CSREES ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS MEETING

1
CSREES ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERSMEETING

• April 30, 1999

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
2
AGRICULTURE RESEARCH EXTENSION AND EDUCATION
REFORM ACT1998

• PLAN OF WORK

3
CURRENT STATUS OF POW

• ON THE FEDERAL REGISTER FOR MINIMUM 30 DAY PUBLIC
  COMMENT
• Encourage You and Your Constituency to Submit
  Recommendations and Comments for CSREES
  Consideration

4
Requirements the Same for Both 1862 and 1890
Institutions

• 1994s only obligated in Extension

5
Planning Options

• 5 year plan with optional annual update
• Individual function
• Individual institution
• All institutions within a state
• Planning required only on Federal Formula Funds
  and the required matching funds

6
Positive Aspects of POW

• Review of projects and programs by SAES and CES
  in each state
• Package projects into programs
• Links SAES and CES activities
• Provides a mechanism for reporting our best
  research and extension efforts each year
• Establishes firm support from Stakeholders
• Provides the necessary information for GPRA
  without burdening the State System

7
Potential Conflicts in Developing 1st POW

• Linkage of SAES and CES programs
• POW reports only on Hatch and Smith-Lever but
  Stakeholders are invited to respond on all
  Federal formula funds in the SAES and CES
  (Glossary of Terms problem)
• Stakeholder involvement in fund expenditures
• Identifying appropriate number of programs,
  breadth and depth
• Meeting the law with respect to Stakeholder input
• Common definitions of terms by CES, SAES and
  CSREES personnel
• Differences in Multis for CES and SAES

8
THE MULTISBOOTSTRAP
ARS
ARS
SAES
SAES
CES
CES
PROBLEM IN MORE THAN ONE STATE
9
POW FORMAT

• Independent plans
• Integrated plan -- all units or state wide
• Narrative form or quantifiable data
• Each cell represents a program
• Matrix

10
Plan of Work Matrix

• Statement of Issues(s) Performance Goal(s)
• Key Program Components(s)
• Internal and External Linkages
• Target Audiences
• Evaluation Framework
• Output Indicators
• Outcome Indicators
• Program Duration
• Allocated Resources

11
Stakeholder Input

• Establish process for obtaining input
• Persons who conduct or use research, extension or
  teaching
• Identify and communicate the process
• Seek input in an open and fair process that
  encourages participation by diverse individuals
  and groups

12
STAKEHOLDER INPUT, cont

• Statement of process used to identify
  participants and collect input
• Provide examples that demonstrate stakeholder
  input was considered
• Failure to provide information will result in
  withholding Federal Formula funds

13
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY REPORTING

• Optional part of the POW
• If separate, an additional report must be
  submitted
• Report required to receive Federal Funds
• Current report submitted by institutions to the
  Department of Education will fulfill this
  requirement

14
DUE DATE

• 5 year plans no later than June 1
• First plan due July 15, 1999
• Review by CSREES by August 13, 1999
• Failure to meet the deadline will delay funding
  to the institution
• Formula Funds after FY 2000 cannot be released
  without an approved POW!

15
CSREES REVIEW

• Institutions notified by CSREES of POW status
  within 120 days
• Review in 90 days
• Negotiation for changes during the next 30 days
• POWs will be either
• Accepted without change
• Returned to institution with recommendations for
  modification
• Effective time of POW is 5 years

16
THE END
17
PROCESS USED AT UAES

• Power Point presentation of entire POW developed
  and placed on the web
• Presented to UAES staff
• 5 preliminary programs determined in Directors
  office
• Presented to UAES Department Heads
• Coordinated with UCES
• Developed plan for Stakeholder input
• Evaluation of potential problem areas and
  concerns
• Presented to seven Stakeholder groups

18
Concerns of the UAES Staff

• How can we report on only part of what we do
• Why are we doing this when we already have the
  CRIS System in place
• Can we limit the length of the document maybe 10
  pages per program
• How do we define programs in the SAES
• Who determines what projects fit into an SAES POW
  program
• What funds are to be included in the POW
• Who does the writing of the POW

19
5 Preliminary Programs Selected

• Goal 1 -- No program determined (65 of federal
  funds)
• Goal 2 -- Plant and Animal Health and Safety
• Goal 3 -- Agriculture Product Enhancement
• Goal 4 -- Pasture Development, Reclamation and
  Quality
• Goal 4 -- Human, Wildlife and Domestic Animal
  Interactions and Compatibility
• Goal 5 -- Family Training, Development,
  Assistance and Sociology

20
Concerns of the Department Heads

• All faculty members research not included in the
  preliminary programs
• Who coordinates the development of the POW
• How do the Department Heads interact in the
  development of the POW
• How much will be expected of faculty during the
  reporting on the POW
• How will the matrix help CSREES

21
Concerns of 1st Stakeholder Group

• We cant understand the language of your program
  areas
• We want you to do research on Jointed Goat Grass
• We want a herbicide resistant wheat
• We need help on getting better prices for our
  crops
• We need to know more about the UAES research
  projects

22
STAKEHOLDER TOWN HALL MEETING FORMAT

• Purpose of the Town Hall meeting
• Mission of the UAES including video
• Mission of UCES - Power Point
• Activities of UCES in counties
• Five Year Futuring in
• Agriculture
• Families and Social Services
• Business and industry
• Government
• What should UAES be doing Research on?
  Prioritized by attendees
• What should UCES focus efforts on? Prioritized by
  attendees

23
What We Found Out From the Town Hall Meetings

• Most people do not understand SAES function or
  funding
• There is geographic political differences in the
  state
• People want research done in their backyard
• 95 of research problems were extension
  programming
• Concern about family and social problems
• Water quantity, quality and rights
• Agriculture verses the environment very much
  alive
• Disappearance of the family farm
• Rural communities becoming ghost towns
• Animal waste problems

24
Town Hall Meeting Results, cont

• Better communicate what you are doing
• Ways to expose youth to work ethics
• Pesticide compatibility with the environment
• Pasture management and forage production
• More fat free food that tastes good
• Research on what makes people happy
• More demonstration farms
• Ways to establish environmental common ground

25
Discussion Points to Help Department Heads and
Faculty Buy-in

• Keep the POW as simple as possible
• Do as much work as possible in the Directors
  Office
• No POW, no Federal
• No stakeholder input, no Federal
• Use CRIS reports for writing the POW report but
  will need impact statements (BETTER CRIS REPORTS)
• Department Heads and faculty are considered
  stakeholders

26
GLOSSARY OF TERMS

• Formula Funds for purposes of the Plan of Work
  Guidelines -- Funding provided by formula to
  1862 institutions under the Hatch and sections
  3(b) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Acts, as amended
  and, and 1890 institutions and Sections 1444 and
  1445 of the National Agriculture Research,
  Extension Teaching Policy Act of 1977 as amended.

27
Glossary of Terms, cont

• Formula Funds for purposes of Stakeholder Input
  -- Formula funds refers to funding by formula to
  1862, 1890 and 1994 institutions. Those programs
  distributed by formula include the Hatch funds,
  Sections 3(b) and (c) of the Smith Lever Acts, as
  amended and 1890 institutions under Sections 1444
  and 1445 of the National Agriculture Research,
  Extension and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as
  amended, as well as, McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
  Forestry Research Programs, Animal Health and
  Disease Research Program (Section 1433), and
  interest distributed to 1994 institutions from
  the Native American Endowment Fund

28
Goal 2 Program

• Plant and Animal Health and Safety
• Disease Control
• Genetic Manipulation for Control
• Biocontrol verses Chemical Control
• Each project included determined by RPA

29
Goal 3 Program

• Agriculture Product Enhancement
• Feeding animals to enhance nutritional quality of
  the animal and the products
• Milk and milk product nutritional enhancement and
  pharmaceutical production
• Genetic and biotechnological nutritional
  enhancement of crops

30
Goal 4 Program

• Pasture Development, Reclamation and Quality
• Beef
• Dairy Cattle
• Sheep
• Horses
• Turkeys

31
2nd Goal 4 Program

• Human, Wildlife and Domestic Animal Interactions
  and Compatibility
• Animal damage management
• Cedar Mountain grazing
• ARS predator studies
• Wildlife migration
• IPM and pesticides
• Water quality and quantity

32
Goal 5 Program

• Family Training, Development, Assistance and
  Sociology
• Infants
• Adolescents
• Teenagers
• Adults
• Elderly
• Underserved