 |
|
 |
Grant Review Process
The Wisconsin Partnership Fund for a Healthy Future
Grant Review Process
Grant applications submitted to the Community-Academic Partnership Fund undergo a multi-step review process: a technical review, an external review, and the UW School of Medicine and Public Health Oversight and Advisory Committee (OAC) review. The OAC will make all final award decisions and funding determinations.
For more information about the Community-Academic Partnership Fund, please review the Five-Year Plan, The Wisconsin Partnership Fund for a Healthy Future, pages 13-15, and the Request for Partnership (RfP) application.
Technical Review
The first step in the review process is the technical review. The Wisconsin Partnership Program staff conduct a preliminary review of each application for required elements, such as applicant eligibility and a general review of the budget including non-supplanting. Program staff use the Technical Review Checklist (below). The technical review does not evaluate proposal content.
External Review
The second step in the review process is an external review by three expert reviewers with an established history in community and public health. The OAC carefully selects and approves all external reviewers. The Wisconsin Partnership Program staff assign all applications to a review team considering area of expertise, geographic location, and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Each review team consists of a mix of faculty and community reviewers to the extent possible. Review teams score the proposals independently and may meet to discuss applications.
The external reviewers thoroughly evaluate the merits of proposals related to responsiveness to the mission, vision and guiding principles of The Wisconsin Partnership Program; the project purpose, goals, objectives, outcomes, work plan, and evaluation; the collaborative experience and capacity of the partners; and the qualifications of project staff according to the criteria listed in the RfP. Each reviewer gives the application a numerical score along with written comments. The top ranked normalized scores of the applications are forwarded to OAC.
The numerical score is determined based on the relative ranking of the sections as described in the RfP. After assigning points to the individual sections on the External Review Score Sheet (below), reviewers rank the overall merit of a proposal assigning a total score based on a scale of 0 (low) to 100 (high). The total scores fall into one of the following three groups:
Level I – Excellent to outstanding – The application has the potential to have a vital role in advancing the health of the population and has a high probability of impact. Scores in this level range from 80 to 100.
Level II - Good to very good – The application may contribute to advancing the health of the population. The proposal was acceptable but not as strong as the others scored. Scores in this level range from 60 to 79.
Level III – Poor to fair – The application does not appear to have the capacity to advance the health of the population at this time. Scores in this level range from 0 to 59.
Conflict of Interest
All external reviewers agree to abide by the Oversight and Advisory Committee’s Conflict of Interest Policy by signing a Questionnaire on Conflicts of Interest. It is our intent to assure that the review process is impartial and as objective as possible. Reviewers may not review an application where: 1) the reviewer is personally involved, or serves on the board of the entity that is involved in a proposal under review by the reviewer, 2) the reviewer or a family member has an employment or investment relationship with an entity involved in a proposal under review by the reviewer, or 3) the reviewer has any responsibility or involvement in the project being reviewed or advised or consulted with an organization on the development of the application.
UW School of Medicine and Public Health Oversight and Advisory Committee (OAC) Review
The third step is a final review by the OAC, which examines the scores and comments of the external reviewers and makes the final decision. In addition to the external reviewer scores and comment, the OAC also considers the need for and significance of the project, the quality of the community-academic partnership, applicant capacity, geographic distribution, and the potential to advance the state health plan, Healthiest Wisconsin 2010, when making award decisions. The OAC reserves the right to reduce the terms of the award, both in duration and funding. Based on the summary of strengths and weaknesses of the application, the OAC makes a determination for approval and funding. The OAC will announce the grant awards by December 31, 2007.
Notification
All applicants will receive a letter regarding the funding decision from the OAC. Following the letters, the OAC will also provide a summary statement on the application review results. The summary statement provides the official record of the proposal's review, including the following:
1. The minimally edited comments of the individual reviewers, with all reviewer identifiers removed
2. The proposal priority score, which reflects the average of the individual reviewers' scores
|
 |
