US Seeks Volunteers To Review Broadband Grant Applications

BobB-nw writes with this excerpt from Network World: "The US National Telecommunications and Information Administration, scheduled to distribute $4.7 billion in broadband deployment grants over the next 15 months, will count on volunteers to review grant applications. The NTIA, in a document released this week, asks for people to apply to become volunteer reviewers of the broadband grants. The NTIA's broadband grant program is part of $7.2 billion that the US Congress approved for broadband in a huge economic stimulus package approved earlier this year. ... It's 'a little scary' that volunteers will have the power to accept and reject broadband applications, said Craig Settles, an analyst and president of consulting firm Successful.com. Volunteers may have limited expertise, or they may have biases that aren't evident to the NTIA, he said."

Comments

Re:Biases

[eln]

There are levels of bias. If you want people to wallow through pages and pages of grant applications for free, the only people who will volunteer will be the ones that have a vested interest in making sure certain applications are accepted or rejected. There are only three types of people who I can think of that would be interested in doing this:

1.) Industry insiders who want to make sure their grants are accepted or their competitors' are rejected.
2.) Crusaders trying to bend the process to whatever their particular ideology is.
3.) Unemployable losers with nothing better to do.

I can't see how letting any of these groups participate would result in good results. We're talking about billions of dollars here...surely the government could toss in a couple hundred thousand to pay people to do the job.

Bedtime Story

[BigBlueOx]

"Who will help me approve these broadband requests?", said the Big Red Government.

"I will! I will!", said the Comcast manager.
"I will! I will!", said the Time Warner CEO's wife.
"I will! I will!", said Rupert Murdoch's 2nd cousin.

And they did.

Re:Democracy can be a little scary...

[Joe Snipe]

At least the ratio of honest criticism to paid shill will be lower than the current system.

A novel ploy:

[ThousandStars]

This is an unusual tactic but one that makes a certain amount of sense: the amount of money going through many federal agencies right now is somewhat like the proverbial alligator being digested by a python. My family's business does grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies, and we've been writing about these kinds of logistical problems for a while; see for example, this post, or, if you want an alligator's worth of general stimulus posts, all these.

The upshot is that too many agencies have too much money to cover regulation reviews, RFP development, technical support once RFPs have been issued, reviewers once RFPs have been received, and program officers to oversee awards once they've been made. These problems have been fairly well-known among nonprofits and grant writers for some time; that they're now making it to /. can't help but warm my heart, especially since I think we're writing a BTOP and BIP.

Guess what that is how science is funded, NIH, NSF

[neurocutie]

Nearly all "extramural" science/medicine/health grants funded by NIH, NSF, (even parts of DOD), are "peer reviewed" by a similar mechanism, basically VOLUNTEER experts in the field. One gets a tiny "honorarium" and it is ALOT of work. The peer review system in science/medicine is full of problems, but it is also better than any other system yet tried or conceived...

"Waah! Their not hiring consultants like us"

[DragonWriter]

It's 'a little scary' that volunteers will have the power to accept and reject broadband applications, said Craig Settles, an analyst and president of consulting firm Successful.com.

If Settles had read the NTIA announcement, he would have noted that volunteer reviewers will not have the power to accept and reject applications, but instead that instead their "evaluations will be an important factor considered by NTIA in determining whether to award grant funding". Either Settles didn't read the announcement and should have some idea what he is talking about before he shoots his mouth off, or he did read it and he's being deliberately dishonest. Settles then goes on to complain:

Volunteers may have limited expertise, or they may have biases that aren't evident to the NTIA, he said.

This is no more true of volunteers than paid reviewers; relevant to these issues, on the expertise issue, the announcement states: "To be considered as a reviewer you must have significant expertise and experience in at least one of the following areas: 1) the design, funding, construction, and operation of broadband networks or public computer centers; 2) broadband-related outreach, training, or education; and 3) innovative programs to increase the demand for broadband services. In addition you must agree to comply with Department of Commerce policies on conflict of interest and confidentiality." (emphasis added)

Essentially, this are the same kind of requirements that would be put into place for paid reviewers, but Settles real problem is revealed when he says this:

I think you'd want the best people stimulus money can acquire influencing who the winners are.

The real problem is that he is that Successful.com is a broadband consulting firm, and that the decision to seek volunteers rather than paid consultants for this task means less total business for broadband consulting firms resulting from the stimulus bill, and more for actual broadband services.