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

2011 Peer Reviewers for Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) needs new and experienced grant reviewers with expertise in

  • Health professions training
  • HIV/AIDS
  • Maternal and child health
  • Organ transplantation
  • Primary care for underserved people
  • Rural health

Grant reviewers help HRSA select the best programs from competitive groups of applicants. Reviewers are chosen for specific grant programs, based on their knowledge, education and experience. Grant review panels are selected to reflect diversity of ethnicity, gender, experience and geography.

Reviewers use their expertise to objectively evaluate and score applications against published evaluation criteria. Reviewers gain understanding of the grant-making process while enjoying the opportunity to network with colleagues.

HRSA grant reviews usually are held in the Washington, DC metropolitan area and last for 3 to 5 days. Some reviews are conducted via teleconference or field reader reviews (a type of objective review approach where reviewers independently review applications from where they are based, with no group discussion of the applications).

HRSA makes all logistical arrangements and pays for travel expenses and other costs. Each reviewer receives an honorarium.

If you have expertise in the areas noted above and are interested in becoming a HRSA Grant Reviewer, you can submit your application by filling out the grant reviewer application at
 

Leave Your Comments »

Serve As An 2011 National Science Foundation Volunteer Peer Reviewer

This came from the NSF website.  I do not see anywhere that mentions a stipend or payment.  This seems to be voluntary (no pay). 

Reviewers are Essential – NSF needs YOU

The success of the peer review process, which enables NSF to make wise investments in all fields of science and engineering research and education, depends on the willingness of qualified reviewers like you to share your time and expertise. Your experience and up-to-date knowledge enables you to provide helpful advice to NSF program officers on the merits of proposals and constructive comments to proposers that strengthen their projects. In making its decisions on proposals, the counsel of these merit reviewers has proven invaluable to the Foundation in the identification of meritorious projects. The Foundation also may ask reviewers to serve on panels, for which NSF pays travel expenses. 

To implement peer review, NSF depends upon the reviewer community for nearly 240,000 reviews per year. We try to limit the number of requests made to any single individual, recognizing the many demands our reviewers have on their time. Therefore, NSF strives to increase both the size and diversity of the pool of reviewers to ensure that the NSF merit review process benefits by receiving broad input from a variety of different perspectives. You can help by volunteering to review proposals in your area of expertise. 

Benefits to You as a Reviewer

In addition to providing a great service to NSF and the science and engineering community, reviewers benefit from reviewing and serving on panels. For example, reviewers gain first hand knowledge of the peer review process; learn about common problems with proposals; discover strategies to write strong proposals; and, through serving on a panel, meet colleagues and NSF program officers managing programs related to your interests. 

How to Become a Reviewer

To become an NSF reviewer, send an e-mail to the NSF program officer(s) of the program(s) that fits your expertise. Introduce yourself and identify your areas of expertise, and let them know that you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer. It is most helpful if you also attach a 2-page CV with current contact information. We also encourage you to share this request with other colleagues who might be interested in serving as NSF reviewers. NSF welcomes qualified reviewers from the academic, industrial, and government sectors. 

If you are selected as a reviewer, NSF will ask you to provide some demographic information on a voluntary basis. Although submission of demographic information by reviewers is voluntary-and there are no adverse consequences if it is not provided-reviewers are strongly encouraged to provide this information to NSF. These data are used in the design, implementation, and monitoring of NSF efforts to increase the participation of various groups in science and engineering. 

Contact NSF Now

Please take a few minutes now to contact NSF. If you need to find the appropriate NSF Program Officer to contact, just go to the NSF Website: www.nsf.gov. Select one of the program areas listed in the pull down menu on the left side of the home page. This will take you to the selected home page of the NSF Directorate or Office. Select the Staff Directory and you will find names of Program Officers by division or programs they manage. You can then send the Program Officer an email with the information indicated above in the paragraph on “How to Become a Reviewer.” 

Collection of personal information is authorized by the NSF Act of 1950, as amended. The data are protected by the Privacy Act and Public Burden Statements (see http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/privstat.htm), which means NSF will not give this information to anyone outside NSF, unless legally required, or specifically authorized by law.
 

 

Leave Your Comments »

JOBS- Short-Term Consultants to Review Grant Applications, UN Women (CIS Regional Office), Home-Based

This review is very specialized but I decided to add it because I have worked with some very talented reviewers who are qualified and might be interested.  (Thanks to Lyn McCoy)

Distrib. by: Central-Eurasia-L – Announcement List for Central Eurasian Studies

Location: Home-based

Application Deadline: 09-Jan-11

Type of Contract: SSA

Post Level: International Consultant

Languages Required: English

Starting Date: (date when the selected candidate is expected to start)  21-Jan-2011

Expected Duration of Assignment: 10-15 days depending on number of proposals to be reviewed

 Background

The UN Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence against  Women (“UN Trust Fund”) was established through UN General Assembly Resolution 50/166 in 1996 with UNIFEM (part of UN Women) as its Administrator on behalf of the UN system. The UN Trust Fund is a leading global multi-lateral mechanism supporting national efforts to end one of the most widespread human rights violations in the world.  The UN Trust Fund’s annual grant-making process, through its widely publicized Call for Proposals, operates on core principles of ensuring an open, fair, transparent, competitive and merit-based process. The UN Trust Fund focuses on supporting country and local implementation of laws, policies and action plans to address violence against women, while maintaining flexibility in terms of responsiveness to a wide range of forms of violence, national and emerging priorities and needs, and diverse approaches. By 2010, the UN Trust Fund had supported 317 programmes in 124 countries and territories with over US$ 60 million.  On 23 November 2010, the UN Trust Fund launched its annual Call for Proposals for an eight-week period spanning 23 November 2010 – 20 January 2011 (see UN Trust Fund Call at

http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/violence_against_women/trust_fund.php). 

 Online applications for proposals will be accepted from  governments, civil society organizations and United Nations Country Teams in English, French, and Spanish.  In this regard UNIFEM CIS (part of UN Women) Sub-regional Office is seeking the services of two short-term consultants to screen incoming applications through an online system and make recommendations based on criteria set forth by the UN Trust Fund.

Duties and Responsibilities

The consultant is expected to have sound knowledge of gender-based violence and will review applications submitted by governments and civil society organizations from the CIS region, which includes the following:

  * Verifying that each proposal complies with the elements stipulated in the 2010 Call document and cross-checking that all supporting documentation received is accurate

 * Providing an objective assessment of applications based on guidelines and criteria set by the UN Trust Fund

 * Recommending the top 10 applications (in collaboration with another consultant reviewing the same set of applications), and providing the necessary justifications for their selection

 * Providing a summary of recommendations for each recommended application, based on the Fund’s criteria and an assessment of the needs, quality, and rationale of the proposal

 * Preparing an introductory note for each of the countries where the recommended initiatives would be implemented. The note should include a brief country context, the relevant provisions against violence   against women in each country (legal framework and policies), and the main institutions involved in the implementation of these provisions

 * Preparing an analytical brief that documents trends and emerging topics in the field of violence against women as can be observed from the demand for UN Trust Fund resources specific to the region,    including highlighting any lessons learned or feedback from the application review process itself.

Competencies

 Corporate Competencies:

 * Demonstrates integrity by modelling the UN’s values and ethical standard

 * Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNIFEM (part of UN-Women)

 * Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality, and age sensitivity and adaptability.

Functional Competencies:

 * Proven ability to meet tight deadlines and work well under pressure

 * Knowledge of women’s rights and gender issues globally, expertise on violence against women programming

 * Communicates sensitively, effectively and creatively across different constituencies

 * Familiarity with UNIFEM (part of UN-Women) and the UN system

 * Familiarity with goals and procedures of international organizations

 * Demonstrated excellent analytical and writing skills as well as spoken language skills in English (Russian would be an asset)

 * Ability to produce a high volume of quality content

 * Good knowledge of gender issues in CIS region

 * Expertise on violence against women programming

 * Prior experience in grant-making and in the United Nations System and/or non-governmental organizations is an asset

 * Understanding of programme cycle and monitoring and evaluation frameworks

* Knowledge of women’s organizations and governmental agencies working on women’s rights and violence against women around the world.

Required Skills and Experience

 * University degree in International Development Studies, Women  Studies or related Social Sciences field

 * Minimum of 5 years experience in the field of women’s rights.

 Application Process:

To apply please visit: http://jobs.undp.org/cj_view_job.cfm?job_id=20843

 All applications must include (as an attachment) the completed UNIFEM Personal History form (P-11) which can be downloaded from http://www.unifem.org/attachments/about/employment/UNIFEM_personal_history_form_P11.doc

Kindly note that the system will only allow one attachment.   Applications without the completed UNIFEM P-11 form will be treated as incomplete and will not be considered for further assessment. In the on-line application form please also insert a CV in English.  The application must be submitted not later than 9 January 2011.  Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.

Leave Your Comments »

CALL FOR 2011 PEER REVIEWERS – Improving Literacy through School Libraries

I found this online today.

CALL FOR PEER REVIEWERS – Improving Literacy through School Libraries

ANTICIPATED 2011 U.S. Department of Education Competition ///Deadline: February 4, 2011

CONTEXT: Improving Literacy through School Libraries is a competitive grant program of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) that promotes comprehensive local strategies to improve student reading achievement by enhancing school library services and resources. Focusing on communities with twenty percent family poverty rates, the LSL program targets school districts with the greatest need for assistance. To receive a grant, applicants must sufficiently demonstrate both their eligibility and their commitment to fulfilling one or more of the activities of the program.

WHO: We are seeking peer reviewers with demonstrated experience in the following professions: school and public library media specialists, PK-12 teachers and administrators, digital media education specialists, college or university educators and researchers, and PK-12 education consultants. The Department seeks reviewers with experience implementing school library media programs in the digital age, including collaboration with educators for the integration of web-based learning tools into traditional learning environments.

WHAT: Peer reviewers will independently read, score, and provide written comments for grant applications submitted to the Department under the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program. Program funds are used to increase up-to-date school library holdings; acquire advanced technology to develop and enhance students’ information literacy, information retrieval, and critical thinking skills; facilitate Internet links and other resource-sharing networks among schools and school library media centers, and public and academic libraries; provide PK-3 professional development and K-12 collaboration opportunities; and expand hours of access to school library services. Reviewers will conduct review activities primarily from their locations electronically. The Department will offer reviewers an honorarium.

REQUIRMENTS:

  • Availability: Reviewers will need to dedicate approximately 50 hours of time for reading, scoring, developing comments, and discussing assigned applications over a three-week period, during the April 2011 timeframe. Reviewers will also need to participate in web-based technical assistance conferences to prepare for the review.
  • Tools: Each reviewer must have access to the Internet, a phone, a printer and have the ability to interact within the web environment.
  • Quality of review: Each reviewer must provide detailed, objective, constructive, and timely written reviews for each assigned application. These reviews will be used to recommend applications for funding. They will also be shared with each applicant following the review.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUES:

You have a conflict of interest and may not serve as a reviewer if:

  • An application will be submitted for this competition in which you will benefit financially from grant funds (if awarded).
  • An application will be submitted for this competition in which your spouse will benefit financially from grant funds (if awarded).
  • You will be participating in the development of an application.

You have a conflict of interest, but one that does not necessarily disqualify you from reviewing, if:

  • You are affiliated with an organization plans to submit an application, but you will not benefit financially from that application.
  • Your spouse is affiliated with an organization that plans to submit an application, but he or she will not benefit financially from that application.
  • An applicant names you as a consultant in an application without your prior knowledge.
  • A situation exists that may be perceived as a conflict, such as reviewing proposals from your region of the country, reviewing proposals in which a family member (other than your spouse) stands to benefit financially, reviewing proposals from an organization or individual with whom you are negotiating employment, etc.

 TO APPLY: Send an updated resume, in DOC or PDF format, to lsl@ed.gov. Please include the following in the subject line of your e-mail: “2011 LSL Reviewer”. Your resume should include:

  • Full Name
  • Education (list all college degrees, with dates of degrees, institutions, and majors must be listed)
  • All professional position titles, descriptions, and dates in chronological order beginning with, or going back to, your first position after receiving your B.A. or B.S.
  • A detailed description of your current organizational affiliation, and position title.
  • Telephone numbers (work, home, and fax [if applicable])
  • Home and work mailing addresses
  • Preferred E-mail address

 Please note: If you are retired, please make it clear when you retired, and that you are retired at present, and list all consulting positions or other relevant positions you have taken since retirement. There is no need to emphasize grant writing or grant reviewing experience. Please provide a full description of your professional work experience and substantive professional experience that are relevant to this type of work. We are interested in all work you have accomplished involving elementary and secondary education, literacy, library science/library-related, technology, and performance-based measurements and outcomes.

 If you have any questions about resume requirements or conflict of interest issues, please contact Peter Eldridge at (202) 260-2514, peter.eldridge@ed.gov; David Miller at (202) 453-5621, david.miller@ed.gov; or Almita Reed at (202) 260-1979, almita.reed@ed.gov. Please do not send resumes to these individuals; send resumes/cover letters to lsl@ed.gov by February 4, 2011.

Leave Your Comments »

Peer Reviewers Needed to Evaluate FY 2011 Talent Search

This information came today.

The Department of Education (Department) is seeking reviewers to evaluate discretionary grant
applications for the FY 2011 Talent Search (TS) Program competition.  See details at: 

                      http://www.ed.gov/programs/triotalent/index.html.

Because of the large numbers of applications anticipated, the technical review of eligible applications received under the TS Program competition will be conducted using three review sessions and each session will consist of two phases.  Phase one of each review session will consist of the on-line review of applications and will utilize the Department’s G-5 e-Reader electronic field reading system.  Phase two of the review will consist of Federally-subsidized travel to the Washington, DC metropolitan area for the paneling and finalization of the technical review forms for each of the assigned applications. Orientation webinars for the three FY 2011 Talent Search sessions are scheduled for Tuesday, January 11, 2011 at 10:00a.m–12:00p.m. and 2:00- 4:00p.m. and Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at  2:00- 4:00p.m. You are only required to attend one of the webinar to be eligible for consideration as a reviewer. Webinar links will be contained in a letter upon selection for this competition. The schedule of activities for each of the three sessions planned is as follows:

Session            Reviewers Notified     G-5 Reader Begins        On-site Panels
  1                      Dec, 27, 2010            Jan. 7, 2011            Jan. 31 – Feb.4, 2011
  2                      Jan. 24, 2011            Feb. 4, 2011            Feb.  28 – Mar 4, 2011
  3                      Feb. 18, 2011            Mar. 4, 2011            Mar. 28 – Apr 1, 2011

(Every reviewer must participate in a peer reviewer orientation session prior to starting the G-5-reading process.)PLEASE NOTE:  The success of this unique reading activity is dependent upon the commitment of the selected peer reviewers to fully participate in each of the time-sensitive scheduled activities.  Also, it is important to note that within three (3) days from the time your assigned applications appear on-line in the Department’s G-5 system, you are required to have three technical review forms completed, uploaded into the G-5 system, and ready for review by your assigned panel monitor.  The completed technical review forms must contain comments reflective of a thorough assessment of the applicants’ responses to each of the selection criteria as contained in the Project Narrative section of each application.  Only after your assigned panel monitor has determined that your work, thus far, is of an acceptable quality will you be allowed to continue with the G-5 system process and receive an invitation to come to the Washington, DC metropolitan area site for the completion of the session’s activities.  If your work is determined not to be of an acceptable level, you will be dismissed and a replacement reader will be added to your panel to complete the process. 

As noted above, the Department will use its electronic field reading system (G-5 System) for phase one of each of the sessions. The G-5 system electronic system is accessed through the Department’s Grants portal site.  Reviewers will access the assigned applications electronically. Three-member review panels will evaluate each application.  Reviewers will electronically enter comments and scores on each application via the G-5 system.  To ensure optimum participation, reviewers must have the following: (1) access to the Internet from their local review site via broadband or DSL (not a dial-up connection) to be able to talk on the telephone (not a cell phone) and access the Internet concurrently; (2) Internet Browser IE 5.5+, Netscape 6+ or FireFox 1+ (note: e-Reader is best viewed using Internet Explorer 5+); (3) Acrobat Reader for opening PDF documents; (4) Microsoft Word (if PDF package is not available); (5) cookies and JavaScript enabled in their browser; and (6) a Laser Printer is recommended.
Phase two of the peer review process will allow face-to-face on site panel discussions of each of the assigned applications.  All reviewers must participate in the on-site paneling sessions. During these sessions, reviewers will discuss each application, revise or modify comments, if necessary, and arbitrate any excessive score variances. Reviewers will use the on-site computer equipment to complete or make changes to the technical review forms as necessary.  Readers are allowed and encouraged to bring personal laptops, however, this is not required.  The Department will provide a bank of computers in a secured area at the review site where reviewers may complete their e-Reading tasks.

We are mindful of your busy schedule and encourage you to think carefully about your availability for this time-sensitive review process, which is described herein.  Reviewers must be available to devote a significant amount of time to this process and must complete all phase one and phase two activities by the target dates.
As a peer reviewer, you will be compensated for your services and therefore you are considered as a “temporary” contractor. You will be expected to comply with all of the requirements and expectations addressed in this document.

If you are interested in serving as a reviewer:
1.    Update your personal information and indicate your availability status for each session or any combinations of sessions for this competition in OPE’s Field Reader System (FRS) no later than December 17, 2010.  You must also certify that you do not have a potential conflict of interest.  Carefully read the “Conflict of Interest Form” on our Field Reader site. If you have any conflict, as described on the conflict of interest form, please select the “Unavailable” option when updating your personal information, as you will not be selected to serve as a reviewer for this competition.
We will notify you via e-mail (according to the schedule outlined above) if we select you as a peer reviewer for one or more of the review sessions.  We will send additional information about our e-Reader process, including information on how to participate in the appropriate peer reviewer webinar, to persons selected to serve as reviewers and alternates.  Information about the Department’s G-5 system is available at: http://www.G5.gov/.  The G-5 system includes a User Guide and a demonstration program available to assist reviewers in operating the software.
Each reviewer may be required to evaluate up to 10 applications that are up to 65 double-spaced pages each. Reviewers will receive an honorarium of $100.00 per completed application, plus $10.00 for supplies (paper/ink), per application reviewed.  [NOTE:  A completed application is one that has been independently reviewed and paneled, with requested changes made and accepted allowing for final clearance by Department staff.  The completion process also includes full participation in phase two of the on-site paneling process to be held in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.   Reviewers will not receive full compensation if this process is not fully completed and all conditions adhered to as outlined in this letter.] 

Peer reviewers will not receive any additional compensation for the five-day on site review conducted in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.  Potential reviewers who participate in the orientation session and are selected as alternates but are not called upon to read will receive an honorarium of $100.

If you need assistance with the Field Reader process, please contact Joyce Thomas at 202-502-7662 or via email at joyce.thomas@ed.gov. We look forward to your prompt response as we prepare for this important review process.
Please indicate your availability status for this competition and update your personal information using OPE’s Field Reader System (FRS):  http://opeweb.ed.gov/frs.

Leave Your Comments »

2011 AmeriCorps State and National Peer Review

Needed Areas of Expertise 

CNCS is looking for individuals to serve as Peer Reviewers with experience in National or Community Service Programs, Grant Making, Nonprofit Management, Volunteer Management, Strategic Planning, federally recognized Indian Tribes, or other related areas.  

 In addition, because this year’s AmeriCorps Funding Opportunity Notice seeks grant applications that specifically align with the priority areas stated in the Serve America Act; accordingly, we need Reviewers with five or more years of demonstrated experience in the respective fields. (Disaster Services, Environmental Stewardship, Veterans and Military Families, Healthy Futures, Economic Opportunity, and Education)

 

What to Expect

  • The FY2011 AmeriCorps 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 and will read and assess their assigned applications individually, then participate in panel discussions regarding those applications.
  • Some Review Participants are asked to serve as panel Facilitators who coordinate with CNCS staff to chair their review panel, facilitate panel discussions, and summarize strengths and weaknesses.
  • The review process duration is two weeks and can take 40 to 50 hours of work time to complete, depending on individual and panel working styles. There are mandatory orientation and training sessions, as well as panel calls that will require alterations to your normal work and/or activity schedule. Reviewers will download, share, and print the review documents and applications using an online collaboration tool.
  • CNCS offers Reviewers and Facilitators, with the exception of federal employees, a modest honorarium for their participation in a grant review. The honorarium amount varies, but begins at $700 depending on the participant’s role and the expected deliverables.

 How to Respond 

If you are available to participate and commit the required time to be a Peer Reviewer for the FY2011 AmeriCorps* State and National Grant Competition, send an email to PeerReviewers@cns.gov and we will note your interest for subsequent communications.  

CNCS has refined the requirements and qualifications for Review Participants to better suit our needs. Therefore, it is imperative that your experience is complete and current in eGrants!  Take note, Reviewers will be selected based on the information contained in their eGrants profile; therefore, your previous participation in a CNCS review will not be factored or guarantee FY2011 recruitment. You should also update your Reviewer Profile in eGrants. (eGrants LogIn Page)  If you have trouble accessing your account, please contact the eGrants Help Desk at eGrantsHelp@cns.gov or 888-677-7849 (M-F, 8am-8pm EST). Please do not open a new account. 

 Important Information for Participating 

Responding with your availability does not guarantee your participation in this review. Peer Reviewers and Facilitators are selected by CNCS for each grant competition based on their relevant educational and professional qualifications, as well as the number of grant applications received.  If chosen, you will be asked to fill out a Conflict of Interest (COI) Form to determine if any apparent conflict (e.g., involvement with an organization applying for an AmeriCorps Grant, etc.) exists. Please note, as of FY2011, the names of all participating External Reviewers and Facilitators for CNCS grant competitions may be made public.

Go to PeerReviewers@cns.gov for more information.

Leave Your Comments »

Need Peer Reviewers with Native American Expertise (OJP)

Peer reviewers with Native American policy expertise are needed to serve as reviewers for the OJP grant programs under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. All interested in becoming a peer reviewer for OJP are asked to submit a current resume or curriculum vitae, including a valid email address, to Amy Callaghan at Amy.Callaghan@usdoj.gov 

Please put “Tribal Policy Peer Reviewer Candidate Resume” in the subject line. OJP will contact all peer review applicants once the resume information has been entered into the OJP database.

Leave Your Comments »

Register as a 2011 Peer Reviewer for National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

NIJ is seeking reviewers to assess grant applications. The Institute needs reviewers from diverse backgrounds and regions who have relevant expertise and experience in at least one of the following areas:

  • Crime control and prevention research.
  • Criminology, law enforcement or corrections.
  • DNA analysis, research and development.
  • Information and sensor technologies.
  • Investigative and forensic science and technology.
  • Justice systems research.
  • Law enforcement technologies.
  • Violence and victimization research.

Some reviews are conducted remotely, whereas others involve in-person meetings. Reviewers score 10 to 15 applications within a two-to-four-week period. Before beginning their work, reviewers must participate in an orientation telephone call, which covers the role and responsibilities of the reviewers and the background and purpose of the grant program under review.  Participants receive $125 for each application reviewed.

If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer, please send an up-to-date resume or curriculum vitae, including a valid e-mail address, to Sherran Thomas at sherran.thomas@usdoj.gov or Jami Freitag at jamissen.freitag@usdoj.gov

Leave Your Comments »

2011 Peer Reviewers Needed for Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)

BJA is currently seeking peer reviewers to assess grant applications in FY 2011. BJA needs reviewers with relevant expertise, from diverse backgrounds, regions and experience in at least one of the following areas:

  • Expertise in law enforcement and gangs.
  • Expertise in crime prevention.
  • Expertise in adjudication.
  • Expertise in corrections, building correctional facilities, and reentry.
  • Expertise in tribal justice.
  • Expertise in education, mentoring, health care, mental health, alcohol and substance abuse, and/or human and social services.
  • Expertise in information sharing and technology.
  • Expertise in research and statistics.

Reviewers will participate remotely and will not be required to attend any in-person meetings. Participants will review and score 10-20 applications within a 2-week period. Reviewers are also required to participate in an Orientation Call before beginning their review. The purpose of the Orientation Call is to define the role and responsibilities of the peer reviewers as well as the background and purpose of the grant program being peer reviewed. Reviewers are paid $125 for each application reviewed.

 If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer, please submit an up-to-date resume or curriculum vitae, including a valid e-mail address, to: Byrne.Discretionary@usdoj.gov. Please put “Peer Reviewer Candidate Resume” in the subject line.

Leave Your Comments »

Be a 2011 Peer Reviewer for the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC)

OVC is seeking reviewers from diverse backgrounds and regions to assess grant applications. Reviewers should have relevant crime victimization experience and expertise at the local, state, Federal or Tribal levels in areas such as but not limited to:

  • Domestic violence and sexual assault
  • Child and elder abuse
  • Fraud & identity theft
  • Human trafficking
  • Ethics in victim services
  • Victims’ rights
  • Compassion fatigue/vicarious trauma
  • Mass violence & crisis response
  • Restitution
  • Victim impact
  • Victim compensation
  • Underserved victim populations

All reviews are conducted remotely and, typically, reviewers score 5-10 applications within a two week period. Before beginning their work, reviewers must participate in an orientation telephone call, which covers the role and responsibilities of the reviewers and the background and purpose of the grant program under review. Reviewers must also enter their scores and comments to an automated data system, and usually will participate in a consensus call with all other reviewers.

Participants receive $125 for each application reviewed.  If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer, please send an up-to-date resume or curriculum vitae, including a valid e-mail address, to OJP Peer Review. Include “For OVC” in the subject line.

Leave Your Comments »

Page 5 of 6« First...23456