment available at the TAC (89%), the quality of interactions with the TAC (88.4%) and technical expertise of staff (88.1%) as areas where they were highly satisfied. Half of survey respondents (50.2%) indicated that they plan to seek out services from the TAC in the future, and 32.7% that they are already in discussion with the TAC regarding future projects or services.

It has been argued that applied research “provides student training opportunities, boosting the return on investment, equipping the labour force with problem-solving skills, and facilitating the talent pipeline SMEs need to grow”52. As such, involving students in applied research activities may result in important benefits to Canada. Supporting this contention, a large majority of key informants interviewed described student engagement in applied research across both the TACs and CCSIF projects as valuable, as it provides students with opportunities to build technical, professional and soft skills to improve job-readiness, and helps to build capacity for applied research within the colleges.

Although some students became involved with the TAC or CCSIF project to satisfy a course requirement (e.g., as part of a Capstone project or practicum), many described learning about training opportunities through job postings at the college, or being informally connected with these opportunities through faculty members and/or research presentations in class. According to the TAC final reports, an average of 22 students participated in TAC activities during the third and fourth years of the grant, compared to an average of 17 students during the first year of the grant, suggesting that student participation tends to increase over time as TACs become more established and take on a greater number of projects. The majority of students involved with applied research at the TACs are college students (60%), followed by university undergraduate (18%) and graduate (2%) students. An analysis of CCSIF final reports also indicates a high degree of student participation in funded projects. CCSIF project leads reported engaging a total of 980 college students in their projects, as well as some undergraduate students (n=287), graduate students (n=32), and two projects involved postdoctoral fellows.

TAC Directors and CCSIF project leads noted that, although college students were often the most suitable candidates for applied research activities due to the hands-on focus of many college programs and ease of hiring from within the colleges, it was not uncommon for projects to require support from university students who would often have more and/or diverse experiences and skills for dealing with technical and/or sensitive research topics (e.g., EDI-related). University students were also sometimes engaged by TACs or CCSIF project leads because the college did not have a big enough pool of students to draw upon who would be able to support the applied research activities. Student interviewees who had experience with both college and university training noted that college training was far more hands-on and practical than the typical lecture and lab-based university training. Many students described the applied nature of these experiences as valuable for improving their skills and their overall sense of job-readiness.

Findings from the case studies illustrate that students’ level of participation and involvement varied according to project needs. Although some students were essentially “hired help” on the project (i.e., assigned more administrative tasks, such as document filing and basic data entry), most were highly involved and active participants in almost all phases of the research including interactions with clients in some cases. Case study interviews with students, TAC directors and CCSIF project leads confirmed that students participating in both TACs and CCSIF projects obtained practical, hands-on experience with research-related activities (e.g., data collection and analysis, reporting, collaboration with clients, etc.). These experiences were often described as unique, in large part because of the exposure they offered to client/partner organizations, and the bridge these opportunities created between classroom work and ‘real world’ work environments. As one student explained:

I was still a student, but I was working on this project where I was situated in the middle, between the school and a real work environment. There was still the structure and support I needed as a student, but there was also this lovely transition zone where I could see what it would be like to work in an outside environment with clients. but everything I was learning in my program, I got to use and put in practice in a real community setting....There was a lot of crossover between what I was learning in class and what I got to do on this project; the two were very complementary (CCSIF student)

CCSIF final reports noted that students gained skills in various areas, including research methodology, transcription, literature review, co-production, video production and graphic design. The final reports, for example, noted that students participated in data analysis (83.9%), data collection (80.6%), data entry and networking/outreach/collaborations (71% each). CCSIF project leads also noted that they understood that students gained research skills (93.5%), critical thinking skills (90.3%), communication skills (83.9%) and teaching experience (19.4%). Although a similar breakdown of student activities is not provided through the TAC reports, TAC student interviewees described participating in similar activities, most notably data collection and analysis, data entry, and preparing reports and/or presentations for clients. Many TAC students also spoke about opportunities they had to participate in laboratory work, including learning to use specialized equipment (e.g., imaging equipment and simulators, 3D printers, etc.), collecting and analyzing biological samples, and participating in specialized activities to advance applied research projects for clients (e.g., recipe development, manufacturing, testing prototypes, etc.).

Several students interviewed indicated that they considered and/or pursued further education as a result of their participation in applied research activities via a TAC or CCSIF project. Some students described how their involvement in applied research activities had helped to “open their eyes” to potential career paths in research and the steps required to get there. Others described how the skills and contacts they acquired through these projects increased their confidence to consider future academic studies, noting that they felt better prepared to pursue future work because of their involvement in the funded project. As articulated by one student:

When I went into my Master’s program, I was well prepared. And seeing other people that were in that program with me from different schools...even the ones that had the same degree but offered at different colleges...they did not have the knowledge base that I had. And so, it was very, very helpful. I felt well prepared. And I think...a lot of that was from working on that [CCSIF] project. It just gave me so much more experience. I think I was the only person in my program who had actually worked on a research project before (CCSIF student)

Supporting this, several TAC Directors and CCSIF project leads noted that they had worked with students who expressed a desire to pursue further education and/or to continue working in a field related to their project work. When speaking about a recently completed project, for example, a CCSIF project lead noted that one of their students was accepted into a PhD program based in part on the research experience obtained in this study, two other college students who were hired as RAs have gone on to advanced degree programs, and another RA has received an institutional research award in part due to her participation in CCSIF project work.

With regards to employment, institutional representatives, CCSIF project leads and TAC Directors reported that their students are developing the skills they need to start good careers when they graduate. As illustrated above, when students are provided with the opportunity to participate in applied research activities, they often develop technical and professional skills which they can apply in future jobs. Many students who were interviewed indicated that the acquisition of these skills, combined with the continuity of experience afforded by the projects, provided them with a competitive edge when seeking employment following graduation. In the words of one student:

I’ve gained a lot of experience that I think is really relevant to the job market and will make me competitive for the kinds of jobs I’d like to apply for. The duration of the project has been fantastic - the fact I’ve already been involved for a year and a half means that I have almost 2 years of experience on my resume. Even entry level jobs are looking for 1-2 years of experience, so this has been a really positive step. (CCSIF student)

In their final reports, just over half of CCSIF project leads (58%) reported that students had gained internships or employment because of being involved with the CCSIF project, for a total of 79 students. The TAC client survey found that 61% of respondents were aware of students being involved in their project(s), and 92% of these respondents were satisfied with this involvement. Thirty clients who responded to the survey (about 9% of the 328 respondents) reported having hired one or more students from their projects, with a total of 50 students having been hired in total. About 80% of TAC client respondents had hired students/graduates because they had the knowledge or technical skills required by their organization and were job-ready (67%). As such, they were expected to require less training than other new hires.

Several TAC Directors also spoke about positive employment outcomes for students following their work with a TAC. For instance, one TAC Director described their Centre as an incubator for training and student development, noting that the TAC intentionally recruits and develops students to create a “talent pipeline” for clients (i.e., potential employers). This TAC Director further noted that several college students have been hired by client organizations because of their involvement in applied research projects and services with these organizations. Another TAC Director described the recent hire of a student into a full-time research position at the TAC, and two CCSIF project leads noted that their former students had been hired by partner organizations because of positive experiences and connections formed through the course of project.

The evaluation examined several design and delivery features of the CCIP, and specifically the TAC and CCSIF grants, to understand the extent to which these features support or challenge the program’s efficiency and achievement of expected outcomes.

Overall, many case study and key informant interviewees felt that the eligibility criteria and process for the TAC and CCSIF grants were clear and manageable. For instance, several Institutional representatives and TAC Directors expressed appreciation for NSERC’s streamlined application portal and spoke about the value of the support they received from NSERC and resources available to help navigate the application process. Specifically, TAC Directors spoke about the value of NSERC engagement and having opportunities to ask questions about the application process. This agency support was described as highly beneficial for resolving questions and concerns around the application process. Similarly, many CCSIF project leads commented on support received from NSERC to address questions and facilitate the application process.

Case study participants and key informant interviewees identified some challenges and opportunities to further improve the application process for TAC and CCSIF grants. Evidence from different lines of inquiry pointed to concerns regarding the length of the application, the lack of clarity around the definition of Indigenous partners and other groups that do not clearly fit into the existing categories of ‘government’, ‘private’, and ‘non-profit’ partners, and discrepancies between the definitions used by NSERC and those used by the TACs and/or clients. For example, some TAC Directors who hired university students or students affiliated with other colleges questioned whether these individuals should be counted as “students” in their reporting to NSERC, or if they should be considered technical/research staff for reporting purposes. This lack of clarity can result in confusion and potentially contribute to discrepancies in how metrics are monitored by various TACs and reported back to NSERC.

Challenges for CCSIF grants were primarily related to the involvement of partners and institutional representatives in the application process. For instance, partners named in the application are required to access the online portal to upload supporting documents, including contact information, organization information, and documentation to confirm their project contributions. This can sometimes result in delays and in some cases has deterred partners from participating in projects because they were hesitant to create an online account or found the process onerous or confusing. The requirement to have the institutional representative as the applicant for CCSIF grants and thus the main contact for any communications from NSERC about the application was also considered to by some CCSIF project leads as a challenge that could result in communication delays or miscommunication that could impact the process (e.g., follow-up in the event that something is missing from an application or requires correction). It was suggested by several interviewees that the application process could be improved if project leads were able to submit information on behalf of partners, and/or the application themselves.

When speaking about the TAC and CCSIF grants, the majority of TAC Directors, CCSIF project leads, and other key informant interviewees noted that the value of the grants has not changed since they were first implemented and has not kept pace with inflation. The TAC Directors and CCSIF project leads further expressed that funds do not go as far as they used to, citing added pressure due to rising costs of R&D, salaries and equipment. According to Statistics Canada estimates, the maximum of $120k / year established for CCSIF grants in 2016 would amount to ~$154k in 2025 when indexed to inflation, and the $350k of annual funding established in 2010 for TAC grants53 would be valued at approximately $493k in present dollars when indexed to inflation54. This amount is similar to the $500K a year that many TAC stakeholders expressed as the optimal value for the TAC grants that would more adequately cover their operating costs.

In addition to rising costs of equipment and research, several CCSIF project leads noted that demand for funding for social/community innovation projects is greater than the number of grants available. As a result, the competition for funding is high. Although NSERC administrative data shows that CCSIF application rates have remained relatively stable these numbers may significantly underestimate the demand for these grants, as colleges are limited to submitting a maximum of five CCSIF applications per competition55. Several institutional representatives indicated that interest from faculty at their institution is high, and they often receive more applications than they are able to submit to NSERC. This requires colleges to vet and often reject applications internally in order to meet the application cap for a given competition. In addition to this, NSERC administrative data shows that CCSIF success rates have declined by approximately half since 2019, from approximately 50% to between 23% and 25% for competition years 2021, 2022 and 2023 (see Figure 7, below). Several key informants suggested that NSERC should consider allocating a higher proportion of the CCI budget to CCSIF (i.e., increasing the size of the funding envelope) in order to respond to the demand for funding and fund a higher number of projects that support social/community innovation. Some institutional representatives speculated that this could also allow NSERC to increase the number of CCSIF applications permitted annually per college, or even to remove the cap on CCSIF applications altogether; thereby reducing the burden on colleges to adjudicate which applications they submit and the extent to which they must hold back very strong applications because they have already reached their cap.

Figure 7: CCSIF Success Rates (2017-2023)

Source: CCIP administrative data

Competition Year	2023 (n=98)	2022 (n=112)	2021 (n=117)	2019 (n=109)	2017 (n=92)
Successful	25.5%	23.2%	23.9%	50.5%	46.7%
Unsuccessful	74.5%	76.8%	76.1%	49.5%	53.3%

Most TAC Directors also commented on the value of their grants, noting that although TAC funding helps to support basic operations and “keep the lights on”, it is challenging to secure enough funds to allow for the growth or expansion of services. Furthermore, the funds from other grants (e.g., ARDs) are often just enough to cover project costs, leaving nothing for the TAC’s operating expenses including efforts to expand their research focus and services, which can impact their ability to remain nimble and meet the needs of current and potential clients. Funds from clients are increasingly required to make up the difference when available funds fall short of operating costs. The financial challenges experienced by TACs also extend to recruiting and retaining top talent, as the average salary for many professions has increased over the last decade. As articulated by one TAC Director:

When it comes to subject matter experts at TACs...industry can poach them relatively easily because it looks like their wages and salaries are not always the most competitive. And when you’re funding doesn’t change, any increases [to staffing or research costs] end up being built into your revenue targets. So, then you’re having to secure more revenue just to maintain status quo. (TAC Director)

The static amount of funding provided by the TAC grants was noted by many grantees as an even greater challenge for TACs located in Québec, which have historically received $100K a year to cover the salary of a TAC coordinator. As previously noted, this amount was agreed upon at the outset of the program and was intended to supplement existing funding provided by the government of Québec. Several interviewees, however, noted that provincial funding has decreased in recent years, and it is becoming harder for Québec institutions to cover applied research and operating expenses. A portion of the funding committed to the CCI program by the Federal government in Budget 2023 was used to provide top-up funding to TACs in Québec to help mitigate this shortfall in funding. While some TAC Directors felt that this recent funding top-up provided to TACs in Québec through Budget 2023 has been helpful, they are concerned that funding amounts will return to previous levels and will not be sufficient to cover the rising costs of R&D. A large proportion of interviewees across all stakeholder groups believed that the TAC grants should move to a single funding formula, with all TACs across Canada funded at the same level. Although many interviewees were in favour of funding parity across TACs, some interviewees noted that decisions around this are likely to be complex, since nearly half of currently funded TACs (45.3%) are located in Québec. As such, decisions around funding levels may also need to consider factors such as the number and distribution of TACs across Canada, regional needs, and potential implications for different regions and/or sectors. Given the high demand and competition for funds, some TAC Directors noted, for instance, that NSERC might consider implementing a cap on the number of TACs that are funded at a given time by region or sector (e.g., to reduce duplication or overlap in services in a particular region or sector), or consider strategic positioning of TACs based on their value proposition (for example, NSERC might consider benefits/potential benefits a TAC could bring to an underserviced community, etc.).

Although most TAC Directors, CCSIF project leads and advocacy association interviewees expressed a desire for NSERC to increase the value of the TAC and CCSIF grants, several also recognize that the CCIP has its own budget pressures. They understand that unless there is a long-term and/or permanent increase to the CCIP budget, there will likely be trade-offs between the value of these grants and the number of grants that can be awarded for each competition.

Several challenges around the selection and renewal process for the TAC grants were identified throughout the evaluation, including confusion around the objectives of the TAC grants, criteria for selecting and renewing TACs, having a single adjudication process for both new applicants and TACs seeking renewal (rather than separate criteria and adjudication processes for new applicants versus renewals), and a perceived lack of transparency throughout the process. The criteria and process around TAC renewals was raised as a concern by several interviewees. In 2021, the CCI program began providing opportunities for new TACs to be funded, by accepting applications for new Centres in addition to accepting renewal applications from existing Centres. Although this change was made to expand opportunities for other colleges to receive TAC funding, the program was working with a defined budget. This effectively made the TAC grants more competitive, as a new Centre could only be funded if a Centre was not renewed. Although ongoing funding was never a guarantee, this marked the first time since the program’s inception that some existing TACs were not renewed, and many TAC Directors and some TAC stakeholders indicated that they had been surprised by the unsuccessful applications for renewal, and that this change and implications for existing Centres had not been well communicated to grantees.

Part of the confusion expressed by TAC Directors is centered around the objectives of the TAC grants and the feeling that these objectives are no longer clear to members of the TAC community. While the grants originally focused on supporting the establishment of the TACs, developing relationships with local and regional organizations, and engaging in applied R&D to support business innovation, recent changes within the CCIP were perceived to have shifted the focus of the program and by default the TAC grants. Such changes include the broadening of eligible partners, and a stronger focus on supporting students and EDI. Although many TAC Directors and stakeholders perceive these to be positive changes, there is some ongoing confusion about whether, and the extent to which, these changes are considered and formally assessed during the selection and renewal process for TAC grants.

The documentation is clear, but applicants do not know against what criteria they will be scored...the requirements shifted so dramatically as to make one wonder what is meaningful and what isn’t. (TAC Director)

The perceived lack of clarity around the objectives of the TAC grants was also connected to recent competitions during which TACs seeking renewal were assessed alongside applications for new TACs. Several interviewees questioned whether NSERC’s primary interest is the establishment of new TACs, to maintain existing TACs that continue meeting industry needs, or to encourage further innovation and growth of expertise at existing TACs. It was noted that this confusion created challenges for several TACs when they prepared for renewal, as they were uncertain about where to focus their metrics and reporting to demonstrate their achievements and remain competitive. Several TAC Directors also expressed a lack of understanding about what circumstances, as established centres, would render their applications unsuccessful when assessed against an application for a new TAC, and questioned why established TACs were assessed alongside new applicants.

It is only after the first five years that we know about market interest and how [we] can pivot to meet market demand.... We have 54 months of evidence of what worked and didn’t, and at that point we can face reality of whether we can or should continue. [NSERC is] using the same evaluation criteria for new applicants, but how can you compare the two together? If we can evaluate the [new and renewal] applications within their own streams...some will not succeed, on both sides, but at least they're being evaluated against their same-stage peers (TAC Director)

Several TAC Directors and stakeholders also felt that there was a lack of transparency around selection and renewal decisions. Although NSERC provides one year of wind-down funding to TACs that aren’t renewed, some TAC Directors still noted that it is difficult for them to plan ahead, particularly given the time required to hire and train staff. Several TAC Directors also identified challenges in retaining top talent in the face of uncertain funding, as many of these personnel are in high demand and may be seeking longer-term or permanent employment commitments. To mitigate the issues around the TAC selection and renewal process, it was suggested that NSERC explicitly communicate the objectives of the TAC grants and criteria for selecting new and renewing existing TACs including providing clear scoring criteria and ensuring timely communication of funding decisions. A large majority of TAC Directors and TAC stakeholders also advocated for a separate process for selecting new TACs and renewing existing TACs.

Although the TAC and CCSIF grants do not have formal cost-sharing requirements, there is an expectation that clients and partner organizations will contribute in tangible ways to projects they undertake that are supported by these grants. Specifically, partner organizations engaged in CCSIF projects are expected to collaborate actively in the project’s research, and to provide either cash and/or in-kind contributions to support activities directly related to the research56, while TAC clients are expected to pay for innovation support and research services offered by the TAC on a fee-for-service or cost-recovery basis. Furthermore, if the TAC receives funding from other sources (for example, through a CCI Applied Research and Development (ARD) grant), client organizations may be required by the TAC to provide cash and/or in-kind contributions to meet the cost-sharing requirements set forth in the terms and conditions of those grants57. Almost all of the feedback received regarding CCSIF partner contribution requirements was positive. All CCSIF project leads appreciated the flexibility of the grants, and many commented that the lack of a cost-sharing requirement and the ability to allocate a portion of funds to offset58 helped to facilitate partner involvement in CCSIF projects.

As mentioned above, although the TAC grants do not have a formal cost-sharing requirement, there is an expectation that TACs will generate additional revenue to sustain and grow their activities. TACs typically accomplish this by operating on a fee for service or cost-recovery business model, in addition to leveraging other grants. When asked about the costs associated with engaging a TAC, feedback was mixed across evaluation participants. For instance, it was felt by several TAC Directors and many clients that it is important to have some kind of cost-sharing expectation for clients as it demonstrates their commitment to engage with the TACs and see their project through. Many TAC clients also described the costs associated with engaging the TAC as appropriate and feasible, and expressed feeling that they had received good value for their investment.

We were pleasantly surprised…how little [the cost-sharing formula] was. It was attainable…. Obviously, it would be phenomenal if it was lower [cost] on our end because as a small business there’s not really a lot that we can leverage when it comes to cash flow, but it felt good. I also appreciate that us having a little bit of money in the pot means that we have something to lose if things aren’t kept up with on our end. There needs to be some ownership on our part. (TAC client)

While the financial contribution requirements do not pose a problem for all clients, approximately 23% of respondents to the TAC client survey (n=56) indicated that the cost to participate in a project or service had inhibited their ability to work with a TAC. Several TAC Directors, institutional representatives and TAC clients noted that SMEs often do not have a lot of capital to invest in R&D. Even when the TACs are able to leverage other grants to support a specific applied research project, many of these grants have cost-sharing requirements which can pose a challenge for some clients, particularly small businesses, start-ups and not-for-profits. For instance, the CCIP ARD grants have a cost-sharing requirement that requires partners to contribute at least 25% of the grant amount. This can subsequently limit the extent to which TACs are able to work on applied research projects focused on the social sciences, humanities and health-related fields, which typically involved not-for-profit community-based organizations. Cost sharing requirements can also limit the extent to which TACs located in remote areas are able to engage potential clients, as they often have a smaller client base that they can access and may work in sectors that traditionally generate less revenue.

[Community partners] don’t have the money that the private sector partner does to put in. So, I think...it’s great that the TAC program changed to put more focus [on] working with community partners and not-for-profits. At the same time, with such a focus on [measuring] how much money you’re bringing in, it’s harder to want to chase a lot of those clients when you know they’re not going to be able to bring a lot of cash to the table. (TAC Director)

[In our] sector, companies make no money. So, the fact that we convince them to spend what little money they bring in on our services I think is great, but the average project value will always be small because they can’t afford to do giant 2-year projects all the time…. So, I think the sector is a bit of an extra challenge when it comes to the revenue, and also geographical location…if you’re a remote TAC and your industry is something niche, it’s hard. (TAC Director)

Since the last evaluation of the CCIP, NSERC implemented several changes to the reporting requirements for the TAC grants to streamline the process and reduce the burden on the colleges. Notably, the mid-term (i.e., 30-month) report was discontinued in 2019-20, and TACs were no longer required by NSERC to maintain an advisory board to monitor their activities. While many TAC Directors and several key informants indicated that they appreciated the changes made, some missed the mid-term report, which they found useful for monitoring their progress and obtaining feedback from NSERC to prepare their grant renewal application. Some TAC Directors also noted that their Centre retained their advisory board to oversee TAC activities and missed having NSERC’s participation on the board59. It was felt that the loss of the mid-term report and NSERC’s participation on advisory boards reduced program oversight. As a result, it was harder for TACs to know if they were "on track" and meeting performance expectations to remain competitive in the renewal process. Some TAC Directors also noted that with the loss of these ”contact points”, NSERC is generally less visible to the TACs, and some described a perception that there is less agency support for the TACs overall due to the reduced reporting requirements and NSERC advisory board participation.

Additionally, some TAC Directors and stakeholders felt that there were challenges with the monitoring and reporting of their grants as a result of a perceived disconnect between the metrics of the TAC grants and changes to the CCIP. In particular, it was noted that the end of grant report for the TAC grants continues to favour metrics related to business innovation and outcomes (e.g., increased jobs, revenue) and is not reflective of the CCIP’s focus on EDI or innovation in other areas (e.g., community). When coupled with a lack of clarity regarding the definition of certain terms (e.g., students, partners) and inconsistencies in the metrics required by NSERC and those required by other funders (e.g., number of hours that students were involved in projects versus number of training contracts), the reporting process for the TACs became even more complicated and the data were not always readily available (i.e., in the event that a term had been misinterpreted) or useful for the TAC’s performance monitoring.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) are federal priorities for Canada’s innovation, science, and industry ecosystem60 and it has been shown that research and innovation work best when they consider different viewpoints and expertise. Moreover, inclusive environments are essential to help ensure fair access to education, careers, and funding for everyone. In 2018, the Tri-agency implemented an EDI action plan that aims to help drive EDI-related changes in Canada’s post-secondary research landscape. In response to this commitment from the Tri-agency, the CCIP announced in 2019 its own support for a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive Canadian research enterprise. Although this evaluation focused on the TAC and CCSIF grants, it is important to note that the EDI requirements described in this report extend to all grants in the CCIP.

To facilitate the incorporation of EDI principles in all of its grants, the CCIP developed several guides for the colleges61 and hosted webinars to provide additional details and answer questions from the college community. The CCIP also implemented EDI-related criteria for selecting grant recipients, which required colleges to identify how they would integrate EDI considerations into their CCIP-funded activities, and CCIP recipients were required to sign a statement on Indigenous research and training62. Part of the evaluation of the CCIP involved examining efforts by the colleges to build EDI-related capacity and the extent to which colleges understand the CCIP’s EDI requirements.

A large majority of TAC Directors, CCSIF project leads, institutional representatives, and other key informants highlighted the important work being done in colleges to build EDI capacity, particularly around hiring and retention and in their applied research activities. Efforts being made include developing and implementing sustainable and equitable employment opportunities and processes to increase the diversity of teams involved in applied research activities, developing relationships with diverse groups of clients including Indigenous organizations and communities, as well as integrating EDI-related considerations into the research conducted. At the time of the evaluation, most institutions that participated as a case study had developed an institutional EDI plan, policies and practices to promote equitable and inclusive hiring of employees and students, EDI-related training and/or implemented a dedicated EDI office.

While some institutions were still in the early days of developing EDI capacity, others were quite advanced. In the latter case, several of the colleges who participated in interviews and case studies had received funding through NSERC’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Institutional Capacity Building Grant (EDICap) to build their EDI capacity and/or had participated in the pilot of NSERC’s Dimensions Program, which was a federal Tri-agency initiative to help postsecondary institutions break down systemic barriers and enable them to contribute to creating a culture where EDI is embedded across all aspects of research. As a result of their EDICap grant and/or participation in Dimensions, these colleges were able to provide EDI guidance and mentorship when approached by other colleges.

When it comes to building a diverse team and integrating EDI into applied research activities, some TAC Directors and institutional representatives indicated that it can be a challenge when working in rural or remote communities or when they need someone with a certain skill set, as there may be a limited number of people who would be interested in working in that location and/or who have the required expertise. A few CCSIF project leads described ways in which they had embedded EDI considerations within their research design. For example, one project involved designing a wearable technology to increase job safety on construction sites, which was piloted with research participants who identified as having a disability and/or had previously sustained workplace injuries to ensure this product would meet their needs and pass safety testing with different body types. A second phase of this project is planned to further adapt this technology for women. Outside of these examples, however, very few TAC Directors and CCSIF project leads spoke about how EDI is incorporated into their applied research activities (e.g., research topic, questions, data collection, etc.), suggesting that this is an area for further capacity-building within Canadian colleges. In addition, several TAC Directors and institutional representatives highlighted new and/or ongoing work with Indigenous partners, and spoke about how they have adapted their approach to R&D (e.g., by allowing more time for relationship building and incorporating Indigenous knowledge and/or alternate methodologies), and have focused on increasing Indigenous representation within the colleges and/or TACs. These actions are well aligned with the Tri-agency strategic plan to support Indigenous research and research training models63, as well as with the CCIP’s commitment to supporting research that respectfully involves and engages First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples64.

When asked about the extent to which CCIP EDI requirements are understood at the colleges, responses were mixed. Several institutional representatives, TAC Directors, and CCSIF project leads indicated that they were aware of webinars and resources provided by NSERC and found these resources to be clear and helpful. The biggest challenge experienced when it came to the EDI requirements implemented by the CCIP, was the integration of EDI within the application and selection process for grants. For instance, there was uncertainty as to what information and level of detail was required for the EDI-related section of the application, particularly because EDI is embedded and evaluated in multiple sections of the proposal. Consequently, this section seemed repetitive, and it was suggested that NSERC should simplify the application by removing these repetitive sections.

I think there are a few points where people tend to miss what they’re supposed to do, or they sort of repeat themselves in a couple of sections. In particular, there’s the training section that talks about EDI...and then in the applied research competence there’s a section around how EDI is built into building your team. I think a lot of colleges repeat themselves [and] differentiating what they’re looking for in those areas would be better. (TAC Director)

There was also some uncertainty as to how EDI information in the application is assessed by NSERC and members of the selection committee and a few evaluation participants reported contradictions in the feedback they received from committee members regarding their EDI information, within and across proposals. For instance, what was deemed sufficient in one proposal or by one reviewer might not be deemed sufficient in another proposal. These uncertainties led to concerns that perceived differences among selection committee members regarding the quality of the EDI information in a proposal could specifically disadvantage colleges that have less EDI capacity and experience, which is likely to include smaller colleges and colleges located in rural and remote areas that have less access to diverse populations and have difficulty recruiting individuals with EDI expertise65.

During the evaluation, there were also questions raised about the reporting requirements with respect to EDI. The lack of NSERC-proposed metrics for EDI created challenges for grant recipients and many TAC Directors, CCSIF project leads, and institutional representatives expressed ongoing confusion as to whether they should report at the institutional, TAC or project level, how they should identify and share their EDI-related successes, and how these successes would be judged by NSERC. This sense of confusion was particularly acute for some TAC Directors who were worried about how their EDI-related work and successes would be judged when seeking grant renewal. It was requested that NSERC provide examples of what it constitutes as “good” EDI metrics and practices, and potential targets if any are expected.

A cost-efficiency analysis was conducted as part of the evaluation to determine the extent to which the CCI program overall has been delivered in an efficient manner. This analysis includes both the administrative and grant expenditures for the CCIP66 between 2017-18 and 2022-23. As illustrated in Table 6, the operating ratio for the CCIP was relatively stable from 2017-18 to 2019-20, and decreased over the past two years, likely because of additional funds allocated to the program in 2018 and 2021.

For the CCIP, administrative expenditures were examined in relation to grant expenditures to calculate the cost in cents to administer the program for every $1 granted. From 2017-18 to 2022-23, the cost of administering the CCIP averaged less than 5₵ per $1 granted. Overall, it appears that the CCIP is administered in a cost-efficient manner.  Operating ratios have been relatively stable, with slightly lower ratios reported in 2021-22 and 2022-23 compared to the four years prior (from 2017-18 to 2020-21).

Source: CCIP financial administrative data from 2017-18 to 2022-23.

The CCIP’s key objectives of supporting Canadian colleges in developing and strengthening their collaborations with partner organizations, their capacity for applied research, and their ability to provide innovative solutions to local and regional challenges remain relevant and continue to align with federal government priorities. Moreover, the program’s increased focus on student training and supporting EDI considerations in applied research reinforce NSERC’s goals of expanding, diversifying and nurturing Canada’s talent pool. Evaluation findings illustrate that the number of colleges seeking funding from the CCIP has increased since the last evaluation and that the program is still unique within the postsecondary research ecosystem as it remains one of the only dedicated funding sources for applied research at Canadian colleges. The TAC and CCSIF grants offered by the CCIP are also unique, with the CCSIF focusing on community innovation and the TAC grants providing operational supports instead of project support. While the federal government has increased the overall budget for the CCIP in recent years, its budget continues to be a small proportion of the overall budget for the three granting councils, at approximately 2-3%. Additionally, the funding provided is often short-term (i.e., providing a single, time-limited budget infusion), which limits how the funds can be used to support program activities. For instance, it is challenging for the program to make a commitment to increase the number of TAC grants when a time-limited budget injection does not align with the duration of the grant, particularly since these are multi-year grants

The development of strong partnerships to advance applied R&D in service of local communities is a key objective of the CCIP, and colleges play an important role in helping community partners and local organizations find solutions that respond to their needs. The findings from this evaluation demonstrate that TACs and CCSIF projects have engaged a wide range of clients and partners from the private, not-for-profit and government sectors. Once engaged with a TAC or a as part of a CCSIF project, clients/partners often become involved in applied research activities, which can facilitate the achievement of business or social innovation as it allows TAC Directors and CCSIF project leads to better understand the needs of their clients/partners and the potential impact of their applied research activities within real-world social and business environments. Other potential benefits of these partnerships include demonstrating the value of investing in R&D and fostering new connections. There were, however, some challenges to these partnerships, namely the ability  availability of clients/partners to allocate time to participate in applied research activities, the speed at which research activities can be conducted and results produced, the alignment of this timing with the needs of client organizations, and challenges maintaining partner relationships when there is staff and/or faculty turnover.

The CCSIF grants are the key mechanism for Tri-agency support of a wide variety of applied social innovation projects at Canadian colleges that address a range of topics, including self-esteem and positive identity in young girls, future agricultural needs, caregiver burden and safe drinking water. Funded projects resulted in the development of a number of products, including toolkits, community resources, reports, briefs, manuals, worksheets, checklists, pedagogical tools, best practice guides, workshops, presentations, books and artistic creations. These projects are also producing tangible community innovation and social outcomes such as capacity building and skills development, knowledge generation and mobilization, improved quality of life and wellbeing, policy changes and technological innovations. A majority of partners described their CCSIF projects as successful, and as contributing in positive ways to a variety of community partners.

The TAC grants are supporting both business innovation and economic development by providing colleges and industry partners the opportunity to work together in a wide variety of areas. The majority of clients who worked with a TAC reported satisfaction with their overall experience, as well as the services received and the results of their project. Some of the key results of working with a TAC included creating new or improving an existing product, prototype, service or technology, facilitating future business or research directions, accelerating the time to bring a product/service or technology to market, improving the organization’s productivity and competitive position, as well as enhancing the organization’s knowledge base, R&D capacity and receptivity to R&D activities. Findings from the evaluation also illustrate several economic benefits of working with a TAC, including increased revenues and improved access to markets. Interview and TAC client survey data were well supported by a large-scale econometric study, which showed significant increases in revenues and employment for small companies that engaged the services of a TAC, relative to matched companies that did not work with a TAC.

Students also often play a pivotal role in applied research activities conducted in Canadian colleges. When engaged, students receive valuable training opportunities that help them build technical, professional and soft skills to improve job-readiness and build their network of potential employers. Through the evaluation case studies and key informant interviews, it was learned that students participating in both TACs and CCSIF projects obtained practical, hands-on experience with research-related activities and gained skills in various areas including research methodology, data collection and analysis, and knowledge mobilization. For some students the experience of working with a TAC or on a CCSIF project resulted in jobs, at times with a client/partner, while other students leveraged their experience to pursue further education opportunities or a career path in research.

The CCIP remains a cost-efficient program with an average operating ratio of approximately 4.9₵ per $1 of grant funding awarded. Several design and delivery features of the CCIP and its grants were identified throughout the evaluation as contributing to the program’s efficiency and its successful outcomes. Such features include, but are not limited to, efforts to streamline the application with the new portal, flexible use of CCSIF funding, reducing the reporting burden for TACs, a lack of formal cost-sharing requirements for clients/partners involved in TAC and CCSIF funded activities, and the support offered by NSERC staff. Many evaluation participants were also supportive of the program’s increased focus on student training and EDI considerations, the guides developed to support the integration of EDI considerations in research, as well as the opportunity to work with clients/partners from a variety of sectors.

At the same time, the evaluation revealed some challenges and opportunities to improve certain design and delivery features of the TAC and CCSIF grants. Notably, the value of these grants has remained unchanged since the program’s inception and have not kept pace with inflation. As a result, colleges are finding it more difficult to cover rising R&D costs, and there are calls for TACs in Québec to receive the same amount of funding as TACs located in the rest of Canada. Moreover, there is a high demand for both the CCSIF and TAC grants resulting in declining success rates. The increased competition for TAC funding has resulted in calls for greater clarity and transparency around the CCIP’s objectives for the TACs, as well as the TAC selection and renewal process. It was also suggested that NSERC consider separate adjudication processes for selecting new TACs and renewal of funded TACs.

Additional challenges and opportunities for improvement identified throughout the evaluation include considering ways to better support partners through the application process (e.g., by permitting researchers to enter information or upload supporting documents on their behalf), and clarifying some of the definitions in the applications, particularly around partners and students. Some TAC Directors and stakeholders also requested more oversight and guidance from NSERC throughout the grant and as they prepare for renewal, and a recognition that the cost-sharing model and reporting metrics may not be conducive for TACs when working with community partners or in rural or remote locations. Finally, there are opportunities to streamline and clarify expectations related to EDI in the application and selection process for CCIP grants.

Findings discussed in this report, particularly those related to the design and delivery features of the TAC and CCSIF grants, led to the identification of three recommendations to help ensure that the CCIP continues to achieve its objectives of supporting applied research and strengthening collaborations between Canadian colleges and partners from the private, public and not-for-profit sectors, with a common goal of creating economic, social, health and environmental benefits for Canada.

Review the value and number of TAC and CCSIF grants as well as the design and delivery of the TAC grants, considering the evolving innovation ecosystem and maturing college applied research capacity, to ensure it aligns with Canadian federal government priorities. This includes consideration of the distribution of TAC grants across Canada and the possibility of a single funding model for all TACs, as well as clarifying the process for assessing TAC renewals vs. new TAC applications.

One of the most notable opportunities for improvement identified throughout the evaluation was the value of the TAC and CCSIF grants, which have not changed since their inception in 2010 and 2016, respectively. Therefore, the grants have not kept up with inflation and have approximately 30% less purchasing power than they did when first implemented. The evaluation found that the static amount of the grants has resulted in challenges for TACs and CCSIF project leads to cover the increasing costs associated with conducting applied research, including difficulties for TACs with respect to hiring and retaining research personnel, managing operational costs and branching into new areas of R&D. Such challenges could negatively impact the extent to which TACs are able to meet the innovation needs of Canadian organizations and generate economic and social benefits for Canadians. Given the high demand and competition for both TAC and CCSIF grants, NSERC could also consider reviewing the number of grants awarded. In the absence of new funding for the program, however, any decisions regarding the value and number of grants would need to be considered in tandem, and considered in conjunction with the demand for other CCI funding opportunities.

When making decisions about the value of the TAC grants, the CCIP should consider potential changes to the grant funding model including the number of grants that will be funded across regions and the possibility of a single funding model for all TACs. The program should also consider clarifying the process for assessing TAC renewal applications against applications for new TACs, and considering separate processes for these two given their respective stages of development, value propositions and available performance data. These considerations have implications for the overall TAC budget, and potential future criteria for assessing grant renewals and new TAC applications. Any decisions made regarding the funding model (including the number and value of grants), objectives, and selection criteria for the TAC grants should be clearly communicated to Canadian colleges and their stakeholders.

Update the reporting instruments for the TAC and CCSIF grants to reflect expected program outcomes and improve performance monitoring. This includes clarifying definitions of students and partners, integrating clear metrics regarding EDI and student training, and considering ways to further improve the systematic collection of quality data across CCIP grants.

There is an opportunity for NSERC to further strengthen the extent to which reporting instruments for the TAC and CCSIF grants reflect and align with the CCIP objectives and logic model. In particular, NSERC could examine opportunities to further integrate and streamline criteria related to EDI and student training into the program’s reporting instruments (e.g., end of grant reports), which are relatively new considerations for the CCIP. This examination is also an opportunity for the program to review the current reporting instruments for the TAC and CCSIF grants as the evaluation identified several inconsistencies across these instruments including their terminology and metrics, which challenges the utility of the data. For instance, there are opportunities for NSERC to clarify the definitions of students and partners, and what information is sought to better understand the integration of EDI in TACs and funded applied research projects. Changes to the reporting instruments should ensure that measures are clear, feasible to collect and useful for supporting learning and decision-making by the college and NSERC. Revising these instruments would allow the program to align the various reports across stakeholder groups and points in time, as well as with similar instruments for other grants within the CCIP and other programs within SSHRC, CIHR, and NSERC’s Research and Technology Partnerships Directorate.

Strengthen communications with and to the college community with a focus on clarifying information about the CCIP, namely the TAC and CCSIF grants. This includes improving the transparency, consistency and clarity of information about the application process, selection criteria, and the review process for TAC and/or CCSIF grants. There are also opportunities to clarify program expectations and objectives of the TAC grants in order to better support Canadian colleges with respect to change management and the evolving college funding landscape. 

The evaluation found that in recent years there has been some confusion among TAC and CCSIF grant recipients and stakeholders regarding the application, selection and review processes for the TAC and CCSIF grants, including some confusion on changes made to one or more of these processes. For instance, it was unclear why partners were now required to participate in the application process, which created delays and sometimes deterred partners from engaging with colleges on an applied research project. Given recent changes to the TAC grants (e.g., reduced reporting requirements, addition of student training and EDI criteria, expansion of eligible partner types) combined with a more competitive application process, some interviewees feel that the objectives of the TAC grants are no longer clear. Specifically, it would be helpful for NSERC to communicate any shifts in objectives or expectations for these grants, and to clarify whether the priority of the grants is to support the establishment of new TACs, to maintain existing TACs that continue meeting industry needs, or to encourage further innovation and growth of expertise at existing TACs (for example, through reaching new markets, expanding EDI efforts or services offered, etc.). 

Additionally, while most TAC Directors, CCSIF project leads, institutional representatives and representatives from advocacy associations spoke positively about their relationship with NSERC and the support received, they also noted some opportunities for improvement. In particular, some TAC Directors and stakeholders felt that that the absence of NSERC’s participation on the TAC advisory boards and discontinuing the mid-grant report reduced NSERC’s presence and sometimes perceived support of TACs. As a result, it was felt that TACs had less access to NSERC and were not aware of expectations for grant renewal. It was suggested that NSERC examine opportunities to revise the literature for the TAC and CCSIF grants, to clarify its adjudication processes and criteria for funding and renewals, as well as to clarify program expectations for TACs (e.g., clear articulation of how many Centres will be funded, expected rate of growth for new TACs). Furthermore, there is an opportunity for the agency develop or expand its presence and support for colleges, by offering increased guidance, tools, and training for applicants and selection committee members to help each group navigate the application and review process.

As the CCSIF grants were relatively new at the time of the last evaluation67, some projects funded prior to April 2017 were included to assess their longer-term outcomes. Additionally, seven of the 13 institutions that participated in a case study for this evaluation were also the subject of a case study in the last evaluation, which provided a longitudinal perspective of their progress and outcomes with respect to applied R&D activities and capacity building. This stratified sampling also allowed for a more balanced view of outcomes and perspectives between grantees holding long-term funding, versus those that have been more recently funded.

To respect the key tenets of reconciliation, 8 CCSIF projects explicitly identified by the principal investigator or identified through a key word search as centering around Indigenous populations, communities and/or research topics were scoped out of this evaluation68. These projects will be examined at a later date using culturally appropriate evaluation methods that center Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, and priorities.

Through the key informant interviews and case studies, interviews were conducted with a series of different stakeholders, both internal and external to the CCIP. The purpose of these interviews was to gain qualitative insights into the program’s ongoing relevance, design and delivery, effectiveness, and impact. Table 8, below, presents the scale used to quantify and describe qualitative data throughout this report (including both internal and external stakeholders).

Some limitations and challenges, along with corresponding mitigation strategies for the evaluation of the CCIP, are presented in Table 9, below.