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."

Re:Democracy can be a little scary...

[characterZer0]

You really think that educated volunteers are going to outnumber paid plants?

Tread lightly, act forcefully.

[Uncle Ira]

That's a good point. If even half of the people here on Slashdot that were eligible to volunteer would do so, the Slashdot community could have a very powerful impact on the US government's broadband policy.

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 [seliger.com], or, if you want an alligator's worth of general stimulus posts, all these [seliger.com].

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.

Re:Democracy can be a little scary...

[cellurl]

I just applied, did you?

Re:Biases

[BigPeen]

Sounds exactly like every PAID gov't employee!

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...

Re:Biases

[DJLuc1d]

This is what they should have been doing years ago. If the government is going to spend my money, I would rather have average Joe deciding who gets it than people who are paid by this corporation or that one. Granted there is the chance of shills, at least this way there is hope for an honest person influencing decision.

Re:Biases

[Runaway1956]

I'll be happy to admit right up front that I'm biased. I read about people in L.A. New York and Chicago enjoying unbelievable speeds, both wired and unwired. College kids have it all, the fastest speeds in the world again, both wired and unwired.

Jethro Beaudien and I suffer with less than a single MB of bandwidth - often shared between us. I thought the whole idea was to expand internet service. So, I'm going to approve any project that brings real broadband to rural America, and disapprove of ultra-modern projects in the cities. Suburbia gets consideration, as not all suburbs have what is available in the cities and the "greater metropolitan" areas. But, RURAL should have first consideration.

Does anyone actually KNOW how much of America has only dial-up available? Improve things out there with government money. The corporations are already smothering the cities and other profitable areas.

Re:Biases

[weiserfireman]

The Federal Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program uses volunteer grant reviewersOf course, the program was designed by the fire service. Reviewers are pulled from fire departments across the country. Volunteers are not allowed to review applications from their part of the country.Very view criticisms of the program are critical of the grant reviewers. In fact, it is considered to be a program that is very good at getting money to where it is most needed with little overhead.Many people trying to improve te quality of their own apps, volunteer specifically to get exposed to more applications so that they get a better understanding of what makes a good application and what is a poor application.I am not going to be critical of the idea of using volunteer grant reviewers, for this program, until I have more information about what kind of qualificaitons they have for reviewers and safeguards against people gaming the system that have been put in place. Note: I have applied for and won over $1,000,000 in grants for my community through the AFG process