[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33055-33062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11280]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 /
Notices
[[Page 33055]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Proposed Revised Guidelines for State Plans of Work for the
Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds
AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service (CSREES) is requesting public comment on the proposed revised
Guidelines for State Plans of Work for the Agricultural Research and
Extension Formula Funds [64 FR 19242-19248]. These guidelines prescribe
the procedures to be followed by the eligible institutions receiving
Federal agricultural research and extension formula funds under the
Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a et seq.); sections 3(b)(1)
and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, as amended (7 U.S.C. 343 (b)(1)
and (c)); and sections 1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7
U.S.C. 3221 and 3222). The recipients of these funds are commonly
referred to as the 1862 land-grant institutions and 1890 land-grant
institutions, including Tuskegee University and West Virginia State
University. CSREES also is requesting public comment on the revision of
a previously approved information collection (OMB No. 0524-0036)
associated with these guidelines.
DATES: Written comments are invited from interested individuals and
organizations. To be considered in the formulation of the guidelines,
comments must be received on or before July 7, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Mail: Planning and Accountability, Office of the Administrator;
CSREES-USDA; Mail Stop 2214; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington,
DC 20250-2214.
Hand Delivery: Planning and Accountability, Office of the
Administrator; CSREES-USDA; Room 1314; 800 9th Street, SW.; Washington,
DC 20024.
Email: [email protected].
Fax: 202-720-4730 to the attention of Bart Hewitt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bart Hewitt; Program Analyst,
Planning and Accountability, Office of the Administrator; CSREES-USDA;
Washington, DC 20250; at 202-720-5623, 202-720-7714 (fax) or via
electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the information collection and
recordkeeping requirements imposed by the implementation of these
guidelines have been submitted to OMB as a revision of Information
Collection No. 0524-0036, Reporting Requirements for State Plans of
Work for Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds. These
requirements will not become effective prior to OMB approval. The
eligible institutions will be notified upon this approval.
Title: Reporting Requirements for State Plans of Work for
Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds.
Summary: The purpose of this collection of information is to
implement the requirements of section 7 of the Hatch Act of 1887, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 361g); section 4 of the Smith-Lever Act, as amended
(7 U.S.C. 343); and section 1444(d) and section 1445(c) of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977
(NARETPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 3221(d) and 3222(c)), which require
that before funds may be provided to a State or eligible institution
under these Acts a plan of work must be submitted by the proper
officials of the State or eligible institution, as appropriate, and
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Need for the Information: The Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA), Public Law 105-185, amended the
Hatch Act of 1887, Smith-Lever Act, and sections 1444 and 1445 of
NARETPA to require plans of work to be received and approved by CSREES
prior to the distribution of funding authorized under these Acts. This
collection of information will satisfy the plan-of-work reporting
requirements as imposed by these Acts. This collection of information
includes three parts: (1) The submission of a 5-Year Plan of Work; (2)
the submission of an annual update of the 5-Year Plan of Work, and (3)
the submission of the Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results for
the 5-Year Plan of Work.
1. The first two collections of information are required in order
to satisfy the above amendments to the Acts that authorize the
distribution of agricultural research and extension formula funds to
States and eligible institutions. In addition to a description of
planned programs, the 5-Year Plan of Work must include information on
how critical short-term, intermediate, and long-term agricultural
issues in the State will be addressed in research and extension
programs; how the State or eligible institution has developed a process
to consult users of agricultural extension and research in the
identification of critical agricultural issues in the State and the
development of programs and projects targeting these issues (also
referred to as stakeholder input); how the State or eligible
institution has made efforts to identify and collaborate with other
universities and colleges that have a unique capacity to address the
identified agricultural issues in the State and the extent of current
and emerging efforts (including the regional and/or multistate efforts)
to work with these institutions; the manner in which research and
extension, including research and extension activities funded other
than through formula funds, will cooperate to address the critical
issues in the State, including activities to be carried out separately,
sequentially, or jointly; and for extension, the education and outreach
programs already underway to convey available research results that are
pertinent to a critical agricultural
[[Page 33056]]
issue, including efforts to encourage multicounty cooperation in the
dissemination of research information.
Section 103(e) of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7613(e)) also required,
effective October 1, 1999, that a merit review process be established
at the 1862 land-grant institutions and 1890 land-grant institutions in
order to obtain agricultural research and extension formula funds. The
5-Year Plan of Work includes a section for the description of the merit
review process to ensure that such a process is in place prior to the
distribution of agricultural research and extension formula funds.
Sections 104 and 105 of AREERA also amended the Hatch Act and
Smith-Lever Act to require that a specified amount of the agricultural
research and extension formula funds be expended for multistate
activities and that a description of these activities be reported in
the plan of work. Section 204 of AREERA further amended the Hatch Act
and Smith-Lever Act to require that a specified amount of the
agricultural research and extension formula funds be expended for
activities that integrate cooperative research and extension and that a
description of these activities be included in the plan of work. Two
components of the 5-Year Plan of Work submission have been included to
meet these additional requirements.
2. The second collection of information will be an annual update to
the 5-Year Plan of Work. This will be required to add an additional
year to the continuous 5-Year Plan of Work and add any substantive
change to planned programs or a significant change in funding as
outlined in the proposed guidelines.
3. The third collection of information will be the Annual Report of
Accomplishments and Results. This will be based on the 5-Year Plan of
Work, and will assist CSREES in ensuring that federally supported and
conducted research and extension activities are accomplished in
accordance with the management principles set forth under section
102(d) of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7612(d)). These principles require that to
the maximum extent possible, CSREES shall ensure that federally
supported research and extension activities are accomplished in a
manner that integrates agricultural research, extension, and education
functions to better link research to technology transfer and
information dissemination activities; encourages regional and
multistate programs to address relevant issues of common concern and to
better leverage scarce resources; and achieves agricultural research,
extension, and education objectives through multi-institutional and
multifunctional approaches and by conducting research at facilities and
institutions best equipped to achieve these objectives.
CSREES is proposing to request the 5-Year Plan of Work, the annual
update of the 5-Year Plan of Work, and the Annual Report of
Accomplishments and Results for the 5-Year Plan of Work in a web-based
electronic format to comply with the Government Paperwork Elimination
Act (GPEA). CSREES also is proposing to incorporate the recommendations
from the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit No. 13001-3-Te,
CSREES Implementation of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) in the plan-of-work process.
Currently, in the FY 2000-2004 Plan of Work and Annual Report of
Accomplishments and Results and the FY 2005-2006 Plan of Work Update
and Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results, institutions are
submitting their reports via e-mail in WordPerfect file format,
Microsoft Word file format, or ASCII file format. CSREES also is in the
process of developing a ``One-Solution'' for reporting for all CSREES
grant programs including those covered in the 5-Year Plan of Work. A
``One-Solution'' integrated reporting system will be more streamlined
and effective, eliminate duplicative reporting, and provide additional
program and fiscal accountability while reducing the overall burden
hours for reporting. The web-based system developed for the plan of
work process will be made part of the ``One Solution'' product at the
appropriate time. Moreover, currently, in the FY 2000-2004 Plan of Work
and Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results and the FY 2005-2006
Plan of Work Update and Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results,
institutions are submitting their reports around the five original USDA
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals established for FY
2000. CSREES is proposing that institutions submit their reports around
established Knowledge Areas and the Logic Model.
Respondents: Respondents will be the 57 1862 land-grant
institutions and the 18 1890 land-grant institutions, including
Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University, who will
provide a 5-Year Plan of Work; and will report on the accomplishments
and results of this plan of work annually to CSREES.
Estimate of Burden: The amendments to AREERA require a plan of work
for funds that are distributed on an annual basis. To reduce the burden
on respondents, CSREES proposes to provide a web-based input system for
the 5-Year Plan of Work and subsequent Annual Report of Accomplishments
and Results.
The total reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the
submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work is estimated at 560 hours per
response.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 75.
Estimated Number of Responses: 150.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 84,000 hours.
Frequency of Responses: Once every five years.
The total reporting and recordkeeping requirement for the Annual
Update to the 5-Year Plan of Work is estimated at 56 hours per
response.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 75.
Estimated Number of Responses: 150.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 8,400 hours.
Frequency of Responses: Annually.
The total annual reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the
``Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results'' is estimated at 288
hours per response.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 75.
Estimated Number of Responses: 150.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 43,200 hours.
Frequency of Responses: Annually.
Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: CSREES-
USDA; Planning and Accountability, Office of the Administrator; Mail
Stop 2214; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2214 by
August 11, 2005 or to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20502. Reference should be made to the volume, page, and
date of this Federal Register publication.
[[Page 33057]]
Background and Purpose
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES) proposes to implement the following revised Guidelines for
State Plans of Work for the Agricultural Research and Extension Formula
Funds which implement the plan-of-work reporting requirements enacted
in the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (AREERA), Public Law 105-185.
These proposed guidelines incorporate some of the recommendations
from the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report No. 13001-
3-Te, CSREES Implementation of the Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA), which was published on
August 16, 2004. In an earlier Federal Register notice [69 FR 6244-
6248], CSREES amended the guidelines to the State Plans of Work to
allow for the submission of an interim FY 2005-2006 Plan of Work in
order for CSREES to consider the audit recommendations as well as
develop a viable electronic option for compliance with the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA). This notice proposes this electronic
option through a web-based data entry system which will reduce the
reporting burden to the institutions while providing more
accountability over agricultural research and extension formula funds.
These guidelines also propose eliminating the reporting by the five
national goals, i.e., the reporting centered around State identified
planned program areas, and using newly established Knowledge Areas
(KAs). It is anticipated that these reporting changes will eliminate
burden to the institutions while providing opportunities for more
effective and efficient reports on program accountability.
Pursuant to the plan of work requirements enacted in the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service hereby
proposes to revise the Guidelines for State Plans of Work for
Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds as follows:
Guidelines for State Plans of Work for Agricultural Research and
Extension Formula Funds
Table of Contents
I. Preface and Authority
II. Submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work
A. General
1. Planning Option
2. Periord Covered
3. Projected Resources
4. Submission and Due Date
5. Definitions
B. Components of the 5-Year Plan of Work
1. Planned Programs
a. Format
b. Program Logic Model
c. Program Descriptions
2. Stakeholder Input Process
3. Program Review Process
a. Merit Review
b. Scientific Peer Review
c. Reporting Requirement
4. Multistate Research and Extension Activities
a. Hatch Multistate Research
b. Smith-Lever Multistate Extension
c. Reporting Requirement
5. Integrated Research and Extension Activities
C. Five-Year Plan of Work Evaluation by CSREES
1. Schedule
2. Review Criteria
3. Evaluation of Multistate and Integrated Research and
Extension Activities
III. Annual Update of the 5-Year Plan of Work
A. Applicability
B. Reporting Requirement
IV. Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results
A. Reporting Requirement
B. Format
I. Preface and Authority
Sections 202 and 225 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA), Public Law 105-185, enacted
amendments requiring all States and 1890 institutions receiving formula
funds authorized under the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a
et seq.), the Smith-Lever Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), and
sections 1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA), as amended (7
U.S.C. 3221 and 3222), to prepare and submit to the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) a plan of work for
the use of those funds.
While the requirement for the Hatch Act and Smith-Lever Act funds
applies to the States, CSREES assumes that in most cases the function
will be performed by the 1862 land-grant institution in the States. The
only ``eligible institutions'' to receive formula funding under
sections 1444 and 1445 of NARETPA are the 1890 land-grant institutions
and Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University. Therefore,
these guidelines refer throughout to ``institutions'' to include both
the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions, including Tuskegee
University and West Virginia State University.
Further, these guidelines require a plan of work that covers both
research and extension. Although the District of Columbia receives
extension funds under the District of Columbia Postsecondary Education
Reorganization Act, Public Law 93-471, as opposed to the Smith-Lever
Act, CSREES has determined that it should be subject to the plan of
work requirements imposed under these guidelines except where expressly
excluded.
All the requirements of AREERA with regard to agricultural research
and extension formula funds were considered and were incorporated in
these plan of work guidelines including descriptions of the following:
(1) The critical short-term, intermediate, and long-term agricultural
issues in the State and the current and planned research and extension
programs and projects targeted to address the issues; (2) the process
established to consult with stakeholders regarding the identification
of critical agricultural issues in the State and the development of
research and extension projects and programs targeted to address the
issues; (3) the efforts made to identify and collaborate with other
colleges and universities that have a unique capacity to address the
identified agricultural issues in the State and the extent of current
and emerging efforts (including regional and multistate efforts) to
work with those other institutions; (4) the manner in which research
and extension, including research and extension activities funded other
than through formula funds, will cooperate to address the critical
issues in the State, including the activities to be carried out
separately, sequentially, or jointly; and (5) for extension, the
education and outreach programs already underway to convey available
research results that are pertinent to a critical agricultural issue,
including efforts to encourage multicounty cooperation in the
dissemination of research information.
These guidelines also take into consideration the requirement in
section 102(c) of AREERA for the 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant
institutions receiving agricultural research, extension, and education
formula funds to establish a process for receiving stakeholder input on
the uses of such funds. This stakeholder input requirement, as it
applies to research and extension at 1862 and 1890 land-grant
institutions, has been incorporated as part of the plan of work
process.
The requirement of section 103(e) of AREERA also is addressed in
these plan of work guidelines. This section requires that the 1862,
1890, and 1994 land-grant institutions establish a merit review
process, prior to October 1, 1999, in order to obtain agricultural
research,
[[Page 33058]]
extension, and education funds. These were established by all
institutions in the FY 2000-2004 5-Year Plan of Work. For purposes of
these guidelines applicable to formula funds, a description of the
merit review process must be restated, and if applicable, the merit
review process must be re-established for extension programs funded
under sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act and under section
1444 of NARETPA, and for research programs funded under sections
3(c)(1) and (2) of the Hatch Act (commonly referred to as Hatch Regular
Formula Funds) and under section 1445 of NARETPA. Section 104 of AREERA
amended the Hatch Act of 1887 also to stipulate that a scientific peer
review process (that also would satisfy the requirements of a merit
review process under section 103(e)) be established for research
programs funded under section 3(c)(3) of the Hatch Act (commonly
referred to as Hatch Multistate Research Funds). As previously stated,
a description of these program review processes must be restated, and
if applicable, these review processes must be re-established in order
for the institutions to obtain agricultural research and extension
formula funds. Consequently, a description of the merit review and
scientific peer review process has been included as a requirement in
the submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work.
These plan of work guidelines also require reporting on the
multistate and integrated research and extension programs. Section 104
of AREERA amended the Hatch Act of 1887 to redesignate the Hatch
regional research funds as the Hatch Multistate Research Fund,
specifying that these funds be used for cooperative research employing
multidisciplinary approaches in which a State agricultural experiment
station, working with another State agricultural experiment station,
the Agricultural Research Service, or a college or university,
cooperates to solve the problems that concern more than one State.
Section 105 of AREERA amended the Smith-Lever Act to require that each
institution receiving extension formula funds under sections 3(b) and
(c) of the Smith-Lever Act expend for multistate activities in FY 2000
and thereafter a percentage that is at least equal to the lesser of 25
percent or twice the percentage of funds expended by the institution
for multistate activities in FY 1997. Section 204 of AREERA amended
both the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts to require that each institution
receiving agricultural research and extension formula funds under the
Hatch Act and sections 3(b) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act expend for
integrated research and extension activities in FY 2000 and thereafter
a percentage that is at least equal to the lesser of 25 percent or
twice the percentage of funds expended by the institution for
integrated research and extension activities in FY 1997. These sections
also required that the institutions include in the plan of work a
description of the manner in which they will meet these multistate and
integrated requirements. These were included as part of the FY 2000-
2004 5-Year Plan of Work and the established baselines remain in effect
for the 5-Year Plan of Work beginning with FY 2007 and do not need to
be re-established.
These applicable percentages apply to the Federal agricultural
research and extension formula funds only. Federal formula funds that
are used by the institution for a fiscal year for integrated activities
may also be counted to satisfy the multistate activities requirement.
The multistate and integrated research and extension requirements
do not apply to formula funds received by American Samoa, Guam,
Micronesia, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Since the Smith-Lever Act is not directly applicable, the multistate
and integrated extension requirements do not apply to extension funds
received by the District of Columbia, except to the extent it
voluntarily complies.
The amendments made by sections 105 and 204 of AREERA also provide
that the Secretary of Agriculture may reduce the minimum percentage
required to be expended by the institution for multistate and
integrated activities in the case of hardship, infeasibility, or other
similar circumstance beyond the control of the institution. In April
2000, CSREES issued separate guidance on the establishment of the FY
1997 baseline percentages for multistate activities and integrated
activities, on requests for reduction in the required minimum
percentage, and on reporting requirements. These baselines were set and
continue to be the baselines for the Plans of Work and Annual Reports
of Accomplishments and Results.
Also included in these guidelines are instructions on how to report
on the annual accomplishments and results of the planned programs
contained in the 5-Year Plan of Work, information on the evaluation of
accomplishments and results, and information on when and how to update
the 5-Year Plan of Work if necessary.
II. Submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work
A. General
1. Planning Option
This document provides guidance for preparing the plan of work with
preservation of institutional autonomy and programmatic flexibility
within the Federal-State Partnership. The plan of work is a 5-year
prospective plan that covers the initial period of FY 2007 through FY
2011, with the submission of annual updates to the 5-Year Plan of Work
to add an additional year to the plan each year. The 5-Year Plans of
Work may be prepared for an institution's individual functions (i.e.,
research or extension activities), for an individual institution
(including the planning of research and extension activities), or for
state-wide activities (a 5-year research and/or extension plan of work
for all the eligible institutions in a State). Each 5-Year Plan of Work
must reflect the content of the program(s) funded by Federal
agricultural research and extension formula funds and the required
matching funds. This 5-Year Plan of Work must describe how the
program(s) addresses critical short-term, intermediate, and long-term
agricultural issues in a State.
2. Period Covered
The initial 5-Year Plan of Work should cover the period from
October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2011.
3. Projected Resources
The resources that are allocated for various planned programs in
the 5-Year Plan of Work, in terms of human and fiscal measures, should
be included and projected over the next five years. The baseline for
the institution's or State's plan (for five years) should be the
Federal agricultural research and extension formula funds for FY 2005
(and used for all five years) and the appropriate matching requirement
for each fiscal year. During the course of the 5-Year Plan of Work, if
the baseline for the formula funds changes by more than 10 percent in
one year or by 20 percent or more cumulatively during the 5-year
period, a revised 5-Year Plan of Work should be submitted in the annual
update the following fiscal year.
4. Submission and Due Date
The 5-Year Plan of Work must be submitted by April 1, 2006, to the
Planning and Accountability Unit, Office of the Administrator, of the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES);
U.S. Department of Agriculture. These will be submitted electronically
via a web-
[[Page 33059]]
based data input system for the Plan of Work and Annual Report of
Accomplishments and Results provided by CSREES.
5. Definitions
For the purpose of implementing the Guidelines for State Plans of
Work for Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds, the
following definitions are applicable:
Activities means either research projects or extension programs.
Agricultural issues means all issues for which research and
extension are involved, including, but not exclusive of, agriculture,
natural resources, nutrition, community and resource development, and
social issues such as youth development, etc.
Formula funds for the purposes of the plan of work guidelines means
funding provided by formula to 1862 land-grant institutions under
section 3 of the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a) and
sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act, as amended (7 U.S.C.
343(b)(1) and (c)) and to the 1890 land-grant institutions under
sections 1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3221
and 3222).
Formula funds for the purposes of stakeholder input means the
funding by formula to the 1862 land-grant institutions and 1890 land-
grant institutions covered by these plan of work guidelines as well as
the formula funds provided under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry Research Program (16 U.S.C. 582, et seq.), the Animal Health
and Disease Research Program (7 U.S.C. 3195), and the education
payments made to the 1994 land-grant institutions under section 534(a)
of Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note).
Integrated or joint activities means jointly planned, funded, and
interwoven activities between research and extension to solve problems.
This includes the generation of knowledge and the transfer of
information and technology.
Merit review means an evaluation whereby the quality and relevance
to program goals are assessed.
Multi-institutional means two or more institutions within the same
or different States or territories that will collaborate in the
planning and implementation of programs.
Multistate means collaborative efforts that reflect the programs of
institutions located in at least two or more States or territories.
Multi-disciplinary means efforts that represent research,
education, and/or extension programs in which principal investigators
or other collaborators from two or more disciplines or fields of
specialization work together to accomplish specified objectives.
Outcome indicator means an assessment of the results of a program
activity compared to its intended purpose.
Output indicator means a tabulation, calculation, or recording of
activity of effort expressed in quantitative or qualitative manner
which measures the products or services produced by the planned
program.
Planned programs means collections of research projects or
activities and/or extension programs or activities.
Program Logic Model means the conceptual tool for planning and
evaluation which displays the sequence of actions that describe what
the science-based program is and will do `` how investments link to
results. Included in this depiction of the program action are six core
components:
1. Identification of the national problem, need, or situation that
needs to be addressed by the program: The conceptual model will
delineate the steps that are planned, based on past science and best
theory, to achieve outcomes that will best solve the identified
national problems and meet the identified needs.
2. Assumptions: The beliefs we have about the program, the people
involved, and the context and the way we think the program will work.
These science-based assumptions are based on past evaluation science
findings regarding the effects and functioning of the program or
similar programs, program theory, stakeholder input, etc.
3. External Factors: The environment in which the program exists
includes a variety of external factors that interact with and influence
the program action. Evaluation plans for the program should account for
these factors, which are alternative explanations for the outcomes of
the program other than the program itself. Strong causal conclusions
about the efficacy of the program must eliminate these environmental
factors as viable explanations for the observed outcomes of the
program.
4. Inputs: The resources, contributions, and investments that are
provided for the program. This includes Federal, State, and local
spending, private donations, volunteer time, etc.
5. Outputs: The activities, services, events, and products that are
intended to lead to the program's outcomes in solving national problems
by the causal chain of events depicted in the logic model. These
activities and products are posited to reach the people who are
targeted as participants or the audience or beneficiaries of the
program.
6. Outcomes: The planned results or changes for individuals,
groups, communities, organizations, communities, or systems. These
include short term, medium term, and long term outcomes in the
theorized chain of causal events that will lead to the planned solution
of the identified national problems or meet national needs. These can
be viewed as the public's return on its investment, i.e., the value-
added to society in the benefits it reaps from the program.
Program review means either a merit review or a scientific peer
review.
Scientific peer review means an evaluation performed by experts
with scientific knowledge and technical skills to conduct the proposed
work whereby the technical quality and relevance to program goals are
assessed.
Seek stakeholder input means an open, fair, and accessible process
by which individuals, groups, and organizations may have a voice, and
one that treats all with dignity and respect.
Stakeholder is any person who has the opportunity to use or conduct
agricultural research, extension, and education activities in the
State.
Under-served means individuals, groups, and/or organizations whose
needs have not been addressed in past programs.
Under-represented means individuals, groups, and/or organizations
especially those who may not have participated fully including, but not
limited to, women, racial and ethnic minorities, persons with
disabilities, limited resource clients, and small farm owners and
operators.
B. Components of the 5-Year Plan of Work
1. Planned Programs
Beginning with the FY 2007-2011 5-Year Plan of Work, the Planned
Programs will no longer be arranged around the five National Goals
established for the FY 2000-2004 5-Year Plan of Work, nor will they be
identified by the previously established Key Themes. Planned programs
will be centered around State-identified planned program areas and
CSREES newly established Knowledge Areas (KAs).
a. Format. As mentioned under the Planning Options section, an
institution or State may opt to submit independent plans for the
various units (e.g., 1862 research) or an integrated plan which
includes all units in the institution or State.
[[Page 33060]]
b. Program Logic Model. Regardless of the option chosen, the 5-Year
Plan of Work should be reported in the appropriate format, each of
which identifies planned programs that the State decides upon. Each
Planned Program the State decides upon will be formatted around the
Program Logic Model in this web-based Plan of Work data entry system.
This is a nationally recognized method and used extensively by planning
and evaluation specialists to display the sequence of actions that
describe what the program is and will do and how investments link to
results. It is commonly used by many State Cooperative Extension
Services.
c. Program Descriptions. Program descriptions presented for a
planned program will be formatted around the Program Logic Model and
include the following data entry screens:
1. Name of Program. The State-designated title for a State Research
and/or Extension Program. This is in contrast to a project title. A
research program may consist of several research projects. Examples of
Programs may include, but not be exclusive of: 4-H and Youth, Pest
Management, Animal Genomics, Natural Resources, Economics and Commerce,
etc.
2. Classification of Program. Up to ten different classification
codes and their respective percentage of effort may be used to classify
the knowledge areas covered in each State program.
3. Situation and Priorities. This component should discuss the
critical agricultural issues within the State that were identified and
are being targeted by this planned program. This component may also
reference the stakeholder input which identified the critical
agricultural issue in the State and the need for the targeted research
and/or extension program.
a. Identify the internal and external linkages that include
activities identified as integrated, multidisciplinary, multi-
institutional, and/or multistate. This component may also address any
efforts made to identify and collaborate with other colleges and
universities that have a unique capacity to address the identified
agricultural issues within the State and the extent of current and
emerging efforts (including regional efforts) to work with those
institutions. Within this planning component, discussion should be made
regarding the efficiencies achieved through these internal and external
linkages both in the use of resources and/or in the ability to solve
critical agricultural issues.
b. Identify the set of stakeholders, customers, and/or consumers
for which the program is intended. The 5-Year Plan of Work should
address the institution's commitment to facilitating equality of
service and ease of access to all research and extension programs and
services and to meeting the needs of under-served and under-represented
individuals, groups, and/or organizations.
c. Describe education and outreach programs that are already
underway to convey the research results that are pertinent to the
critical agricultural issue identified in the ``Statement of Issue.''
This planning component applies only to those 5-Year Plans of Work
incorporating extension activities of the 1862 and/or 1890 land-grant
institutions.
4. Expected Duration of the Program. A data check box will ask you
to express the program duration as short-term (one year or less),
intermediate (one to five years), or long-term (over five years).
5. Inputs. The resources, contributions, investments that go into
the program. The Web-based software will include formula dollars,
matching dollars, and other funds budgeted, and estimated FTEs. AREERA
requires that this component may not only include the amount of Federal
agricultural research and/or extension formula funds and matching funds
allocated to this planned program, but also the manner in which funds,
other than formula funds, will be expended to address the critical
issues being targeted by this planned program.
6. Outputs. The activities, services, events and products that
reach people who participate or who are targeted. These outputs are
intended to lead to specific outcomes. The Web-based data entry system
will include standard performance measures such as number of persons
targeted (direct and indirect contacts), number and type of patents
awarded, as well as state-generated target performance measures.
7. Outcomes. The direct results, benefits, or changes for
individuals, groups, communities, organizations, or systems. Examples
include changes in knowledge, skill development, changes in behavior,
capacities or decision-making, and policy development. Outcomes can be
short-term, medium-term, or long-term achievements. Short-term outcomes
refer to changes in learning. Medium-term outcomes refer to changes in
action. Long-term outcomes refer to changes in conditions. Outcomes may
be positive, negative, neutral, intended, or unintended. Impact in this
model refers to the ultimate consequence or effects of the program (for
example, increased economic security or improved air quality). In this
model, impact is synonymous with the long-term outcome of your goal. It
is at the farthest right on the logic model graphic. Impact refers to
the ultimate, long-term changes in social, economic, civic, or
environmental conditions. In common usage impact and outcomes are often
used interchangeably.
The Web-based software will include standard performance measures,
such as number of persons adopting a technology or practice or dollars
saved or generated, and will allow for state-generated target
performance measures.
8. Assumptions. The beliefs we have about the program, the people
involved, and the context and the way we think the program will work.
The Web-based data entry system will require a short discussion on the
assumptions that underlie and influence the program decisions made.
Assumptions are principles, beliefs, ideas about the problem or
situation, the resources and staff, the way the program will operate,
what the program expects to achieve, the knowledge base, the external
environment, the internal environment, the participants and how they
learn, their behavior, motivations, etc.
9. External Factors. The environment in which the program exists
includes a variety of external factors that interact with and influence
the program action. External factors include the cultural milieu, the
climate, economic structure, housing patterns, demographic patterns,
background and experiences of program participants, media influence,
changing policies and priorities. These external factors may have a
major influence on the achievement of outcomes. They may affect a
variety of things including program implementation, participants and
recipients, the speed and degree to which change occurs, staffing
patterns, and resources available. A program is affected by and affects
these external factors.
2. Stakeholder Input Process
Section 102(c) of AREERA requires the 1862 land-grant institutions,
1890 land-grant institutions, and 1994 land-grant institutions
receiving agricultural research, extension, and education formula funds
from CSREES to establish a process for stakeholder input on the uses of
such funds. CSREES has separately promulgated regulations to implement
this stakeholder input requirement. This was published on February 8,
2000, in the Federal Register (7 CFR Part 3418).
As a component of the 5-Year Plan of Work, each institution must
report on the (a) actions taken to seek stakeholder input that
encourages their participation; (b) a brief statement of the
[[Page 33061]]
process used by the recipient institution to identify individuals and
groups who are stakeholders and to collect input from them; and (c) a
statement of how collected input was considered. This report will be
required annually and may be submitted with the Annual Report of
Accomplishments and Results. This component will satisfy the reporting
requirements imposed by the separately promulgated regulations on
stakeholder input.
In the Web-based software, CSREES will provide check lists with the
commonly reported actions taken to seek stakeholder input, the process
used to identify stakeholders and collect input from them and how the
input was considered, and will allow for additional information in each
section in the form of a narrative.
3. Program Review Process
a. Merit Review. Effective October 1, 1999, each 1862 land-grant
institution and 1890 land-grant institution must have established a
process for merit review in order to obtain agricultural research or
extension formula funds. This was established in the FY 2000-2004 5-
Year Plan of Work by all institutions.
b. Scientific Peer Review. A scientific peer review is required for
all research funded under the Hatch Act Multistate Research Fund. For
such research, this scientific peer review will satisfy the merit
review requirement specified above.
c. Reporting Requirement. As a component of the 5-year Plan of
Work, each institution, depending on the type of program review
required, will provide a description of the merit review process or
scientific peer review process established at their institution. This
description should include the process used in the selection of
reviewers with expertise relevant to the effort and appropriate
scientific and technical standards.
4. Multistate Research and Extension Activities
a. Hatch Multistate Research. Effective October 1, 1998, the Hatch
Multistate Research Fund replaced the Hatch Regional Research Program.
The Hatch Multistate Research Fund must be used for research employing
multidisciplinary approaches to solve research problems that concern
more than one State. For such research, State agricultural experiment
stations must partner with another experiment station, the Agricultural
Research Service, or another college or university.
b. Smith-Lever Multistate Extension. Effective October 1, 1999, the
cooperative extension programs at the 1862 land-grant institutions must
have expended up to 25 percent of their formula funds provided under
sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act for activities in which
two or more State extension services cooperate to solve problems that
concern more than one State. As required by law, CSREES has worked with
each 1862 land-grant institution to identify the amount each
institution expended for multistate extension activities for FY 1997.
For FY 2000 and thereafter, cooperative extension programs must commit
two times their FY 1997 baseline percentage or 25 percent, whichever is
less, for multistate activities. Institutions should describe the
contributions of extension staff and programs toward impacts rather
than describe the programs. Each participating State or territory must
be a collaborator towards objectives and involved in the outcomes.
Evidence of the proposed collaboration must be provided in the 5-Year
Plan of Work submitted by each State. This planning is documented
through formal agreements, letters of memorandums, contracts, or other
instruments that provide primary evidence that a multistate
relationship exists.
c. Reporting Requirements. The 5-Year Plan of Work should include a
description of the Multistate Research, where applicable, and
Multistate Extension programs as specified above and these programs
must be reported consistently across the units of an institution as
well as with the 5-Year Plan of Work of the cooperating State(s) or
State institutions. These descriptions should be reported in the
Planned Programs section of the 5-Year Plan of Work. A table will be
provided by the web-based software for reporting dollars expended each
year on these activities.
5. Integrated Research and Extension Activities
a. Effective October 1, 1999, up to 25 percent of all funds
provided under section 3 of the Hatch Act and under section 3(b)(1) and
(c) of the Smith-Lever Act must have been spent on activities that
integrate cooperative research and extension. As required by law,
CSREES has worked with each 1862 land-grant institution to establish
the institution's baseline for integrated research and extension
activities for FY 1997. For FY 2000 and thereafter, 1862 land-grant
institutions must have committed twice the FY 1997 baseline percentage
or 25 percent, whichever is less, for integrated activities.
Integration may occur within the State or between units within two or
more States. Integrated programming must be reported in the 5-Year Plan
of Work and be reported consistently across the units of the
institutions as well as with the 5-Year Plan of Work submitted by
cooperating State(s). Federal formula funds used by a State for
integrated activities may also be counted to satisfy the multistate
research and the multistate extension activity requirements. The
requirements of this section apply only to the Federal funds.
b. Reporting Requirements. The 5-Year Plan of Work should include a
description of the Integrated Research and Extension programs as
specified above and these programs must be reported consistently across
the units of an institution as well as with the 5-Year Plan of Work of
the cooperating State(s) or State institutions. These descriptions
should be reported in the Planned Programs section of the 5-Year Plan
of Work. A table will be provided by the Web-based software for
reporting dollars expended each year on these activities.
C. 5-Year Plan of Work Evaluation by CSREES
1. Schedule
CSREES will evaluate all 5-Year Plans of Work. The 5-Year Plans of
Work will either be accepted by CSREES without change or returned to
the institution with clear and detailed recommendations for its
modification. The submitting institution(s) will be notified by CSREES
of its determination within 90 days (review to be completed in 60 days
with communications to the institutions allowing a 30-day response) of
receipt of the document. Adherence to the Plan of Work schedule by the
recipient institution is critical to assuring the timely allocation of
funds by CSREES. Five-Year Plans of Work accepted by CSREES will remain
in effect for five years and will be publicly available in a CSREES
database. CSREES will notify all institutions of the need for a new 5-
Year Plan of Work at least one year prior to the plan's expiration on
September 30.
2. Review Criteria
CSREES will evaluate the 5-Year Plans of Work to determine if they
address agricultural issues of critical importance to the State;
identify the alignment and realignment of programs to address those
critical issues; identify the involvement of stakeholders in the
planning process; give attention to under-served and under-represented
populations; indicate the level of Federal formula funds in proportion
to all other funds at the director or administrator level; provide
evidence of multistate, multi-institutional, and
[[Page 33062]]
multidisciplinary and integrated activities; and identify the expected
outcomes and impacts from the proposed 5-Year Plan of Work.
3. Evaluation of Multistate and Integrated Research and Extension
Activities
CSREES will use the Annual Reports of Accomplishments and Results
to evaluate the success of multistate, multi-institutional, and
multidisciplinary activities and joint research and extension
activities in addressing critical agricultural issues identified in the
5-Year Plans of Work. CSREES will use the following evaluation
criteria: (1) Did the planned program address the critical issues of
strategic importance, including those identified by the stakeholders?
(2) Did the planned program address the needs of under-served and
under-represented populations of the State(s)? (3) Did the planned
program describe the expected outcomes and impacts? and (4) Did the
planned program result in improved program effectiveness and/or
efficiency?
III. Annual Update of the 5-Year Plan of Work
A. Applicability
An annual update to the 5-Year Plan of Work is required each year
to add an additional year to the Plan.
B. Reporting Requirement
The update to the 5-Year Plan of Work should be submitted on April
1 prior to the beginning of the next Plan of Work fiscal year (which
begins on October 1 of each year).
IV. Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results
A. Reporting Requirement
The 5-Year Plan of Work for a reporting unit, institution, or State
should form the basis for annually reporting its accomplishments and
results. This report will be due on or before April 1 each year with
the first report being due on April 1, 2008, for FY 2007. This report
should be submitted using the same Web-based data entry system used for
the submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work. The Web-based data entry
system will mirror and include data entered by the land-grant
institution in the 5-Year Plan of Work.
B. Format
This annual report should include the relevant information related
to each component of the program of the 5-Year Plan of Work.
Accomplishments and results reporting should involve two parts. First,
institutions should submit an annual set of impact statements linked to
sources of funding. Strict attention to just the preceding year is not
expected in all situations. Some impact statements may need to cover
ten or more years of activity. Focus should be given to the benefits
received by targeted end-users. Second, institutions should submit
annual results statements based on the indicators of the outputs and
outcomes for the activities undertaken the preceding year in the
Program Logic Model for each program. These should be identified as
short-term, intermediate, or long-term critical issues in the 5-Year
Plan of Work. Attention should be given to highlighting multistate,
multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary and integrated activities,
as appropriate to the 5-Year Plan of Work.
Done at Washington, DC, this 31st day of May 2005.
Joseph J. Jen,
Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
[FR Doc. 05-11280 Filed 6-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P