GRR form supporting statement

Grant Reviewer Recruitment Form

1. Justification

1. Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary

This is a request by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) for a generic clearance for a Grant Reviewer Recruitment (GRR) form. An approval for a generic clearance is being requested because each of the thirteen program offices within ACF office has a slightly different need for information about reviewer applicants. Therefore the GRR forms will request slightly different information, however, serve an identical function. Also, the abbreviated clearance process in the generic clearance allows for the program offices to gather a suitable pool of candidates based on the current mix of discretionary programs prior to the time that the review must be conducted due to the inherent delay in continuing resolutions.

These forms will collect information electronically, will be voluntary, low-burden and uncontroversial. The 60 day notice to solicit public comment was published December 12, 2014 soliciting comments from the public and no comments were received.

Within ACF, each program office is responsible for reviews of all eligible applications for grants and cooperative agreements submitted in response to a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). These reviews are required to be objective, effective and economical in compliance with statues, regulations and policies. Therefore, it’s incumbent on each program office to assemble of pool of experts knowledgeable in the specific field for which funding support is requested and to select the best qualified grant or cooperative agreement application.

The review process is in accordance with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Grants Policy Directive (GPD) 2.04 "Awarding Grants", the DHHS Awarding Agency Grants Administration Manual (AAGAM), Chapter 2.04.104C "Objective Review of Grant Applications, and the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, Sections 799(f) and 806(e).

2. Purpose and Use of Information Collection

The purpose is to select qualified reviewers for the grant peer review process based on professional qualifications using data entered by candidates and the uploaded writing sample and/or curriculum vitae and/or resume.

Initially these forms will be on individual program offices’ web-pages that allow for online data entry resembling paper forms. In the future they may be incorporated into the On Line Data Collection (OLDC) system which offers on line access and offers additional conveniences.

In addition, all ACF peer review web sites will include the following language (offset) which was approved by the DHHS Office of General Counsel. The self-identification section of each grant reviewer recruitment form will contain a drop-down menu that includes the OMB categories used to identify race and ethnicity.

Diversity of Membership of Peer Review Panels

The Administration for Children and Families, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services is committed to increasing the diversity of the non-federal peer reviewers utilized in the competitive grants review process. The Fiscal Year 2014 Strategic Plan contains the following action item “We will develop strategies to increase the representation of diverse perspectives on the grant review panels, and track our progress in increasing diversity among reviewers”. In order to achieve this goal, we are requesting that you voluntarily indicate your race and/or ethnic heritage on the self-identification section by checking the appropriate box on the reviewer application form. Please note that this section utilizes the standard Federal identification categories. Your assistance is invaluable in enabling the agency to promote broad representation, especially for underserved and underrepresented groups and track our progress on this important goal.

3. Use of Improved Information Technology and Burden Reduction.

The forms are one or two pages that include user entered fields, drop-down menus, check boxes, radio buttons and an upload function to allow uploading of the curriculum vitae or resume.

3. Efforts to Identify Duplication

There is no duplication since ACF has no other vehicle for potential grant reviewers to submit information about themselves for consideration in this capacity.

3. Involvement of Small Entities

Individuals who apply to serve as ACF reviewers may be affiliated with small entities. However, the information requested is the minimum needed to identify well-qualified applicants and the burden on applicants will not be significant.

3. Consequences If Information Collected Less Frequently

Individuals will have to submit an application only one time to be included in a program reviewer database, unless they wish to update information previously submitted. Without these application forms, ACF will not be able to identify and select well-qualified grant reviewers in a consistent, standardized manner as required.

7. Consistency With the Guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)

This request is fully consistent with 5CFR 1320.5(d)(2)

8. Consultation Outside the Agency

ACF has consulted with representatives from several other Operating Divisions

in the DHHS to determine the best practices for soliciting new reviewers.

The notice required in 5 CFR 1320.8(d) was published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2014, vol. 79, page 73893. No comments were received.

9. Payment to Respondents

There will be no payment to respondents for sub mitting an application. Applicants chosen as ACF grant reviewers will receive standard compensation for their service in that capacity.

10. Assurance of Confidentiality

All information submitted in these reviewer applications will be kept private in the same manner that other personnel applications are handled.

11. Questions of a Sensitive Nature

There are no questions of a sensitive nature.

12. Estimates of Annualized Hour and cost Burden

Form	Number of Respondents	Responses per respondent	Hours per response	Total burden hours
Grant Reviewer Recruitment Form	1500	1	1	1500

The estimate is based on the average time that most individuals will need to complete the application will be between 0.75 and 1.25 hours, including time to update their resume.

The basis for the hourly wage is determined by the average salary of individuals in locales around the country who would have the type of qualifications needed to serve as peer reviewers. Therefore, an estimated hourly wage of $50 per hours is used to determine opportunity cost, i.e., $50 times 1000 hours equals $50,000 per year.

13. Estimates of Annualized Cost Burden to Respondents

There are no capital or startup costs and no operation and maintenance of services of services costs to respondents associated with this information collection.

14. Estimates of Annualized Cost to the Government

The estimated annual cost to the government for staff to review and process these applications is approximately $50.00 per hour. The estimated time to review these applications averages about the same amount of time to review a typical standard resume, which would vary between 30 minutes and one hour. Assuming a 45 minute review average for 1,500 applications, the total annual cost to the government will be approximately $56,250.

15. Explanation for Program Changes or Adjustments

This is a new request therefore there are no changes.

16. Plans for Tabulations, Publications, and Project Time Schedule

There are no plans for tabulations or publications.

17. Reasons Display of OMB Expiration Date is Inappropriate

The expiration date will be displayed.

18. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

There are no exceptions to the certification.

1