Evaluation of the Sea Grant Program Review Process

The National Sea Grant College Program, created in 1966, has grown into a nationwide network of 30 individual Sea Grant programs located at some of the nation's top universities. Administered through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Sea Grant program is a state-federal partnership that funds marine and Great Lakes applied research, education, and outreach. The Sea Grant program has been a major source of funding in the United States for work in the areas of marine aquaculture, shellfish disease, aquatic nuisance species, coastal and estuarine ecology, seafood safety, marine biotechnology, marine engineering, marine technology development, and marine policy. An earlier National Research Council report (1994) recommended that Sea Grant develop a process to review the individual programs on a four year cycle. A review process was implemented in 1998 and modified by Congress in the 2002 reauthorization of the Sea Grant program. The legislation also contained a request for this National Research Council study to provide an assessment of the review process and recommendations for ways to improve the overall effectiveness of the evaluation process to ensure fairness, consistency, and enhancement of performance. The report recommends strengthening the strategic planning process for the individual programs, increasing the interaction between the National Sea Grant Office and the individual programs, and improving the program rating and ranking process through annual assessments by the national office. In addition, the report provides recommendations for improving the independent reviews that are conducted on a four year cycle. Table of ContentsFront MatterSummary1 Introduction2 History of Sea Grant Program Review and Assessment3 Critique of the Periodic Assessment Process4 Program Oversight and Management5 Major Findings and RecommendationsReferencesA Committee and Staff BiographiesB List of AcronymsC Key Sea Grant LegislationD National Sea Grant Program Memorandum on NSGO Final Evaluation and Merit Funding, April 22, 1999E Revised Policy Memorandum on NSGO Final Evaluation and Merit Funding (2005); April 8, 2005F A Multivariate Analysis of Potential Biases in the Final Evaluation ScoresG Expected Indicators of Performance and Other Issues of ImportanceH U.S. Code, Title 33, Chapter 22I Letter from James Coleman, Chair-NRC Committee Sent to All Individual Sea Grant Program DirectorsJ Executive Summary from "Review and Recommendations: Sea Grant Program Evaluation Process"

The National Sea Grant College Program, created in 1966, has grown into a nationwide network of 30 individual Sea Grant programs located at some of the nation's top universities. Administered through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Sea Grant program is a state-federal partnership that funds marine and Great Lakes applied research, education, and outreach. The Sea Grant program has been a major source of funding in the United States for work in the areas of marine aquaculture, shellfish disease, aquatic nuisance species, coastal and estuarine ecology, seafood safety, marine biotechnology, marine engineering, marine technology development, and marine policy. An earlier National Research Council report (1994) recommended that Sea Grant develop a process to review the individual programs on a four year cycle. A review process was implemented in 1998 and modified by Congress in the 2002 reauthorization of the Sea Grant program. The legislation also contained a request for this National Research Council study to provide an assessment of the review process and recommendations for ways to improve the overall effectiveness of the evaluation process to ensure fairness, consistency, and enhancement of performance. The report recommends strengthening the strategic planning process for the individual programs, increasing the interaction between the National Sea Grant Office and the individual programs, and improving the program rating and ranking process through annual assessments by the national office. In addition, the report provides recommendations for improving the independent reviews that are conducted on a four year cycle.