Cal. a.t~ grants Mr. P.W. Kaspar, Director. Conservation Division San Frnncisco Operations Office U.S. Department of Energy 1333' Broadway Oakland, California 94612 Dear Mr. Kaspar: Seven peer reviewers, three technical reviewers, and the three Office of Appropriate Technology people involved in the ·grants program met in Sacramento on February 14 and 15. Of the 370 proposals reviewed by the peer panel, more than 1001were discussed during the two-day session. A third of those, totaling over $350,000 in requested funds, were ranked as the very best. , In the course of the discussion, several issues relating to this program were raised and ·debated. A strong and clear consensus emerged on a,number of them. The group agreed that communicating the basic resolutions to you would substantially enhance the design and operation of this program in the future. • Three categories encompass the main points: 1. Intended recipients 2. Salary guidelines 3. Dissemination of project results 1. Intended Recipients The prospective applicants should have the benefit of a clear statement specifying for whotn this program exists. The first program announcement did not provide such information. Th~ limited funds should go to those people who have little or no access to venture capitaJ: individual inventors, small businesses, and community groups rather than corporations and think tanks. Of course there will be exceptional cases, but generally this characteristic became in practice an eligibility requirement. ' , Therefore, those with ties to large laboratories, university money, and other funding sources should no·t an.ticipate using this program to finance their actiyities. The venture capital aspect of the requirement sh·ould be emphasized along with the lack-of-access criterion. For example, capital improvements to businesses and private home- }?uilding, even at its most ingenious, will not be funded. Similarly, college and univers:ity students should be forewarned that the government is not going to pay them to do the-kind of research which is traditionally done towards a degree. Apparently it is necessary to state that DOE will not be subsidizing anyone's efforts to become familiar with the stateof-the-art as available in existing literature. A better self-selection would occur if th~ $30,000-$50,000 range were presented as the -exceptional portion of the spectrum. Most qf our highest-ranking proposals requested funds under $10,000. Towards this end of revealing the perspective of the grantor, the technical and peer review evaluation forms or criteria should be included in the announcement/application pamphlet. Perhaps a_briefly annotated list of projects already funded would also clarify the thrust of the program and identify the state-of-the-art. A caution to branch out from such projects may be necessary. • Directions and guidelines for proposal writers to help them prepare a sufficiently developed and detailed proposal are • nece.ssary. Too many of the proposals contained vague ideas instead of specific intentions. We have _already forwarded our suggestions on this to SAN. • May 1978 RAIN Page 7 2. Salaty Guidelines Inclusion of salary guidelines is a crucial part of informing the public of the nature of this program. Our review team was unsympathetic to salary rates greater than $10-15 an hour ($20,000-$33,000 a year). Even that •seemed unacceptable when an advance waiver for patent rights was requested. When the project would largely improve the applicant's.own property, only expenses and materials costs should be allowed. There were dismaying patt~rns of large salary disparities in husband-wife, professor-student, and professional-layperson teams. 'Ultimate project responsibility may be reflected in differences in pay. We faced too many instance~s, however, of budget allocations totally inconsistent with principles of an appropriate technology consciousness. 3. Dissemination of Results We are very concerned that this does not become one more program in which the grantee recei~es a check and a year later hands over a final report which reaches only a select few. Public access to the process of experimentation and learning that occurs is vital. ' The benefits of these projects will obviously multiply with the audience reached. Furthermore, widespread reporting will inform future applicants of what we are seeking and should consequently enhance the quality of the next round of proposals. Some applicants indicated plans to develop publishable data and designs. _Most, however, do not have the special skills required to present the information in.a pleasing and accessible manner. One would expect a program,such as this to extend to.the _compilation and dissemination of results of the funded projects. To ask the right questions and edit the answers, even to three or four pages per project, is a maj-or undertaking. If it can be done well, th·ough, it may be the single most important aspect in getting an idea into the marketplace. 4. Other Comments a) It may be worth dedicating a portion of the grant funds to draw a'ttention and effort to specific gaps in appropriate energy technology development. If so, the announcement/ application pamphlet would be the place to indicate the targeted areas. b) The completed technical review was a valuable tool to the peer reviewers; without it their job would have been longer, murkier and no more independent. , 1c) It would help to kn.ow how much room for negotiation is in fact available. Not too infrequently a proposal could be significantly upgraded by a budget change, a systems component sub·stitu.tion, or a link-up with another proposer. The most opportune time and method to consider such changes may be during the review process. Therefore, the negotiating process should be flexible enough to allow reviewers to communicate with applicants. d) The Office of Appropriate Technology should have an opportunity to review the letter of rejection before it is mailed by SAN to the unsuccessful applic;ants. e) The review procedure can be better structured to allow time to process the proposals if we know the amount of funds available. The possible last minute tripling (or more) of the money has caused some unnecessary difficulty. Respectfully, Robert L. Judd, Jr. Director Office of Appropriate Technology
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz