Download:
pdf |
pdfSurvey
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) STATEMENT OF PUBLIC BURDEN: The purpose of this information collection is to collect feedback on ACF
grant review processes. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of information. This is a voluntary collection of information. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB # is 0970-0401; expiration date 05/31/2021. If you have any comments on this collection of information, please contact
info@reviewerregistry.net.
Administration for Children and Families
Family and Youth Services Bureau
Grant Review Process Assessment Survey
Chair
Thank you for agreeing to serve as a grant application review Chair for the Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB). Our review chair recruitment,
training, and support processes are designed to ensure participants are prepared to chair reviews and are supported during the review process, and to minimize burden on review panelists. Please
complete this survey to provide feedback on our recruitment, training, and support processes. The survey is expected to take no more than 10 minutes to complete. Your answers will inform our efforts to
continually improve processes for preparing and supporting review panelists.
Please use this scale to respond.
1=strongly agree
2=agree
3=neutral
4=disagree
5=strongly disagree
RECRUITMENT
(Availability Survey Communication, Confirmation Survey Communication, Registration and Certification Instructions, Program Campaign Instructions,
Timeframe for response, etc…)
1. The recruitment documents provided thorough information regarding the period of performance and the scope of work.
1
2
3
4
5
2. The instructions on how to register for the review were clear.
1
2
3
4
5
3. The online registration and certification system was easy to access.
1
2
3
4
5
4. The online registration and certification system was easy to navigate.
1
2
3
4
5
1. I spent a reasonable amount of time registering for training.
1
2
3
4
5
2. The web-based training was easy to access
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
4. The web-based training clearly described the performance standards for projects proposed in response to the FOA.
1
2
3
4
5
5. The web-based training clearly explained the roles and responsibilities of the review chair.
1
2
3
4
5
6. At the end of web-based training, I knew what to do if a reviewer was non-responsive.
1
2
3
4
5
5. Please let us know how we could improve the recruitment process, or check here
if you think the process should not change.
You have 1000 characters remaining
WEB-BASED TRAINING AND TOOL
The following questions are about how well the web-based training and tool helped to prepare you for the review process.
Access and Navigation
Information Presented during Chair Training and/or Grant Review 101 Training or New Reviewer Training
3. The web-based training clearly explained FYSB’s goals and vision for the projects funded by the FOA.
https://www.reviewerrecruitment.net/dev/Survey2020/FYSB_Chairperson_Survey.asp[11/4/2020 11:34:15 AM]
Survey
7. The web-based training clearly explained the meaning of all scoring criteria.
1
2
3
4
5
8. The web-based training clearly explained how to assign numeric scores for all criteria.
1
2
3
4
5
9. The “helpful questions to consider” section helped prepare me to fulfill my responsibilities as review chair.
1
2
3
4
5
10. The guidelines for addressing variance in reviewers’ scores were clear.
1
2
3
4
5
11. The guidelines for addressing variance in reviewers’ scores were thorough.
1
2
3
4
5
12. The guidelines for writing evaluative comments were clear.
1
2
3
4
5
13. The guidelines for writing evaluative comments were thorough.
1
2
3
4
5
14. The description of the grant review process and timeline was clear.
1
2
3
4
5
15. The web-based training was useful.
1
2
3
4
5
16. The web-based training took a reasonable amount of time to complete.
1
2
3
4
5
18. The comprehension assessment was an accurate indication of whether I was prepared to chair a grant application review.
1
2
3
4
5
19. It took me a reasonable amount of time to complete the comprehension assessment.
1
2
3
4
5
Usefulness
17. Please let us know how we could improve the online training, or check here
if you think the training should not change.
You have 1000 characters remaining
COMPREHENSION ASSESSMENT
20. Please let us know how we could improve the comprehension assessment, or check here
if you think the assessment should not change.
You have 1000 characters remaining
ARM REVIEW CHAIR MANUAL
The following questions are about how well the review chair manual helped to prepare you for the review process.
Access and Navigation
1. The review chair manual was easy to access.
1
2
3
4
5
2. The review chair manual was easy to navigate.
1
2
3
4
5
3. The review chair manual clearly explained the roles and responsibilities of reviewers.
1
2
3
4
5
4. The reviewer manual clearly explained the roles and responsibilities of the review chair.
1
2
3
4
5
5. The reviewer manual clearly explained the roles and responsibilities of Federal staff involved with a grant review.
1
2
3
4
5
6. The instructions for entering grant review information were clear and easy to follow.
1
2
3
4
5
Information Presented in the Chair Manual
https://www.reviewerrecruitment.net/dev/Survey2020/FYSB_Chairperson_Survey.asp[11/4/2020 11:34:15 AM]
Survey
7. It was easy to avoid entering duplicate data.
1
2
3
4
5
8. It was easy to review my final report.
1
2
3
4
5
9. It was easy to submit my final report.
1
2
3
4
5
10. Did you return any reviewer evaluations?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
If yes:
Instructions on how to return evaluations were clear and easy to follow.
You have 1000 characters remaining
11. Did the panel manager return your final report?
If yes:
11a. Instructions on how to update information in my account were clear and easy to follow.
You have 1000 characters remaining
11b. Instructions on revising the final report were clear and easy to follow.
You have 1000 characters remaining
12. Did you have to update your contact or log-in information?
If yes:
Instructions on how to update information in my account were clear and easy to follow.
You have 1000 characters remaining
Usefulness
13. The manual was a useful resource.
1
2
3
4
5
15. The training adequately prepared me to conduct a grant application review.
1
2
3
4
5
16. Federal staff provided me with clear guidance whenever I needed it.
1
2
3
4
5
14. Please let us know how the reviewer manual could be improved, or check here
if you think the process should not change.
You have 1000 characters remaining
OVERALL
17. In addition to suggestions you may have made in response to previous items, please let us know how we could improve the training process overall, or check here
process should not change.
You have 1000 characters remaining
https://www.reviewerrecruitment.net/dev/Survey2020/FYSB_Chairperson_Survey.asp[11/4/2020 11:34:15 AM]
if you think the
Survey
18. Please share any additional comments about the grant review training process here.
You have 1000 characters remaining
https://www.reviewerrecruitment.net/dev/Survey2020/FYSB_Chairperson_Survey.asp[11/4/2020 11:34:15 AM]
Submit
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Survey |
| File Modified | 2020-11-04 |
| File Created | 2020-11-04 |