Supporting_Statement

Grant Reviewer Recruitment Module Form

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Terms of Clearance: NONE

A. Justification

1. Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary

This is an approval request by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Division of Independent Review (DIR) for an extension with revision of the Grant Reviewer Recruitment Form under OMB No. 0915-0295. The current expiration date is April 30, 2014. This form is used to update and enhance the DIR’s grant and cooperative agreement reviewer database.

HRSA's Division of Independent Review is responsible for carrying out independent and objective reviews of all eligible applications and cooperative agreements submitted to HRSA. DIR ensures that the independent peer review process is objective, effective, economical, and complies with statutes, regulations and policies. The review of applications is performed by experts knowledgeable in the field of endeavor for which funding support is requested.

The DIR 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

We are requesting approval of a revision to the Grant Reviewer Recruitment Form now called the Reviewer Recruitment Module (RRM) form. The revision is a simplified, centralized data collection web page using fewer menus, fewer user entered fields, and a search function on the reviewer uploaded Curriculum Vitae (CV) or resume data. The reviewer selection is based on professional qualifications using data they enter, answers to menu questions, and a scan of the CV or resume data using key words germane to the specific needs of the peer review.

To streamline the registration, selection and assignment of expert grant reviewers for objective review committees, HRSA has used a web-based, centralized data collection Grant Reviewer Recruitment Form since 2008 to record critical reviewer information. The Grant Reviewer Recruitment Form standardized reviewer information such as areas of expertise, occupations, work settings, education, and experience. DIR uses the database to select appropriate reviewers for objective review committees which evaluate the merits of competitive and discretionary grant applications and cooperative agreements for funding.

Use of a standardized, centralized database has played an important role in the process of composing objective review committees, and enhanced the diversity of the HRSA reviewer pool as required by the (previously described) legislation and policy. Expedited accurate reviewer selection contributes to the reduction in HRSA's time between application receipt and grant award issuance. Professional qualifications, not demographic data, are used as selection criteria.

3. Use of Improved Information Technology and Burden Reduction

The RRM form uses simple drop-down menus, checkboxes and radio buttons to simplify the data collection process and reduce the respondent time and burden to register and update their file. Existing reviewers in the current EHB Reviewer Recruitment Form will re-register using the new RRM form once, then maintain their registration annually with any updates to their contact information or CV/ resume (e.g. addresses, employer, expertise, occupation), and add any missing information to their profile. Screen shots of the revised database are provided (attachment 1).

Use of a centralized database permits multiple staff members to simultaneously compose objective review committees and eliminate duplicate reviewer information. During file creation, reviewers select their user name and password which can be changed at their leisure and more easily remembered. Automated annual notices are sent by the RRM system when the file requires updating or removed as inactive. Sensitive information such as birthdates and social security numbers are not collected.

3. Efforts to Identify Duplication and Use of Similar Information

HRSA has no other web-based vehicle for potential grant reviewers to submit information in a standardized fashion. It is necessary for DIR to collect reviewer demographic and professional data to select peer reviewers and conduct HRSA peer review per legislation. The web-based RRM form is similar to the design and user function of the separate grant evaluation system used by HRSA for peer review. Consistency of the web page presentation, flow of information, and ease of use were all considerations in the migration to this particular RRM system.

3. Impact on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities

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

6. Consequences of Collecting the Information Less Frequently

A respondent is required to enter the system at least once annually. Reviewer’s files can be administratively noted by DIR as needed. If a respondent is selected to serve for a particular review, they will no longer be asked to validate the information or make any changes until the required annual update. E-mail function will be automated to ask reviewers to refresh and update their file, or to indicate if they are no longer interested in serving as a HRSA reviewer. No follow-up is performed if the reviewer does not respond to these e-mails. The RRM system will automatically purge the file to archives if not updated in a timely manner. A draft letter for the database revision and requirement to re-register is attached (attachment 2). There are no legal obstacles to reduce the burden.

7. Special Circumstances Relating to the Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.5

This application is fully compliant with 5 CFR 1320.5.

7. Comments in Response to the Federal Register Notice and Consultation Outside the Agency

Section 8A: As required in 5 CFR 1320.8(d) a 60-day Federal Register Notice was published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2013 (Volume 78, Number 132, Pages 41407-41408 (see attachment 3). There were no public comments received.

Section 8B: HRSA conducted internal review, comment, and testing of the revision. A similar and very successful method was used two years ago to review, modify, and launch a separate internal automated review module (ARM©). Using the same contractor for the RRM form has provided great continuity in look and feel of the database. We expect global acceptance of the revised RRM form just as reviewers have accepted, and enjoy using, the automated review module (ARM©).

Test team representatives included HRSA Bureau and Program management, Information Technology, DIR Review Administrators (RA’s), DIR management, and the revision contractor staff. Bureau and Program management provided key words for use in the drop down menus used in the revision, and ideas for the initial selection criteria of reviewers based on reviewer entered data. DIR RA’s coordinate review needs between the review meeting contractor and Program. RA’s were solicited to act as new reviewers to enter and create files. Internal testers complimented the system on simplicity and clarity of screens, and the greatly reduced time and effort of use. Test selections of review panels populated as expected, and key word use was accurate in finding appropriate matches.

9. Explanation of any Payment/ Gift to Respondents

There will be no payment to respondents for submitting an application.

9. Assurance of Confidentiality Provided to Respondents

Information and data will be maintained through the HRSA RRM system and stored in a database. This system is covered under a Privacy Impact Assessment certified and accredited for security authorization under GrantSolutions© Automated Review Module (ARM©), by the Agency for Children and Families (ACF) agency Chief Information Officer. RRM is part of the GrantSolutions ARM© module system used by HRSA under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ACF, and technically falls under the same agreement. ARM© is not a publically accessible system and does not capture any personally identifiable information (PII) from its users.

11. Justification for Sensitive Questions

There are no questions of a sensitive nature.

12. Estimates of Annualized Hour and cost Burden (no pre-screening)

Grant Recruitment Form	Number of respondents	Responses per respondent	Total responses	Hours per response	Total burden hours
New Reviewer	5,000	1	5,000	0.333	1665 hrs
Updating Reviewer Information Existing reviewer	250	1	250	.166	42 hrs
Total	5,250		5,250		1,707 hrs

13. Estimates of other total Annual cost Burden to Respondents or Recordkeepers/ Capital costs

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

13. Annualized Cost to the Government

The use of a web-based database form for the collection and organization self-nominated reviewer information produces economic and business process efficiencies. In its current web-based environment, no FTE hours will be utilized for system administrative activities as the RRM system continues as an adjunct of an internal grant database application already managed by HRSA's system administrator. DIR staff time dedicated to system management is 5% of a GS-12 step 5 (2012 Office of Personnel Management Salary Table) FTE (approximately $4,250) (2012 Office of Personnel Management Salary Table).

15. Explanation for Program Changes or Adjustments

Approval is requested for a decreased burden level. Original OMB approval for the Grant Reviewer Database form was for a total of 2,750 hours where the new reviewer file creation would take 0.75 hours, and the update 0.5 hours. This current request is for the Reviewer Recruitment Module (RRM) form for 1,707 total burden hours, where a new file creation is 0.33 hours and the file update is 0.16 hours. This is a decrease of 1,043 hours based on the unique simplicity and search power of the RRM system. The 2008 submission anticipated 3,700 reviewers registering in the new database, and we estimate the same number of active reviewers in the future. Now that existing reviewers must annually re-verify or re-register with fresh information, we anticipate a decrease in the estimated number of mid-year file updates (250).

15. Plans for Tabulation, Publication, and Project Time Schedule

There are no plans for analysis or publication of any information collected from the RRM.

17. Reason(s) 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.

Attachments

1. Grant Reviewer Recruitment Module (RRM) Form (screen shots)

with Instructions

2. DIR letter to reviewers to re-register in RRM

3. Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 132, Wednesday July 10, 2013,

pages 41407-41408

Page 5