1. Goals: in broad terms, what should be our goals and objectives in supporting the university grant program? Is there an overall consensus on these goals that is communicated to and well understood by all stakeholders?

2. Scope: What considerations apply that would serve to define the scope of the university program?

3. Quality: Appraise the scientific and technical quality of the work being supported by the university program.

4. Relevance: Assess the impact of the university program on the national and worldwide high energy physics efforts. Are there areas that are overemphasized, significantly under-supported, or missing altogether?

5. Manpower: Does the university program have the correct number and distribution of university researchers at all levels to meet program objectives, including faculty, senior research staff, postdocs, graduate students, arid professional staff for the near-, mid- and longer- term.

6. Resources: Does the university program have the correct amount and distribution of resources to carry out its program scope? Include an assessment of the relevant contributions from allied programs in DOE, NSF and elsewhere. How should the program respond in the event of an increase or a decrease in available resources? In addition to financial resources, consider the need and availability of technical infrastructure at the universities.

7. Structures: Do we have the right model of university funding, or do we need to revise or create new models for university research activity and support?

8. Management: Examine how the programs are managed and overseen. How is the performance of the program optimized with respect to the overall goals and priorities? Suggest how management and performance might be improved, if appropriate.

9. Broader Impacts: Consider the impact of program reach to the broader community - to other research disciplines, the public and private sector in research and education and in workforce development.