Vague references in the grant were confusing (some free tickets, without explaining to who or what kind of criteria).

Clarifying information for parts of the grant were nicely explained in the variety of supporting documents. Some references were not current and difficult to follow in the Long Range Plan/Mission Statement results (in italics)

How is Special Olympics involved as a partner w/the SOA?

Who is the 3rd party presenter that handled ticket sales?

Please reference the abbreviations. FAU, FIU, BC, NSU.

Excellence:

• This narrative section is very difficult to read.  It seems to be a run down of the season and desires of the organization, but does not explicitly state goals and their associated measurable objectives.  It is left to the reviewer to discern the aims.  The structure of this application should be re-written and re-organized for future submissions. It appears editing was not precise either as the timeline was included twice.  Do be cautious.

Impact:

• The breadth of impact for multiple populations is quite laudable. However, no local economic impact is noted.

Management:

• Budget: How is the completed fiscal year's budget perfectly balanced?  This does not seem realistic.