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

i3 Program Seeks Peer Reviewers–Deadline Extended to July 15

(Thanks to Alan D’Souza)

Through the Investing in Innovation (i3) program, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) supports innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on improving student achievement.  The department is now seeking individuals to serve as peer reviewers for the newly announced FY 2011 i3 grant competition.  

The Call for Peer Reviewers may be found on the i3 website at:

Peer reviewers may come from various backgrounds and professions including: PK-12 teachers and principals, college and university educators, educational evaluators, social entrepreneurs, strategy consultants, grant makers and managers, and others with education expertise.  The selected reviewers must have expertise in at least one of the program’s five absolute priorities or in educational evaluation

i3 Absolute Priorities :      

Supporting Effective Teachers and Principals      

Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education

Implementing Standards and Assessments

Turning Around Low Performing Schools

Improving Achievement in Rural LEA’s


Educational Evaluation Experience in designing, conducting, and reviewing rigorous educational evaluations, including

Understanding of education research and recent findings of the relevant literature ·      

Knowledge of education data sources and measures of program implementation and outcomes ·      

Expertise with experimental and quasi-experimental research designs ·      

Fluency in reviewing organizational and project evaluation plans and evaluation results 

Additionally, the most qualified candidates will also have expertise in one or more of the following attributes or skills: program or organizational innovation, experience disseminating or scaling successful programs, and prior experience reviewing or approving grant applications. For specific instructions on how to apply, please consult the i3 Call for Peer Reviewers.  The deadline for applying is Friday, July 15.  Reviewers will receive an honorarium for their time and effort.  The review panels will be conducted via phone conference.  No travel is necessary.

Leave Your Comments »

USDA Calls for Peer Reviewers for FY2011 Farmers Market Promotion Program

WASHINGTON, May 24, 2011 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture invites individuals to share their expertise in reviewing project proposals for the fiscal year 2011 Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP) grant cycle.

Administered by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, FMPP is a competitive grant program designed to expand direct producer-to-consumer market opportunities in the U.S. through the development and promotion of farmers markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs, agritourism, and other direct-marketing channels.

 “A peer review is a time-tested method that allows open, public input by experts in a given field or discipline,” said Rayne Pegg, Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service. “In this case, peer reviewers are vital in ensuring that the grantees will promote the domestic consumption of agricultural commodities.”

 Reviewers will include peers from agricultural cooperatives, producer networks, producer associations, non-profit corporations, public benefit corporations, economic development corporations, regional farmers market authorities, and employees of federal, state, local and tribal governments. Expertise is particularly sought from farmers who are direct marketers, and reviewers with substantive experience in implementing electronic benefits transfer (EBT) projects.

 Prospective peer reviewers are expected to have a general knowledge of the operational aspects of locally based farm marketing programs, EBT projects, farmers markets, and other agricultural direct-marketing businesses. Reviewers will apply their knowledge and expertise to score and comment on applications submitted for the fiscal 2011 FMPP grant cycle.

 Selected reviewers must commit approximately six weeks for the FMPP review process. Reviewer commitment also includes the individual review of 20 to 30 proposals and an online group review and discussion about proposals. Due to budget constraints, reviewers will not be requested to travel to Washington, D.C.

 Individuals and/or their organizations (including subcontractors) that prepare or submit applications to FMPP for the fiscal 2011 grant funding cycle are not eligible to serve as reviewers. In addition, prospective reviewers will not be selected to review certain proposals if they or their organizations (including subcontractors) have a conflict of interest as detailed in the invitation. To review the invitation, go to

To apply, email Ricardo Krajewski at or call the FMPP office at (202) 720-8317. FMPP management will contact those individuals selected as reviewers.

Leave Your Comments »

“How to Become a Grant Reviewer”

This is a link to an excellent article about peer reviewing by Karen M. Markin, who is director of research development at the University of Rhode Island’s research office.

“How to Become a Grant Reviewer”

Do the people who review grant proposals really care about the font size when the science is brilliant? Do they actually notice the laptop that you included in your budget plan?

When reviewers gather to evaluate grant proposals, they usually do so privately, making those sessions a rich source of academic folklore. The best way to find out what a review session is really like is to participate in one yourself. Being a junior faculty member need not be an obstacle. Many different organizations need grant proposals reviewed, and with a little effort, you can probably find a gig.

Agencies typically look for people with expertise in the field of activity that a given round of proposals will support. That field of activity, though, may be broadly defined, so don’t fret about not specializing in the same subfield, such as organic versus analytical chemistry. A proposal for an organic-chemistry project may not be reviewed by a panel consisting entirely of chemists, let alone chemists in the same area of specialty. Also, research is becoming increasingly multidisciplinary, and review panels often cover a range of disciplines rather than a few highly specialized subfields.

An agency seeks out reviewers in several ways. Sometimes it actively recruits them. It scans lists of the authors of papers at major scientific conferences or the authors of recent scholarly articles in the field. Agencies have been known to find reviewers through Google searches. In addition, many agencies accept applications to be a reviewer. Information and tools on their Web sites have made it easier to volunteer your services.

Reviewing proposals can require a substantial amount of work, so be sure you have the time before accepting an invitation to serve as a panelist. Find out how many grant proposals you will have to read, how long they are, and how much time you will get to review them.

It’s important that you be able to spend an adequate amount of time on the task. Have you ever gotten back a review of your grant proposal that made you think, “They didn’t even read this”? A cursory review helps no one. Budget your time accordingly.

The Review Process

Proposals reviews are carried out in several ways. In some cases, the agency assembles a panel of reviewers at its office. As a reviewer, you receive a batch of proposals ahead of time so you can read and evaluate them. Each reviewer is likely to be responsible for presenting several of the proposals to the panel as a whole, with a recommendation about whether to fund it. The whole panel then considers the project and makes its decision.

A number of scenarios can develop in panel discussions. The lead reviewer may support a proposal, but a fellow panelist may find a problem with its methodology or some other aspect of the project. Depending on how severe that problem is — or whether other panelists perceive it as a problem — the proposal may ultimately be rejected.

Sometimes the lead reviewer recommends rejection, in which case the project’s only hope is that someone else will read it and feel strongly enough to advocate for it. Occasionally, a majority of panel members support a proposal, but one person is vehemently opposed to it for a flaw that others don’t see. That person may have expertise in an area that no one else does. One strong detractor can sink an otherwise popular proposal.

As you can see, the process is not easily predictable, and it is subject to the influence of the personalities of those involved. Keep that in mind the next time a proposal you have made is rejected: It probably had nothing to do with you personally and a lot to do with the mix of people serving on that particular panel.

That is not to say that proposal review is purely a game of chance. Most of the time the outstanding proposals shine through, and the clunkers are quickly identified and eliminated.

But there are a lot of proposals in between, with a mix of strengths and weaknesses, and that’s where much of the debate takes place. And as grant money gets tighter due to shrinking federal appropriations, review panels will be forced to split finer and finer hairs to make funding decisions.

In some review sessions, panelists stay at their own offices and evaluate grant proposals by conference call. In other cases, they mail in their critiques. As budgets are cut, agencies are looking for less expensive ways to conduct reviews.

You won’t make much money reviewing grant proposals, but the work will pay off. The agency typically will cover your expenses if you need to travel to a panel, and it may give you a small honorarium.

The value is in the experience itself. You will see what is expected of successful grant requests. You will meet other faculty members active in your field, and read proposals for work at the vanguard of the discipline. You can have the kind of intellectual discussion that many are seeking in academe but seldom have, what with grading papers and serving on committees.

Ultimately, the experience can help you to prepare better proposals and obtain grant money for your own work.

For more from Karen, follow this link:


Leave Your Comments »


This came recently from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS)

Reviewer recruitment for the 2011 OSDFS grant competition cycle has begun. In order to be considered a potential reviewer for this year, you must re-enter your areas of expertise in the OSDFS Peer Reviewer Database. This must be done even if your areas of expertise have not changed from last year. OSDFS modified the list of areas not only by expanding the list but also by re-classifying existing areas; therefore entries made prior to April 2011 are no longer valid.
You can access your profile at using the User ID and password you were issued when you initially registered. Your User ID is your first initial (capitalized) followed by your last name (first letter capitalized) and the last four digits of your Social Security Number. If you do not recall your password, please click on the “Forgot Password” button on the Registration page and follow system prompts to receive a reminder e-mail.
We urge you to modify your profile as soon as possible. Recruitment for the Carol M. White Physical Education Program is currently underway and it is crucial that we are able to identify all qualified potential reviewers in order to uphold the integrity of the review process.

If you are not already registered, this would be a good time.  Go to the website above to register.  All individuals new to the peer review process must register and upload a résumé in order to be considered a potential reviewer.

Leave Your Comments »

Giant Rat Reviewers Needed

OK, here is the grant and I really want to review for this program.  I do have a lot of experience with the two-legged variety. 

Oh wait, they are wanting to save this endangered species.  Well, that just leaves me speechless (or blogless as the case may be).  Or maybe not quite without words….

The 2011 Comprehensive Anti-Gang Strategies and Programs has been cancelled.  We are killing grants for kids but not rats, something wrong with this picture.

Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management

Leave Your Comments »

Categories Not Working

Not too good at this blogging software and my guru brother has not had time to help me so for some reason my categories are not working.  Everything is in every category!  Hope to get that fixed this week!

Leave Your Comments »

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.!/pages/ACF-Grant-Reviewers/200641269949731?sk=wall

Lux is a great group to work with on reviews!

Leave Your Comments »

Office of University Partnerships’ (OUP) Peer Reviews


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.

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.

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;  subject line: “Play Space Reviewer.”
(Thanks to K. Jevon Chambers)

Leave Your Comments »

Page 3 of 1112345...10...Last »