A Review of the NOAA National Sea Grant College Program (1994)

To expand the information available to the committee beyond its own expertise and experience, questionnaires were sent to the 29 state Sea Grant program directors, 85 National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML) institutions, and 70 industry representatives. The committee evaluated the facts, ideas, and opinions contained in questionnaire responses and the background documentation listed in Appendix 5 as it formed its recommendations to improve the Sea Grant program. The quantitative responses elicited by some of the questions below were analyzed statistically and presented in the body of the report (e.g., see Figure 5).

1. What do you regard as the greatest achievements of your program and what limitations to further success do you face?

2. Are there any specific advantages from, or limitations to, your activities that are determined by relations within your state (or territory) or with the Sea Grant National Office that affect your operations within the environment of your state (or territory)?

3. How do you evaluate the various and differing components of your program? In other words, how do you justify continuation of your differing activities or decide that an activity should be discontinued or modified?

4. What background information do you believe our committee should receive to prepare them for the review and evaluation?

5. What are Sea Grant's roles in marine science in the United States, within your state or territory, and within NOAA? Is it fulfilling these roles?

6. Is appropriate research being funded, given Sea Grant's mission? Is the Sea Grant mission well articulated and communicated to potential recipients of Sea Grant funding, so that they can judge the relevance of their research to the Sea Grant mission?

7. How well is the Sea Grant concept working—funding basic research that is then transitioned into practical applications (i.e., how effective is the linkage between the research and Marine Advisory Service components of Sea Grant)?

8. Does the National Office provide your program with guidelines and standards for proposal review, and if so, are they adequate?

9. Should Sea Grant establish a science advisory panel?

10. How well does Sea Grant interact with other parts of NOAA?

11. Are there changes in the Land Grant College system that serve as a possible model for changes in the Sea Grant College System?

12. What changes do you propose or would you like to propose to your state program or to any other aspect of the National Sea Grant effort?

13. What proportion of your required matching funds come from your state versus private non-profit organizations versus industry?

Twenty-five out of 29 directors responded to this questionnaire.

1. How do you document and evaluate the successes of, and new opportunities for, your education, communications, and advisory activities?

2. What audiences do you target for your education, communications, and advisory activities and how do you determine the target audiences?

3. How do incorporate information about industry needs into your research, outreach, advisory, and education activities?

4. How do you determine if your program is “open” to all investigators in your state? What percentage of pre-proposals and or proposals do you decline before sending your omnibus proposal to the National Office?

5. What percent of your professional time is officially devoted to your position as a Sea Grant director?

6. Do you require match on a project-by-project basis or do you determine match on a program-wide basis?

7. Do you have restrictions on the use of your match (e.g., does a university matching partner restrict the use of its funds to match Sea Grant funding for proposals from that university)?

8. Have you ever funded research or outreach activities by a non-university entity?

9. What level do you report to in your university/consortium system and how is your performance as a Sea Grant College Program director evaluated within the system?

10. Do you receive either in-kind or financial contributions from industry?

11. What amount of pass-through funds did your program handle in the most recent year?

12. Do you under-report matching contribution from industry because of difficulties in the reporting and documentation requirements?

Twenty-two out of 29 directors responded to this questionnaire.

1. How has Sea Grant benefitted your institution or the research and outreach programs within it?

2. What are the positive aspects of Sea Grant, from your perspective?

3. Is the Sea Grant mission well articulated and communicated to potential recipients of Sea Grant funding, so that you can judge the relevance of your research and outreach activities to the Sea Grant mission?

4. Is your research linked to Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service or education activities?

5. How well does Sea Grant interact with other parts of NOAA?

6. What changes should be made to your state program or to the national Sea Grant effort?

7. Is the existing proposal solicitation and review process adequate? If not, how would you improve it?

8. Do you believe that your state Sea Grant program has an open proposal

solicitation and review process and distributes funds among the institutions in your state equitably?

8. Do you have problems finding matching funds for the research and outreach project(s) you propose?

9. Does Sea Grant help your institution develop ties with industry and/or with the public?

Seventeen of 85 NAML institutions responded to this questionnaire.

1. What type of interactions has your company had with Sea Grant, either through state programs or through the National Sea Grant Office?

2. How has Sea Grant benefitted your company?

3. Are the research and advisory service activities of your local Sea Grant program relevant to your company and to your industry?

4. Has your company participated in cooperative research with university scientists, funded by Sea Grant, to address industry needs?

5. Do you believe that industry participation in determining and ranking priorities of state and national Sea Grant research and outreach activities has been encouraged?

6. Have you ever contributed in-kind or other support as matching funding for a Sea Grant project?

7. Do you have any suggestions for improving the interactions of your company or industry with Sea Grant?

Sixteen of 70 industry representatives responded to this questionnaire.