- Posts: 323
HHRF Candidates for Scientific Advisory Committee
2 years 1 month ago #1387
by Kate
HHRF Candidates for Scientific Advisory Committee was created by Kate
April 6, 2022 - HHRF Currently Accepting Applications for Candidates to Serve on the Scientific Advisory Committee
Horses and Humans Research Foundation (HHRF) is currently seeking candidates to serve on the Scientific Advisory Committee. Candidates must be willing to make a three- year commitment and agree to review (at the minimum) three scientific grant proposals a year.
HHRF Applicant Criteria
Active member of the Equine Assisted Services (EAS) community.
Candidate must have published history experience.
Experience reviewing grant applications is preferred.
Candidate has a minimum of a Masters degree in their field.
Commitment to serve three years as an advisor.
Commitment to review at least three proposals a year if requested by the office (unless special circumstances arise).
Willing and able to remain actively engaged and meet all time line requirements.
Adhere to all Roles and Responsibilities (see below) and strict confidentiality protocol.
If interested in pursuing this role or you have questions, please send an email to executive director, Pebbles Turbeville, EdD at exec.director@horsesandhumans.org or info@horsesandhumans.org . Please include your application and a copy of your CV. All applications will be reviewed by members on the Scientific Advisory Council.
HHRF anticipates holding at least two grant cycles a year starting in 2022. Reviewers are not required to participate in both cycles, but are encouraged to participate as able. The estimated time lines for reviewing are in the spring and late fall. This is subject to change and is an estimated time line. All reviewers are offered a stipend of $100 per review. HHRF recognizes your time and commitment are valuable and appreciates and recognizes your involvement as a donation and service to the EAS field.
Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities
Your role is critical to ensuring the selection of high quality proposals for funding. Your primary responsibility is to review the applications and score them on proposal quality. You will be asked to review 1 – 6 applications per cycle, and you will have approximately 4 weeks to complete your review process. The Horses and Humans Foundation will provide you with the following information and forms in electronic format prior to beginning your review process:
Notice of Funding Availability
Conflict of Interest Information
Application Guidelines
Application Checklist
Applications
Evaluation Forms
Honorarium Invoice
Before you begin the review process, you should have thoroughly read the application guidelines and other background information provided by the Foundation. This is essential in order to read and score each of the proposals you will have assigned to you.
Review Process
Review of the proposals is followed by preparation of a Proposal Evaluation Form, reflecting your opinion of the proposals. Several other reviewers will be reading and scoring the same proposals. This is referred to as a panel, although the panel will not meet during this process.
The Proposal Evaluation Form is an extremely important document because it is the primary source of information to analyze the merits of specific proposals when we make funding decisions. We also use the forms to inform the applicant why their proposal was or was not successful. Please pay particular attention to the specific instructions for completing the Proposal Evaluation Forms.
Reading and Reviewing the Proposals
1. Criteria: The sections on the Proposal Evaluation Form correspond to the principal criteria set forth by the Foundation in the application guidelines and is the “lens" through which you should review all aspects of the proposals.
2. Proposal Evaluation Forms: These will help you appraise the proposals according to the criteria. You will use the forms to record your comments and score applications.
You will rate each criterion on a numerical scale from one to five. Your rating should reflect your opinion of the applicant's ability to successfully meet each criterion. You should also describe specific strengths and weaknesses and identify issues that need to be clarified before a grant could be considered. Record all of your comments on these worksheets.
3. Ratings and Comments: Provide detailed and comprehensive comments on each section of the form and provide a clear and concise rationale justifying the numeric score provided for that application. The numeric score and comments will help determine the proposal's final appraisal and are therefore, extremely important.
Without question, reviewers' comments are the most important aspect of the review process. They will help to focus quickly on major issues for discussion and provide guidance to the Foundation Board members when making funding decisions. Reviewer comments provide constructive feedback to applicants -- both those receiving funds and those not -- and assist staff in negotiating final funding amounts with applicants. We encourage you to provide sufficient comments to justify the objective score. Please comment frankly.
We have designed an Overall Appraisal section to ensure that no aspect of a proposal that a reviewer believes is relevant is overlooked in the review process. It is intended to serve as a "catch-all" for comments or points of concern/interest that are not otherwise reflected in the review and for highlighting major strengths and weaknesses. Please note that there will be no "official" weight provided for this section; however, significant comments or issues identified in this section may, in some circumstances, factor into a proposal's final appraisal.
Horses and Humans Research Foundation (HHRF) is currently seeking candidates to serve on the Scientific Advisory Committee. Candidates must be willing to make a three- year commitment and agree to review (at the minimum) three scientific grant proposals a year.
HHRF Applicant Criteria
Active member of the Equine Assisted Services (EAS) community.
Candidate must have published history experience.
Experience reviewing grant applications is preferred.
Candidate has a minimum of a Masters degree in their field.
Commitment to serve three years as an advisor.
Commitment to review at least three proposals a year if requested by the office (unless special circumstances arise).
Willing and able to remain actively engaged and meet all time line requirements.
Adhere to all Roles and Responsibilities (see below) and strict confidentiality protocol.
If interested in pursuing this role or you have questions, please send an email to executive director, Pebbles Turbeville, EdD at exec.director@horsesandhumans.org or info@horsesandhumans.org . Please include your application and a copy of your CV. All applications will be reviewed by members on the Scientific Advisory Council.
HHRF anticipates holding at least two grant cycles a year starting in 2022. Reviewers are not required to participate in both cycles, but are encouraged to participate as able. The estimated time lines for reviewing are in the spring and late fall. This is subject to change and is an estimated time line. All reviewers are offered a stipend of $100 per review. HHRF recognizes your time and commitment are valuable and appreciates and recognizes your involvement as a donation and service to the EAS field.
Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities
Your role is critical to ensuring the selection of high quality proposals for funding. Your primary responsibility is to review the applications and score them on proposal quality. You will be asked to review 1 – 6 applications per cycle, and you will have approximately 4 weeks to complete your review process. The Horses and Humans Foundation will provide you with the following information and forms in electronic format prior to beginning your review process:
Notice of Funding Availability
Conflict of Interest Information
Application Guidelines
Application Checklist
Applications
Evaluation Forms
Honorarium Invoice
Before you begin the review process, you should have thoroughly read the application guidelines and other background information provided by the Foundation. This is essential in order to read and score each of the proposals you will have assigned to you.
Review Process
Review of the proposals is followed by preparation of a Proposal Evaluation Form, reflecting your opinion of the proposals. Several other reviewers will be reading and scoring the same proposals. This is referred to as a panel, although the panel will not meet during this process.
The Proposal Evaluation Form is an extremely important document because it is the primary source of information to analyze the merits of specific proposals when we make funding decisions. We also use the forms to inform the applicant why their proposal was or was not successful. Please pay particular attention to the specific instructions for completing the Proposal Evaluation Forms.
Reading and Reviewing the Proposals
1. Criteria: The sections on the Proposal Evaluation Form correspond to the principal criteria set forth by the Foundation in the application guidelines and is the “lens" through which you should review all aspects of the proposals.
2. Proposal Evaluation Forms: These will help you appraise the proposals according to the criteria. You will use the forms to record your comments and score applications.
You will rate each criterion on a numerical scale from one to five. Your rating should reflect your opinion of the applicant's ability to successfully meet each criterion. You should also describe specific strengths and weaknesses and identify issues that need to be clarified before a grant could be considered. Record all of your comments on these worksheets.
3. Ratings and Comments: Provide detailed and comprehensive comments on each section of the form and provide a clear and concise rationale justifying the numeric score provided for that application. The numeric score and comments will help determine the proposal's final appraisal and are therefore, extremely important.
Without question, reviewers' comments are the most important aspect of the review process. They will help to focus quickly on major issues for discussion and provide guidance to the Foundation Board members when making funding decisions. Reviewer comments provide constructive feedback to applicants -- both those receiving funds and those not -- and assist staff in negotiating final funding amounts with applicants. We encourage you to provide sufficient comments to justify the objective score. Please comment frankly.
We have designed an Overall Appraisal section to ensure that no aspect of a proposal that a reviewer believes is relevant is overlooked in the review process. It is intended to serve as a "catch-all" for comments or points of concern/interest that are not otherwise reflected in the review and for highlighting major strengths and weaknesses. Please note that there will be no "official" weight provided for this section; however, significant comments or issues identified in this section may, in some circumstances, factor into a proposal's final appraisal.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
