MAPs

1
MAPs

• Multiple Activity Programs
• T. J. Helms and Ronald A. Brown
• (adapted from a presentation by David MacKenzie)

2
Background

• Continuing AES and CES interest in increasing
  Formula funding
  
• Meanwhile NIH and NSF have been successful in
  greatly increasing their funding
  
• OMB wants accountability for any increases in
  formula funds
  
• Conflicts over Formula and Competitive funding
  limit our advocates effectiveness

3
Points-to-Consider

• NSF and NIH specifically track new funding
• Past attempts to track Hatch increases were not
  successful
  

4
FFY 01 Passback Language from OMB

• OMB guidance stipulated that an increase of
  52.746 million above the FFY 2000 Presidents
  budget for formula programs be targeted to
  high-priority administrative initiatives and
  requested that an administrative or legislative
  proposal be developed.

5
Administrators Response

• December 27, 1999 letter to Office of Budget and
  Program Analysis
  
• Offer declined by Administrator
• No baseline data
• No means for tracking new allocations
• Through on-going agency activities we are
  working toward increased accountability for
  formula funds. To implement the OMB guidance at
  this time is premature.

6
(No Transcript)
7
Hefferans Task ForceReport of the
CSREESWorking Group on Accountability

• Four Pressing Issues
• Respond to OMB FFY 01 passback guidance and
  budget justification
  
• Address OIG concerns for implementing the 1998
  Farm Bill
  
• Update CSREES Strategic and Performance plans
• Respond to data requests from Congress,
  producers, Federal agencies, and the public

8
Selected Working Group Recommendations

• Link narrative data contained in the State POWs
  and Impact Statements with the fiscal data
  contained in land-grant databases
  
• Collect proposed expenditure, staff year, and
  project impact data from States to allow for
  more current reporting of program and fiscal data
  for CRIS
• Target increases in Federal formula funds toward
  top Administration priorities and Initiatives
  reflected in future Presidents budgets

9
Development of the MAPs Concept

• A joint ESCOP/ECOP Task Force was appointed to
  develop a process that would address the issue of
  tracking expenditure of new formula funds.
  
• Four example MAPs were written that paralleled
  the FY 03 NASULGC budget.

10
Development of the MAPs Concept

• Four example MAPs were written paralleling the
  FY 02 NASULGC budget request.
  
• Secure a Dependable Food Supply
• Community Opportunities
• Investing in an Educated Workforce
• Environmental Balance

11
Development of the MAPs Concept

• Although the MAPs process is intended to allow
  tracking of new formula funds, it could also be
  used to track current activities and expenditures
  in any area of interest to Congress

12
Management Principles for MAPs ESCOP/ECOP Task
Force

• Be national in scope to address national
  initiatives
  
• Be Multistate and multi-disciplinary
• Be functionally integrated in most, but not all
  cases
  
• Be handled at regional levels through a system
  similar to the Multistate Research Program
  

13
Mgmt. Principles (contd)

• Fund management is retained by the individual
  Director
  
• Allow reporting of accomplishments through the
  Directors Plans of Work although regional
  associations might establish regional activities
  (e.g., SERA-IEGs) focused on individual MAPs
  topics

14
Mgmt. Principles (contd)

• Call for all formula fund increases for a
  particular MAP to be expended by each state on
  objectives that contribute to the goals of that
  MAP

15
Illustrative Details

• Budget Initiatives proposed
• Topics identified (e.g., Agro-Security)
• Funding needs stated (budget sheets)
• Regional associations create corresponding MAPs
  (5 regions)
  
• Activities tracked thru Plans of Work (outputs)
• CSREES reports on performance

16
Important Points

• Formula funds are central to MAPs
• Functional integration feasible
• All sources of funding can be tracked
• Regional variations can be shopped around

17
Shopping Around

• Agro-security components
• Threat analysis
• Prevention research
• Monitoring
• Intervention
• Training
• Commodity differences
• Crops
• Livestock

18
Enhancements

• Regional reporting possible
• Synthesis of national performance feasible
• Advocacy (CARET) can focus on
• Agreed topics
• Stated outcomes
• Needed resources

19
Remaining Issues

• Specifics for reporting of the inputs,
  collaborations, outputs and outcomes have not
  been finalized.
  
• Can be accomplished currently through the CRIS
  for the Experiment Stations
  
• Most Cooperative Extension offices provide
  specific accountability for their 3-D programs,
  so it is assumed that a similar system could be
  utilized

20
Remaining Issues (contd)

• Since the four draft MAPs were chosen as
  examples, what will be the procedure for
  identifying future MAPs?
  
• What will be the relationship with BAA, BOHS,
  etc.?

21
Remaining Issues (contd)

• How will selection of MAPs be coordinated with
  the current decision making structure of R and E
  committees/groups?
  
• The MAPs concept has been developed for USDA
  formula funding primarily. Is there any reason
  not to extend it beyond USDA?
  

22
Adoption of the MAPs Concept

• Regional Associations of Extension and Research
  Directors are requested to adopt the MAPs
  concept
  
• In addition, the Task Force will appreciate any
  feedback that may help further develop and refine
  the process as we move toward implementation.