Become a Reviewer for the 2025 Funding Opportunity!

---

GROC is currently accepting applications for reviewers the spring 2025 funding window. Reviewers must meet general requirements, expertise requirements, and requirements specific to the given study funding priority review group. Balancing experience and diversity when developing rosters for a review group is one of the most challenging tasks GROC faces. Selection is generally a 1-year commitment, involving at least four (4) 2-hour meetings between February - May 2025 and require time devoted outside of council meetings.

• Candidates must be authorities (actively engaged) in the field of substance use addiction/recovery.
• There must be diversity with respect to the geographic distribution, gender, race, and ethnicity of the membership.
• Candidates must be dedicated to high quality, fair reviews.
• Individuals with lived experience of substance use disorder, especially opioids, or family members of those who experienced addiction are considered to have experiential authority. These people are highly encouraged to apply as reviewers, even if lacking other credentials.

• Expertise is the paramount consideration when developing/updating a roster.
• Each funding area reviewed by the review group needs expert representation.
• GROC must ensure that the review group does not become static. Care is taken to ensure that it remains responsive to emerging areas of science, shifting scientific boundaries, and community needs.

• Unique characteristics of each funding area must be factored into selection of members. The breadth of science, the multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary nature of the applications, and the types of applications being reviewed play a large role in the selection of appropriate members. For example:
  • Review groups that review PREVENTION
    • Youth Prevention: Evidence-based school curricula addressing SUD and MH, Age-appropriate substance use and mental health education, and Collaboration with school systems to integrate prevention strategies.
    • Community-Wide Prevention: Public campaigns to reduce stigma around SUD and MH, Engaging diverse demographics through tailored outreach, and Measuring the effectiveness of community engagement initiatives.
  • Review groups that review TREATMENT have a greater need for reviewers who are clinicians.
    • Outpatient Service Access: Expanding access to telehealth services in rural or underserved areas, Tailoring programs for Medicaid users and specific subpopulations, and Strengthening psychiatric and mental health support integration.
    • Transitionary Care: Programs facilitating smooth transitions from incarceration, and Coordination between correctional facilities and community treatment providers.
    • MAT/MOUD Access: Increasing MAT/MOUD availability across income levels, Training healthcare providers to administer these treatments effectively.
    • Inpatient Treatment: Developing or supporting residential treatment programs and Addressing housing stability for those in recovery.
  • Review groups that review RECOVERY
    • Recovery Housing: Ensuring safe and stable housing with integrated peer support, Promoting long-term recovery sustainability.
    • Recovery Support Services: Expanding peer-to-peer support networks, and Enhancing community-based recovery initiatives and clinics.
    • Transportation: Building reliable transportation systems to access treatment and support.
  • Review groups that review HARM REDUCTION
    • Comprehensive Harm Reduction Services: Implementing syringe service programs, Education and access to overdose prevention tools like naloxone, and Addressing the stigma around harm reduction efforts.
  • Review groups that review PLANNING & COORDINATION
    • Workforce Development: Retaining skilled staff through competitive salaries and benefits, and Providing training in trauma-informed care, MAT, and MOUD.
    • Recruitment and Retention: Attracting diverse professionals, including peer support specialists, and Building career pathways for harm reductionists and clinicians.
    • Professional Education: Promoting continuous learning opportunities for service providers.
  • Some applications in each funding area include multidisciplinary applications and thus have a greater need for reviewers who have broader expertise or who have demonstrated the capacity to appreciate and evaluate areas of addiction/recovery outside their immediate area of expertise.
• Group dynamics should be considered when selecting members. For example:
  • There is a need to balance those who are generalists and provide the broader perspective needed for evaluation of the overall impact of a given project and those who are specialists and provide a more focused perspective to ensure proper evaluation of feasibility.
  • For review groups that cover multiple scientific areas or disciplines within the context of a common theme, there is a particular need for reviewers who bridge these areas or disciplines so as to prevent factions from developing within the review group.

• Fairness and objectivity are the most important criteria for a reviewer.
• Reviewers need to be able to articulate their views succinctly, engage in productive exchanges, actively participate in the discussion of applications beyond their assignments, and demonstrate an ability to work collegially in a group setting.
• Reviewers who are able to facilitate or help focus the discussion are particularly valued, as are those who remain actively engaged in ensuring the fairness and consistency of the scoring practices within the group throughout the meeting.

Prospective reviewers are required to complete an interest form, which will be assessed by the GROC Program Manager to determine suitability and alignment with program needs. Applicants advancing in the process will be invited to a 30-minute virtual interview to discuss their qualifications and interests in greater detail. Recommendations will then be presented to the full council, where applicants may be asked to participate in an additional council interview. Selected reviewers will be notified via email, and a training schedule will be provided. Reviewers are expected to attend four (4) two-hour council meetings and allocate sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate their assigned applications.

Still have questions? Email Dr. Chelsea Shore at cshore@co.jefferson.co.us