1 / 20

Objective Review

Objective Review. Health Resources and Services Administration Division of Independent Review September 26, 2004. Introduction. Division of Independent Review (DIR) Established January 2003 Purpose: to centralize the objective grants review process for HRSA. Responsibility of DIR.

denise
Télécharger la présentation

Objective Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Objective Review Health Resources and Services Administration Division of Independent Review September 26, 2004

  2. Introduction • Division of Independent Review (DIR) • Established January 2003 • Purpose: to centralize the objective grants review process for HRSA

  3. Responsibility of DIR • Plan, direct, and carry out HRSA’s independent review process of applications for discretionary grants and cooperative agreements

  4. Types of Review • Face-to-face meeting • Teleconference • Field reader review

  5. Grant Reviewer Selection • Reviewer expertise / specialty • Health profession training • HIV / AIDS • Maternal and child health • Organ transplantation • Primary care for underserved people • Rural health

  6. Grant Reviewer Selection (continued) • Program collaboration • Representation by • Race / ethnicity • Gender • Geographic locale • Reviewer experience

  7. Reviewer Requirements • Avoid conflict of interest • Maintain confidentiality

  8. What Constitutes a Conflict? • The reviewer is a consultant on any application • The reviewer or their immediate family member: • Serves as an officer, director, trustee, partner or employee of an applicant • Is negotiating employment with an applicant • Has a financial interest in the application • Has a known close friendship or relationship with key applicant staff

  9. Reviewer Confidentiality • No discussion outside meeting rooms • All results are confidential • All application materials & papers are destroyed • Confidentiality exists at all times – before, during, and after the meeting

  10. Application Evaluation by Reviewer • Evaluate each application on it own merits • No outside information • Avoid personal bias

  11. Roles and Responsibilities

  12. Reviewer • Read and be thoroughly familiar with the application and the guidance • Develop the proposal overview presentation (specifically first reviewer) • Evaluate and score the applications against the published review criteria

  13. Reviewer (continued) • Participate in open panel discussion • Develop consensus of strengths and weaknesses with panel members • Score all applications and submit score sheets

  14. Chairperson • Facilitate the review panel meeting • Keep the discussion focused and on the specifics • Listen to each reviewer’s presentation for completeness and consistency • Act as timekeeper

  15. Chairperson (continued) • Minimize redundant or circular discussion • Facilitate budget discussions • Obtain a general level of consensus

  16. HRSA Staff Roles & Responsibilities • DIR Review Administrator • Guide, oversee, and certify the integrity of the objective review process • Program Office / Project Officers • Respond to specific technical and programmatic issues • Grants Management Office • Respond to fiscal issues related to the application

  17. Reviewers’ Summary Statements • Developed and edited by the panel • Reflects the panel’s consensus • Gives supporting examples, where appropriate (including page numbers) • Goal is to provide constructive feedback

  18. DIR Products • Summary Statement • Rank Order List • List of Applicant Scores, in Rank Order, from Highest to Lowest • Rank is Established by Scoring Criteria, plus Priority Points and Funding Preferences (if any)

  19. Funding Priorities and Preferences • Funding Priorities • Factors specified in program guidance that cause a grant application to receive a fixed amount of extra rating points added to its criterion score • Funding Preference • Any factors specified in law, policies, or guidance that would be used to place a grant application ahead of others without the preference on the rank order list

  20. Questions?

More Related