Academic literature on the topic 'Committee of Allocation'

Background Funding committees, comprising members with a range of knowledge, skills, and experience, are considered integral to the decision-making process of funding organisations for recommending or allocating research funding. However, there is limited research investigating the decision-making processes, the role of members and their social interactions during funding committee meetings conducted both virtually and face-to-face. Methods Using a mixed-methods design and following netnography principles, the study observed nine National Institute for Health and Care Research programmes funding committee meetings conducted virtually during October 2020 to December 2021; complemented by interviews with committee chairs and members (18 interviews) and NIHR staff (12 interviews); an online survey (50 responses); and documentary analysis. Personal reflections through immersive journals also formed part of the analysis. Results Three main themes were identified from the observations, interviews, and online survey: efficiency of virtual committee meetings (importance of preparation, and the role of formality, process, and structure); understanding the effect of virtual committee meetings on well-being (effects of fatigue and apprehension, and the importance of work life balance); understanding social interactions and engagement (levels of engagement, contribution and inclusivity, awareness of unconscious bias and the value of social networking). Conclusions Examining the decision-making practices of one funding organisation across several research programmes, across multiple committee meetings over one year has generated new insights around funding committee practices that previous studies have not been able to explore or investigate. Overall, it was observed that fair and transparent funding recommendations and outcomes can be achieved through virtual funding committees. However, whilst virtual funding committees have many benefits and opportunities, such as the potential to increase membership diversity and inclusivity, and be more environmentally sustainable, more evidence is needed to evaluate their effectiveness, with particular focus on issues of fatigue, engagement, and committee cohesion, especially when new committee members join.

Background Funding committees, comprising members with a range of knowledge, skills, and experience, are considered integral to the decision-making process of funding organisations for recommending or allocating research funding. However, there is limited research investigating the decision-making processes, the role of members and their social interactions during funding committee meetings conducted both virtually and face-to-face. Methods Using a mixed-methods design and following netnography principles, the study observed nine National Institute for Health and Care Research programmes funding committee meetings conducted virtually during October 2020 to December 2021; complemented by interviews with committee chairs and members (18 interviews) and NIHR staff (12 interviews); an online survey (50 responses); and documentary analysis. Personal reflections through immersive journals also formed part of the analysis. Results Three main themes were identified from the observations, interviews, and online survey: efficiency of virtual committee meetings (importance of preparation, and the role of formality, process, and structure); understanding the effect of virtual committee meetings on well-being (effects of fatigue and apprehension, and the importance of work life balance); understanding social interactions and engagement (levels of engagement, contribution and inclusivity, awareness of unconscious bias and the value of social networking). Conclusions Examining the decision-making practices of one funding organisation across several research programmes, across multiple committee meetings over one year has generated new insights around funding committee practices that previous studies have not been able to explore or investigate. Overall, it was observed that fair and transparent funding recommendations and outcomes can be achieved through virtual funding committees. However, whilst virtual funding committees have many benefits and opportunities, such as the potential to increase membership diversity and inclusivity, and be more environmentally sustainable, more evidence is needed to evaluate their effectiveness, with particular focus on issues of fatigue, engagement, and committee cohesion, especially when new committee members join.

Weak allocation and procurement of funds in educational institutions, affects the educational process. The reason is that the budget is the main means of supporting and carrying out activities in education. The school committee is an organizational body that is held to support solutions, provide considerations, and complete the results of coordination through its role in communicating the institution by providing a positive image to the community and partners. One of the committee's roles as a supporting agency is to support procurement activities and the allocation of school budgets. The research approach used is descriptive qualitative, which then uses interview and observation data analysis techniques. The purpose of the study focused on social conditions in the role of the school committee's supporting agency in financing education. Research that has been carried out at Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Swasta Al-Ittihadiyah Al-Islamiyah (MIS AIAI) identified the following results: 1) the role of mobilizing the education financing budget with good management functions, 2) the committee carries out monitoring and evaluation to determine the level of effectiveness of the implementation of activities carried out, 3) Monitoring and evaluation is carried out by the committee (MIS AIAI) by holding committee meetings between the community and the school, and 4) The role in organizing the education budget is also pursued through visits to people who are in the capable category to support the education process.

Dealing with relationships on farmland is one of the most important issues in China. Since its reform and opening up, the policies of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) on “agriculture, rural areas, and farmers” have been embodied in the Central No. 1 document. The documents, which represent the purpose of China, reveal the strategic direction and development ideas of the state. Based on Central No. 1 documents published by the Central Committee of the CPC, and using the attention theory from psychology, we proposed PAI and PAD indicators to express the Central Committee of the CPC’s concern and direction on agriculture, and then measured the change in attention allocation of the Central Committee of the CPC’s land policy, as well as what is “new” in the land policy system. Results showed that: First, the attention allocation of the Central Committee of the CPC’s land policy (PAI) shows a wave-like upward trend from 3.9% to 5%, and has gone through the stage of contracting management to benefit people’s livelihoods and liberate productivity, the stage of allocating land resource elements under scientific use control, and the stage of expanding power and enabling capacity to promote the modernization of land management. Second, the policy attention direction (PAD) has experienced a process from the early focus on the release of land factor productivity to the optimal allocation of land factor resources and then to the modernization of land management. Third, the scope of attention allocation is gradually expanding, especially for the construction of ecological civilization and promotion of the modernization of land management. To be specific, it is necessary to reasonably arrange the overall planning of China’s land policy system based on the actual situation, and to clarify and optimize the development direction and the proportion of attention allocation in its subdivision fields. The intention to be the first to push forward the implementation of the relevant policies and pilot issues of land governance modernization will become the new trend of the future research. Based on the actual situation, we should continue to emancipate prevailing perceptions and combine the focus of rural land reform to inject vitality into rural development and into the development of the whole economy and society.

Background: Evidence-based policy making is increasingly used for better resource allocation. Queensland Department of Health has developed a new model to introduce innovative health technologies through a health technology assessment (HTA) program.Structure: A state-wide committee and several sub-committees at health service district level were established to oversee the HTA program and to monitor the uptake of technologies. The committees are supported by a multidisciplinary secretariat comprising staff with key HTA skills.Process: The process starts with HTA applications, which are then shortlisted according to prespecified criteria. A due diligence process adopting a rapid evidence assessment approach is used to evaluate the applications. Based on the assessment, recommendations are made using a deliberative decision-making process guided by well-recognized tools. With positive recommendation, a technology is piloted in constrained local setting before its system-wide diffusion.Outcome: The HTA program has assisted health administrators in prioritizing their health technology agendas. It has gained trust and wide support from policy makers and is increasingly used to support funding allocations, indicating the increasing awareness of and confidence in the program.Conclusions: The HTA program is a valuable process to assist evidence-based policy development and to guide better resource allocation.

Allocation of health resources has an irreducible ethical dimension, thus cannot be decided only technically, but must be ethically weighed, what paradigmatic experiences of macro (Oregon Basic Health Services Act, 1989) and micro allocation (God’s Committee, 1962) have shown. Justice is required in the enunciation of prioritization criteria, and transparency in its application. In situations of aggravated resource scarcity, it is common to take ‘allocate’ and ‘rationing’ as synonyms or claim that ‘allocate’ is always ‘rationing’. Rejecting these positions, there is a distinction between 'allocating' (resource management) from 'rationing' (allocation of limited resources to a limited number of persons) and 'rationalizing' (optimization of available resources). These distinctions are ethically pertinent, showing how only 'rationalization' respects justice, transparency and human dignity.