Guideline - Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

More documents

Recommendations

Info

forwarded to a Peer Review Panel. Applicants whose proposals are rejected during the first internal review stage will be notified in writing of the reasons for the rejection. Examples of reasons for first stage rejection may include, but are not limited to, applications proposing activities other than those called for in the program announcement, applications proposing to serve a target population different from that specified in the program announcement, and applications from agencies or organizations that do not possess the qualifications specified in the program announcement. ◆ A second internal review will be conducted by the Program Manager after the completion of the external peer review. This may be supported by other Internal Reviewers and/or an Internal Review Group. Following the second internal review, the Program Manager will prepare a memorandum through the Division Director to the Administrator describing the review process, the conclusions and recommendations of the reviewers, the scores received by the application, any significant problems encountered during the review, suitability of the applicant, and significant recommendations for modifying or enhancing the application recommended for funding. The memorandum will provide a formal recommendation concerning applications recommended for grant awards. Peer Review ◆ Peer reviews may be conducted by mail, conference call, in meetings, through a combination of the three, or through electronic means; a peer review meeting is preferred when practical. These peer review meetings facilitate useful dialog among the experts, provide an opportunity for the reviewers to seek clarification from the Program Manager concerning program and technical requirements, and, through careful monitoring, ensure that each application receives equal consideration. ◆ Infrequently, Peer Reviewers and/or Program Managers need to make site visits. In all instances, OJJDP determines the necessity of site visits. Should a Peer Review Panel believe that a recommendation cannot be finalized without a site visit, the Peer Review Panel should make a request to the Peer Review Coordinator, who will present the request to the Division Director for approval. ◆ For peer reviews that involve meetings, Peer Review Panel members will be assembled for instruction, including a review of the program announcement, selection criteria, and peer review procedures. The Peer Review Coordinator will provide general oversight for the peer review meeting. The Program Manager will be available to interpret the program announcement and provide objective information concerning program requirements. The OJJDP support contractor will provide staff to facilitate and record the meeting and prepare a summary of the proceedings. ◆ If OJJDP determines a need for reviewer communication, a conference call may be arranged among OJJDP staff, the support contractor, and the reviewers to discuss the applications. FY 2003 Drug-Free Communities Support Program 6
Selection Criteria ◆ All OJJDP applications are, at a minimum, rated on the extent to which they meet the general selection criteria listed below: ❖ The problem to be addressed by the project is clearly stated. ❖ The objectives of the proposed project are clearly defined and the outcomes are measurable. ❖ The project design is sound and contains program elements directly linked to the achievement of project objectives. ❖ The project management and overall organizational capability demonstrate the applicant’s capacity to successfully operate and support the project. ❖ Budgeted costs are reasonable, allowable, and cost effective for the proposed activities. ◆ These criteria can also be enhanced to more clearly define the program requirements. Each competitive program announcement will indicate any additional program-specific review criteria to be considered in the peer review for that program. The assigned points for each criterion will be specified in the program announcement. Scoring Applications ◆ The maximum score for each criterion shall be indicated in the program announcement, and the total possible score for all criteria shall equal 100 points. For example: ❖ Statement of the problem—15 points. ❖ Definition of objectives—15 points. ❖ Project design—30 points. ❖ Project management and organizational capability—30 points. ❖ Reasonableness of costs—10 points. ◆ Competitive applications will be rated by each Peer Reviewer according to the selection criteria. Summary ratings will be calculated from the numerical scores assigned to each application by the individual reviewers. The ranking of each application will be based on its summary rating. The rating categories are as follows: ❖ 90–100 points Responsive with no revisions required. ❖ 80–89 points ❖ 70–79 points Responsive with minor revisions required. Responsive with significant revisions required. FY 2003 Drug-Free Communities Support Program 7
Page 1 and 2: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Page 3 and 4: ◆ The Division Director is the di
Page 5: ◆ Selection of Peer Review Panels
Page 9 and 10: ❖ The Peer Reviewer served in an

Guideline - Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?