National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program NC Space Grant Meeting

1
National Space Grant College and Fellowship
ProgramNC Space Grant Meeting

• Katherine M. Pruzan
• Education Program Coordinator
• National Space Grant College and Fellowship
  Program

2
15th Year Evaluation

• Required every 5 years by the Space Grant
• Implementing Rules and Regulations
• (Federal Register Vol. 54, No. 88, Part
  1259.400(b))
• Desired Results and Outcomes
• Agency-level
• Demonstrate to NASAs constituents and
  stakeholders the impact and overall merit of the
  Space Grant program in each state as well as the
  overall benefit to the Agency
• Programmatic level
• Be able to make informed decisions about future
  allocations of Space Grant resources

3
360º 15th Year Evaluation
Space Grant Consortia
4
15th Year Evaluation

• Consequences
• Pass
• 5-year grant
• Probation
• 1-year grant with Improvement Plan
• Unsatisfactory progress after one year will
  trigger Recompetition
• Recompetition (PPR only)
• The consortium directorship/lead institution will
  be recompeted within the state

5
I. Program Performance and Results (PPR) Report

• A Self-Evaluation Report submitted by each
  consortia
• Criteria based on Space Grant legislation,
  national program objectives, and the Space Grant
  Strategic Plan 1996-2000
• Synthesis of the previous 5 years (1998-2002)
• Consortium Management Information System (CMIS)
  data analyzed as part of the PPR
• 5-year data tables created for use by each
  consortium and reviewers
• Reviewed by Directors, Space Grant Staff, UAOs,
  Others
• Developed Likert-based evaluation Rubrics
• Submitted and reviewed through a secure website

6
Sample Rubric
36 total Rubrics customized for each section
7
Program Performance and ResultsNational Results
Results Summary
5.38
Exec Sum/Consortium Impact
4.93
5.40
5.36
Introduction
4.97
5.24
4.85
National Program Emphases
4.24
5.12
4.77
Management
4.55
5.23
4.74
Fellowship/Scholarship
4.61
5.14
Criteria
4.96
Research Infrastructure
4.25
5.07
4.73
Higher Ed
4.23
5.24
4.83
PreCollege
4.52
5.37
4.44
Public Service
4.45
5.16
6.33
PPR Report Compliance
6.17
6.52
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Average Rating
DESIGNATED MEAN
PROGRAM GRANT MEAN
CAPABILITY ENHANCEMENT MEAN
8
II. Network Participation and Responsiveness

• Evaluation of Required and Optional elements of
  Program Management
• Meeting participation national and regional
  meetings
• Compliance with deadlines
• CMIS data
• Annual Budget and Progress Reports
• Special requests
• Contributions to the Network beyond their
  consortium
• Dedicated phone line
• Office space
• Website review

9
Network Participation and Responsiveness
National Results
10
III. Affiliate Survey

• Design, development, methodology, and analysis
  assistance from Western Michigan University -
  Center for Evaluation
• Involved all affiliate and affiliate-like
  contacts listed in CMIS
• 28 Questions
• Includes consortium goals and objectives,
  fellowship/scholarship program, consortium
  communication, consortium leadership, program
  impact, NASA and national program information
• Piloted prior to dissemination
• Approx. 20 minutes to complete
• Web-based administration (Zoomerang instrument)
• 74 Response Rate
• 856 Surveys Distributed
• 635 Valid Surveys Completed

11
Affiliate Survey Results National Results
12
PPR Probation

• Lacking evidence in critical areas of the PPR
  report.
• Failure to adequately address all areas of PPR
  report guidelines.
• Readily identifiable, discrete, programmatic
  deficiencies.
• Evidence that progress towards remediation could
  be accomplished in one year.
• Some areas of programmatic strengths are present.
  
• Mitigating circumstances.

13
Consortium Recompetition

• Low overall scores issues and problems in
  several areas.
• Evidence of continuation of consequential and
  systemic problems identified in the 5th and 10th
  Year Evaluations.

14
Guiding Documents
The Vision for Space Exploration
http//www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/explore_m
ain.html Presidents Commission on
Implementation of United States Space Exploration
Policy, A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and
Discover http//www.nasa.gov/pdf/60736main_M2M_rep
ort_small.pdf The Education Enterprise Strategy
http//www.education.nasa.gov/about/strategy/index
.html NASA Human Capital Management
Plan http//nasapeople.nasa.gov/hcm/
15
Aldridge Commission

• Recommendation 8-1
• The commission recommends the Space Exploration
  Steering Council work with Americas education
  community and state and local political leaders
  to produce an action plan that leverages the
  exploration vision in support of the nations
  commitment to improve math, science, and
  engineering education. The action plan should
  include
• Increase the priority on teacher training
• Provide for better integration of existing math,
  science, and engineering education initiatives
  across governments, industries, and professional
  organizations and
• Explore options to create a university-based
  virtual space academy for training the next
  generation technical workforce.

16
2003 Workforce Competition

• Review Process
• Proposals Received
• 52 single-consortium proposals
• 5.0M total requests
• 7 multi-consortium proposals
• 850K total requests
• Total requests 5,869,000
• Each proposal read by 3 reviewers
• Review process facilitated by use of Rubics and
  Likert scale scoring
• Consensus reached during Panel Review telecons
• All 6 reviewers participated in the Panel Review
• Partial funding recommendations made, where
  appropriate

17
2003 Workforce Awards

• Single-Consortium Proposals
• 24 Recommended for Full Funding (46)
• 18 Recommended for Partial Funding (35)
• 10 Not Recommended for funding (19)
• Award Range 12K - 100K
• Average 80K
• Multi-Consortium Proposals (37 consortia
  proposed)
• 4 recommended for Full Funding (16 consortia)
  (57)
• 3 Not Recommended for funding (21 consortia)
  (43)
• Award range 40K - 175K

18
2003 Workforce Programs

• No. of Programs
• Type of Program Single Multi
• Fellowship/Scholarship Programs 18 3
• Geospatial Extension Programs 7 1
• Student Satellite Activities 19 2
• Research 15 2
• Internships Summer 14 1
• Curriculum Development 13 --
• Recruitment/Placement Activities 5
  --
• Leadership/Faculty Development 3
  --
• Outreach 2 --
• Mentorship Activities 7 1
• Other 3 --

19
Additional Award Info

• Number of students and faculty directly involved
  (conservative estimate based on proposals)
• Undergraduate 730 Single/ 290 Multi
• Graduate 26
• Faculty 116
• Funds awarded directly to students (conservative
  estimate based on proposals) Total 1.7M
• Single 1.550 M
• Multi 156 K
• Proposals with specific diversity/underrepresented
  focus
• HBCU 5 single/1 multi
• HSI 1 single
• TCU 2 single/1 multi
• OMU 1 single
• Women 4 single
• Community College focus 4 single

20
Direct/Specific Center Interactions
21
Un
Unsuccessful Proposals

• Common elements
• Non-responsive to announcement
• Lack of evidence of connection to higher
  education this year, the announcement placed a
  greater emphasis on higher education components
  of workforce development
• Missing or poorly described elements
• Lack of schedule and plan for program execution
• Lack of, or weak measurable metrics
• Lack of potential outcomes and impacts
• Weak or non-existent ties to NASA Centers
• Lack of reported achievements of success (for
  continuation proposals)
• Lack of synergy among consortia (in
  multi-consortium proposals)

22
Space Grant

• 52 State-based Consortia
• Consortia are given considerable flexibility in
  designing programs and projects that support
  their states needs and align with NASA
• Three types of Consortia
• 28 Designated consortia
• Mode award 475,000
• 12 Program Grant consortia
• Mode Award 256,250
• 15 Capability Enhancement consortia
• Mode Award 256,250
• All consortia Mandatory Fellowship/Scholarship
  Component
• Required floor, flexible ceiling
• Required match 11 for all non-fellowship/scholar
  ship program elements
• Highest ranked non-targeted program in the April
  2003 Education Program Review

23
Goals and Objectives

• Goal Contribute to the nation's science
  enterprise by funding education, research, and
  public service projects through a national
  network of university-based Space Grant
  consortia.
• Objectives (from the legislation)
• Establish and maintain a national network of
  universities. (Partnerships/Sustainability)
• Encourage cooperative programs among
  universities, aerospace industry, and Federal,
  state, and local governments. (Customer-focused)
• Encourage interdisciplinary education, research,
  and public service programs related to aerospace.
  (Content)
• Recruit and train U.S. citizens, especially
  women, underrepresented minorities, and persons
  with disabilities. (Diversity)
• Promote a strong science, mathematics, and
  technology education base from elementary through
  secondary levels. (Pipeline)