Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 139
Appendix E
Revised Policy Memorandum on NSGO
Final Evaluation and Merit Funding
(2005); April 8, 2005
[Stamped Date on Original: April 8, 2005]
MEMORANDUM FOR: Sea Grant Directors
FROM: Ronald C. Baird
Director
SUBJECT: Revised Policy Memorandum on NSGO Final Evaluation and
Merit Funding (2005)
This policy document revises the previous, "Policy Memorandum on
NSGO Final Evaluation and Merit Funding," (1999). Revisions incorpo-
rate recommendations from the Toll Committee Report ("Review and Rec-
ommendations: Sea Grant Program Evaluation Process Report of the Sea Grant
Review Panel's Program Evaluation Committee," October 2001) and the new
requirements under the ``National Sea Grant College Program Act
Amendments of 2002'' (Public Law 107299). The policy was also re-
viewed for consistency with the memorandum, "Policy for the Allocation
of Funds, FY2003 and Beyond," (March, 2003).
139
OCR for page 140
140 APPENDIX E
INTRODUCTION
To increase the overall performance and effectiveness of the Sea Grant
network and associated institutional programs, the National Sea Grant
Office (NSGO) tracks and analyzes the performance of each Sea Grant
program. In 1998, the NSGO moved from the prospective evaluation of
Sea Grant program proposals and their individual projects to a retrospec-
tive evaluation of overall program performance and accomplishment. The
intent of evaluation is to improve Sea Grant's overall performance while
providing incentives for strong performance. This change was first rec-
ommended by the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council
in 1994 and subsequently endorsed by the institutions that comprise the
Sea Grant network. The National Sea Grant College Program Act of 1998
(P.L. 105-160) codified this change and charged the Director of the Na-
tional Sea Grant College Program to:
``204(3) With respect to sea grant colleges and sea grant
institutes, the Director shall--
``(A) evaluate the programs of sea grant colleges and
sea grant institutes, using the priorities, guidelines, and
qualifications established by the Secretary;
``(B) subject to the availability of appropriations, allocate
funding among sea grant colleges and sea grant
institutes so as to--
``(i) promote healthy competition among sea grant
colleges and institutes;
``(ii) encourage successful implementation of sea
grant programs; and
``(iii) to the maximum extent consistent with other
provisions of this Act, provide a stable base of funding
for sea grant colleges and institutes; and
``(C) ensure compliance with the guidelines for merit
review....''
SEA GRANT PROGRAM EVALUATION
In response to the 1994 National Research Council/Ocean Studies Board
Report and the 1998 Sea Grant reauthorization legislation, the NSGO in-
troduced a system of performance-based reviews ("Implementation of Pro-
gram Evaluation Procedures in the National Sea Grant College Program," April
20, 1998) that continue to the present. Among other things, this requires
OCR for page 141
APPENDIX E 141
(1) Program Assessment Team Evaluations and (2) NSGO Final Evalua-
tion Reviews.
1. Program Assessment Team Evaluations
An onsite evaluation by a Program Assessment Team (PAT) of each insti-
tution responsible for administering a Sea Grant program is conducted
under the auspices of the Sea Grant Review Panel. The NSGO Director
will notify university officials of the upcoming PAT. The role of the PAT
is to assess the performance of a Sea Grant program with respect to a
standard set of evaluation criteria and benchmarks and to make recom-
mendations for the improvement of the program. The PAT Report and
recommendations are used primarily to improve individual program per-
formance and also to provide a basis for comparison among programs
over the long term.
During the first cycle of PAT reviews (19982001), teams assigned a grade
to each of the four major benchmark categories and an overall grade using
appropriate weights:
Organizing and Managing the Program (20%)
Connecting Sea Grant with Users (20%)
Effective & Aggressive Long-Range Planning (10%)
Producing Significant Results (50%)
As a result of the Toll Committee Report, and subsequent recommenda-
tions by the Sea Grant Review Panel, the grading regime was changed for
the second PAT cycle that began in 2003. Instead of marks for each of the
four benchmark categories, the PAT will now provide a rating for each of
14 finer scale sub-elements under the four major benchmark categories
and no overall grade. Those sub-elements and the weights assigned to
each are listed below and described in detail in the PAT Manual:
Organizing and Managing the Program (20%)
Leadership of the Program (6%)
Institutional Setting and Support (4%)
Project Selection (2%)
Recruiting Talent (3%)
Effective and Integrated Program Components (5%)
OCR for page 142
142 APPENDIX E
Connecting Sea Grant with Users (20%)
Engagement with Appropriate User Communities (15%)
Partnerships (5%)
Effective & Aggressive Long-Range Planning (10%)
Strategic Planning Process (4%)
Strategic Plan Quality (4%)
Implementation Plan (2%)
Producing Significant Results (50%)
Contributions to Science and Technology (10%)
Contributions to Extension, Communications and Education (10%)
Impact on Society, the Economy and the Environment (25%)
Success in Achieving Planned Program Outcomes (5%)
Each sub-element will be given one of four possible ratings by the PAT:
· Needs Improvement--In general, performance does not reach the
benchmark for this sub-element.
· Meets Benchmark--In general, performance meets, but does not
exceed, the benchmark for this sub-element.
· Exceeds Benchmark--In general, performance goes beyond what
would be required to simply meet the benchmark for this sub-
element.
· Highest Performance--Performance goes well beyond the bench-
mark for this sub-element and is outstanding in all areas.
The PAT will provide a briefing for the Sea Grant Director and appropri-
ate university officials at the end of the PAT visit. The ratings are pre-
sented at the debriefing and a rating sheet is also provided for the record.
Following the PAT review, the chair of the assessment team provides a
written PAT Report to the institution. The Sea Grant institution is encour-
aged to provide the NSGO a written response to the PAT Report. The
comprehensive PAT Report and the institutional response to the report
will become part of the record for the institutional program and both will
be considered at the NSGO Review. Actions taken after the PAT by a Sea
Grant institution in response to PAT recommendations will be acknowl-
edged, but will not become a factor in the current NSGO ratings. All
improvements made by the Sea Grant institution after the PAT will be
more properly considered in the next PAT cycle.
OCR for page 143
APPENDIX E 143
2. NSGO Final Evaluation Reviews
The four-year NSGO Final Evaluation Review (henceforth, NSGO Re-
view) is conducted by the NSGO in the year following the program's PAT
visit (usually February). The evaluation relies primarily on the informa-
tion provided by the program to the PAT, the PAT Report and ratings,
and the institutional response to the PAT Report. A NSGO Final Evalua-
tion Report (henceforth, NSGO Report) summarizes the findings of the
NSGO performance review for that Sea Grant program over the last four-
year review cycle. In addition to the report, the NSGO provides a perfor-
mance rating to each Sea Grant program as part of the evaluation.
The primary objective of the NSGO Review is to provide local manage-
ment with an assessment of performance and specific recommendations
directed toward improvement and maintenance of existing program
strengths. The second objective is to assign programs to a rating category
that can be used in the allocation of a partial amount of Sea Grant funds.
This rating was the basis during the first cycle of reviews (19982002) for
allocating merit funding from a $3,000,000 pool of funds set aside in the
Sea Grant budget for that purpose.
The seven or eight Sea Grant programs that were evaluated by a PAT in
the prior calendar year are considered as a group and scheduled for NSGO
Review every four years. The NSGO conducts the final evaluation during
a one-week period, typically in the month of February. The criteria and
benchmarks used in the NSGO Review are identical to those used by the
PAT. Effort is taken to assure that all programs are evaluated in a similar
manner using the same standard criteria and performance benchmarks
listed above and described in detail in the PAT Manual.
The NSGO Director has mandated that all NSGO technical staff partici-
pate and be present for the entire review. One or more members of the
National Sea Grant Review Panel, usually from the panel's executive com-
mittee, also attend this meeting as observers, which is consistent with the
panel's oversight responsibilities for the conduct of program evaluation.
Performance Information Considered
In preparation for the NSGO Review, the NSGO Program Officer pre-
pares materials for distribution. The PAT Report and the SG program's
response provide the primary input to the NSGO review process.
OCR for page 144
144 APPENDIX E
Documents and reports are distributed to NSGO staff for study prior to
the review, which include:
· The overview section from the program's briefing book prepared
by the Sea Grant program for its PAT Review. This section includes
a program description, the response to previous PAT recommen-
dations, and a description of program accomplishments and im-
pacts. (See NSGO Guidelines for Program Assessment Briefing Books,
May 9, 2003)
· The Program Assessment Team Report as signed off by the PAT
Chair
· The Sea Grant program's formal written response to the PAT Re-
port
· The program's strategic and implementation plans
Collectively, the NSGO staff also has access to documents on file for each
program, part of the continuous and ongoing communications that occur
between a Sea Grant program and the NSGO. Some of these materials are
less generally available to the PAT and represent additional information
for the NSGO to use in the evaluation process. This includes:
· Annual progress reports
· Omnibus proposals
· Publications
· Archived information on accomplishments
· Trip reports and peer review panel visits by the Program Officer
· Topical Assessment Team reports (if any)
· Detailed Sea Grant funding information
· Supportive material deemed to be relevant by the Program Officer
or staff
Structure of the NSGO Review
The NSGO Executive Director is responsible for planning the review and
for the staff preparation needed to carry out the review. NSGO Program
Officers are responsible for preparing a presentation on the programs that
will be reviewed. The NSGO Director facilitates the evaluation sessions
during review week. Each half-day session is focused on a single program
and is reviewed on its own merits and not in direct comparison with other
programs.
Since Program Officers play a central role in the NSGO Review, it is the
NSGO's policy not to reassign Program Officers in mid-cycle, if at all
OCR for page 145
APPENDIX E 145
possible. Assignments are made with the goal of maintaining continuing
associations between the federal program officer and a Sea Grant pro-
gram over the review cycle, or longer. However, at times this will not be
feasible due to NSGO staff turnover.
To begin the review of each program, the NSGO program officer provides
an overview of the program's performance since the last PAT (five years
for the second cycle of reviews, but normally four years). Each program
officer follows a prescribed format using a standardized presentation tem-
plate that ensures consistency of the kinds of information being presented.
The template follows the benchmarks and indicators of performance from
the PAT Manual. Evaluation-related materials on file in the NSGO (see
above) are considered where appropriate. For example, participation in
national competitions and responsiveness to network-wide activities have
bearing on successful performance, and often the NSGO will have a better
perspective here than would the PAT.
Following the Program Officer's presentation, the NSGO director facili-
tates a discussion of the program. The review is structured to consider the
same criteria and benchmarks addressed by the PAT. Each of the four
major evaluation criteria and the 14 sub-elements are discussed in succes-
sion, including the PAT findings and ratings. All PAT recommendations
are reviewed. Those deemed most critical from the NSGO perspective are
highlighted for inclusion in the NSGO Report. Where appropriate, PAT
recommendations may be modified and additional recommendations de-
veloped based on the NSGO Review. During the review process, "best
management practices" are identified for subsequent promulgation to the
Sea Grant network.
The discussions and findings from the NSGO Review form the basis for a
report that is prepared under the direction of and signed by the NSGO
Director. The NSGO Report is best understood when read in conjunction
with the PAT Report, which will be included with the NSGO Report
when distributed. It is the NSGO's intention to complete the report and
transmit it to the Sea Grant Director within 30-days of the end of the
NSGO Review. While the NSGO Report findings and ratings are consid-
ered final, the draft report will be sent to the program director for factual
review and correction of minor errors prior to final distribution. A ten-
day turnaround period is considered a reasonable time for directors to
respond, but extensions may be requested. The NSGO report will be sent
only to the Sea Grant program. The Sea Grant program director can de-
cide how to use the NSGO Report within their university. The NSGO
OCR for page 146
146 APPENDIX E
Report for a given program will be distributed to the Panel members who
served on that particular PAT.
Under certain circumstances, the NSGO director may elect to send a spe-
cial letter of findings to the institution. These specials reports, it is ex-
pected, will be used infrequently and only in highly unusual cases that
warrant communication at a higher administrative level in the university.
NSGO RATING DECISIONS
One objective of the NSGO Review process is to provide a consistent
approach to rating Sea Grant programs. The intensive, weeklong PAT
evaluation by a team of experts, who interact with university officials,
constituents, and government officials, provides credible information
from which to judge a program's performance. The NSGO Review pro-
vides an additional assessment of performance that adds to the PAT re-
view in several salient ways:
· Performance-relevant information available to the NSGO results,
not only from the PAT process, but also from a continuous process
of evaluation and dialogue between the NSGO and the Sea Grant
program over the full four-year cycle.
· For the NSGO Review, the institution's formal response to the
PAT's findings and recommendations is available and explicitly
considered. This additional input is critical information for the
NSGO Review and can often provide clarifying information on
program performance.
· The NSGO Review provides a broad perspective across seven to
eight programs each year, and across all Sea Grant programs over
a four-year cycle. While the NSGO evaluates programs individu-
ally, by considering a group of programs at the same time and with
the same reviewers, more consistency for assigning ratings can be
achieved.
The rating of a program involves the use of judgment in weighing the
qualitative and quantitative evidence available. Following extensive dis-
cussion of a program's performance under each evaluation criteria, the
NSGO staff provides their individual rating ranging from 1(highest) to 4
(lowest) for the 14 evaluation sub-elements. The NSGO director will set a
minimum level of experience that will be required of new NSGO staff
OCR for page 147
APPENDIX E 147
members before they will be asked to contribute their individual rating of
programs. Nonetheless, new technical staff members are expected to be
present and to participate in the discussions.
The NSGO rating for a program is derived from reaching a broad consen-
sus (two-thirds majority) of individual NSGO staff ratings for the 14 sub-
elements using the PAT results as reference. Taking into account the pro-
portional weighting of each of the 14 sub-elements (e.g., Contributions to
Science and Technology - 10%) and the NSGO consensus ratings for each,
a program score is calculated. The NSGO final rating for the program is
determined by locating a program's score along a fixed four-category
rating scale for merit funding and a variable two-category rating scale for
bonus funding. Merit funding and bonus funding allocations are dis-
cussed in detail below.
The NSGO Review is a semi-autonomous review that significantly weighs
and is informed by the PAT findings and ratings. As would be expected,
the findings and ratings of the PAT and the NSGO are in agreement in the
large majority of cases. As a matter of policy, however, if there is not a
broad consensus agreement (two-thirds majority) on a particular sub-
element rating, the NSGO assigns a rating consistent with the PAT rating
for that sub-element.
Final ratings for the group of seven or eight programs are considered at
the last session of the review week. The NSGO final ratings are reviewed
and considered for adjustment, if NSGO staff offers a convincing case for
reconsideration. Rating adjustments result, as for all NSGO ratings, only
from a broad consensus agreement (two-thirds majority). All decisions to
change a PAT rating are ultimately the final responsibility of the NSGO
Director. At the conclusion of the session, all NSGO ratings are consid-
ered final.
The final NSGO ratings are used to assign each program to a merit-fund-
ing category and are also interleaved with the last rating of all other Sea
Grant programs to determine eligibility for bonus-funding categories.
NSGO RATINGS AND MERIT FUND ALLOCATIONS
First Cycle (1998/992002/03)
In the first cycle of merit funding, the NSGO established a pool of funds in
the Sea Grant budget to be allocated to individual Sea Grant programs on
OCR for page 148
148 APPENDIX E
the basis of overall performance. The NSGO developed systematic proce-
dures to rate each Sea Grant program for the purpose of allocating funds
from this merit pool. During Cycle 2, merit fund allocations will continue
to be made in a manner similar to Cycle 1, with slight modifications.
Merit Funding
Sea Grant programs that have reached institutional or college status are
assigned to one of four merit categories. Categories 1 and 2 are reserved
for programs that achieve the highest levels of performance. Category 3
denotes programs meeting performance benchmarks, while programs
assigned to Category 4 have significant deficiencies. Programs assigned
to categories 1, 2 and 3 qualify for merit pool allocations over the next four
years. If a program fails to meet 20 percent or more of the weighted
benchmarks, it will be considered as having "significant deficiencies" and
assigned to Category 4. Programs assigned to Category 4 do not receive a
merit pool allocation during the four-year period.
The merit pool allocation consists of two parts:
· A minimum allocation that is fixed for four-years (assuming level
funding), and
· A residual share component that is variable and may change each
year depending upon the performance ratings of all programs that
have been reviewed.
Added together, these two components determine each program's merit
funding allocation for a given year.
The minimum allocation is a fixed percentage of the merit pool that a
program can expect to receive over the course of the next four years.
Assuming level funding of the merit pool, this amount will remain the
same each year. The fixed minimum component for a program in Cat-
egory 1 is calculated by dividing the total amount of funds in the merit
pool by the number of programs (e.g. $3 million merit pool ÷ 30 programs
= $100,000 per program in Category 1). A program in Category 2 and
Category 3 receives a minimum allocation of 70 percent and 40 percent
respectively of that received by a program in Category 1. In the above
example of a $100,000 minimum allocation for Category 1 programs, the
minimum component for programs in Category 2 and Category 3 would
be $70,000 and $40,000 respectively. A program assigned Category 4, "sig-
nificant deficiencies," would not receive a merit funding allocation. Once
OCR for page 149
APPENDIX E 149
the amount in the merit pool is determined, the fixed minimum compo-
nent remains unchanged until the total merit pool amount changes.
The residual share of merit funding depends upon the distribution of
ratings across all programs for a given year. The amount of the merit pool
that remains unallocated after meeting the minimum allocations, the "re-
sidual" amount, is distributed to programs in Category 1 and Category 2
only. Category 1 programs gets twice as much of the residual as those in
Category 2 programs. Category 3 programs do not receive a share of the
residual. A new residual share is calculated every year. The NSGO Direc-
tor could cap an award if the residual share exceeds 10 percent of the
merit pool, although in practice this is unlikely to occur.
Merit Funding
· Category 1 = (Merit Pool ÷ 30) + 2 shares of residual
· Category 2 = 70% of (Merit Pool ÷ 30) + 1 share of residual
· Category 3 = 40% of (Merit Pool ÷ 30) + no share of residual
· Category 4 = no merit funding
Following the NSGO Review each year, the new ratings for the seven or
eight programs replace their prior rating and the merit pool allocations
are recalculated. Calculating the allocations each year assures that all
programs have the same merit funding opportunities, regardless of the
year they are reviewed. The distribution of the $3 million merit pool at the
end of the first cycle is shown below.
OCR for page 150
150 APPENDIX E
Cycle 1
150
100
K$
50
-
Programs
Rating Merit Funding Merit Pool Allocation for Each Rating
Distribution (# of Programs) Rating Minimum From Residual Merit Funding
15 "Category 1" $ 100,000 $ 25,714 $ 125,700
12 "Category 2" $ 70,000 $ 12,857 $ 82,900
3 "Category 3" $ 40,000 $ - $ 40,000
0 "Category 4" $ - $ - $ -
30
Total Merit Pool = $ 3,000,000
Total Minimum Allocations = $ 2,460,000 Total Category 1 $ 1,885,500
Total Residual Allocations = $ 540,000 Total Category 2 $ 994,800
Shares of Residual 42 Total Category 3 $ 120,000
Residual/Share $ 12,857 Total Merit Pool $ 3,000,300
Second Cycle (2003/042006/07)
Sea Grant Reauthorization Legislation (2002)
New provisions of the ``National Sea Grant College Program Act Amend-
ments of 2002'' (Public Law 107299) impose new requirements for evalu-
ation of Sea Grant college and institutional programs. The law now re-
quires the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program to rate
such programs according to their relative performance into at least five
categories, with each of the two best-performing categories containing at
most 25 percent of the programs. In particular,
OCR for page 151
APPENDIX E 151
Section 3, Requirements Applicable to National Sea Grant Col-
lege Program, states:
(b) PROGRAM EVALUATION AND RATING.--
(1) EVALUATION AND RATING REQUIREMENT.--Section
204(d)(3)(A) of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C.
1123(d)(3)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
"(A)(I) evaluate the performance of the programs of sea grant colleges
and sea grant institutes, using the priorities, guidelines, and qualifications
established by the Secretary under subsection c), and determine which of
the programs are the best managed and carry out the highest quality re-
search, education, extension, and training activities; and
"(ii) rate the programs according to their relative performance (as deter-
mined under clause (I)) into no less than 5 categories, with each of the 2
best-performing categories containing no more than 25 percent of the pro-
grams."
Public Law 107299 also requires the Secretary of Commerce to distribute
all appropriations in excess of FY2003 levels to any combination of: (1) Sea
Grant programs, according to their performance rating; (2) national stra-
tegic investments; (3) Sea Grant program qualifying activities; and (4) Sea
Grant colleges or institutes designated after this Act's enactment, but not
yet evaluated.
Section 7, Authorization of Appropriations, states:
c) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.--In any fiscal year in which the
appropriations made under subsection (a)(1) exceed the amounts ap-
propriated for fiscal year 2003 for the purposes described in such sub-
section, the Secretary shall distribute any excess amounts (except
amounts used for the administration of the sea grant program) to any
combination of the following:
"(1) sea grant programs, according to their rating under section
204(d)(3)(A);
"(2) national strategic investments authorized under section 204(b)(4);
OCR for page 152
152 APPENDIX E
"(3) a college, university, institution, association, or alliance for activi-
ties that are necessary for it to be designated as a sea grant college or sea
grant institute;
"(4) a sea grant college or sea grant institute designated after the date of
enactment of the National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments of
2002 but not yet evaluated under section 204(d)(3)(A)."
Merit Funding and Bonus Funding Combined
In summary, the three key provisions of Public Law 107299 that will
affect the ratings and allocation of funds during the second cycle of re-
views are:
· The NSGO is required to rate programs according to their relative
performance and assign programs into no less than five categories.
· Each of the top two categories cannot contain more than 25 percent
of the Sea Grant programs.
· Appropriations above the FY2003 level can be allocated according
to these ratings.
In order to meet these requirements, the NSGO will adopt a two-tier
approach to funding allocations related to performance evaluations.
· The first tier, or "merit funding" tier, retains the framework of the
Cycle 1 merit funding. All programs will continue to be assigned to
a merit-funding category. Programs assigned a rating of Category
1 (highest), 2 or 3, based on the NSGO Review, will receive merit
funding allocated similarly to the Cycle 1 allocation procedures.
Categories 1 and 2 are reserved for programs that achieve the high-
est levels of performance. Category 3 denotes programs that meet
performance benchmarks.
· The second tier, or "bonus funding" tier, will at times be used to
allocate part or all of the funds appropriated in excess of the FY2003
appropriation. Bonus funding would go only to programs that are
rated in Category 1 (best-performing category) and are rated
among the top programs in "Category 1" (each of the 2 best-per-
forming categories containing no more than 25 percent of the pro-
grams). Currently, this would allow up to 14 programs to receive
bonus funding, or up to seven programs in each of the two bonus
funding categories. It would be expected that the NSGO would
OCR for page 153
APPENDIX E 153
maintain a 2:1 ratio in the "bonus pool" for the two "bonus" groups
in Category 1.
In combination, the three merit categories plus the two bonus categories
give the five groups mandated by Congress:
First group (1A)--Top "Category 1" programs (currently limited to
7) receive "Category 1" merit funds + the higher bonus
Second group (1B)--Next "Category 1" programs (currently lim-
ited to 7) receive "Category 1" merit funds + the smaller bonus
Third Group (1C)--All other "Category 1" programs (no limit) re-
ceive "Category 1" merit funds / no bonus
Fourth Group--all "Category 2" programs receive "Category 2"
merit funds / no bonus
Fifth Group--all "Category 3" programs receive "Category 3" merit
funds / no bonus
Each program is assigned to a merit-funding category (Category 1, 2 or 3)
that will not change over the four-year period. There is no interim grad-
ing of programs in the "outyears". Programs are evaluated and rated once
every four years through the PAT and NSGO process, and the program's
rating is in effect for the full four years. The one change that may occur
over time is a program's relative position in the new rating categories
mandated by Congress, or in Sea Grant terminology, the two new bonus
categories.
Assignment to the two new bonus categories is dependent not only on a
program's rating, but also on the distribution of the ratings of all pro-
grams. Consequently, with respect to the bonus funding only, it is pos-
sible for a Sea Grant program not being reviewed to be affected. The
ratings of the seven or eight programs reviewed yearly may reorder the
distribution of ratings across programs. Each year it is possible for a pro-
gram not reviewed to move into or out of a bonus category (e.g., from
Group 1B to 1C or vice versa) or to move up or down between the two
bonus categories (e.g., from Group 1A to 1B or vice versa).
OCR for page 154
154 APPENDIX E
Each year, the NSGO Director may add funds to the merit pool and/or
the bonus pool in response to actual appropriations. In the future, were
appropriations to increase substantially, increases in merit funding would
be a primary mechanism for maintaining and enhancing Sea Grant's en-
abling infrastructure. Currently, as many as 14 programs in Category 1
would receive bonus funding in addition to merit, in any given year.
However, because Congress limits the number of bonus programs, the
actual allocations would depend on the distribution of the merit ratings
and the number of "Category 1" programs. As such, the merit pool would
be expected to be larger relative to the bonus pool.
The NSGO expects to provide preliminary notice to programs of the next
fiscal year's merit funding and changes in bonus categories, if any, fol-
lowing finalization of the NSGO Review. A funding letter will be pre-
pared that will go to each Sea Grant program to indicate the dollar level of
the merit funding allocation a program will receive in the following fiscal
year, assuming level funding. The letter will also indicate whether a
program's rating makes it eligible for either of the two bonus categories,
along with a preliminary estimate of bonus funding for the following
fiscal year, again assuming level funding. Normally, this letter will be
sent 10 months or more ahead of the anniversary dates for renewal of
omnibus grant awards.
The hypothetical example below shows how a $3 million merit funding
pool plus a $1 million bonus funding pool might be allocated assuming 20
programs have been rated in "Category 1".
Cycle 2 Merit and Bonus Funding
Merit Fund Bonus
250
200
150
K
$
100
50
0
Programs
OCR for page 155
APPENDIX E 155
It should be noted that it is possible that a particular group would not
have any programs assigned to it. For example, if there were 14 or fewer
Category 1 programs, the Third Group (1C) would have no programs
assigned to it.
Programs with Significant Deficiencies: The major goal of the evalua-
tion process is to help programs improve. If as a result of the NSGO
Review, a program is determined to have a significant number of defi-
cient program elements (fails to meet 20 percent or more of the weighted
benchmarks), the program will be assigned to the "Significant Deficien-
cies" (Category 4) and would not be eligible to receive merit funds over
the next four-year cycle.
While occurring very rarely, if the NSGO Review determines that a pro-
gram should receive a rating of "Significant Deficiencies," a corrective
action plan will be required to address all the deficient elements. The
action plan identifies any changes in goals, organization, procedures,
planning, and operations that need to be implemented to correct the defi-
ciency. The action plan is a joint effort of the Sea Grant institution and the
NSGO. The plan should be in place within six months of notification to
the Sea Grant program of the "Significant Deficiencies" (Category 4) rat-
ing and the need of corrective action. Failure to fully implement a correc-
tive action plan and to show significant improvement by the two-year
mid-cycle mark, as determined by an assessment team, could result in a
program having its core funding reduced or decertification of Sea Grant
college or institutional status.
In addition, the NSGO Director may also require a program rated in
categories 1, 2 or 3 to submit a corrective action plan for a particular area
of the program. If the NSGO Review finds that a program fails to meet the
benchmark for a sub-element, the requirement for a partial corrective
action plan will be identified in the NSGO Report.
OCR for page 156
Representative terms from entire chapter:
individual sea
