Search

rss rss rss rss rss rss

Fractured Prism

Welcome to the Fractured Prism. This is my domain (I love the sound of that, kind of like my kingdom), where I will share reflections of the many facets of my life. At the very least, I am a daughter, wife, mother, grandmother, friend, homemaker, teacher, counselor, and grant writer. Through the years, I have been professionally cut and polished or just accidental fractured into thousands of pieces and have thoughts about them all. I have found that I am writing for many reasons but mostly to share my small bits of wisdom. Come back often because each reflection will be different. My ultimate goal is to have a place where grant writers, grant reviewers and funders can network. So if you are into grant writing or grant reviewing please leave your name and email. Linda Beason

Peer Reviews

The peer review section is provided for those who are interested in being peer reviewers. I am not sure that all the contact information is current but you can always call the office and get current information.

Other Sources for Fractured Prism Articles:

As Featured in eZineArticles.com

Category: Peer Reviews

Lux Consulting Group, Inc. Reviews and Published Funding Opportunity Announcements

Connect with Lux Consulting Group, Inc. staff and grant application reviewers, as well as learn about published Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA’s) and grant review opportunties on Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/ACF-Grant-Reviewers/200641269949731?sk=info#!/pages/ACF-Grant-Reviewers/200641269949731?sk=wall

Lux is a great group to work with on reviews!

https://www.acfgo.com/public/sitePage.aspx?key=Home

Leave Your Comments »

Office of University Partnerships’ (OUP) Peer Reviews

(Thanks to K. JEVON CHAMBERS, Th.D., CHAMBERS CONSULTING GROUP!)

Each year, the Office of University Partnerships’ (OUP) sends out a request for academic professionals who are interested in and qualified to serve as peer reviewers to score the applications received each funding cycle for funded grant programs. 

This year, they have three individual reviews: one online review for Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant (DDRG) program and two onsite reviews, held in Washington, D.C., for minority-serving institutions (MSI) programs. The first peer review will consist of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) program; the second will include Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities (AN/NHIAC), Hispanic-Serving Institutions Assisting Communities (HSIAC), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), and Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP) grants. The third peer review will be conducted online for the Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant (DDRG) program.

http://oup.org/2011reviewer/reviewerform.asp

Leave Your Comments »

National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Peer Reviews

K. JEVON CHAMBERS, Th.D., CHAMBERS CONSULTING GROUP sends me information about reviews that I will share with you.  Also I am going to post a link to his site.  Thanks Kevin!

The Panelist/Reviewer Information System (PRISM) is a database of prospective reviewers used by the staff of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The NEH peer review system relies on the advice of humanities scholars and experts in other relevant fields. The information you provide will be used only by the NEH for the purpose of identifying and selecting panelists and reviewers. If you have questions, see the Instructions or the PRISM Frequently Asked Questions.

https://securegrants.neh.gov/prism/

Leave Your Comments »

Call for Reviewers for Head Start Body Start – Play Space Grant Awards

Call for Reviewers

HSBS 2011 Grant Award Program
 
Head Start Body Start receives hundreds of proposals for Play Space Grant Awards. Selected reviewers will score the proposals to ensure they are complete and align with the expectations of Head Start Body Start.  
 
The program needs volunteers with experience in the fields of early childhood education and movement, playgrounds and facilities, and other related fields. Reviews will be conducted in June every year through 2012. If you are interested in reviewing proposals, contact headstartbodystart@aahperd.org;  subject line: “Play Space Reviewer.”
(Thanks to K. Jevon Chambers)

Leave Your Comments »

Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS) Seeking Peer Reviewers

 The U.S. Department of Justice is recruiting Indian country professionals to serve as peer reviewers for Fiscal Year 2011. The Department is particularly interested in recruiting individuals from the following professions/disciplines:

Law enforcement

Prosecution

Corrections

Judges

Tribal court administrators

Victim advocates

Child welfare professionals

Attorneys

Probation officers

Mental health and substance abuse professionals

Individuals who are interested in being considered as a reviewer must be knowledgeable about tribal cultural beliefs, traditions, and practices, and must be able to demonstrate an expert level of understanding of at least one of the following issues:

Tribal court development and administration;

Community policing;Elder abuse;

Prevention programming for at-risk youth, including truancy and drop-out prevention activities, as well as pro-social skills building for adolescent girls;

Juvenile detention and reentry programming;

Sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking;

Child sexual abuse;

Services for children who witness violence, including trauma education and therapy;

Civil legal assistance needs of victims of violence against women;

Developing and operating safe homes, shelter programs, and transitional housing assistance programs for victims of violence against women; or

Developing and administering drug and alcohol prevention programs

Interested individuals already in the OJP Peer Reviewer Database need only make sure their current profile is up to date reflecting any applicable tribal experience. Individuals new to the peer review process may submit a copy of their curriculum vitae or resume for consideration to Vicky.Tsaparas@usdoj.gov.

__________________________________________

The Department will review your credentials and will contact you if your expertise is needed for this year’s peer review process. All non-federal reviewers will be compensated for their work, and will be expected to commit to participating in a review process that will take place both online as well as by phone.

 

Leave Your Comments »

PEER REVIEW OPPORTUNITY FOR THE 2011 YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ZONE COMPETITION

The Corporation for National and Community Service (Corporation) is seeking qualified individuals to participate in peer review for the Youth Engagement Zones grant competition!  This competition and consequently the review are subject to the availability of appropriations for fiscal year 2011.

Needed Areas of Expertise

The Corporation is looking for individuals with extensive experience in service-learning, knowledge of programs targeting college access for underrepresented youth, understanding of how to align academic curriculum with content standards, and experience applying positive youth development principles to programming for middle and high school students. 

Because the Youth Engagement Zone Funding Opportunity Notice seeks grant applications that specifically align with the priority areas stated in the Serve America Act; accordingly, reviewers will need five or more years of demonstrated experience in service-learning and Education.

What to Expect

Youth Engagement Zone Peer Review      Monday, April 4 – Wednesday April 20, 2011
(estimated 40-50 hour commitment)   

 Orientation sessions will be held prior to Peer Review. Once confirmed, you will receive updates with additional information.

The FY2011 Youth Engagement Zone grant competition Peer Review is utilizing a distance-based Field Review model, allowing Reviewers to collaborate and complete their review responsibilities remotely, eliminating the need to travel or meet in person for participation in the review.

Each Reviewer will be assigned to a review panel, will read and assess their assigned applications individually, and participate in panel discussions regarding those applications.

Some Review Participants are asked to serve as panel Facilitators who coordinate with Corporation staff to chair their review panel, facilitate panel discussions, and summarize applications’ strengths and weaknesses.

The review process lasts two to three weeks and may require 40-50 hours of work to complete. There are mandatory panel calls and orientation and training sessions that may require alterations to your normal schedule.

Reviewers will download, share, and print the review documents and applications using an online collaboration tool.

The Corporation offers Reviewers and Facilitators an honorarium for their participation in a grant review. The honorarium amount varies, but begins at $700.  Unfortunately, federal employees are not eligible to receive honorarium. 

How to Respond

If you are available and would like to participate as a Peer Reviewer for the FY2011 Youth Engagement Zone Grant Competition, send an email to PeerReviewers@cns.gov and we will note your interest for subsequent communications.  Indicating availability does not guarantee selection as a participant.

The Corporation has refined the requirements and qualifications for Review Participants. It is important reviewers’ eGrants profiles reflect their most up-to-date information and experience.  Reviewers will be selected based on the information they provide in eGrants.  Previous participation in Corporation reviews will not guarantee FY2011 recruitment. Please update your Reviewer Profile in eGrants. (eGrants LogIn Page)  If you have trouble accessing your account, please contact the National Service Hotline at 800-942-2677 or on-line at www.nationalservice.gov/questionsPlease do not create a new account.

Leave Your Comments »

Conjunction Junction (music G5 plays while you are on hold)

Home from a tiring DOED review but it was a great experience.  Once again I reconnected with old friends and made new ones—all of whom I want to work with again!  Worked very hard but had time for a few nice dinners and visiting with friends. 

The review was organized and on track.  Can’t say as much about G5.  As usual the system waited until the worst of times to act really nasty.  I did not have problems at home but had to call the help desk every time I tried to connect at hotel (listened to Conjunction Junction for hours).  I will pass along one tip (that everyone else figured out long before me) that helped with the problem.  I installed Mozilla Firefox and used it instead of Internet Explorer and didn’t have any more problems.  Too bad I didn’t know that on Monday, Tuesday or most of Wednesday.

Hope to see everyone next round!

Leave Your Comments »

Federal Funding Update for Youth Programs – Your Call to Action!

PLEASE READ!!!!  These are wonderful programs that we need to keep.

On Saturday, February 19 the House passed H.R. 1, its funding proposal for fiscal year (FY) 2011.  The House’s proposal includes $100 billion in cuts compared to the President’s FY 2011 budget. The proposal includes zeroing out the following youth programs: Mentoring Children of Prisoners, YouthBuild, Teen Pregnancy Prevention Community Grants, Teach for America, and State Grants for Incarcerated Youth.  It also significantly cuts the Corporation for National and Community Service, Juvenile Justice programs, Head Start and 21st Century Learning Centers.

For a complete list of cuts and reductions, you can click here: http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/ProgramCutsFY2011ContinuingResolution.pdf

The steep cuts set up a potential marathon spending battle with the Senate that, if not resolved by March 4th, could result in the first shut-down of the federal government in more than 20 years. 
What Will Happen Next:
According to Youth Today, “Who delivers the message will also matter. It will likely fall to champions of youth programs in the Senate to hold the line on any spending. ‘The Senate’s going to need to buck up, and it’s our responsibility to help them buck up,’ said Seth Turner, senior director of government affairs for Goodwill Industries. ‘Anybody being quiet is going to get creamed’.”
Since the House passed H.R. 1, focus will now turn toward the Senate. It remains to be seen how the two chambers will reconcile their differences. However, youth organizations must ensure that ALL Members of Congress understand how important it is to protect programs serving at-risk youth.
The National Alliance recommends programs  MAKE A LOT OF NOISE, so Congress understands that current allocations are simply not enough to serve this vulnerable population and to address the effects of the recession.  Additional youth advocacy organizations suggest:
Contact the youth/children staff members in your Representatives’ AND Senators’ Washington, DC offices. Call THIS WEEK.  Use a sample letter or sample talking points as a model. For example, BBBS.org or EndHomlessness.org.
If you’ve already called, that’s okay – call again! Now that there is a specific bill passed, you have something to respond to.
Report any responses from you or your networks to your national advocacy groups so your voice is part of many.

Leave Your Comments »

Peer Reviewing in the “Good Old Days”!

(This is a great post from a friend and fellow reviewer, Karen Y. Williams.  Think I will quit whining and get back to work!) 

I thought that I would share a few comments about my experiences reading Title III grant applications for the U.S. Department of Education “back in the day.”  I often chuckle when I head new reviewers complain about the current review process.  So I thought that I could offer some perspective on how far things have come.  Back in the 80’s, we did not read applications online.  We did not type our comments on the computer.  We did not read at home.  I recall arriving in DC on Sunday, and attending a four hour orientation session.  Review panels were  comprised of three members; two seasoned reviewers and one new to the process.  A  DOE staff member was assigned to each panel and a seasoned review served as chair of the review process.  We would meet with the DOE staff member after the orientation, sign the conflict of interest forms and pick up our grant applications.  Back then there was no page limit for applications.   The rules were different.  Applicants could put their responses in the appendix and single space the text.  The grants were often over 500 pages!  So when I attempted to pick up my applications, I remember having to make multiple trips because the applications were so heavy I could only carry two or three at a time—and I usually would have eight to ten—and sometimes twelve—applications.  And, the pay rate was one flat rate for the week—it was not based on the number of applications reviewed!   Back then, we hand-wrote our comments.  If there were conflicts, spelling errors, illegible handwriting, or any changes, it was time to pull out those bottles of “white-out” and paint!   And, when changes were really substantial, there was lots of staple-removing, collating, and re-stapling.  By the end of the week, I remember having to carry those heavy grant applications back to the DOE staff member.  Yes, those were the good old days!

Leave Your Comments »

Peer Reviewers Needed for 2011 Professional Development for Arts Educators Program

The Professional Development for Arts Educators (PDAE) Grant Program at the U.S. Department of Education seeks application reviewers for its upcoming grant competition, scheduled to begin in late April or May 2011.  Reviewers will receive an honorarium based on the number of applications reviewed.
 
The grant program supports the implementation of high-quality professional development model programs in elementary and secondary education for music, dance, drama, media arts, or visual arts, including folk arts, for educators and other arts instructional staff of kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) students in high-poverty schools.  The purpose of this program is to strengthen standards-based arts education programs and to help ensure that all students meet challenging State academic content standards and challenging State student academic achievement standards in the arts. 
 
Reviewers must have experience in one of the following areas: arts or arts education; elementary school education; middle school education; high school education; school administration; professional development; special populations; curriculum development; or research evaluation.  Reviewers may not have served in three consecutive previous grant reviews for this program.
 
The review process is conducted entirely via the Internet and conference call.  Reviewers are assigned to panels comprised of three people and a panel facilitator.  Each member of the panel reviews the same 10-12 applications.  Applications are generally 25 pages of narrative and may include additional pages of appendices.  Reviewers download their assigned applications from the https://www.g5.gov site.  Each reviewer attends a reviewer orientation conducted by Department of Education staff and subsequently evaluates and scores the applications based on the program’s selection criteria.  After reviewers enter their scores and comments, conference calls are conducted to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the applications.  While discussion is required, consensus is not.  Conference calls are scheduled at least three times during the review period, which may last up to 15 working days depending on the efficiency of the panel.  Reviewers must be available for all scheduled conference calls during the entire period.
 
This is an electronic review that includes group conference calls.  Each reviewer must have:     1)  Access to the Internet and a printer. 2) The ability to interact within a web-based environment & 3)  The ability to send and receive email
 
If interested, please submit by February 28, 2011 a (1) current resume and (2) completed Reviewer Checklist (attached) to: pdae@ed.gov.

Leave Your Comments »

Page 3 of 612345...Last »