# Presentation: 512617

## CSREES Reporting Web Conference

- October 9, 2008

## Bob MacDonald

- Bob 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
- _[rmacdonald@csrees.usda.gov](mailto:rmacdonald@csrees.usda.gov)_
- _[www.csrees.usda.gov/opa](http://www.csrees.usda.gov/opa)__ _

## User Support

- (202) 690-2910 *or* _[C2IT@csrees.usda.gov](mailto:C2IT@csrees.usda.gov)_
- 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)_

## Format and Logistics

**Format and Logistics**

- E-mail questions to _[rwc@csrees.usda.gov](mailto:rwc@csrees.usda.gov)_
- E-mail topic suggestions to _[rwc@csrees.usda.gov](mailto:rwc@csrees.usda.gov)_
- 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 _[lyris@lyris.csrees.usda.gov](mailto:lyris@lyris.csrees.usda.gov)_.
- 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 Hewitt

- Bart 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
- _[bhewitt@csrees.usda.gov](mailto:bhewitt@csrees.usda.gov)_
- _[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

- Youth Development and 4-H
- Rural and Community Development
- Natural Resources and Environment
- Health
- Plant Production
- Animal Systems
- Nutrition
- Agricultural Systems General
- Sustainable Agriculture
- Food Safety

## Slide 13

## Slide 14

## Formula Grants Expended by CSREES Portfolio

| Portfolio | Smith-Lever | Hatch | 1890 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 |

## Slide 16

| 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 |

## Slide 17

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

|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Goals | Objective | Smith-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 Sourcesby 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 Grantsby 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 Sourcesby 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% |
| 314 | Toxic 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% |
| 314 | Toxic 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% |

## Slide 22

## Slide 23

## Slide 24

## Slide 25

## Slide 26

## Slide 27

## Slide 28

## Slide 29

## Slide 30

## Slide 31

## Slide 32

## Slide 33

## Slide 34

## Slide 35

## Slide 36

## Slide 37

## Slide 38

## Slide 39

## Actual Outputs

| Patents
  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Year | Target in POW | Actual 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 Input

| Meeting 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

## Slide 50

## Slide 51

## Slide 52

## 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.

## Examples of Good Impact Statements (Change in Condition)

- 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.

## Examples of Good Impact Statements (Change in Condition)

- 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.

## Examples of Good Impact Statements (Change in Condition)

- 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

**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](http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/planrept/plansofwork.html)_
- Contact Information
- Bart Hewitt, Accountability and Reporting Leader
- _[pow@csrees.usda.gov](mailto:pow@csrees.usda.gov)_
- 202-720-0747

## Bill Bristow

**Bill Bristow**

- Bill 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
- _[wbristow@csrees.usda.gov](mailto:wbristow@csrees.usda.gov)_
- _[www.reeis.usda.gov](http://www.reeis.usda.gov/onesolution)_

## Introduction to the Partnership Dashboard

## Questions?

- E-mail questions to _[rwc@csrees.usda.gov](mailto:rwc@csrees.usda.gov)_
- For more information, visit the REEIS web page at _[www.reeis.usda.gov](http://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 _[rwc@csrees.usda.gov](mailto:rwc@csrees.usda.gov)__ _
- Visit the conference web site at _[www.csrees.usda.gov/rwc](http://www.csrees.usda.gov/rwc)__ for:_
- The recording of this conference
- The slides from this conference
- Announcements