The committee was formed to revisit Sea Grant's allocation policy and criteria for distributing funding among programs as, when adjusted for inflation, the appropriated funding has been steadily declining and may reach zero by 2035. Surveys of Sea Grant programs found a range of views on allocation models but broad support for minimum funding levels and maintaining the current model while addressing inherent inequities. Concerns were also raised that the uncertain budget prospects and NOAA's lack of interest in Sea Grant may not be the right time to make major changes to the allocation approach.

1. Status Report
“Allocation Committee”
(National Sea Grant Advisory Board
Subcommittee to Review Policies and Criteria
for Allocating Sea Grant Funding Resources)

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. Why revisit the allocation policy
and why now?

4. Appropriated Dollars (million)

5. Corrected for Inflation (CPI deflator)

6. Purchasing Power (after CPI + 2% S&T deflators)
Extrapolates to $0 in about 2035
1975 1985 1995 2005
*

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Insanity – Doing the same thing
over and over and expecting
different results.
Attributed to Albert Einstein