Accessible document

New York Sea Grant

Instructions for Reviews
(Extension Program Proposal)

It is most helpful when your review notes major strengths and weaknesses and cites specific proposal components to document your statements. An overall "rating" is useful, but much more detail is desired. Major points we ask you to address include those listed below. Don't feel compelled to comment on each of them, do so only where an item warrants particular notice. And feel free to note other key items you feel would be significant to improving this proposal.

1 - A Brief Overview of the Proposal. Is the proposal adequate in detail and organization? Does it give you an adequate feel for the NYSG Extension program?

2 - The Planning Process. Is there evidence that long term and annual plans exist and are followed in program, staffing, and administration? How are audiences involved in planning programs? Does it appear that program activities will focus on key issues?

3 - Effort. Do staff numbers, locations, and disciplinary distributions seem appropriate?

4 - Program Objectives. Are objectives clearly defined, measurable, and attainable? Do the proposed objectives appear innovative?

5 - Activities. Are the activities related to the objectives? Are the activities adequate, attainable, and creative? Are new approaches identified?

6 - Extension Program/Research Relationships. Is an extensive, two-way research/Extension link evident?

7 - Inter-agency Cooperation. Is there evidence for significant agency interaction at local state and/or national levels?

8 - Interaction and Influence on Sea Grant Regional and National Efforts. Are regional and national contributions evident in this program?

9 - Staff. Is there evidence staff are growing professionally? Are they members of their professional groups? Do they make appropriate use of various programming techniques?

10 - Budget. Is the budget generally appropriate? Is any change explained adequately, are there areas where seemingly inadequate or excessive funds are requested? What evidence exists that matching funds have or will grow appropriately?

11 - Other Observations. Are there sections that are missing that would make the proposal stronger?

12 - Overall Summary Rating of this proposal as Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor.

Note: This is an accessible version of a document originally produced for the Web in .pdf format. While it contains all significant content of the original print document, it may omit layout and graphic elements which contribute to the look and feel of the original, and make the .pdf version more suitable for printing.