Grant Opportunities

Geriatric Academic Career Award

Program Guidance: Review Criteria

Applications for the Geriatric Academic Career Award will be reviewed by non-Federal outside experts and scored based on the following criteria. Applications will be scored by peer reviewers using a full range of scores from 0 to100 (the highest score). All applicant material, including letters of reference and mentor statement will be reviewed in the evaluation of the proposal.

The Division of Independent Review is responsible for managing objective reviews within HRSA. Applications competing for Federal funds receive an objective and independent review performed by a committee of experts qualified by training and experience in particular fields or disciplines related to the program being reviewed. In selecting review committee members, other factors in addition to training and experience can be considered to improve the balance of the committee, e.g., geographic distribution. Each reviewer is screened to avoid conflicts of interest and is responsible for providing an objective, unbiased evaluation based on the review criteria noted below. The committee provides expert advice on the merits of each application to program officials responsible for final selections for award.

Applications that pass the initial HRSA eligibility screening will be reviewed and rated by a panel based on the program elements and review criteria presented in relevant sections of this program announcement. The review criteria are designed to enable the review panel to assess the quality of an application. The criteria are closely related to each other and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application.

There are three review criteria for the Geriatric Academic Career Award:

• Career Development Plan (Maximum Value: 40 points):
  Extent to which the applicant's career goals as identified in the career development plan meet the purpose of the Geriatric Academic Career Award—to develop into an academic geriatrician who emphasizes teaching geriatrics, including teaching interdisciplinary teams.
  • How well the plan identifies a three-year outcome that will enhance academic clinical geriatrics and the individual's own career as an academic geriatrician.
  • The specificity of objectives and plans for achieving the overall goal.
  • The extent to which identified objectives and specific plans are likely to lead to meeting the career goal.
  • Extent to which training interdisciplinary teams of health professionals is included in the career development plan.
  • Extent to which specific plans will result in research and/or publication opportunities and productivity in national professional societies.
  • Extent to which specific plans will result in
    a) meeting the statutory service requirement (75% time pursuing the goals of the GACA),
    b) interacting with and learning from other clinician-educators locally and nationally, and
    c) obtaining the necessary pedagogical skills to achieve career goals.
  • The quality of the applicant's plan for assessing his or her own progress toward meeting career goals, including his or her effectiveness as a teacher.
  • Description of how the objectives for the proposed project support HRSA's Cultural and Linguistic Competence Related Objectives.
• Applicant's Previous Training and Experience (Maximum Value: 30 points):
  The extent to which the applicant's previous training and experience will contribute to the achievement of the goals, objectives, and plans described in the applicant's Career Development Plan
  • Fellowship experience
  • Clinical experience
  • Teaching experience
  • Past evidence of commitment to geriatrics
• Institutional Support (Maximum Value: 30 points): The extent to which the commitment and expertise of the mentor and the commitment of the institution to provide a supportive environment for the achievement of the applicant's career goals and willingness to meet reporting requirements are demonstrated.
  • Expertise of the mentor
  • Adequacy of frequency of meetings with the mentor
  • Clinical assignments and opportunities provided by the institution
  • Teaching assignments and opportunities provided by the institution
  • Time provided to achieve the goals of the award
  • Opportunities for leadership provided