# Presentation: 689065

## CSREES Reporting Web Conference

- February 14, 2008

**Notes:**
Good Afternoon, everyone!  Also, Good Morning to our friends in the Pacific Islands, some of whom are up quite early for this.  My name is Bob MacDonald and I want to welcome you to the first of the CSREES Reporting Web Conference series.  We are expecting an audience of [insert number] people as far as Guam and Micronesia.  This is substantially larger than anything we have tried before as web conference and we are both excited about the response we have received and anxious that it all goes smoothly technically.  

Speaking of the technical side of things, I want to thank Texas A&M University, who is providing the web conferencing software and hardware support for this conference through a cooperative agreement.  The expect audience was far larger than anything CSREES could support and Texas A&M stepped forward with an offer to share their tremendous web conferencing capacity.

## User Support

- (202) 690-2910 *or* 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

**Notes:**
Also, I want to talk about user support.  If you are seeing and hearing this, you probably don’t need assistance but CSREES’ help desk, C2IT, is standing by to provide limited user support.  I say limited, because they are not staffed to handle large numbers of simultaneous calls, but will work to help you if needed and will work with Texas A&M if there appear to be issues with the system.  We ask you not to contact Texas A&M directly as they are not providing user support for this web conference.

## Welcome!

- Purpose of the Reporting Web Conference Series
- Format and Logistics
- Presentations and Questions
- Topics for Next Time

**Notes:**
Before we get into our presentations, I want to start off with a brief introduction to this series, including a description of the purpose, the format of the conferences, and some logistics.  Then we will get into the presentations, which will include time for questions.  Finally, you will have the opportunity to help us choose the topics for next time.

## Purpose of the Reporting Web Conference Series

- Improve communications between CSREES and its partners on reporting issues, including:
- AREERA Plan of Work
- Grant and project reporting through CRIS
- One Solution Initiative

**Notes:**
This web conference series is really an outgrowth of the Planning and Evaluation Mini-Conference held in Seattle last year.  The feedback I received from that conference was very positive and people wanted more.  I was asked by a number of universities if we could come and present on similar topics.  Unfortunately, we can not visit large number of states in this way, so web conferencing was selected as an alternative.  Simultaneously, the One Solution initiative started to have some impact outside CSREEES and it was apparent that greater communication was needed on this topic as well.  Since CSREES planning and accountability depends on reporting and CSREES reporting was being substantially revised and improved through the One Solution initiative, this seemed to be happy marriage.

## Format and Logistics

- Web conference on the 2nd Thursday of even months from 2-4 p.m. Eastern
- 2 topics of one hour each
- Generally, one topic will be a planning and accountability issue, one will be a One Solution issue
- 1⁄2 hour presentation
- 1⁄2 questions

**Notes:**
I do want to go over the format and logistics for the web conference.  First, the web conferences will occur every two months – on the second Thursday of even months from 2-4 pm Eastern time.  They will consist of two topics of one hour each. Generally, one topic will be a planning and accountability issue and one will be a One Solution issue.  Each topic will consist of a half-hour presentation and will allow a half-hour for questions and responses.

## Format and Logistics

- E-mail questions to rwc@csrees.usda.gov
- Opportunity to vote for topics for next conference
- Conferences are recorded and will be available on the Reporting Web Conference web page at www.csrees.usda.gov/rwc

**Notes:**
Speaking of questions, we believe that the audience for the conference is too large to make use of the web conferencing tools for questions such as chat.  Instead, we are asking that you e-mail your questions to rwc@csrees.usda.gov.  This e-mail address should be visible on the screen throughout the conference and you can e-mail your question at any time, even after the conference.  We will respond to as many e-mailed questions as we can during the conference.

You will also have the opportunity to help set the agenda for the next conference.  We will make use of the web conferencing survey tool to ask you to vote for potential topics for the next web conference.  You may e-mail additional topic suggestions as well.

Finally, all conferences will be recorded and will be available through the CSREES Reporting Web Conference web page at www.csrees.usda.gov/rwc.  These slides will also be posted on the conference web page.

## Greg Crosby

- Greg is the CSREES National Program Leader for Sustainable Development; Governing Committee for eXtension; Agency Representative to the USDA Council for Sustainable Development; US Government and USDA Lead for "My Community, Our Earth: Geographic Learning for Sustainable Development"; Director of the Agency OneSolution Business Process; Director of Geospatial Extension Specialists NRI Program; Co-lead Agency Working Group on Science for Sustainability; Senior eGovernment Fellow at the Council for Excellence in Government.
- (202) 401-6050
- _[gcrosby@csrees.usda.gov](mailto:gcrosby@csrees.usda.gov)_
- _[www.csrees.usda.gov/onesolution](http://www.csrees.usda.gov/onesolution)_

## 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)_

**Notes:**
Now, also let me introduce 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 AREERA.  He also manages the Multistate Research Fund project proposal approvals for CSREES, and develops performance information for the PART and the CSREES Budget. Bart has a background in Agricultural and Extension Education and Adult and Continuing Education and was an Extension 4-H Agent in Maryland before coming to CSREES. 

## One Solution Overview and Transition Standard Report

## One Solution: Why

- Increased emphasis on results-oriented accountability
- Integration of performance with budget decisions as a prerequisite of continued funding

**Notes:**
Due to an increased emphasis on results-oriented accountability, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is requiring all federal agencies to formally integrate performance with budget decisions as a prerequisite for continued funding. Through its One Solution Initiative, CSREES is responding to this challenge for greater accountability by integrating several different reporting systems within the agency. 

The One Solution Initiative is charged with developing a new management strategy that will improve the quality and completeness of agency reports required by the OMB and Congress.  Because CSREES accomplishes its mission through federal funding and other assistance provided to partners, rigorous data collection and reporting practices are critical to measuring the performance of agency activities.

## One Solution: How

- Various reporting processes currently used by CSREES will be unified into an innovative _integrated system_ that better aligns the agency budget with performance outcomes across _research, education, and extension_.

**Notes:**

Under the One Solution Initiative, the various reporting processes currently used by CSREES will be unified into an innovative integrated system that better aligns the agency budget with performance outcomes across research, education, and extension. Implementing more effective information resource management practices will also simplify and decrease the reporting burden experienced by the agency's land-grant university partners and other institutions receiving CSREES grants and awards.

Specifically, One Solution will: 
re-use and combine existing information from separate reporting systems; 
standardize what the various reporting systems require, such as definitions and examples of "outputs" and "outcomes"; 
provide ways for information systems to communicate directly to the agency systems; 
better define and redefine exactly what information is required of the grantees; 
maintain the CRIS legacy database by migrating years of data onto a common platform for use through REEIS and the One Solution system; and 
develop a single, web-based interface for CSREES reporting and report management for partners and CSREES staff. 

## One Solution: Benefits

- Better manage increasing performance and budget reporting expectations
- Enhanced data quality and analyses
- Improved national program leadership and planning
- Decreased reporting burden on grantees
- Better able to demonstrate how the agency is fulfilling its mission and serving the American public.

**Notes:**
The new reporting system will allow CSREES to better manage increasing performance and budget reporting expectations. Additional benefits will be enhanced data quality and analyses; improved national program leadership and planning; decreased reporting burden on grantees; and a focused measureable way of demonstrating how the agency is fulfilling its mission and serving the American public. 

## One Solution: Principles

- Every investment has to be reported in the database and we must be able to explain how every dollar was spent.
- Report once and only once, and use the information that is collected.
- The data we collect must meet the requirements of federal reporting
- The information collected must be of value to us and the grantees we ask to report
- CSREES must be able to reliably answer detailed questions in a manner that is consistent over time and across different functions
- CSREES and the partners want to be able to go back into the database after grant has ended and enter the outcomes that can not be captured now.

## One Solution: History

- With input from the partnership---
- Business Case (2005)
- Project Plan (2006)
- CRIS Transition Standard Report (2007) with modified categories and more complete guidance.

**Notes:**
Although One Solution is not, by any standard, finished or about to be unveiled, we now have the right tools to assemble a One Solution integrated system. The "CSREES Information System (CIS)" with be constructed in an incremental fashion over the  next 2-3 years. 

## One Solution: Standard Report

- Previous CRIS Forms
- +
- CSREES Logic Model
- +
- Research Performance Progress Report
- =
- CRIS Transition Standard Report

**Notes:**
As a step toward integrating CSREES reporting systems, the agency released changes to the traditional CRIS reporting system at the beginning of FY 2008 (October 1, 2007).  A more standardized CRIS report is designed to familiarize grantees and project directors with an initial portion of an integrated, web-based, One Solution reporting system addressing problems identified by both grantees and agency staff.

## One Solution: CRIS Transition Standard Report

**The revised CRIS AD 416 sections include: **
- 		Goals/Objectives/ Expected Outputs
- 		Methods
- 		Non-Technical Summary
**The revised CRIS AD 421 sections include: **
- 		Outputs
- 		Outcomes/Impacts
- 		Publications
- 		Participants
- 		Target Audiences
- 		Project Modifications

## One Solution: For More Information

- www.csrees.usda.gov/onesolution
- General Info--Greg Crosby 202 401-6050 gcrosby@csrees.usda.gov
- Standard Report--Deb Hamernik 202 401-4202 dhamernik@csrees.usda.gov
- Technology--John Mingee 202 720-2602 jmingee@csrees.usda.gov

## Plan of Work A Key Component of the One Solution

- How does the Plan of Work relate to the One Solution Initiative
- Part of the larger One Solution Initiative
- Web-based system for Formula Funds
- Same goals of One Solution

**Notes:**
The current iteration of the Plan of Work, which began with the FY 2007 Plan of Work, is part of the larger One Solution Initiative. It is now a working First Phase of the One Solution; and we are working on it being fully integrated into the whole in the future.
As most of you know, the Plan of Work and now the Annual Report is the web-based system for gathering data in a logical manner; and shows outcome and other related information for the four formula funds cited in Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA).  
As part of the larger One Solution Initiative, it shares the same goals of the One Solution Initiative.

## One Solution Initiative

- Goals of One Solution
- Improve quality of accountability data
- Simplify Reporting
- Reduce burden on Partners and CSREES
- Help CSREES staff with Program Leadership
- Meet increasing performance & budget reporting expectations

**Notes:**
What are those goals?  Greg shared them with you earlier. But these do merit repeating.
The One Solution will integrate several electronic reporting systems and processes to fulfill four major goals. 
  Improve the quality of accountability data and meet increasing performance and budget reporting expectations.
Congress and the President’s Office of Management and Budget demand that we be accountable for the funds allocated and for formulating future budget requests.
  Simplify reporting and reduce burden for funding recipients and partners
  Allow Agency staff to focus on program leadership activities, and portfolio-based management by reducing effort to complete report review processes.
  Help meet the ever increasing demand on CSREES to show performance for its budget allocation.  

## Plan of Work – What’s Next?

- 2009 -2013 Plan of Work Update Due to CSREES by April 1, 2008
- 2007 Annual Report due by April 1, 2008
- Administrative Interface for NPLs
- Integration into One Solution Initiative

**Notes:**
So what is up next for the Plan of Work system.

The 2009 – 2013 Plan of Work Update is due to CSREES by April 1, 2008.  At this point you should probably only be tweaking last year’s Plan unless you have a real need to do otherwise. That is up to you.  The Plan of Work was designed so that you could only tweak it from year to year;  adding just another 5th year to it and allowing you to update any information for the intermediary years.

The 2007 Annual Report, also due by April 1, 2008, will be the first of its kind under the new electronic system.  You will be reporting against what you entered in your approved 2007 Plan of Work.  This software was released back in October and improvements continue to be made.  We anticipate that we will finally be able to find information that has been lacking from Extension over the years in this Annual Report to help us better tell Congress and the President’s Office of Management and Budget the good things that are going on and do this in a more timely manner.

We are now putting the final touches on the new Administrative interface for our National Program Leaders here at CSREES and Planning and Accountability.  I’ll quickly talk about that portion in my next slide.

Also, we will be working more in the future on integrating the Plan of Work and Annual Report system into the overall One Solution Initiative. 

## Plan of WorkAdministrative Interface

- Manage Workflow
- NPL Review of POW and Annual Report
- Automatic Notification System
- Approvals of POW and Annual Report

**Notes:**
The new Plan of Work Administrative Interface is internal to CSREES.  It will basically do three things to help us manage the workflow of the Plans of Work.  
First, it will enable the NPLs to review the Plans and Report online.  They will be able to read them directly from the software and input their review comments and checklist approvals, and recommend approvals to Planning and Accountability online.  It will enable them to make quick notes to each other while reviewing the Plans and Report.  And keep track of who has done what so far in the review process.
Second, the administrative process will include a time sensitive automatic notification system that will benefit both the reviewers and the States.  This notification system will send automatic reminders via email to State Contacts and Directors; send automatic receipt of your Plans and Reports; it will notify NPLs when State Plans and Report have been received; and notify the NPLs when a review is due, and send automatic reminders periodically about the review.
Third, it also includes an electronic approval system that will generate approval letters and summary of NPL comments when the review work has been completed by the NPLs assigned and when the final review has been completed by the Office of Planning and Accountability.  

Of course it will be me and/or other Planning and Accountability staff that will do quality assurance duty on the reviews and comments.  So I still have to read all the comments and such by the NPLs for content and grammar.  And Planning and Accountability will make the final determination on Acceptance of Plan and Reports.

This new administrative interface will save us valuable time here at CSREES and I anticipate more timely Plan of Work and Annual Report reviews.

## Plan of WorkIntegration into One Solution

- Analysis Underway on Double Hatch Reporting and Integrating Project Level Reports into Plan of Work requirements.
- Analysis Underway on Smith-Lever 3d and other Extension grant programs and how POW Planned Program module can be used.

**Notes:**
The next task for the Plan of Work and Annual Report is getting it fully integrated into the One Solution Initiative.

An analysis of the perceived double reporting on Hatch and Evans-Allen Grant Funds in CRIS and the Plan of Work is now underway to determine options for fully integrating Hatch and Evans-Allen research formula grants project level reporting into the Plan of Work requirements.  We need to try to leave intact the necessary information needed at the project level while also dealing with the broader Plan of Work requirements.  I am very confident that we will get there in the not so distant future.  The ultimate goal is to put together an integrated system so you only have to enter data once where possible.  As Greg said, one of the basic principles of the One Solution Initiative is to Report once and only once, and use the information that is collected.  So we have been hard at work discussing possible models for doing just that.

At the same time we are doing an analysis of the data needs of the Smith-Lever 3d and other Extension grant programs and how the Plan of Work Planned Program module or an upcoming standard report may be used to capture those needed data.  Right now some of those programs are using other means to get their data and we’d like to standardize that as part of the One Solution Initiative.

So....  These are just a couple of things that are going on here now.

## 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

**Notes:**
Bob is going to talk about this stuff at a higher level, but I thought I would quickly go over how we will use the information from the Plan of Work for Planning and Accountability?

  The first is for State Plan of Work Accountability.  This is a basic tenet of AREERA and we all need to be accountable for how we spend our tax payers funds.  So we need to find out how well you did what you said you were going to do in your Plan of Work.
  Second, Data from the Annual Reports will go directly into the CSREES Portfolio reviews.  Portfolio reviews of the results of CSREES funded work is needed to meet USDA/CSREES goals.
  Third, The Office of Management and Budget is asking for this information for the Program Assessment Rating Tool.
  It is needed in the Budget and Performance Integration effort.  Each year we get requests from the budget office for evidence of past performance for all the formula funds that are obligated.
  It is needed for the occasional Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General inquiries. 
  We also need this information to address other Congressional and Departmental inquiries, especially on Formula funded activities.

It is very important that we bring greater visibility to the successes of these formula funded programs.

## What is being done at CSREES?

- One Solution Initiative
- Redesign CRIS report to include elements of  the government wide Standard Report
- Build POW and standardize annual reports to make it easy for partners to report outcomes following a logic model format
- Develop management dashboard to enable the Agency to search for outcomes submitted in annual reports
- Sub-group of One Solution looking at perceived double reporting of Hatch and Evans-Allen

**Notes:**
Greg has already talked about the redesign of the CRIS report.

I have talked about the Plan of Work and Annual Report and the Sub-group looking at the perceived double Reporting of Hatch and Evan-Allen.

Another thing that is going on here is the Development of a management dashboard that will enable us to search for outcomes submitted in the annual reports of both CRIS and the Plan of Work.  This is now in development and the first phase has been implemented here for our National Program Leaders.  

## Questions?

- E-mail questions to rwc@csrees.usda.gov
- For more information, visit the One Solution web page at www.csrees.usda.gov/onesolution

## 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)__ _

**Notes:**
Now, let me introduce Bob MacDonald, who will be giving the next talk.  Bob is the Director of the CSREES Office of Planning and Accountability, which provides leadership to the agency in strategic planning, performance measurement, and evaluation.  The Office of Planning and Accountability, or OPA, writes the performance sections of the agency’s budget request and also is responsible for managing the AREERA Plan of Work and invention reporting for the Bayh-Dole Act.  Bob has a background in forestry, ecosystem science, and plant physiology and has been with CSREES in various positions for fifteen years, starting in the National Research Initiative.

## How CSREES Uses Your Reporting and What It Needs for Outcomes 

**Notes:**
Bob will be giving his talk on How CSREES Uses Your Reporting and What It Needs for Outcomes.

## Budget-Performance Cycle

| Partners’ Plans & Results |  |
| --- | --- |
| Projects | Formula |
| Proposals | Plans of Work |
| Progress Reports | Annual Report |

| Portfolio Assessment |  |
| --- | --- |
| Internal Self-Assessment
(Annual) | Portfolio Review Expert Panel (PREP)
(Every 5 Years) |

| OMB Assessment |
| --- |
| Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
(Every 5 Years) |

| CSREES Strategic & Budget Planning |
| --- |
| Guidance:
 Portfolio Assessments
 Stakeholder Input
 Administration
 Congress |

| Performance-Based Budget Request |  |
| --- | --- |
|  Proposals for Increases
 Impacts |  Performance Measures
 PART results |

**Notes:**
CSREES uses your reporting for several purposes.  I will talk mainly about this slide on the Budget-Performance Cycle first because is a relatively new concept in how the agency operates and thus in what information it needs from you, the folks who actually do the research, education, and extension in support of CSREES’ mission and programs.  However, there are a few additional, more traditional ways we use you reporting that I will cover shortly.

Former Linear Process
When I first arrived at the agency fifteen years ago, the budget process was fairly linear.  To be a bit simplistic, we wrote a budget request describe saying we do good things – please give us more money so we can do more good things.  Congress responded by saying – we know you do good things, here is some money so you can do the good things we want you to do.  And, we would award the funds and you would go off and do your good things.  Reporting was mainly a function of oversight – did you do what you said you would do?  We would gather some nuggets from you to demonstrate the good things being done and move on.

GPRA
Several things changed how we operate.  First, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 required agencies to write strategic plans and annual performance reports describing, quantitatively if possible, progress on achieving the goals and objectives of the strategic plans.  Within USDA, GPRA was initially implemented at the agency level, so CSREES worked to develop a strategic plan and an annual performance report.  USDA then stapled all the agency plans and reports together and sent them to Congress.  Congress was not satisfied with this approach – they wanted the Department to plan and measure progress as a Department, not individually as agencies.  USDA adopted this approach and has been doing this for a number of years.  CSREES’ does have a strategic plan which is written to reflect the Department’s priorities as outlined in the USDA strategic plan.

PMA
Second, when the current administration took office, they implemented a President’s Management Agenda, which included a focus on measuring performance and linking it to budget requests.  As I will discuss, this included Research and Development Investment Criteria, the Program Assessment Rating Tool or PART, and specific instructions for including performance information into budget requests.  The administration also placed a heavy emphasis on describing outcomes from past and current funding and expected outcomes for requested future funding.

Forming the Cycle
These events resulted in the formation of the budget-performance cycle for CSREES that you see in front of you.  This is a fairly new concept for us and while it is in full operation, we are also definitely on the learning and improvement portion of the curve.  Naturally, the changes that resulted in the creation of the cycle and our continued learning and improvement impact you, who are our primary source of information regarding performance and outcomes from CSREES funding.

Appropriation
While a cycle really has no beginning or end, I will start the discussion at the top of the slide, with Congress appropriating funds for CSREES programs.  

Partners’ Plans and Results
When we receive these funds, we turn virtually all of them over to you in the form of grants, which include formula funds.  In general, these are in the forms of projects - for which plans are submitted as proposals, and in the form of formula funds - for which plans are received as plans of work.  Likewise, the results from these funds come back to us in progress reports for projects or in annual reports for formula funds.  

Portfolio Assessments
For CSREES, the next step in the cycle is portfolio assessment. The original impetus for the portfolio assessment process was to enable the agency to satisfy the requirements of the Research and Development Criteria, part of the President’s Management Agenda.  However, CSREES has implemented the process to satisfy its own goals to improve planning, resource allocation, and documenting results.  CSREES defines a portfolio as a set of continuing, CSREES-funded activities broadly focused on a current and/or emerging issue of societal importance and which as the foundation for agency planning and assessment.  Portfolios serve as a middle layer between the planning and assessment activities that go on at the program level and the formal strategic plan for CSREES, which is mostly top-down.  As you know, CSREES supports a great diversity of research, education, and extension, ranging from youth development to genomics.  Portfolios are large enough to allow for meaningful priority-setting and resource allocation shifts but small enough to allow focus around given issues.  

## CSREES Portfolios

- Agricultural Markets & Trade
- Agricultural Structures & Farm Management
- Animal Systems
- Economic and Community Decision Making
- Education
- Environment & Natural Resources

- Food Processing & Bio-Based Products
- Food Safety
- International Economic Development
- Nutrition and Healthier Food Choices
- Plant Systems
- Quality of Life in Rural Areas

**Notes:**
This slide lists the current set of CSREES portfolios and gives you sense of their size and scope.

## Budget-Performance Cycle

| Partners’ Plans & Results |  |
| --- | --- |
| Projects | Formula |
| Proposals | Plans of Work |
| Progress Reports | Annual Report |

| Portfolio Assessment |  |
| --- | --- |
| Internal Self-Assessment
(Annual) | Portfolio Review Expert Panel (PREP)
(Every 5 Years) |

| OMB Assessment |
| --- |
| Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
(Every 5 Years) |

| CSREES Strategic & Budget Planning |
| --- |
| Guidance:
 Portfolio Assessments
 Stakeholder Input
 Administration
 Congress |

| Performance-Based Budget Request |  |
| --- | --- |
|  Proposals for Increases
 Impacts |  Performance Measures
 PART results |

**Notes:**
Portfolio Assessments (cont’d)
The portfolio assessment process is its own, five-year cycle which began several years ago.  The cycle started with external, expert panels, which reviewed each portfolio, scored it on the basis of relevance, quality, and performance, and wrote reports with recommendations for improvement.  CSREES has portfolio teams of National Program Leaders and Program Specialists, which meet as needed to discuss portfolio plans, priorities, issues, and actions, including responding to the external panel’s recommendations.  Annually, the CSREES portfolio teams self-score to document progress on the panel’s recommendations and reflect the current status of the portfolio.  Every five years, the panels return to reassess and rescore the portfolio.

The portfolio assessment process has substantially changed how CSREES manages its programs.  The portfolio teams are composed of staff which are responsible for all of the programs on a given topic and thus forming portfolio teams has improved the coordination and utilization of programs as focused on important issues.  Key to the process is close review of partner’s reports – the reports you give us as CRIS reports and the AREERA Annual Report.   We are focusing on using these reports to find the outcomes of CSREES funding – the changes in knowledge, actions, and condition that you create.  We are using the knowledge gleaned from these reports in planning updates to requests for applications and for improved national program leadership.

OMB Assessment
Portfolio assessments also play a key role in the next step, OMB Assessment.  As part of the President’s Management Agenda, the White House Office of Management and Budget created a tool called Program Assessment Rating Tool or PART.  A PART is a set of twenty-five-odd questions applied to all Federal programs.  The questions support four broad themes of Program Purpose and Design, Strategic Planning, Program Management, and Program Results.  A “program” for this purpose can be a single agency.  Programs currently defined by OMB to CSREES for the PART are each of the five goals of the 2004-2009 CSREES Strategic Plan.   

PART reviews are informed by the portfolio assessments regarding CSREES planning, implementation, and results.  PARTs require agencies to develop quantitative performance measures for their programs.  The scores from portfolio assessments form the primary performance measure for CSREES PARTs.  These are supplemented by other, representative, performance measures documenting some of the easier things for us to measure quantitatively, such as number of new biomass conversion processes or number of best practices adopted.

OMB publishes the results of PART assessments on the web at ExpectMore.gov and uses the results to inform the preparation of the President’s budget.  CSREES has done very well on its PARTs, earning scores of Effective, which despite the name is the best possible score earned by only 18% of the government’s programs, and Moderately Effective, earned by 31% of Federal programs.  OMB, stating that there is always room for growth, outlines agencies performance improvement plans, challenging us with continued improvement.

CSREES Strategic and Budget Planning
CSREES strategic and budget planning has traditionally been guided by stakeholder input and administration and Congressional priorities.  We have now added the portfolio assessments to the list.  Recommendations from the portfolio assessments have had significant impacts in CSREES programmatic planning decisions, in hiring of staff, and in budget considerations.  

Performance-Based Budget Request
Finally, coming back full circle, we have the performance-base budget request.  This administration has very carefully integrated performance requirements into its policy documents for preparing the President’s budget.  Agencies must document past accomplishments and anticipated outcomes in their proposals for increases.  These outcomes receive close review by the Secretary in his decision-making.  We must provide performance measures for requested increases in funding, which must be quantitative if possible.  CSREES provides the PART performance measures for this, including the portfolio assessment scores.  In addition, each budget justification provides some indication of proposed performance – quantitative if possible.  If quantitative measures are not possible, we try to list milestones with target dates.  If this is not possible, we qualitatively describe anticipated outcomes.  Finally, we must describe our PART results, including actions taken on the performance improvement plans.

I hope you can see from this that your reporting to us is essential in CSREES program planning, design, and implementation, in assessing the success of our programs, and in securing funds for our programs.

## Other Uses of Your Reporting

- Program Leadership
- Reporting to Congress, Administration, and Interested Parties
- Grant Oversight

**Notes:**
CSREES does use your reporting for other purposes.  I have listed these as “other”, not because they are less important, but because they are the more traditional uses and thus are better known.  

We use your reporting for program leadership.  While this includes program design and implementation, it also includes coordination of efforts among Federal agencies and other entities and among grantees, seeking to focus research, education, and extension on the most critical issues in the most efficient and effective manner.  Your information is critical to our National Program Leaders knowledge of what is being done as a result of our funding.

We receive a large number of questions from Congress, the Administration, and other interested parties about what CSREES is doing in specific areas – thousands of questions from Congress alone.  Often, we have very short turn-around times for these questions and are highly dependent on your reporting as a resource to providing quick answers.

Finally, we do have a responsibility as a steward of Federal taxpayer dollars to ensure that appropriate progress and actions are being taken on them by our grantees.

## What CSREES Needs for Outcomes

- Grant Oversight
- National Program Leadership
- Portfolio Assessment
- Communications
- Information for Decision Makers and Stakeholders

**Notes:**
I want to shift gears now from how  CSREES uses your reporting to what it needs in terms of outcomes.  We uses outcomes for the various functions listed on this slide from grant oversight to informing decision makers.  The are listed in this order to indicate the increasing level of quality of information needed.  Let me explain this.

A number of things are reported to us which describe results.  These fall first into the two groups of outputs and outcomes.  Outputs are the products, services and events that are intended to lead to the program’s outcomes.  Outcomes are the changes in knowledge, changes in actions, or changes in condition that result from a funded activity.  Changes in actions and changes in condition are pretty significant for all of the uses listed on this slide.   However, changes in knowledge are a bit more nebulous – knowledge changes that are important in document progress made on project goals for grant oversight and national program leadership may not be significant enough to merit a CSREES news item or to convince a decision maker to support increased funding.  

Our National Program Leaders stress the importance of continuing to inform them of incremental advances in knowledge realized from our grants and formula projects.  This information is very important to them in overseeing progress and in their leadership and coordination activities.   

What I mean by higher quality relates to the outcome information related to what we would use for portfolio assessments, and even higher quality for news articles, Partner’s videos, performance reports, and outcome information as part of our budget requests.  Again, changes in actions or conditions pretty easily meet these criteria, provided they are broad enough.  We will never convince anyone of the value of our programs solely by changing the action of a single farmer. Anecdotal stories are useful in news articles but only in support of describing a larger impact.  Unfortunately, many of what are submitted to us as outcomes describe the impact on a single farmer or on a single, small community.  Place yourself in the shoes of a Congressman allocating scarce resources among many meritorious programs.  We spent how much money to help one farmer?

Similar criteria apply to what I mean by higher quality changes in knowledge.  My use of the term “quality” is not meant to imply that the small, incremental changes in knowledge created by grants and projects are not important.  They are, or they would not be published in journals and other places.  But what catches the attention of the public through news articles and videos and of Federal decision-makers are the watershed changes in knowledge.  The degradation of the Chesapeake Bay is tied to increases in phosphorus.  Increases in phosphorus are linked to poultry waste.  Phosphorus in poultry waste can be reduced by nutritional changes in feed.  These watershed changes in knowledge are supported by the incremental changes and are the types of information that can be readily understood and appreciated by the public and decision-makers.

Conciseness is another key property for what we need.  People reading these have a lot to review with limited time.  A paragraph is optimal.  A several page outcome statement will probably not be even read.  Try to connect the dots for folks.  Decision-makers often have backgrounds in law, accounting, and business.  Many are now from urban and suburban settings.  They will not understand scientific terminology and will not realize the implications of the result unless you tell them.

## What is needed to convince a decision-maker?

- Concise and comprehensible
- Context and interpretation
- Public value

**Notes:**
An outcome statement that will influence a decision-maker needs to be concise and comprehensible.  These folks read a lot of material in a short time and an outcome statement that is a page and a half long will not be read.

They also need to provide context and interpretation.  On the budget side in the Department and OMB, these are read by people with accounting backgrounds.  On the political side, many are former lawyers and business mean and will not understand the significance of your result without some interpretation.

In addition, you should also try to provide some statement about the public value of the result.

## Public Value?

- Public value is the value of a program to those who do not directly benefit from the program
- The public sector provides **information** that allows consumers and producers to make better choices.
- The public sector addresses a crucial concern about **fairness**.
- Consumers or producers **create benefits** for others or **impose costs** on others.
- Laura Kalambokidis, University of Minnesota Extension

**Notes:**
Public Value is something that has been championed by Laura Kalambokidis of University of Minnesota Extension.  I do not have time to go into it in any depth but if you Google Laura Kalambokidis public value you will turn up a wealth of information.  Basically, she makes the statement that while many recognize that what we do is of value, many are now asking why public funds should be supporting it, particularly when a program is directed at individuals.  She has identified these three bullets as key reasons for public investment and this can be used as part of an outcome statement.

## Examples of “Quality” Outcomes

**A Model to Reduce Dependence on Oil** – Researchers developed a model of the market for gasoline, gasoline additives and gasoline substitutes specifically to analyze the market for ethanol. The model develops an indicator of competitive position, the cost difference between ethanol imports from Brazil and domestic production in the United States under ideal conditions without tariffs in the ethanol market. The model shows that biomass fuel could replace 20 percent of current gasoline usage without major land conversion and about 45 percent of current usage with land conversion.

**Notes:**
I will now walk you quickly through several examples of what we have used in our budget documents.  Remember, these slides will be posted on the conference web page so you can read them more closely later.  

This one hits on a national issue – our dependence on oil.  It describes what was done in one sentence.  It describes the result in a second sentence.  It uses one sentence to set the context.  Finally, it quantitatively describes a significant result in terms anyone can understand (read the last sentence).

## Examples of “Quality” Outcomes

- Researchers cloned a gene, GPC-B1, from wild wheat that increases the protein, zinc and iron content in the grain, offering a potential solution to nutritional deficiencies affecting hundreds of millions of children around the world.  The researchers found that all commercial pasta and bread wheat varieties analyzed so far have a nonfunctional copy of the GPC gene, suggesting the gene was lost during the domestication of wheat.  Reintroducing the functional gene into commercial wheat varieties could increase their nutritional value.

**Notes:**
This example deals with a hard science result and shows that they can be presented in way that will influence people.  The first sentence describes the what was done – the gene was cloned, it describes what the gene does and it describes why this is important.  The second sentence describes a significant finding – we have lost this important gene during domestication of wheat.  The last sentence connects the dots as to the implications of knowing this information – why this change in knowledge is important.

## Examples of “Quality” Outcomes

- Since 2001 the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension has provided e-Commerce training to over 600 businesses (the Nebraska Electronic Main Street Program).  As a result of the training, 93% indicated they will be increases business efforts on the web, 96% indicated that they will be changing their existing website (or developing websites).  Previous to the training, only 51% of the businesses had a website.

**Notes:**
Here is an extension example.  The first sentence again describes what was done – providing e-Commerce training to over 600 businesses.  The second describes the result and the third puts it in context.  These context statements are key.  As good as a 93% statistic sounds, it means much more to compare that to 51% in this case than if it were 89% previously.  And we are asked about the difference we make, not just what the end point is.

## Examples of “Quality” Outcomes

- Research at Kentucky State University has shown that screened bottom boards eliminate many live Varroa mites from beehives.  Over a 15-month period, Varroa mites were reduced by 57% by the use of this equipment.

**Notes:**
Here is my final example.  You are probably getting the point by now, but this is a national priority and demonstrates a substantial impact – a 57% reduction in mites – and it is only two sentence long!

## Questions?

- E-mail questions to rwc@csrees.usda.gov
- For more information, visit the Planning and Accountability web page at www.csrees.usda.gov/opa

## Topics for Next Time...

## See you in April!!!

- Next CSREES Reporting Web Conference will be on Thursday, April 10 from 2-4 pm (Eastern)
- Visit the conference web site at www.csrees.usda.gov/rwc for:
- The recording of this conference
- The slides from this conference
- Announcements