[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4101-4112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-680]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Final 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: Final notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service (CSREES) is implementing the revisions to the 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 revising and reinstating a previously approved
information collection (OMB No. 0524-0036) associated with these
Guidelines.
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: CSREES published a notice and request for
comment on the Proposed Revised Guidelines for State Plans of Work for
the Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds in the Federal
Register on June 7, 2005 (70 FR 33055-33062).
Public Comments and Guideline Changes in Response
In the Notice of the Proposed Guidelines, CSREES invited comments
on the Proposed Guidelines as well as comments 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 collections techniques or other forms of information
technology.
CSREES received 22 sets of comments.
Burden
Comment: Half of the commentors (11) stated that the number of
burden hours required is underestimated. One commentor stated that the
number of burden hours required is overestimated. And one commentor
stated that the number of burden hours appeared to be reasonable
estimates. The other nine commentors had no comment on burden hours
required.
CSREES Response: CSREES fully expected that half of the commentors
would indicate that the number of burden hours was underestimated.
CSREES contacted nine states for a burden survey based on the proposed
guidelines. Seven States responded. We asked these states to complete
the survey giving the estimated number of hours it will take to
complete each portion of the Plan of Work (POW) and Annual Report,
above and beyond the number of hours it would normally take to plan and
report for their own State's purposes. The number represented in the
guidelines is based on the median of the results of this survey, and
based on a per institutional response. Thus, half of the responses are
at or below this figure and half of the responses are at or above this
figure. Also, since this number is based on each individual
institutional response, it must be understood that a combined research
institution and extension institution cooperating on a POW is
considered to be two responses and is, thus, expected to be double this
published figure since it represents two institutional responses. It
also is significant to note that none of the states surveyed which were
below this median estimate commented that the burden hours were
underestimated.
Comment: One commentor stated that quantifying inputs would be
overly burdensome.
CSREES Response: While quantifying inputs does put some burden on
the States, it is necessary to report to Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget what impacts are generated by what dollars. To
reduce the burden on the states, CSREES will only ask for the types of
funds used, and the estimated number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) in
the initial POW. Actual numbers on these will be asked in the Annual
Report.
Hatch Act Funding
Comment: One commentor felt that there is no need for the Hatch Act
anymore and that the budget should be cut. Moreover, this commentor
stated that all research should be funded by agribusiness.
CSREES Response: CSREES appreciates and accepts all comments.
However, this comment is beyond the scope of these Guidelines.
Due Date
Comment: Three commentors noted that the period covered in the
Guidelines appears incorrect. The Guidelines state October 1, 2007,
through September 30, 2011.
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees. The period should read October 1,
2006, through September 30, 2011. This is corrected in the final
Guidelines.
Comment: Nine commentors state that the April 1, 2006, deadline for
submitting the POW will be difficult to meet. One commentor suggests
that having the Annual Report and POW submitted 60 days apart from each
other would be less burdensome.
CSREES Response: CSREES needs to have 90 days to review and approve
the POWs before funds can be released for the first quarter of fiscal
year (FY) 2007. CSREES agrees to move the initial due date for the FY
2007-2011 POW to June 1, 2006. However, if any State institution does
not submit their Plan by June 1, 2006, CSREES cannot guarantee prompt
release of the first quarter funds for FY 2007 on October 1, 2006,
since it can only do so with an approved POW. The due dates for the
subsequent Annual Report of Accomplishments and the Annual Plan of Work
Update will remain April 1 each year.
Elements of the Planned Programs Section
Comment: Two commentors suggest that while the Program Logic Model
is
[[Page 4102]]
commonly used by many State Cooperative Extension Services, it is not a
proven model or shown to be an effective tool for research. They
suggest it is a flawed assumption that research and extension programs
can use the same model.
CSREES Response: CSREES disagrees. Although it may be a relatively
new concept for State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAESs), many
Federal research and development agencies and many private research and
development organizations have shown the Program Logic Model to be an
effective tool and are touting its use.
Comment: Another commentor is concerned that while the general flow
of inputs-activities-outputs-outcomes can be used to describe any
process, including research, one must be careful to articulate what is
appropriate and acceptable for each of these categories in the model,
particularly outputs and outcomes.
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees. CSREES conducted a series of
regional sessions on Evaluation Training for the POW in October and
November 2005, to augment the electronic versions of training materials
that have been released and will be released. CSREES wants the 1862 and
1890 land-grant institutions to be clear on what is acceptable in the
POW and subsequent Annual Reports of Accomplishments and Results.
Comment: Another commentor states that the Logic Model lends itself
effectively to Extension Programs, while Knowledge Areas appear to be
more applicable to research activities.
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees in part. CSREES also feels that an
integration by using both methods will give richness to the planning
and accountability process in both research and extension.
Comment: One commentor questioned the value of including
assumptions in the POW. It only adds to reporting burden that will be
useless for any accountability benefits.
CSREES Response: CSREES disagrees. Assumptions are key to the Logic
Model. They are the beliefs we have about the program and the people
involved; the way we think the program will work; and the underlying
beliefs in how it will work. These are validated with research and
experience. Assumptions underlie and influence the program decisions we
make. 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
and internal environment, and the participants and how they learn,
their behavior, motivations, etc.
Comment: Twelve commentors stated that there was a lack of
information about the Knowledge Area Classification (KAC) codes to
judge them.
CSREES Response: CSREES has now published the KAC manual. For the
Knowledge Areas, the research community will quickly notice that a vast
majority of the codes are really no different than that of the Research
Problem Areas (RPAs) that have been used for years in the Current
Research Information System (CRIS). CSREES has augmented the KAC manual
with some additional codes to encompass Extension and Higher Education,
and also the language in the manual has been revised so Extension and
Higher Education can find and use them for their programs. The KAC
manual can be found at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/planrept/plansofwork.html.
Comment: One commentor requested that the Knowledge Areas not be
changed once they have been implemented. Changes create extra work and
less continuity in the information collected.
CSREES Response: CSREES intends to use the KACs to classify all the
work performed by CSREES and its Partners to include Research,
Extension, and Higher Education. The KAC manual is, however, designed
to be a dynamic document that can be revised and augmented over time as
need arises for new classification codes or to retire outdated or
unused codes.
Comment: Two commentors strongly support the use of the Logic Model
to develop plans and evaluation reports for both extension and
research.
CSREES Response: CSREES appreciates all comments both positive and
negative.
Comment: One commentor questions the use of the word ``may'' in
section II.B.5 of the Guidelines that describe inputs as it relates to
reporting on dollars other than Formula Funds. They feel the word
``may'' indicates that the inclusion of data is optional. Another
commentor suggests that CSREES has no oversight authority in requesting
this data and that it should be optional. Yet another commentor
suggests that requesting states to quantify other funds is overly
burdensome and that a compromise might be to simply describe the
source/nature of other funds that will be expended to address critical
issues. Moreover, two commentors stated a need for clarity on the funds
to be reported on in the POW.
CSREES Response: To alleviate confusion, CSREES will change the
word ``may'' to ``shall'' to be consistent with the wording in the
legislation. The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform
Act of 1998 (AREERA) legislation uses the word ``shall'' when it refers
to a requirement. Thus, the wording in this section is being changed to
read, ``AREERA requires that this component shall not only include the
amount of Federal agricultural research and/or extension formula 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.'' This is in keeping
with Section 202 (for Smith-Lever and Hatch), and Section 225 (for 1890
Research and Extension funds) of AREERA. These sections state that
``Each Plan of Work for a State * * * shall contain descriptions of the
following: 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, the activities
to be carried out sequentially, and the activities to be carried out
jointly.'' For the purpose of this 5-year POW, only those programs that
use Federal Formula Funds and its accompanying matching funds need be
reported. Thus, in the POW, CSREES will only ask whether or not Formula
Funds are being used in a State-defined program and whether or not
funds other than Formula Funds are being used. CSREES will not ask for
the amount that is expected to be used in the POW, but will ask for
this data in subsequent Annual Reports against the POW. However, CSREES
will require the number of FTE positions participating in the planned
programs identified in the 5-Year POW. In addition, a recurring comment
made by State land-grant partners was that in formulating the POW
requirements, CSREES needs to consider how much is leveraged with the
Federal formula dollars.
Comment: Two commentors want a clarification of the definition of
the word ``Activities'' as it relates to the Logic Model.
CSREES Response: CSREES has attempted to clarify the definition of
the word ``Activities'' in the definition section of these guidelines.
CSREES will amend the definition to include the following: ``Activities
are what a program does with its inputs, the services it provides to
fulfill its mission. They include the research processes, workshops,
services, conferences,
[[Page 4103]]
community surveys, facilitation, in-home counseling, etc.''
Comment: Two commentors suggested that CSREES change the name of
``community and resource development'' to just ``community
development'' in the definition of ``Agricultural issues.''
CSREES Response: CSREES has changed the wording in this definition
to broaden it by including both ``community development'' and
``resource development.''
Comment: Two commentors suggested that CSREES change the phrase
``social issues such as youth development, etc.'' to ``youth
development, strengthening families (parenting, communication,
financial management), and related topics'' in the definition of
``Agricultural issues.''
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees and has changed the wording to
reflect this.
Comment: Four commentors have suggested that CSREES needs to
clarify the definition of outcome and output indicators to reflect that
of the Program Logic Model. One commentor asked, ``What is the
difference between outcomes and outcome indicators?'' Another commentor
asks if the word ``indicators'' is relevant to the Program Logic Model.
CSREES Response: CSREES believes the word ``indicators'' is very
relevant to the Program Logic Model, because indicators are the
measures of program success that are derived from the goals set in the
Program Logic Model. Indicators are the evidence or information that
represent the phenomenon of interest that has been explained in the
Program Logic Model. Indicators answer the evaluation questions derived
from the Program Logic Model, and define the data that will need to be
collected, analyzed, and reported.
For example, a Program Logic Model may recognize a national
problem, such as the need for nutrition education to help combat the
nationwide epidemic of obesity, and lay out the planned course of
action to deliver activities, such as courses for certain target
groups, that will result in planned results, such as increases in
knowledge, changes in attitudes, and changes in behavior, that we know
from experience and health literature will lead to lower weight. This
example also illustrates the difference between output and outcome
indicators. Output indicators measure the activities that comprise the
process of the program, such as counting the number of courses provided
and the number of participants, while outcome indicators measure the
results of those activities, such as changes in nutrition knowledge
measured by a test, changes in attitudes, and changes in behavior. Some
evaluation studies also collect physical outcome data, such as
measuring calories consumed each day, changes in weight, etc.
Using the word ``outcomes'' in the Program Logic Model refers to
the planned conceptual goal for the cluster of output activities to
which it is linked, while ``outcome indicator'' refers to the selected
measure of progress toward that goal. However, in common usage, people
often may use ``outcomes'' as shorthand for the measure.
Comment: Three commentors have suggested that CSREES change the
wording from ``identification of national problem,'' to
``identification of state problem'' in the definition of Program Logic
Model. Moreover, one commentor points out that there is conflicting
language in the Guidelines which implies the POW must address only
national priorities.
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees in part and has changed the wording
in this definition to provide greater clarity in that the POW should
address both state and national priorities. National issues are usually
best addressed at the state level by the States affected. Collectively,
state and national priorities are cohesive and solutions are mutually
beneficial.
Comment: Two commentors stated that it would be helpful if CSREES
would give some indication of the scale of ``programs'' that is
expected for state programs. In addition, the commentor requested brief
examples.
CSREES Response: The purpose of letting the States define their own
program unit, or unit of work, is to allow greater flexibility in how
States plan and report. CSREES does not want to dictate the programs
around which States do their planning. However, CSREES has published
its Strategic Plan on its Web site at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/about/offices/pdfs/strat_plan_04_09.pdf, and a list of eleven National
Emphasis Areas that CSREES uses for its own planning. This list is
published on the CSREES Web site at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/emphasis_area.html.
Comment: Two commentors stated that it appears that the POW system
will request specific measures of program accomplishment. In practice,
these measures may not be uniform for all projects across the entire
Nation, and CSREES will ask for the number of persons adopting a
technology of practice, dollars saved or generated, etc. The commentor
proposes that the POW and Annual Report serve as a broad Federal
umbrella, under which the States are allowed to use measures of
evaluation deemed appropriate by each State. Moreover, two commentors
stated CSREES needs to list the standard performance measures for
outputs.
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees. It was never the intention of the
POW to craft many nation-wide standard measures for outputs and
outcomes. In fact, there are only three standard ``output'' measures
for the FY 2007-2011 POW. Thus far, there are no standard ``outcome''
measures put forth by CSREES for the FY 2007-2011 POW, but we will
continue to work with national task forces to develop some over time.
The standard output measures for extension are number of direct and
indirect contacts, and extension education methods for extension. The
only standard output measure for research in the POW is number of
patents. In the Annual Report, we will ask what those patents are. The
other output measures and all outcome measures are left to the
discretion of the institution to craft as they deem appropriate for
their programs. More detail on the standard performance measures are
published in the training presentation modules for the POW on the
CSREES Web site at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/planrept/plansofwork.html.
Comment: One commentor suggested that there is redundancy in asking
for information under situation and priorities sections and in the
Multistate Extension and Integrated Research and Extension activities
sections, and the stakeholder input process sections.
CSREES Response: CSREES has revised the situation and priorities
section to clarify what is needed and to reduce redundancy of these
sections.
Comment: One commentor suggest that it will be difficult to
estimate indirect and direct contacts during the first year of the POW
given that they have not counted these in this manner previously, but
it sees value in this information as it reaches many clientele by both
indirect and direct means. Staff will feel better about being able to
count all their contacts as some have felt unsettled at being told to
count only direct contacts in the past. Their numbers for both may be
more accurate as a result.
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees that this may be difficult for some
states that have not counted these in the past. Also, we understand
that, for the POW, that these will be estimates. However, in the first
Annual Report due on April 1, 2008, CSREES feels institutions will be
able to count the actual contacts for the first fiscal year. The Plan
numbers are
[[Page 4104]]
milestones to strive for, while the real output measures in the Annual
Report are what we typically will use for determining success.
Multistate Extension and Integrated Research and Extension
Comment: One commentor states that for Smith-Lever Multistate
Extension, the formal documentation discussed to provide evidence
appears to be a new requirement for the POW. The requirement of formal
written agreements will be a distraction to faculty-to-faculty
multistate activities and will require considerable time to develop the
agreements. Most agreements are non-formal. Another commentor agrees,
but goes further to state that e-mail communications can be viewed as
primary evidence that a multistate relationship exists and that this
requirement is creating a bureaucracy and hours spent in preparing
reports without any benefit to the stakeholder. If faculty members are
told they must have this agreement signed prior to initiating a multi-
state effort, all regional programming will come to a halt.
CSREES Response: This requirement was in the original POW
Guidelines published on July 1, 1999. The requirement for formal
written agreements, letters of memorandum, etc. has been deleted.
However, it is expected that these activities meet the criteria and
definition of multistate extension as stated in the Guidelines. CSREES
expects that, with the elimination of the requirement for formal
written agreements or letters of memorandum, institutions will be
better able to meet their target percentages. In fact, CSREES expects
that some institutions (i.e., those with low target percentages) may be
better able to achieve higher target percentages, closer to 25 percent,
with the elimination of the need for formal written agreements in order
to provide evidence of multistate extension activities.
Comment: One commentor feels we should strike the statement that
``these programs must be reported consistently across the units of an
institution as well as with the 5-Year POW of the cooperating State(s)
or State institutions'' in both the Multistate Extension and Integrated
Research and Extension sections to be consistent with the
Administrative Guidance on our CSREES Web site.
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees and will clarify this statement in
both sections to be consistent with the Administrative Guidance on both
sections.
Comment: One commentor states that the guidance continues to ignore
what is meant by ``at least equal to the lesser of 25 percent or twice
the * * *'' in reference to which funds are being addressed for
Multistate Extension and Integrated Research and Extension programs.
This should be interpreted that States report on the value of 25
percent of Federal formula dollars regardless of the source of those
dollars, whether Federal formula dollars or state matching dollars. If
this means only 25 percent of Federal formula dollars this is a
concern. To limit reporting to only Federal dollar funded positions is
difficult as the Federal dollars have fallen so far behind in keeping
up with the operating costs and many States are not hiring new
employees on Federal dollars. Clarity on this point is needed.
CSREES Response: The requirements of AREERA are very clear in that
they do refer only to the Federal formula funds: ``Of the Federal
formula funds that are paid to each State for fiscal year 2000 and each
subsequent fiscal year under subsections (b) and (c), the State shall
expend for the fiscal year for multistate activities a percentage that
is at least equal to the lesser of (i) 25 percent; or (ii) twice the
percentage for the State determined under subparagraph A.'' CSREES
realizes the difficulty for some States to meet these requirements with
Federal formula funds and does understand that many times these
multistate extension and integrated activities are being supported with
other sources of funding (e.g., State funds). However, the statutory
requirement applies to the Federal formula funds only.
Comment: One commentor inquired about whether States would have the
opportunity to establish new target percentages for Multistate
Extension Activities and Integrated Research and Extension Activities.
CSREES Response: Yes, States will have the opportunity to and in
some cases, may be required to establish new target percentages for
Multistate Extension Activities and Integrated Research and Extension
Activities. A revised Administrative Guidance for Multistate Extension
Activities and Integrated Research and Extension Activities is
currently being drafted.
Merit Review
Comment: One commentor needs a clarification on ``program goals''
in the Merit Review definition. The commentor questioned: ``Whose
Program Goals? Are these to be State goals or Federal goals?'' This
statement can be interpreted to be state goals.
CSREES Response: CSREES will clarify this statement to say ``Merit
review means an evaluation whereby the quality and relevance to state
program goals are assessed.'' This refers to the merit review of state
programs.
Stakeholder Input
Comment: One commentor feels the template approach to the sections
on stakeholder input and merit review processes is too constraining.
Such disaggregation trivializes the integrated approaches they have
established and brings all programs to a lowest common denominator of
description, regardless of quality of the processes involved. In
contrast, the open narrative format of the current plan allowed fair
descriptions of such processes and permitted qualitative
differentiation.
CSREES Response: As CSREES was designing the new POW, it
specifically received many positive responses to the way it was
handling these two sections of the Plan. CSREES feels it is alleviating
limitations by incorporating into the software both checkboxes and text
boxes to allow for the flexibility to further explain the important
institutional strategies and processes. CSREES is, however, forcing
conciseness and brevity in its narrative sections as requested by
institutions receiving funds and mandates by Federal laws and
regulations.
General
Comment: One commentor suggests that the following language seems
contradictory. The section on Schedule states that ``Five-Year Plans of
Work accepted by CSREES will remain in effect for five years and will
be publicly available in a CSREES database.'' Earlier language
indicates that the Annual Update to the 5-Year POW will add an
additional year to the continuous 5-Year POW. The commentor asks
whether the approval of the Annual Update also extends the POW another
year.
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees that this seems contradictory and it
has changed the language in the section on ``Schedule'' to clarify the
meaning. The intention is that an approval of the Annual Update also
does extend the POW for another year. But, this update, in effect, is a
``new'' 5-Year POW that is effective for the ``new'' 5-year period.
Comment: One commentor stated that for CSREES to require future 5-
Year POWs is redundant since the States are required to provide annual
updates to the plans, adding an additional year each time. Another
commentor stated that this point needs to be clarified.
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees in part. CSREES will strike the last
[[Page 4105]]
sentence of the paragraph and clarify this statement. However,
technically CSREES is still requiring future 5-Year POWs since each
year the update is a new 5-Year Plan. For example, the update due by
April 1, 2007, will be the FY 2008-2012 5-Year POW, even though an
additional year is being added to the previous FY 2007-2011 5-Year POW.
Moreover, CSREES will allow data to be revised, if needed, for any
future year in the Plan, not just the added year.
Comment: Three commentors believe that the core of the POW (the
planned programs) for the SAESs is already in the CRIS database, and
the Hatch projects in each State's Program of Research should be
accepted de facto as the research planned programs sections for the
POW.
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees in part. Although much information
is in CRIS, it is primarily a reporting mechanism, and is mostly
retrospective, and does not sufficiently make use of the planning
standard, the Program Logic Model, which is in use by many Federal
research and development agencies. The Program Logic Model is key to
the development of the POW. CSREES understands the frustration of
redundancy and is working toward eliminating duplication via the ``One
Solution'' initiative. The ``One Solution'' initiative is exploring
ways to meld the information contained in CRIS and the POW to eliminate
or reduce this duplication of effort. The FY 2007-2011 POW is part of
Phase 1 of the ``One Solution'' initiative, and future phases, which
include the FY 2007 Annual Report (which is not due until April 1,
2008), will address this issue fully.
Comment: One commentor feels CSREES should precede the first
sentence in the paragraph with the phrase ``For extension * * *'' when
describing education and outreach programs that are pertinent to the
critical agricultural issues identified in the ``Statement of Issue.''
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees and has changed the language to
reflect this.
Comment: One commentor wants CSREES to clarify the definition and
consistently apply the meaning of ``planned program,'' which is crucial
to both State and Federal partners. The commentor believes the proposed
guidelines are ambiguous.
CSREES Response: CSREES has purposely given the States ample
discretion and flexibility to interpret their own state-defined program
units or units of work and does not want to impose a standard program
unit that will not fit all circumstances.
Comment: One commentor wants CSREES to clarify the definition of
``Under-served'' and ``Under-represented.'' One commentor stated that
they conduct 10-15 civil rights reviews on an annual basis and have
never seen these definitions. Both phrases seem to be addressing the
same concept and yet, after several readings, it is still unclear to
the commentor what is meant.
CSREES Response: CSREES agrees that both phrases seem to be
addressing the same concept, but also feels the current definitions are
clear. Under-served are those whose ``needs'' have not been fully
addressed in the past; whereas, under-represented are those who may not
have participated fully in programs. The populations for each state
that fit these definitions may differ from state to state and within
different areas of a single state.
Comment: One commentor states that the failure of the proposed
guidelines to integrate or coordinate with Smith-Lever Act section 3(d)
programs and Civil Rights reporting calls to question the validity of
the ``One Solution'' approach. Another commentor states that CSREES
needs to eliminate duplicative effort in reporting impact and
accounting for Federal formula funding received by organizations, and
that reporting into the CSREES Science and Education Impact database is
another example of duplicative work.
CSREES Response: CSREES has begun the process to coordinate with
the Smith-Lever Act section 3(d) programs. However, reporting under the
``One Solution'' is taking place in several phases over several years.
The POW is only part of Phase 1 of the ``One Solution'' initiative. The
Annual Report of Accomplishments for the Formula funded programs
covered by AREERA are part of a future phase of the ``One Solution''
that also will integrate many other programs, including Smith-Lever Act
section 3(d) funded programs, and projects reporting to reduce
redundancy in reporting.
Comment: One commentor states that the web-entry system should come
with a support plan. Also, the new system should be functional in
offline use since they cannot do all the data entry in one sitting and
must be able to save between entries and drafts. If this must be done
online, then it must have a ``save as we go'' feature. Also there
should be no limitations on characters and symbols that can be uploaded
when cutting and pasting from word processing documents.
CSREES Response: The web-entry system will be supported by the
Information Systems and Technology Management unit of CSREES. The new
system will not be functional offline, but it will have a ``save as you
go'' feature to allow for multiple editing until submitted in final by
the Director or Administrator of the institution. There will, however,
be some special character limitations due to software constraints.
Comment: The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in New
Haven states that they are not a land-grant institution, but receive
Hatch Act funds, thus the sentence which begins with ``Responders will
be the 57 land-grant institutions and the 18 1890 land-grant
institutions* * *'' excludes them.
CSREES Response: CSREES will clarify this statement to include the
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in New Haven and the Geneva
Agricultural Experiment Station in New York.
Comment: One commentor encourages CSREES to provide a training
session, one in the East and one in the West, using computer-based
simulation to train each institution's lead 5-Year POW planner. There
also should be an online help desk available for the software.
CSREES Response: CSREES held four regional Evaluation Training for
the POW sessions in October and November 2005. Information on these
training sessions can be found on the CSREES AREERA Plan of Work Web
page at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/planrept/plansofwork.html. There also will be web-based training materials
available for the software. The POW software itself will contain help
screens for each section of the POW and there will be a help desk
available for both software and content.
Comment: One commentor states that data related to external factors
may only be able to be documented in a qualitative form and inquires if
the ``One Solution'' will have the capacity to capture such data.
CSREES Response: The POW software will make use of checkboxes with
an ``other'' choice with a text field as well as a text box to capture
the qualitative nature of this item.
Comment: One commentor states that a clear declaration must be made
by CSREES that states how input, output, and outcome data are to be
used. Is the data base to enhance planning and scientific peer-review
as articulated in AREERA or is it also intended to link dollar inputs
with specific outputs/outcomes, both within the state and across
regional and multi-state efforts? Another commentor inquires how
linking impact to dollars will be shared
[[Page 4106]]
with legislators and other resource allocators.
CSREES Response: CSREES Plans to use the input, output, and outcome
data to enhance planning, and also to link dollar inputs with Knowledge
Areas for use in assessing CSREES-funded programs in the portfolio
review process for budget purposes. We also will link outputs and
outcomes to the Knowledge Areas for use in the portfolio review
process.
Comment: One commentor discourages the tracking or documentation of
multi-county programming work. The time invested would be very
cumbersome and distract from the many successes already occurring.
Another commentor states that to require or even encourage multi-county
cooperation violates the sovereignty of the county government and the
local stakeholders to fund what they perceive as a priority and
oversteps the bounds of the Federal Government.
CSREES Response: CSREES must uphold the mandates of AREERA as
written into the law. The AREERA legislation states that for Smith-
Lever Act formula funds and the 1890 Extension formula funds that
``[e]ach extension Plan of Work for a State * * * shall contain
description of the following:'' ``(5) 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
results.'' CSREES has no intention of tracking multi-county programming
work in the POW. However, as stated above, AREERA requires that States
document efforts to encourage multi-county cooperation in the
dissemination of research information. This can be discussed briefly in
the Plan Overview text and/or the Stakeholder Input section of the
Plan.
Comment: Eight commentors stated a need for more information on the
concept of a rolling 5-year POW and the required Annual Update to the
POW, and how this differs from an update being submitted when formula
funds change by more than 10 percent in one year or by 20 percent or
more cumulatively during the 5-year period.
CSREES Response: The POW does become a rolling 5-Year Plan. Each
April, the just-completed-and-reported-on year drops off and is updated
by adding the next fifth year. Also, annual updates will allow for
amending any and all future years of the plan already entered. CSREES
has attempted to add clarity in these guidelines and has published more
thorough training presentation modules on the CSREES Web site at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/planrept/plansofwork.html.
Since an update is submitted each year, CSREES will drop the reference
to needing an update when baseline formula funds change by more than 10
percent in one year or by 20 percent or more cumulatively during the 5-
year period, but note that annual updates will allow for amending any
and all future years of the plan already entered.
Comment: CSREES needs to improve its search capabilities to search
for impacts by Congressional district.
CSREES Response: While this is beyond the scope of the POW
Guidelines, CSREES is striving to improve on the way we search and find
impacts through the ``One Solution'' initiative which will incorporate
data entry systems with the Research, Education, and Economics
Information System (REEIS). This system has been designed to serve all
with an interest in research, education and extension efforts performed
or financially supported by USDA. The ultimate objective of the system
is to enable users to measure the impact and effectiveness of research,
extension and education programs.
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 will be 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.
Background and Purpose
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES) is implementing 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 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 (POW) 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 implements 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.
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
revises 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. Period 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
[[Page 4107]]
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 POW 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 POW
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 POW 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 POW process.
The requirement of section 103(e) of AREERA also is addressed in
these POW 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, extension,
and education funds. These were established by all institutions in the
FY 2000-2004 5-Year POW. 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 POW.
These POW 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 (SAES), working with another SAES, 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 POW 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 POW.
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
also may be counted to satisfy the multistate extension 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
extension and integrated requirements do not apply to extension
[[Page 4108]]
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 extension activities and
integrated research and extension activities, on requests for reduction
in the required minimum percentage, and on reporting requirements. The
Administrative Guidance for Multistate Extension Activities and
Integrated Research and Extension Activities provides guidance on the
establishment of target percentages for multistate extension activities
and integrated research and extension activities as well as associated
reporting requirements and waiver criteria and procedures.
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 POW, information on the evaluation of
accomplishments and results, and information on when and how to update
the 5-Year POW if necessary.
II. Submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work
A. General
1. Planning Option
This document provides guidance for preparing the POW with
preservation of institutional autonomy and programmatic flexibility
within the Federal-State Partnership. The POW 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 POW to add an additional
year to the plan each year. The 5-Year POWs 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 (i.e.,
a 5-year research and/or extension POW for all the eligible
institutions in a State). Each 5-Year POW 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 POW must
describe how the program(s) address critical short-term, intermediate,
and long-term agricultural issues in a State.
2. Period Covered
The initial 5-Year POW should cover the period from October 1,
2006, through September 30, 2011.
3. Projected Resources
The resources that are allocated for various planned programs in
the 5-Year POW, in terms of full-time equivalents (FTEs), 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.
4. Submission and Due Date
The initial FY 2007-2011 5-Year POW must be submitted by June 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-based data input system for the
POW and Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results provided by
CSREES. The web address for submissions will be provided by CSREES when
the software goes on-line.
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. In
the logic model, activities are what a program does with its inputs,
the services it provides to fulfill its mission. They include the
research processes, workshops, services, conferences, community
surveys, facilitation, in-home counseling, etc.
Agricultural issues means all issues for which research and
extension are involved, including, but not exclusive of, agriculture,
natural resources, nutrition, community development, resource
development, and youth development, strengthening families (parenting,
communication, financial management), and related topics.
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 the State 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. The outcome indicator
measures the success of the outcome. It is the evidence or information
that represents the phenomenon that is being measured. They define the
data that will be collected and evaluated.
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. The output indicator measures the success of the output. It is
the evidence or information that represents the phenomenon being
measured. They define the data that will be collected and evaluated.
[[Page 4109]]
Planned programs means collections of research projects or
activities and/or extension programs or activities. States and State
institutions define their own program unit or unit of work.
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 state and/or 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 state and 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: Resources, contributions, and investments that are
provided for the program. This includes Federal, state, and local
spending, private donations, volunteer time, etc.
5. Outputs: 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. Activities are what a program does with its inputs, the
services it provides to fulfill its mission. They include the research
processes, workshops, services, conferences, community surveys,
facilitation, in-home counseling, etc.
6. Outcomes: 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 fully 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 POW the Planned Programs
will no longer be arranged around the five National Goals established
for the FY 2000-2004 5-Year POW, 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.
b. Program Logic Model. Regardless of the option chosen, the 5-Year
POW should be reported in the appropriate format, each of which
identifies planned programs that the State decides upon. Each Planned
Program chosen by the State will be formatted around the Program Logic
Model in this web-based POW 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 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 KAs covered in each State program.
3. Situation and Priorities. This component should discuss the
critical agricultural issues within the State that were identified and
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. The situation is the foundation for logic
model development. The problem or issue that the program is to address
sits within a setting or situation. It is a complex of socio-political,
environmental, and economic conditions. The situation statement should
discuss (a) the problem/issue; (b) why this is a problem or issue; (c)
for whom (individual, household, group, community, society in general)
the problem or issue exists; who has a stake in the problem; (d) what
is known about the problem/issue/people that are involved; and (e) on
what research, experience this is based upon (research base).
From the situation comes priority setting. Once the situation and
problem are fully analyzed, priorities must be set to ensure that the
most important issues are addressed. Several factors should influence
your determination of focus: Your mission, values, resources,
expertise, experience, history, what you know about the situation, and
what others are doing in relation to the problem. Priorities lead to
the identification of desired outcomes.
4. Expected Duration of the Program. A data check box will be
provided to ask States to express the program
[[Page 4110]]
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 the estimated FTEs and
the type of funds used to support the activity or planned program
(i.e., type of Federal funds, State matching, etc.). AREERA requires
reporting not only on the 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 allow for 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, policy development. Outcomes can be
short-term, medium-term, or longer-term achievements. Short-term
outcomes refer to change in learning. Medium-term outcomes refer to
change in action. Long-term outcomes refer to change 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 (i.e. increased economic security, improved air quality,
etc.). 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, longer-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, dollars
saved or generated, as well as 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,
political environment, 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, and the speed and degree
to which change affects 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 promulgated separately 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 POW, each institution must report on
the: (a) Actions taken to seek stakeholder input that encourages their
participation; (b) A brief statement of the 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 and actions taken to seek stakeholder
input that encourages their participation. 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, as well as a
narrative text box to capture the process that is used to identify
stakeholders and collect input from them and how the input was
considered. This allows for additional information in each section in
the form of a brief narrative if needed.
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 POW by all institutions.
b. Scientific Peer Review. A scientific peer review is required for
all research funded under the Hatch Act of 1887, including 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 POW, 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. In the web-based software, CSREES will provide a
check list with the commonly reported types of reviews, as well as a
narrative text box to allow for additional information in the form of a
brief narrative if needed.
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, SAESs must partner with another
SAES, 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 two times their FY 1997 baseline percentage or 25
percent, whichever is less, 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. The Administrative Guidance for Multistate
Extension Activities and Integrated Research and Extension Activities
provides guidance on the establishment
[[Page 4111]]
of target percentages, criteria and procedures for waiver requests, and
reporting requirements. These requirements only apply to the
cooperative extension services (CESs) at the 1862 land-grant
institutions in the 50 States. Institutions, through the web-based
reporting system, must describe all multistate extension activities for
which the institution will be reporting expenditures to satisfy their
multistate extension requirement under AREERA section 105. Institutions
do not have to have formal written agreements of letters of memorandum
to support a qualified multistate extension activity for the purposes
of AREERA section 105. The requirements of this section apply only to
the Federal funds.
c. Reporting Requirements. The 5-Year POW should include a
description of the Multistate Research, where applicable, and
Multistate Extension programs as specified above. These descriptions
should be reported in the Planned Programs section of the 5-Year POW. A
table will be provided by the web-based software for reporting planned
expenditures (i.e., the amount of Federal formula funds) each year on
these activities. This table will only apply to the CESs at the 1862
land-grant institutions in the 50 States. In addition, this item is the
first of two plan-of-work reporting requirements that require a dollar
amount to be identified in the Plan.
5. Integrated Research and Extension Activities
a. Effective October 1, 1999, two times the FY 1997 baseline
percentage or 25 percent, whichever is less, 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. Integration may occur within the
State or between units within two or more States. The Administrative
Guidance for Multistate Extension Activities and Integrated Research
and Extension Activities provided guidance for the establishment of
target percentages, criteria and procedures for waiver requests, and
associated reporting requirements. This requirement only applies to the
1862 land-grant institutions in the 50 States and the state
agricultural experiment stations in Connecticut and New York.
Institutions, through the web-based reporting system, must describe all
the integrated research and extension activities for which the
institutions will be reporting expenditures to satisfy their integrated
requirements under AREERA section 204. Federal formula funds used by a
State for integrated activities may also be counted to satisfy the
multistate extension activity requirements. The requirements of this
section apply only to the Federal funds.
b. Reporting Requirements. The 5-Year POW should include a
description of the Integrated Research and Extension programs as
specified above. These descriptions should be reported in the Planned
Programs section of the 5-Year POW. A table will be provided by the
web-based software for reporting planned expenditures (i.e., the amount
of Federal formula funds) each year for these activities. This table
will only apply to the 1862 land-grant institutions and the SAESs in
Connecticut and New York. In addition, this is the second of two plan-
of-work reporting requirements that requires a dollar amount to be
identified in the Plan.
C. Five-Year Plan of Work Evaluation by CSREES
1. Schedule
CSREES will evaluate all 5-Year POWs. The 5-Year POWs 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 (i.e., review to be completed in 60 days;
communications to the institutions allowing a 30-day response) of
receipt of the document. Adherence to the POW schedule by the recipient
institution is critical to assuring the timely distribution of funds by
CSREES. Five-Year POWs accepted by CSREES will be publicly available in
a CSREES database.
2. Review Criteria
CSREES will evaluate the 5-Year POWs 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
(i.e., in terms of FTEs) at the Director or Administrator level;
provide evidence of multistate, multi-institutional, and
multidisciplinary and integrated activities; and identify the expected
outcomes and impacts from the 5-Year POW.
3. Evaluation of Multistate and Integrated Research and Extension
Activities
CSREES will be using 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 POWs. CSREES will be using 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 POW is required to add an additional
year to the Plan. It also will allow for updating all future years'
data in the updated Plan. The updated Plan will form a ``new'' 5-Year
POW that is effective in the ``new'' 5-year period.
B. Reporting Requirement
The Annual Update to the 5-Year POW should be submitted on April 1
prior to the beginning of the next POW fiscal year (which begins on
October 1 of each year). The first Update is due on April 1, 2007, for
the five year period starting with FY 2008 which begins October 1,
2007.
IV. Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results
A. Reporting Requirement
The 5-Year POW 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 POW. The web-based data entry system will
mirror and include data entered by the institution in the 5-Year POW.
However, institutions will be required to provide some fiscal data in
the Annual Report.
B. Format
This annual report should include the relevant information related
to each component of the program of the 5-Year
[[Page 4112]]
POW. 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
POW. Attention should be given to highlighting multistate, multi-
institutional, and multidisciplinary and integrated activities, as
appropriate to the 5-Year POW.
Done at Washington, DC, this 18th day of January, 2006.
Colien Hefferan,
Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service.
[FR Doc. 06-680 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P