Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Allocation Committee Report


Published on

Ross Heath, National Sea Grant Advisory Board. Sea Grant Week 2010

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Allocation Committee Report

  1. 1. Status Report “Allocation Committee” (National Sea Grant Advisory Board Subcommittee to Review Policies and Criteria for Allocating Sea Grant Funding Resources)
  2. 2. Committee Members Anders Andren – Sea Grant Association Dorn Carlson – National Sea Grant Office Sylvain DeGuise – Sea Grant Association Ross Heath – Sea Grant Advisory Board – Chair Mike Liffmann – National Sea Grant Office Richard West – Sea Grant Advisory Board [Support from Joshua Brown & Jon Eigen]
  3. 3. Why revisit the allocation policy and why now?
  4. 4. Appropriated Dollars (million)
  5. 5. Corrected for Inflation (CPI deflator)
  6. 6. Purchasing Power (after CPI + 2% S&T deflators) Extrapolates to $0 in about 2035 1975 1985 1995 2005 *
  7. 7. Charge (in part) • Provide guidance for the allocation of funding among base programs, merit funding, regional and national strategic investments, and national program development • Ensure that all Sea Grant programs will have sufficient resources, to the extent that funding allows, to function effectively in their respective environments
  8. 8. First Survey – Components of Budget (16) 1.Core operating costs of a SG program 2.State-specific costs 3.Merit-based allocations 4.Long-term regional issues 5.National priorities and obligations 6.National program initiation & development 7.Basic operating funds for the NSGO
  9. 9. Second Survey – “End member” Models (18) 1.Current Model (“grow” out of the allocation problem) 1.National Competition Model (8-year open competition cycle) 1.Decentralized model (virtually all funds distributed to state programs)
  10. 10. Second Survey – “End member” Models (18) 1. Responses all over the map. Many positions held very passionately! 1. Broad support for the concept of a minimum level of funding 1. Substantial support for the Current Model, but recognition of embedded inequities
  11. 11. Second Survey – “End member” Models (18) 4. National Competition Model (NCM) created most anxiety, particularly because of its potential to destabilize extension programs 5. Some support for NCM because it addresses OMB’s dislike of “entitlement” programs 6. Many questions about the Decentralized Model, mostly related to the way the funds would be divided between programs
  12. 12. Second Survey – “End member” Models (18) 7.The responses we received were thoughtful and impressive, BUTBUT more than half the programs did not respond. a. Satisfied with the current situation? b. Didn’t like any of the options, but could not come up with anything better? c. “Another irrelevant Board report that will go nowhere? d. Declining support is the real issue; “this effort is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic”?
  13. 13. Allocation versus Budget Issues? 1.Would allocation be an issue in the absence of the “death slide”? 1.Given NOAA’s disinterest in Sea Grant – what are our budget prospects and options? 1.The Climate Service cannot be created under a continuing resolution – this puts OAR on the spot. How much attention will they be able to pay to Sea Grant in the near future? 1.Given the uncertain political situation, is this the time to create new tensions in the SG network?
  14. 14. Insanity – Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Attributed to Albert Einstein