National Network Implementation Planning

1
National Network Implementation Planning

• Sami Jae Grimes
• June 11, 2008 Focus Team Meeting

2
Year 2050
Skyscraper farm
3
U.S. Population Change, 2000-2050, by county
4
Renewable Energy Sources
5
Transportation
6
(No Transcript)
7
Megaregions

• Cascadia
• Northern California
• Southern California
• Texas Triangle
• Arizona Sun Corridor
• Great Lakes
• Northeast
• Piedmont Atlantic
• Florida
• Gulf Coast

8
Roadmap to 2050
2050
2013
2009
9
Bring the Future to the Present

• National Network Implementation Plan
• Developed by the focus teams
• Based on the goals and strategies from the
  national strategic plan

2009 ? 2013
10
National Research Council

• Two NRC Reviews 1994 2006
• June 2006 reviewed National Sea Grant College
  Program evaluation process
• Recommendations
• Strong national network plan
• Align state plans to national plan
• Link evaluation process to the state/national
  plan

11
Integrated System - PIE

• Planning network-wide
• Implementation do what we said we would do
• Evaluation see how well we did

Planning
Sea Grant College Program
Evaluation System
Implementation
12
How the P affects the E in PIE

• State of the Sea Grant Report Every 4 years
• Sea Grant Programs evaluated based on state and
  national plans
• Focus Teams review of annual reports
• Networks role in planning informs the evaluation
  process

13
Audiences

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
• Congress
• NOAA
• OURSELVES!!

Evaluation
14
Examples of National/Regional Activities

• Habitattitude - AIS Project
• Rip Currents Beach Safety
• HACCP Seafood Safety
• EPA/NOAA Smart Growth Initiative
• Through planning and focus teams Sea Grant is
  positioning itself as a national program
  delivering national results.

15
Develop an implementation plan in two days!?!?
16
Implementation Plan
Implementation Plan
Completed National Strategic Plan
17
National Sea Grant Strategic Plan 2009-2013
Meeting the Challenge

• A Sea Grant Strategic Planning Steering Committee
  - appointed spring 2007
• Developed a top-down and a bottom-up review
  document
• National Stakeholder Forum - July 2007
• Developed Focus Areas August/September 2007
• Sea Grant Week October 2007
• Two drafts of the plan went out to the network
  for comment
• Currently being reviewed by NOAA for final
  approval

18
Why we are here

• Develop the networks first National
  Implementation Plan
• Based on the National Strategic Plan, we will
  develop
• Outcomes
• Activities
• Utilizing the Logic Model

19
Why we are here

• Develop performance measures
• Are we still going in the right direction?
• Have we reached our destination?

20
Example

• Sustainable Coastal Development Focus Area
• Goal Community capacity to prepare for and
  respond to hazardous events.
• Outcome Coastal Communities have the capacity to
  prepare and respond to hazardous events.
• Activity Create and disseminate integrated
  demographic and coastal hazard information
• Performance Measure Increase in the number of
  (or percentage of) local, state and federal
  agencies that say that they rely on Sea Grant for
  information dealing with hazard mitigation

21
Why Performance Measures?
22
Performance Measures

• How the measures will be used
• Monitor national program performance
• Track outcomes across the entire network
• Develop performance measures for the new Sea
  Grant evaluation system

23
Nitty-Gritty Details

• Goals Long Term Outcomes
• Cross-cutting Goals
• Make sure all functions of Sea Grant are covered
  in each focus area as appropriate
• Representing the network

24
Agenda

• Today
• CSC walk through the logic model
• Break into our Focus Teams
• Discuss/develop outcomes that lead to each
  long-term outcome of the focus area
• Discuss/develop activities
• Report out (either today or tomorrow AM)
• Tomorrow
• Overview of Performance Measures (CSC)
• Break into our Focus Teams
• Discuss/develop performance measures

25
Next Steps

• Draft Implementation plan sent to focus teams for
  comments
• Network invited to comment
• Submitted to Leon for final approval
• All state Sea Grant Programs align their state
  strategic plans with national plans

26
Focus Teams and Facilitators

• Nancy Wallace (NOAA Special Projects Office)
  Safe and Sustainable Seafood Supply
• Cindy Hagley (MN Sea Grant) Sustainable Coastal
  Development
• Melissa Ladd (NOAA Coastal Services Center)
  Healthy Coastal Ecosystems
• Pam Kylstra (NOAA Coastal Services Center)
  Hazard Resilience in Coastal Communities

27
Successful Meeting Essentials

• Play full out!
• Be open
• Listen and Respect each other
• Be creative
• Stay focused
• HAVE FUN!!

28
Questions?
29
Extra Slides
30
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation
Principles

• Focus on program improvement or ratings, but not
  both
• Reward performance
• Increase efficiency
• Encourage collaboration
• Be accountable
• Be transparent
• Retain program flexibility to address local
  issues

31
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation
Overview
Cycle 1 Years
Cycle 2 Years
32
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation

• National Strategic/Implementation Plans
• Every 4 years
• Step 1 Strategic Plan for FY 2009-2013
• Limited set of national priorities
• Step 2 Implementation Plan
• Network Focus Teams provide detail, measures,
  metrics, initiatives
• Focus Teams will monitor and report on progress

33
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation

• Individual Sea Grant Program Strategic/Implementat
  ion Plans
• Every 4 years
• Based on National Strategic Plan
• Individual program plans will not necessarily
  address all of the national priority areas
• Program plans may include additional emphases as
  appropriate

34
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation

• Collective activities of the Sea Grant network
  constitute implementation of national plans
• All programs will be on the same award cycle
• Increase efficiency
• Promote collaboration
• Makes it easier to take on major new tasks as a
  network
• Four-year cycle of implementation

35
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation

• Programs evaluated in three general areas
• Approach to management
• Scope success of engagement with stakeholders
• Impact on society
• Evolution of PAT criteria
• Evaluation Criteria Options Working Group

36
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation

• Components
• Annual Reports/Self-Evaluation
• Site Visits
• Performance Review Panel (PRP)
• National Office Program Evaluation
• State of the Sea Grant Program Review

37
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation

• Site Visits
• Once every four years, beginning in 2009
• Review two components
• Program management and organization
• Stakeholder engagement
• Main goal is program improvement report, but no
  rating
• Limited focus and duration (1 ½ days)
• Limited and focused briefing material
• Chaired by Program Officer, with Review Panel, SG
  Director, external expertise

38
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation

• Performance Review Panel (PRP)
• Once every four years, beginning in 2011
• Evaluating rating the impact of each of the
  programs relative to their aligned plans (and
  including unplanned impacts)
• Based primarily on annual reports, supplemented
  by limited briefing material
• 15 members half from Review Panel, rest are
  senior-level outside experts
• Main goal is comparative evaluation of
  performance report and rating

39
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation

• National Office Program Evaluation
• Annual
• Program Officer gains understanding of each
  program
• Rating once every four years
• Programs may appeal rating after two years

40
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation

• National State of Sea Grant Program Review
• Led by Sea Grant Review Panel
• Every four years, beginning in 2012
• Information collected from state program reports
  and reviews
• Informs subsequent national strategic planning

41
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation
Transition

• Alignment of implementation cycles
• Project (omnibus) start dates
• Four-year grant awards
• Planning Alignment Memo
• Transitional rating
• Start off on an even footing
• Covers 2005-2008
• Based on current PAT criteria
• Inputs are PRP and programs updated response to
  previous PAT review
• National Office Program Evaluation
• Rating will hold for two years

42
Integrated Planning, Implementation Evaluation
Next Steps

• Focus Teams
• Implementation Planning
• Planning alignment
• Evaluation Criteria Options Working Group