About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

HRD-78-121 1 (1978-11-17)

handle is hein.gao/gaobaayhz0001 and id is 1 raw text is: DOCUMENT RESUME 07949 - rC3268374J Accountability in the National Science foundation's Review Process for Grant Awards Needs Strenqthening. ORD-78-1 1; B-133183. November 17, 1978. 51 pp. + 2 appendices (5 pp.). Report to Rep. Olin E. Teague, Chairman, House Committee on Science and Technology; by 'lmer B. Staats, Couptrcller General. Issue Aroa: FeJerally Sponsored or Assisted Education Prcgrams. Organization and danagement of Federal Education Programs (3301). Contact: Human Resources Div. Budget Function: General Science, ipace, and Technology: General Science aad Basic Research (251). Orqanization Concerned: National Science Foundation. Conqressional Relevance: House Committee on Science and Technology; Senate Committee on Human Pesources. Rep. Olin E. Teaque. Authority: National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (L2 U.S.C. 1861). About 2,000 institutions compete for National Science Foundation (NSF) research funds which are awarded mainly through grants to colleges and universities. In fiscsl year 1977, acadpaic and other nonprofit instituticns zeceised about 10,20C, qrahts totaling over $570 million. In deciding whether to fund proposals, NSF officials get comments from experts (peer reviewers) in the fields of the propcsals. Findings/Conclusions: Accountability in the proposal evaluation process is still a problem in spite of actions taken by the NSF over the past 2 years to improve the process. Action review boards, m.ade up of officials in each of the six directorates awarding grants, were established to ensure that proposal evaluations complied with policies and procedures. However, some grants reviewed by the boards lacked proper justification; some grants were excluded from review; reasons for selection of specific peer reviewers and the disposition of reviever~s comments were not adequately documented; there was no periodic reportinq of boards' findings; and board members were not independent of the evaluation process. At GAO's sugges-icn, NSF established an Office cf Audit and Oversight weich samples proposal actions after they are finalized to i-valuate documentaticn and compliance with procedures. Bowever, preaward controls are also needed. Other weaknesses in the prccess involve lack of consistency among NSF's directorates in documenting the bases for selecting peer reviewers and hew tLeir comments are handled and officials responsible foi approving decisions who are not expert in proposals' subject areas. Recommendations: The NSF should require documentation in proposal files to show: the relationship between the expertise of peer reviewers selected to evaluate a proposal and tte critical elements to be evaluated, how reviewers' advexise

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most