csrees reporting web conference october 9, 2008. e-mail questions to [email protected] bob...

CSREES Reporting Web Conference

October 9, 2008

E-mail questions to [email protected]

Bob MacDonaldBob is Director of the Office of Planning and Accountability which provides leadership to the agency in strategic planning, performance measurement, and evaluation. These activities are used by the agency to improve program leadership and management, allocation of resources, and evaluation of success.

(202) 270-5623

[email protected]

www.csrees.usda.gov/opa

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/opa


User Support

(202) 690-2910 or [email protected] Do not contact Texas A&M support FAQs and other information on the CSREES

Reporting Web Conference web page at www.csrees.usda.gov/rwc


http://www.csrees.usda.gov/rwc

E-mail questions to [email protected] questions to [email protected]

Format and Logistics

E-mail questions to [email protected] E-mail topic suggestions to

[email protected] Conferences are recorded and will be

available on the Reporting Web Conference web page at www.csrees.usda.gov/rwc



http://www.csrees.usda.gov/rwc


To Receive Announcements

An RWC e-mail list will notify interested parties on news, schedules, and other issues relating to the series. To subscribe:

Send an e-mail to [email protected]. Skip your subject line and in the body of your

message type: subscribe reportingwc. Be sure you receive an e-mail confirming your

subscription.



Bart HewittBart is the Accountability and Reporting Leader for the Office of Planning and Accountability. He leads the national effort for the State Plan of Work and Annual Report process under the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act; manages the Multistate Research Fund Project Proposal approvals for CSREES; and develops performance information for the PART and CSREES Budget.

(202) 270-0747

[email protected]

www.csrees.usda.gov/opa


http://www.csrees.usda.gov/opa

2007 AREERA Annual Report Summary and Key Pointers

for Preparing the 2008 Report


Annual Report Data Use

How will CSREES use the information from the Annual Report for planning and accountability? Program Leadership State Plan of Work Accountability Portfolio Reviews OMB PART process Budget Performance Integration GAO and OIG inquiries Answer Congressional & Departmental inquiries

Brings greater visibility of successes of Formula Funded Programs


Quick Statistics - Submission

85 Annual Report Received 93 Reports in Old Plan of Work

50 Combined Submissions 48 Combined Research/Extension 1 Combined 1862/1890 Research 1 Combined 1862/1890 Extension

35 Single Entity Submissions


Quick Statistics - Review

2 Reports Returned for More Information

All 85 Annual Reports Accepted

Average Approval Time: 52 Days 79 days under the old Annual Report


Planned Programs

1018 Planned Programs

Range: 1 to 76 Planned Programs

Median: 9 Planned Programs


Most Frequent Top 10 Planned Program Title Themes

1. Youth Development and 4-H2. Rural and Community Development3. Natural Resources and Environment4. Health5. Plant Production6. Animal Systems7. Nutrition8. Agricultural Systems General9. Sustainable Agriculture10. Food Safety


Expenditures by Formula Grant - FY 2007

Smith-Lever, $227,910,923.00, 47%

Hatch, $198,577,074.00, 40%

1890 Extension, $29,304,377.00, 6%

Evans-Allen, $36,075,573.00, 7%


FTEs by Institution Type - FY 2007

1862 Research, 6864.8, 36%

1862 Extension, 11456.7, 59%

1890 Research, 440.0, 2%

1890 Extension, 490.4, 3%


Formula Grants Expended by CSREES Portfolio

Portfolio Smith-Lever Hatch1890

Extension Evans-Allen Totals

Markets, Trade, Policy, and International Development $5,622,324.39 $7,272,795.97 $732,653.36 $1,057,504.92 $14,685,278.64

Farm Management for Sustainability $7,597,715.38 $6,612,712.31 $1,069,127.49 $1,660,387.45 $16,939,942.63

Food Processing and Bio-based Products $6,963,788.75 $11,391,176.22 $755,865.12 $1,942,914.38 $21,053,744.47

Plant Systems $37,136,609.23 $70,672,888.41 $2,710,882.53 $8,723,875.97 $119,244,256.14

Animal Systems $21,303,520.36 $37,013,663.96 $3,962,303.94 $8,268,926.46 $70,548,414.72

Knowledge and Opportunity for Communities and Economic Development $19,397,214.68 $6,754,450.53 $3,210,476.57 $1,039,977.51 $30,402,119.29

Quality of Life in Rural Areas $78,318,473.69 $7,864,379.93 $11,076,995.33 $2,453,731.22 $99,713,580.17

Food Safety $5,362,822.75 $4,804,543.11 $598,427.60 $1,725,033.46 $12,490,826.92

Nutrition and Healthier Food Choices $13,453,516.48 $6,799,095.70 $1,595,293.05 $2,552,268.03 $24,400,173.26

Environment and Natural Resources $31,034,388.21 $38,516,412.03 $3,356,396.11 $6,577,270.24 $79,484,466.59

Education $1,720,549.08 $874,955.83 $235,955.90 $73,683.36 $2,905,144.17

Totals $227,910,923.00 $198,577,074.00 $29,304,377.00 $36,075,573.00 $491,867,947.00

Formula Grants Expended by USDA Goals and Objectives - 2007 Annual Report

Goals Objective Smith-Lever 3b&c Hatch 1890 Extension Evans-Allen Totals

Enhance international competitiveness of American agriculture 1.2 $567,319.50 $945,631.97 $6,459.48 $50,472.09 $1,569,883.04

Goal 1 Total $567,319.50 $945,631.97 $6,459.48 $50,472.09 $1,569,883.04

Enhance the competitiveness and sustainability of rural and farm economies 2.1 $12,018,793.64 $17,718,340.22 $1,482,059.00 $2,949,947.21 $34,169,140.07

2.2 $36,033,106.44 $65,853,450.15 $4,735,644.84 $11,752,099.26 $118,374,300.69

2.3 $6,833,456.18 $6,405,562.96 $1,059,855.89 $1,660,387.45 $15,959,262.48

Goal 2 Total $54,885,356.26 $89,977,353.33 $7,277,559.73 $16,362,433.92 $168,502,703.24

Support increased economic opportunities and improved quality of life in rural America 3.1 $21,882,022.96 $7,836,555.71 $3,455,704.07 $1,113,660.87 $34,287,943.61

3.2 $78,318,473.69 $7,864,379.93 $11,076,995.33 $2,453,731.22 $99,713,580.17

Goal 3 Total $100,200,496.65 $15,700,935.64 $14,532,699.40 $3,567,392.09 $134,001,523.78

Formula Grants Expended by USDA Goals and Objectives - 2007 Annual Report

Goals ObjectiveSmith-Lever

3b&c Hatch 1890 Extension Evans-Allen Totals

Enhance protection and safety of the Nation's Agriculture and food supply 4.1 $5,362,822.75 $4,804,543.11 $598,427.60 $1,725,033.46 $12,490,826.92

4.2 $22,407,023.15 $41,833,102.22 $1,937,541.63 $5,240,703.17 $71,418,370.17

Goal 4 Total $27,769,845.90 $46,637,645.33 $2,535,969.23 $6,965,736.63 $83,909,197.09

Improve the Nation's nutrition and health 5.1 $1,779,742.43 $3,172,128.61 $360,015.45 $1,461,905.59 $6,773,792.08

5.2 $11,673,774.05 $3,626,967.09 $1,235,277.60 $1,090,362.44 $17,626,381.18

Goal 5 Total $13,453,516.48 $6,799,095.70 $1,595,293.05 $2,552,268.03 $24,400,173.26

Protect and enhance the Nation's natural resource base and environment 6.1 $12,928,338.75 $13,998,629.64 $1,325,610.71 $3,104,244.29 $31,356,823.39

6.2 $8,912,755.79 $12,655,656.48 $865,051.86 $2,291,602.06 $24,725,066.19

6.3 $7,716,348.18 $9,262,726.37 $1,087,718.79 $987,803.69 $19,054,597.03

6.4 $1,476,945.49 $2,599,399.54 $78,014.75 $193,620.20 $4,347,979.98

Goal 6 Total $31,034,388.21 $38,516,412.03 $3,356,396.11 $6,577,270.24 $79,484,466.59

Grand Total $227,910,923.00 $198,577,074.00 $29,304,377.00 $36,075,573.00 $491,867,947.00


Expenditures From All Sourcesby Knowledge Area - Top 10

806 Youth Development 7.91%

205 Plant Management Systems 6.25%

212 Pathogens and Nematodes Affecting Plants 4.03%

703 Nutrition Education and Behavior 3.71%

216 Integrated Pest Management Systems 3.52%

307 Animal Management Systems 3.37%

102 Soil, Plant, Water, Nutrient Relationships 3.19%

201 Plant Genome, Genetics, and Genetic Mechanisms 3.10%

802 Human Development and Family Well-Being 3.06%

211 Insects, Mites, and Other Arthropods Affecting Plants 2.51%


Expenditures From Formula Grantsby Knowledge Area - Top 10

806 Youth Development 9.86%

205 Plant Management Systems 6.07%

802 Human Development and Family Well-Being 3.89%

307 Animal Management Systems 3.37%

216 Integrated Pest Management Systems 3.37%

703 Nutrition Education and Behavior 3.34%

102 Soil, Plant, Water, Nutrient Relationships 3.10%

212 Pathogens and Nematodes Affecting Plants 2.84%

608 Community Resource Planning and Development 2.66%

601 Marketing and Distribution Practices 2.61%


Expenditures From All Sourcesby Knowledge Area - Bottom 10

609 Economic Theory and Methods 0.15%

901 Program and Project Design, and Statistics 0.14%

902 Administration of Projects and Programs 0.13%

314Toxic Chemicals, Poisonous Plants, Naturally Occuring Toxins, and Other Hazards Affecting Animals 0.12%

405 Drainage and Irrigation Systems and Facilities 0.12%

214 Vertebrates, Mollusks, and Other Pests Affecting Plants 0.10%

122 Management and Control of Forest and Range Fires 0.08%

103 Management of Saline and Sodic Soils and Salinity 0.07%

611 Foreign Policy and Programs 0.06%

512 Quality Maintenance in Storing and Marketing Non-Food Products 0.05%


Expenditures From Formula Grants by Knowledge Area - Bottom 10

404 Instrumentation and Control Systems 0.18%

134 Outdoor Recreation 0.17%

405 Drainage and Irrigation Systems and Facilities 0.16%

721 Insects and Other Pests Affecting Humans 0.16%

214 Vertebrates, Mollusks, and Other Pests Affecting Plants 0.11%

314Toxic Chemicals, Poisonous Plants, Naturally Occuring Toxins, and Other Hazards Affecting Animals 0.10%

103 Management of Saline and Sodic Soils and Salinity 0.08%

122 Management and Control of Forest and Range Fires 0.07%

611 Foreign Policy and Programs 0.07%

512 Quality Maintenance in Storing and Marketing Non-Food Products 0.05%

3.0% 3.4%4.3%

24.2%

14.3%

6.2%

20.3%

2.5%

5.0%

16.2%

0.6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percentage of Expenditures by Portfolio for All Formula GrantsFrom 2007 Annual Report Data (N=$491,867,947)

2.5%3.3% 3.1%

16.3%

9.3% 8.5%

34.4%

2.4%

5.9%

13.6%

0.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Percentage of Expenditures by Portfolio for Smith-Lever 3b & 3c GrantFrom 2007 Annual Report Data (N= $227,910,923)

2.5%3.6% 2.6%

9.3%

13.5%

11.0%

37.8%

2.0%

5.4%

11.5%

0.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Percentage of Expenditures by Portfolio for 1890 Extension GrantFrom 2007 Annual Report Data (N=$29,304,377)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Comparing 1862 and 1890 Extension Expenditures Percent of Expenditures

Smith-Lever

1890 Extension

3.7% 3.3%

5.7%

35.6%

18.6%

3.4% 4.0%2.4%

3.4%

19.4%

0.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Markets, Trade, Policy, and Internatio

nal Development

Farm Management fo

r Sustainability

Processing, Engineerin

g and Technology for F

ood and Bio Products

Plant Systems

Animal Systems

Knowledge and Opportunity fo

r Communitie

s and Economic Development

Quality of L

ife in Rural Areas

Food Safety

Nutrition and Health

ier Food Choices

Environment and Natural R

esources

Education

Percentage of Expenditures by Portfolio for Hatch GrantFrom 2007 Annual Report Data (N=$198,577,074)

2.9%

4.6%5.4%

24.2%22.9%

2.9%

6.8%

4.8%

7.1%

18.2%

0.2%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percentage of Expenditures by Portfolio by Evans-Allen GrantFrom 2007 Annual Report Data (N=$36,075,573)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Comparing 1862 and 1890 Research Expenditures Percent of Expenditures

Hatch

Evans-Allen


Percentage of Expenditures by Region - 2007 Annual ReportN=$491,867,947

North Central, 27.6%

Northeast, 16.2%South, 44.2%

West, 11.9%


Expenditures by Region and Funding Line - 2007 Annual ReportN=$491,867,947

No. Central 1862 Research, 11.5%

No. Central 1890 Extension, 0.4%

No. Central 1890 Research, 0.6%

No.East 1862 Extension, 7.6%

No.East 1862 Research, 7.2%

No.East 1890 Extension, 0.7%

South 1862 Extension, 17.7%

South 1862 Research, 15.6%

South 1890 Extension, 4.9%

South 1890 Research, 6.1%

West 1862 Extension, 5.9%

West 1862 Research, 6.0%

No.East 1890 Research, 0.7%

No. Central 1862 Extension, 15.2%


North Central Region Expenditures - 2007 Annual ReportN=$135,838,601

1862 Extension, 54.9%


1862 Research, 41.6%

1890 Research, 2.1%


Northeast Region Expenditures - 2007 Annual ReportN=$79,843,313




1890 Research, 4.3%


Southern Region Expenditures - 2007 Annual ReportN=$217,628,624






Western Region Expenditures - 2007 Annual ReportN=$58,546,454




Percentage of Expenditures by 1862 and 1890 - 2007 Annual ReportN=$491,867,947

1862, 86.7%

1890, 13.3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Expenditures by Region for CSREES Portfolios - 2007 Annual Report

North Central

Northeast

South

West

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Markets, Trade, Policy,and International

Development

Farm Management forSustainability

Processing,Engineering and

Technology for Foodand Bio Products

Expenditures for Portfolios By Region - 2007 Annual Report North Central

Northeast

South

West

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Plant Systems Animal Systems Knowledge andOpportunity for

Communities andEconomic

Development

Quality of Life inRural Areas


Northeast

South

West

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Food Safety Nutrition andHealthier Food

Choices

Environment andNatural Resources

Education


Northeast

South

West


Actual Outputs

Patents

YearTarget in

POWActual

Reported

2007 349 408


Actual Outputs

Extension Direct Contacts

Target Actual

Adult 17,187,000 22,760,000

Youth 9,132,000 3,507,000

(Rounded to nearest thousand)


State Defined Outputs and Outcomes

Wide Array of Outputs and Outcomes Linked to KAs for Analysis

Used in various CSREES Reports

Stakeholder Input

Actions taken to seek stakeholder input that encourages their participation

Use of media to announce public meetings and listening sessions 75%

Targeted invitation to traditional stakeholder groups 91%

Targeted invitation to non-traditional stakeholder groups 74%

Targeted invitation to traditional stakeholder individuals 91%

Targeted invitation to non-traditional stakeholder individuals 75%

Targeted invitation to selected individuals from general public 65%

Survey of traditional stakeholder groups 66%

Survey of traditional stakeholder individuals 64%

Survey of the general public 39%

Survey specifically with non-traditional groups 39%

Survey specifically with non-traditional individuals 22%

Survey of selected individuals from the general public 28%

Other 22%


Stakeholder Input

Method to identify individuals and groups

Use Advisory Committees 96%

Use Internal Focus Groups 64%

Use External Focus Groups 62%

Open Listening Sessions 69%

Needs Assessments 66%

Use Surveys 65%

Other 26%

Stakeholder Input

Methods for collecting Stakeholder InputMeeting with traditional Stakeholder groups 95%

Survey of traditional Stakeholder groups 65%

Meeting with traditional Stakeholder individuals 88%

Survey of traditional Stakeholder individuals 62%

Meeting with the general public (open meeting advertised to all) 59%

Survey of the general public 35%

Meeting specifically with non-traditional groups 60%

Survey specifically with non-traditional groups 40%

Meeting specifically with non-traditional individuals 52%

Survey specifically with non-traditional individuals 32%

Meeting with invited selected individuals from the general public 65%

Survey of selected individuals from the general public 35%

Other 27%


Stakeholder Input

A statement of how the input will be considered

In the Budget Process 67%

To Identify Emerging Issues 96%

Redirect Extension Programs 71%

Redirect Research Programs 76%

In the Staff Hiring Process 66%

In the Action Plans 75%

To Set Priorities 96%

Other 19%


Merit Review Process

Internal University Panel 71%

External University Panel 38%

External Non-University Panel 39%

Combined Internal and External University Panel 32%

Combined Internal and External University and External Non-University Panel 39%

Expert Peer Review 65%

Other 14%


What Next?

Publish the 2007 Annual Report Summary

Make Data Available Via the REEIS Leadership Management Dashboard

Use Data in Various Reports

What’s New with the Plan of Work Software

2008 Annual Report


A Good Impact Statement

An Impact statement is a brief summary, in lay terms, that: Highlights the difference your program is making

for the public good. Concisely summarizes what you did to achieve

this difference. Clearly states payoffs to society. Answers key questions: So what? Who cares?

Why?


How do I Report Impact?

Be specific. Report economic, environmental, social or health/well-being impact in terms of: Knowledge gained and how that knowledge is

applied. Behavior or attitude changes. Practice or situation changes. Results of those behavior, attitude, practice or

situation changes.


How do I Report Impact?

Effective Impact Statements: Provide quantifiable evidence of change or difference the

program made. (It really is all about the money. Bucks are the gold standard. Audiences want to know the return of investment.)

Give other evidence, such as testimonials or anecdotes. Realistically project potential benefit for work in progress. Provide only enough detail to be easily understood. Highlight public benefits, outcomes, payoffs.


Examples of Good Impact Statements (Change in Condition)

The Experiment Station at North Dakota State University released the new varieties Faller Wheat, Lariat and Stampede pinto beans, Sheyenne non-transgenic soybean, RG7008RR soybean, and Pinnacle two-row barley. The estimated dollar value to producers, seedsmen, grain merchandisers, processors, crop consultants, and plant breeders in North Dakota on these new varieties is $290,600,000 for 2007.



Because of new Integrated Pest Management best practices developed with at Washington State University, cherry growers in Washington have saved over $ 4.5 million in labor, materials and application cost over the past four seasons. Surveys of potato fields and growers indicate that the mean number of fungicide applications now used for effective management resulted in an annual savings is $7,642,700 plus a 10.5 percent increase in yield in Washington's Columbia Basin.



To validate the impact of 4-H in the lives of student, incoming freshman GPA's were tracked at Washington State University (WSU) and compared to the incoming WSU freshman population who self-identified as 4-H members. In 2007 the incoming freshman GPA at WSU was 3.42, the incoming freshman GPA of self-identified 4-H members was 3.59 indicating a .17 GPA increase. This statistic would indicate that as a pool 4-H members are stronger students. Moreover, 25 WSUE 4-H Youth Development members were honored with WSU Regents' Scholarships for their academic success and outstanding citizenship. Of those, six received the Distinguished Regents Award that includes a scholarship worth $60,000.



Currently, wood adhesives are predominately derived from non-renewable petrochemicals and may contain hazardous formaldehyde. Research at Oregon State University has successfully developed an environmentally friendly wood adhesive from soybean flour had is currently used in commercial production of interiorly used plywood panels. The emission of volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants in each production plant has been reduced by 90 percent by using this new technology.


Examples of Good Impact Statements (Change in Action) An estimated 14% of preschool aged children in the United

States are overweight. To prevent overweight among pre school aged children, family and consumer science extension agents in Virginia conducted the Food Friends program which was delivered in Virginia in 2007 to approximately 1,500 youth. Extension agents trained Head Start teachers from 125 classrooms on program materials, concepts, and child feeding issues. Overall, the program was found to be successful in improving not only children's dietary practices, but teacher's too. Pre- and post-test surveys indicated the children tried more "new foods" (84%); ate more fruits and vegetables (49%); and ate a wider variety of foods (64%). Teachers also tried more "new foods" (56%); ate more fruits and vegetables (38%); and ate a wider variety of foods (37%).


Examples of Good Impact Statements (Change in Knowledge)

In basic research four plants commonly used in folk medicine in different parts of the world were studied for their antimicrobial activities on select foodborne pathogens and anticarcinogenic activities on cancer cells. This project enabled the research team to identify natural bioactive agents with moderately strong anticancer properties from Rosa canina and Phytolocca americana. These bioactive agents may be helpful in cancer prevention and alternative treatment. In vitro tests showed that crude extracts from Rosa canina and Phytolocca americana significantly reduced the growth and proliferation of colon, breast, and cervical cancer cells; three prominent cancer types that affect both African-American man and women.


Annual Report Data Use

How will CSREES use the information from the Annual Report for planning and accountability? State Plan of Work Accountability Portfolio Reviews OMB PART process Budget Performance Integration GAO and OIG inquiries Answer Congressional & Departmental inquiries

Brings greater visibility of successes of Formula Funded Programs

Budget-Performance Cycle

Partners’ Plans & Results

Projects Formula

Proposals Plans of Work

Progress Reports

Annual Report

Portfolio Evaluation

Internal Self-Assessment

(Annual)

Portfolio Review Expert Panel (PREP)

(Every 5 Years)

OMB Evaluation

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)

(Every 5 Years)

CSREES Strategic & Budget Planning

Guidance: Portfolio Evaluations Stakeholder Input Administration Congress

Performance-Based Budget Request

Proposals for Increases Impacts

Performance Measures PART results


Plan of Work Additional Information

CSREES Plan of Work Web Page http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/planrept/plansofwork.html

Contact Information Bart Hewitt, Accountability and Reporting Leader [email protected] 202-720-0747

E-mail questions to [email protected] questions to [email protected]

Bill BristowBill is an Information Technology Specialist and Data Manager of the Research, Education, and Economics Information System (REEIS). REEIS is a source of information on the research, education and extension programs, projects and activities of the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its partner institutions in the areas of food, agriculture. and natural resources.

(202) 690-1956

[email protected]

www.reeis.usda.gov

Introduction to the Partnership Dashboard


Questions?


For more information, visit the REEIS web page at www.reeis.usda.gov


See you in December!!! Next CSREES Reporting Web Conference will be on Thursday,

December 11 from 2-4 pm (Eastern) A National View on Accountability The National Program Leader Perspective

E-mail topic suggestions for February to [email protected]

Visit the conference web site at www.csrees.usda.gov/rwc for: The recording of this conference The slides from this conference Announcements

csrees reporting web conference october 9, 2008. e-mail questions to [email protected] bob...

Documents

annual report process

csrees budget

areera annual report

performance information

office of planning

reporting leader

strategic planning

planned programsmedian