We are not actively recruiting new external reviewers at this time, but the below information is applicable to those contacted from our existing external reviewer pool.
About AmeriCorps Grant Reviews
- External reviewers will collaborate on a panel of review participants and complete their review tasks remotely.
- Each grant application is reviewed individually by the panel of external reviewers and then all reviewers participate in virtual panel discussions during business hours.
- Reviews include an evaluation of both the application narrative and budget for compliance.
- The review process includes a training period, review period, and closeout period.
- Most reviews require an estimated 60-70 hour commitment over 4-6 weeks.
- Each grant competition may include unique elements and timeframes.
- AmeriCorps will conduct additional outreach for each grant competition and provide specific details and timeframes.
Eligibility and Honoraria Information
- Reviewers must have at least five years or more experience in: disaster services, education, environmental stewardship, healthy futures, economic opportunity, veterans and military families, or capacity building.
- Reviewers must use and access Microsoft Office Excel (version 2010 or later) and web-based programs such as SharePoint, eGrants, and webinars to participate in the AmeriCorps grant reviews.
- External reviewers must remain responsive with the AmeriCorps staff points of contact throughout the entire review period.
- AmeriCorps may pay reviewers, except for federal employees and possibly those receiving unemployment benefits, a discretionary honorarium payment for their participation in a grant review. The honorarium payment amount varies as it depends on the participant’s role and the expected deliverables. The historical honorarium payment for a reviewer in a 4-6 week review is up to $1,000. Expected honorarium payment amounts may be adjusted depending upon the unique elements and timeframes of each review process.
- All reviewers are carefully screened for conflicts of interest to ensure a fair process for applicants. For example, we would prioritize members of the public who are not affiliated with a current grantee or applicant to reduce the conflicts they have.