SUMMARY OF PROPOSED GUIDELINESFOR

AREERA1 PLANS OF WORK

OverviewThe AREERA amended the Hatch Act of 1887, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, and sections1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of1977 (NARETPA) to require plans of work to be received and approved by CSREES prior tothe distribution of funding authorized under these Acts. This collection of informationincludes 3 parts: the submission of a 5-year plan of work every five years; the submissionof an annual update of the 5-year plan of work, if applicable; and, the submission of anannual report of accomplishments and results.

This Act also amended the Hatch Act to redesignate the Hatch Regional Research Fund as theMultistate Research Fund specifying that these funds be used for cooperative researchemploying multi-disciplinary approaches in which a SAES, working with another SAES,USDA/ARS, or a college or university, cooperates to solve the problems that concern morethan one State. The Smith-Lever Act was amended to require that each institution receivingfunds under Sections 3(b) and (c) of the Act expend funds for multistate activities in FY 2000and thereafter, a percentage of these funds equal to the lesser of 25 percent or twice thepercentage of funds expended by the institution for multistate activities during FY 1997.2 3

The AREERA further amended both the Hatch and Smith—Lever Acts to require that eachinstitution receiving agricultural research and extension formula funds as noted above, expendfor integrated research and extension activities in FY 2000 and thereafter, a percentage that isat least equal to the lesser of 25 percent or twice the percentage expended for these activitiesin FY 1997. In addition to descriptions of planned programs including multistate activitiesand integrated research and extension activities, the 5—year plan of work must includeinformation on:

. 1.How critical short-term, intermediate, and long—term agricultural issues will be

1 The Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998, PublicLaw 105-185.

2 The off shore territories (American Samoa, Guam, Micronesia, Northern Marianas,Puerto Rico, and the US. Virgin Islands) were exempted from the multistate and integratedresearch and extension activity requirements.

3 The applicable percentages for multistate and integrated research and extensionactivities apply to Federal agricultural research and extension formula funds only. Formulafunds used for integrated activities may also be counted to satisfy the multistate activitiesrequirement.

Page 1 of 12

w, addressed in research and extension programs;” 2. How the State or eligible institution has developed a process to consult users of

agricultural extension and research (stakeholders) in the identification of criticalagricultural issues in the State and the development of programs and projects targeting

at these issues;3. How the State or eligible institution has made efforts to identify and collaborate with

other universities and colleges that have a unique capacity to address the identifiedagricultural issues in the State and the extent of current and emerging efforts

.- . (including the regional and/or multistate efforts) to work with these institutions;4.; The manner in which research and extension, including research and extension

activities funded other than through formula funds, will cooperate to address thecritical issues in the State, including activities to be carried out separately,sequentially, or jointly; and,

5. For extension, the education and outreach programs already underway to conveyavailable research results that are pertinent to a critical agricultural issue, includingefforts to encourage multicounty cooperation in the dissemination of researchinformation.

6. Descriptions of the merit review and/or scientific peer review processes used. Thesereview processes must be established prior to October 1, 1999.

Section 202 of AREERA further requires the Secretary of Agriculture to develop protocols toevaluate the success of multistate, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary research andextension activities, and joint research and extension activities, in addressing the criticalagricultural issues identified in the plans of work. CSREES will develop these protocols inconsultation with the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and EconomicsAdvisory Board for incorporation into the final guidelines. The following evaluation crtiteriawill be used by CSREES in their reviews of annual reports of accomplishments and results:

'1‘. Did the planned program address the critical issues of strategic importance, includingthose identified by the stakeholders?

8': Did the planned program address the needs of under—served populations of theState(s)?

'5: Did the planned program describe the expected outcomes and impacts? And,4: Did the planned program result in improved program-effectiveness and/or efficiency?

Management Principles in Development of Plan Of Work Guidelines. The plan of workguidelines were developed to assist CSREES in ensuring that federally supported andconducted research and extension activities are accomplished in accordance with themanagement principles set forth in AREERA. These principles require that to the extentpossible, CSREES shall ensure that federally supported research and extension activities areaccomplished in a manner that:

1. Integrates agricultural research, extension, and education functions to better linkresearch to technology transfer and information dissemination activities;

Page 2 of 12

2. Encourages regional and multistate programs to address relevant issues of commonconcern and to better leverage scarce resources; c) and achieves agricultural research,extension, education objectives through multi-institutional and multi—functionalapproaches and by conducting research at facilities and institutions best equipped toachieve these objectives.

Submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work

General InformationPeriod Covered and Planning Options. The plan of work is a 5-year prospective plan thatcovers the period of FY 2000 through 2004, with the option to submit annual updates to theplan. States and/or institutions are permitted to submit their plans under any one of thefollowing options:

1. An institution may submit plans for each function (i.e., research or extensionactivities)

2. An institution may submit a single plan for both research and extension activities.3. The institutions within a State may submit plans for all research and/or extension

activities state-wide for all eligible institutions in the State.

Projected Resources. Human and fiscal resources allocated for planned programs in the planof work should be projected over the five year period of FY 2000 through 2004. Thebaseline should be the Federal agricultural research and extension formula funds for FY 1999and the required matching funds. Revised plans of work are required if the funding levelchanges by more than 10 percent in one year or by 20 percent or more cumulatively duringthe 5-year period.

Submission and Due Date. Plans of work must be submitted by or before July 1, 1999, tothe Partnerships Unit, CSREES, USDA. Electronic submissions with files formatted inWordPerfect, Microsoft Word, or ASCII are preferred. Electronic submissions should be sentto:

hhewitt@reeusdagov

If electronic submission methods are not available, an original and two copies of the plan ofwork should be submitted to:

Partnerships/POWCooperative State Research, Education, and Extension ServiceUS. Department of AgricultureStop 22141400 Independence Avenue, SW.Washington, D. C. 20250—2214

Certification. Plans of work must be signed by each Director administratively responsible

Page 3 of 12

for the work described therein. That is, the plan of work must be signed by the 1862Extension Director, 1862 Research Director, 1890 Extension Administrator, and/or 1890Research Director, depending on the planning option chosen.

Definitions1. Formula funds for purposes of plan of work guidelines — Funds provided by

formula to 1862 land—grant institutions under section 3 of the Hatch Act, as amended,and sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act, as amended, and to 1890 land-grant institutions under sections 1444 and 1445 of the NARETPA, as amended.

2. Formula funds for purposes of stakeholder input — Formula funds received asnoted in number 1 above and funds received under the McIntire-Stennis CooperativeForestry Research Program, the Animal Health and Disease Research Program, and theeducation payments made to the 1994 land-grant institutions.

3. Integrated or joint activities. Activities that are jointly planned, funded, andinterwoven between research and extension for purposes of solving problems. Thisincludes the generation of knowledge and the transfer of information and technology.

4. Merit review. Merit reviews are evaluations whereby quality and relevance toprogram goals are assessed.

5. Multi-institutional. Two or more institutions within the same or different states orterritories collaborating in the planning and implementation of programs.

6. Multistate. Collaborative efforts that reflect the programs of institutions located in atleast two or more states or territories.

7. Multi-disciplinary. Multi-disciplinary efforts are those which represent research,education, and/or extension programs conducted by principal investigators or othercollaborators from two or more disciplines or fields of specialization. [Thecombination of CRIS Field of Science (FOS) with Research Problem Area (RPA) maybe used to determine discipline or field of specialization in regular Hatch and Multi-state research projects]

8. Outcome Indicator. Outcome indicators are assessments of the results of a programactivity compared to its intended purpose.

9. Output Indicator. Output indicators are tabulations, calculations, or recordings ofactivities or effort expressed in a quantitative or qualitative manner which measure theproducts or services produced by a planned program.

10. Program review. Program reviews are either merit reviews or scientific peerreviews.

11. Scientific peer review. A scientific peer review is an evaluation performed byexperts with scientific knowledge and technical skills to conduct the proposed workwhereby the technical quality and relevance to program goals are assessed.

12. Seek Stakeholder Input. To seek stakeholder input means to conduct an open andfair process which allows opportunity for individuals, groups, and organizations avoice in a process that treats all with dignity and respect.

13. Stakeholder. A stakeholder is any person who has the opportunity to use or conductagricultural research, extension, and education activities in the State.

A 14 Under-served. Under-served means individuals, groups, and/or organizations whose

Page 4 of 12

needs have not been addresses in past programs.15. Under-represented. Under—represented means individuals, groups, and/or

organizations especially those who may not have participated fully including, but notlimited to, women, racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and limitedresource clients.

Components of the 5-Year Plan of Work

Planned Programs/National Goals. The plan of work should be based on the five nationalgoals (outcomes) established in the CSREES Strategic Plan and linked to the five nationalgoals within the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) Mission Area of the US.Department of Agriculture. These goals were developed from stakeholder input inconjunction with existing Federal—State Partnerships. The body plan of work narrative shouldfocus on these goals and outcomes. Currently the national goals are:

Goal 1: An agricultural system that is highly competitive in the global economy.Through research and education, empower the agricultural system withknowledge that will improve competitiveness in domestic production,processing, and marketing.

,1 Goal 2: A safe and secure food and fiber system. To ensure an adequate food and fibersupply and food safety through improved science based detection, surveillance,prevention, and education.A healthy, well-nourished population. Through research and education onnutrition and development of more nutritious foods, enable people to makehealth promoting choices.

I-*‘-Goal 4: Greater harmony between agriculture and the environment. Enhance the qualityof the environment through better understanding of and building onagriculture’s and forestry’s complex links with soil, water, air, and bioticresources.

“Goal 5: Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans. Empowerpeople and communities, through research-based information and education, toaddress economic and social challenges facing our youth, families, andcommunities.

Format. 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.Regardless of the option chosen, the plan of work should be reported in the appropriatematrix format, each cell of which identifies planned programs that fall under one of thenational program goals. If an integrated plan of work is submitted, the various units withinthe entity for which the plan of work has been developed (i.e., 1862 research, 1890 research,1862 extension, 1890 extension) would appear on the vertical axis. Individual cells within thematrix would be used to summarize the State programs. The following example illustrates

Page 5 of 12

the desired matrix.

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4Goal 5

1862 Research1862 Extension1890 Research1890 Extension

Program Descriptions. Program descriptions presented in a narrative form or in each cell ofthe matrix for a planned program will be related to one of the five national goals and shouldreflect the following planning components:

”‘1"t1. . The statement of issue to be addressed. This component should discuss the criticalagricultural issue within the State that was identified and being targeted by thisplanned program. This component may also reference the stakeholder input whichidentified the critical agricultural issue in the State and the need for the targetedresearch and/or extension program.“The performance goal(s) is a target level of performance. The output indicators shouldreflect the tabulation, calculation, or recording of activity or effort expressed inquantitative or qualitative manner which measures the products or services producedby the program. The outcome indicators should assess the results of a program activitycompared to its intended goal.

, e key program component(s) identify the major efforts included in the work to beconducted.we intemal and external linkages include activities identified as integrated, multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional, and/or multistate. This component may also addressany efforts made to identify and collaborate with other colleges and universities thathave a unique capacity to address the identified agricultural issues within the State andthe extent of current and emerging efforts (including regional efforts) to work withthose institutions.fThe target audiences identifies the set of stakeholders, customers, and/or consumers forwhich the program is intended. The plans of work should address the institution’scommitment to facilitating equality of service and ease of access to all research andextension programs and services.“The program duration should be expressed as short—term, intermediate (one to fiveyears), or long-term (over five years).

3"‘The allocated resources (human and fiscal measures) must be described for eachplanned program. This component may not only include the amount of Federalagricultural research and/or extension formula funds and matching funds allocated tothis 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.

Page 6 of 12

Education and outreach programs must be described that are already underway toconvey the research results that are pertinent to the critical agricultural issue identifiedin the ‘ ‘ Statement of Issue.” Efforts to encourage multicounty cooperation indissemination of research results should also be identified. This planning componentapplies only to those plans of work incorporating extension activities of the 1862and/or 1890 land-grant institutions.

Stakeholder Input Process. AREERA requires the 1862 land-grant institutions, 1890land-grant institutions, and 1994 land-grant institutions to establish a process for stakeholderinput on the uses of formula funds. CSREES has promulgated separately in the FederalRegister, regulations to implement this stakeholder input requirement.

As a component of the plan of work, each institution must report on the actions taken to seekstakeholder input that encourages their participation and a brief statement of the process usedby the institution to identify stakeholders and to collect input from them. This report will berequired annually and may be submitted with the Annual Report of Accomplishments andResults. This component will satisfy the reporting requirements imposed by the separatelypromulgated regulations on stakeholder input.

y.Program Review Process

Merit Review. Effective October 1, 1999, each 1862 land-grant institution and 1890land—grant institution must establish a process for merit review in order to obtainagricultural research or extension formula funds.Scientific Peer Review. A scientific peer review is required for all research fundedunder the Hatch Act of 1887 Multistate Research Fund. For such research, thisscientific peer review will satisfy the merit review requirement specified above.Reporting Requirement. As a component of the plan of work, each institutiondepending on the type of program review required will provide a description of themerit review process or scientific peer review process established at their institution.This description should include the process used in the selection of reviewers withexpertise relevant to the effort and appropriate scientific and technical standards.

\/Multistate Research and Extension ActivitiesHatch Multistate Research. Effective October 1, 1998, the Hatch MultistateResearch Fund replaced the Hatch Regional Research Program. The Hatch MultistateResearch Fund must be used for research employing multidisciplinary approaches tosolve research problems that concern more than one State. For such research, Stateagricultural experiment stations must partner with another experiment station, theAgricultural Research Service, or another college or university.Smith-Lever Multistate Extension. Effective October 1, 1999, the cooperativeextension programs at the 1862 land—grant institutions must expend up to 25 percent oftheir formula funds provided under sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act foractivities in which two or more State extension services cooperate to solve problemsthat concern more than one State. As required by law, CSREES will work with each

Page 7 of 12

1862 land—grant institution to identify the amount each institution expended formultistate extension activities for fiscal year (FY) 1997. For FY 2000 and thereafter,cooperative extension programs must commit two times their FY 1997 baselinepercentage or 25 percent, whichever is less, for multistate activities. Institutions shoulddescribe the contributions of extension staff and programs toward impacts rather thanto describe the programs. Each participating State or territory must be a collaboratortowards objectives and involved in the outcomes. Evidence of the proposedcollaboration must be provided in the plan of work submitted by each State. Thisplanning is documented through formal agreements, letters of memorandums,contracts, or other instruments that provide primary evidence that a multistaterelationship exists.

3. Reporting Requirements. The plan of work should include a description of theMultistate Research, where applicable, and Multistate Extension programs as specifiedabove and these programs must be reported consistently across the units of aninstitution as well as with the plan of work of the cooperating State(s) or Stateinstitutions.

Integrated Research and Extension Activities .Effective October 1, 1999, up to 25 percent of all funds provided under section 3 of theHatch Act and under section 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith—Lever Act must be spent onactivities that integrate cooperative research and extension. As required by law, CSREES willwork with each 1862 land-grant institution to establish the institution’s baseline for integratedresearch and extension activities for FY 1997. For FY 2000 and thereafter, 1862 land-grantinstitutions must commit twice the FY 1997 baseline percentage or 25 percent, whichever isless, for integrated activities. Integration may occur within the State or between units withintwo or more States. Integrated programming must be reported in the plan of work and bereported consistently across the units of the institutions as well as with the plan of worksubmitted by cooperating State(s). Federal formula funds used by a State for integratedactivities may also be counted to satisfy the multistate research and the multistate extensionactivity requirements.

Plan of Work Evaluation by CSREES1. Schedule. All plans of work will be evaluated by CSREES. The plans of work will

either be accepted by CSREES without change or returned to the institution, with clearand detailed recommendations for its modification. The submitting institution(s) willbe notified by CSREES of its determination within 90 days (review to be completed in60 days, communications to the institutions allowing a 30-day response) of receipt ofthe document. Adherence to the Plan of Work schedule by the recipient institution iscritical to assuring the timely allocation of funds by CSREES. Plans of work acceptedby CSREES will remain in effect for five years and will be publicly available in aCSREES database. CSREES will notify all institutions of a need for a new plan ofwork two years prior to the plan’s expiration on September 30.

2. Review Criteria. CSREES will evaluate the plans of work to determine if they

Page 8 of 12

address agricultural issues of critical importance to the State; identify the alignmentand realignment of programs to address those critical issues; identify the involvementof stakeholders in the planning process; give attention to under-served populations;indicate the level of Federal formula funds in proportion to all other funds at thedirector or administrator level; provide evidence of multistate, multi-institutional, andmulti—disciplinary and integrated activities; and identify the expected outcomes andimpacts from the proposed plan of work.

3. Evaluation of Multistate and Integrated Research and Extension Activities.CSREES is proposing to use the Annual Reports of Accomplishments and Results toevaluate the success of multistate, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary activitiesand joint research and extension activities, in addressing critical agricultural issuesidentified in the plans of work. Once evaluation protocols are developed, theseguidelines will be modified to specify the protocols that will be used to evaluate theAnnual Reports of Accomplishments and Results.

Annual Update of the 5-Year Plan of WorkApplicability. An annual update to the 5-Year Plan of Work is optional and is only requiredif: (1) there is a substantive change in planned programs; (2) if the change in Federalagricultural research and extension formula funding is 10 percent or greater in one year fromthe FY 1999 base year; or (3) if the cumulative change during the five year period is 20percent or greater than the FY 1999 base year. 1

Reporting Requirement. If a revised 5-Year Plan of Work is required, or if the institution(s) ichooses to submit an optional update to the plan of work, it should be submitted at the ‘beginning of the next plan of work cycle (July 1) to either the same electronic mail address orregular mail address as listed for the submission of the plan of work.

Annual Report of Accomplishments and ResultsReporting Requirement. The plan of work for a reporting unit, institution, or State shouldform the basis for annually reporting its accomplishments and results. This report will be dueon or before December 31 each year with the first report being due on December 31, 2000,for FY 2000. This report should be submitted to either the same electronic mail address orregular mail address as listed for the submission of the plan of work.

Format. This annual report should include the relevant information related to eachcomponent of the program in the matrix cells of the plan of work. Accomplishments andresults reporting should involve two parts. First, institutions should submit an annual set ofimpact statements linked to sources of funding. Strict attention to just the preceding year isnot expected in all situations. Some impact statements may need to cover ten or more yearsof 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 andoutcomes for the activities undertakenthe preceding year. These should be identified as short-term, intermediate, or long-termcritical issues in the 5-Year Plan of Work. Attention should be given to highlighting

Page 9 of 12

multistate, multi-institutional, and multi-disciplinary and integrated activities, as appropriate to the plan ofwork.

Page 10 of 12

Appendix A

A portion of the West Virginia University draft 5-Year Plan of Work appears below toillustrate the plan of work components for a research program area. The entire WVA draftmay be seen at:

http://www.escop.msstate.edu/draftdoc.htm

Planned Programs:

Function Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5

1862 Research Program 1 Program Program 2(b) Program 3 Program2(a) 4

Program 2 (a and b)A healthy, well-nourished population that has access to an adequate, safe and securefood system.

Issue(s)Stakeholder listening sessions held throughout the State of West Virginia during 1997 and1998 have pointed out citizen concerns for their access to a nutritious, safe and secure supplyof foods.

Performance Goal(s)Increased consumer access to targeted agricultural and forest products of West Virginia thatprovide enhanced nourishment, greater assurances for safety, and better access through lowercosts, added nutritional components, extended shelf—life, and better product distributionsystems.

Output Indicators1. Better detection methods for food—bome illnesses (a).2. Genetic and biochemical modification of locally produced foods (b).3. Marketing and distribution research results for selected agricultural products (b)4. Processing research results for extended shelf life of agricultural products (a

and b).

Outcome Indicators1. Increased access to food for West Virginia consumers (b).2. Greater consumer confidence in West Virginia produced and/or processed foods

(a and b).

Page 11 of 12

3. Reduced malnutrition in rural and urban poor populations (b).

Key Program Component(s)Research projects will focus on:0 Enhanced safety for West Virginia’s agricultural products through detection and

treatment;0 Shelf-life-extending technologies applied through food processing and packaging; and0 Better market distribution methods, identified through economic and consumer studies.

Internal and External LinkagesPartnership will be continued with extension, federal labs, other universities, and the privatesector, as appropriate to this performance goal. We will focus on shared responsibilities forthe agreed research objectives of projects, and we will use joint ventures with industry tofacilitate technology transfer, when appropriate.

Target AudiencesWe will be focusing on the consumers of West Virginia produced agricultural products, withattention given to all citizens. When appropriate, special attention will be devoted totraditionally underserved sectors, such as rural and urban poor.

Program DurationThis program of approximately 5 projects will continue for the five year life of this plan.

Allocated Resources ($ x 1000; [units] = SYs)Current FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004$ 128 [2] $ 130 [2] $ 132 [3] $ 134 [3] $ 136 [3] $ 138 [3]

Page 12 of 12