For over a century, productivity-enhancing agricultural research has been an important catalyst in creating a vigorous agricultural economy and a plentiful, low-cost supply of food and fiber. Together with extension and education, agricultural research has helped transform U.S. agriculture into a productive, technology-based operation. While each of the three functions has its own purpose, they are interwoven and, hence, are often referred to jointly as the agricultural research, education, and extension system. The research component of the system, devoted to discovering new solutions for food- and agriculture-related problems, is carried out through several agencies in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—including over 100 USDA laboratory locations; 74 land grant colleges and universities; other institutions of higher education; and numerous private research facilities. The system’s extension component, which disseminates agricultural research results and related educational information to the public, is implemented by thousands of state and county extension specialists and agents. Land grant colleges and other universities bear the primary responsibility for implementing the education component of the system, which involves providing formal education to future farmers and others who will be employed in the food and agricultural sector. Because of the vast number of participants in the system and the proprietary nature of some of the information, composite funding information for the entire system is difficult to obtain. In fiscal year 1992 (the most recent year for which private sector data were available), agricultural research expenditures totaled about $6.3 billion. The private sector spent about $3.8 billion on agricultural research—about 60 percent of the combined federal, state, and private expenditures for that year. Information on total funding for higher education to support the agricultural sector is not readily available; however, USDA allocated about $12.8 million for higher education in fiscal year 1994. For extension activities, federal, state, and county governments allocated about $1.4 billion in fiscal year 1994. Agricultural research and extension historically have focused on increasing agricultural productivity and improving the economic well-being of a largely rural U.S. population. Initially, research concentrated on (1) mechanical innovations for planting and harvesting that would remove much of the physical labor from farming and (2) improving the output and productivity of crop and animal production on farms. Today, much agricultural research continues to focus on increasing production through ways to better protect crops and livestock from insects, disease, and other hazards. However, along with farmers and producers, users of agricultural research now include consumers, as well as groups interested in the environment, sustainable agriculture, and rural development. Decreasing the use of chemicals in agricultural production, creating sustainable agricultural systems, improving food safety and nutrition, and enhancing the viability of small farms and rural communities are some of the newer research areas being addressed in response to this broadened customer base. The 1914 Smith Lever Act established extension services nationwide to disseminate the knowledge generated by agricultural colleges to farmers and consumers. “University extension” is based on the concept that education and research developments achieved through public funding should be more readily available to those not attending universities. Today, agricultural extension specialists are often located at land grant universities. University-based extension specialists interact with scientists and relay scientific learning and other knowledge to farmers and other research customers. They also serve as the university’s link to county extension agents. As in agricultural research, the customer base for extension services currently includes urban populations as well as farmers. In addition to providing agricultural information, extension programs are aimed at the development of communities, families, youth, and leadership and include diverse programs such as nutrition, 4-H organizations, and youth and families at risk. Education is almost entirely a nonfederal function, but USDA has the responsibility for strengthening higher education in food and agricultural sciences through programs to enhance university teaching programs in agriculture. The origins of higher education in the agricultural sciences date back to the Morrill Act of 1862, which gave the states public lands for use in establishing colleges to teach agriculture and the mechanical arts. Initially, the purpose of these land grant colleges was to meet the educational needs of the nation’s largely rural population and farm-based economy. However, most land grant colleges of agriculture are now full-fledged universities, having expanded well beyond the teaching of agriculture. In addition, legislative actions expanded the system of agricultural colleges to include schools of veterinary medicine and forestry programs. The agricultural research, education, and extension system is supported by numerous federal, state, county, and private sector activities. Many of the participants in the system (particularly those associated with land grant universities), have multiple responsibilities for teaching, conducting research, and providing extension services. While the system’s components (e.g., USDA, the land grant universities and other institutions, and private companies) are autonomous and have no central governing authority, there is some collaboration. For example, USDA scientists and land grant university scientists sometimes work together on research projects. Similarly, land grant universities in states with common interests form consortiums that bring together specialized expertise to address problems relating to commodities or problems common to those states. Furthermore, USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has established formal arrangements with private companies aimed at developing and commercializing new technologies through the use of Cooperative Research and Development Agreements. Finally, private companies and commodity groups provide funding to land grant universities and, to a lesser extent, to USDA to conduct research. USDA is involved in the research, education, and extension system primarily through ARS and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). ARS conducts research at its 107 laboratory locations and 35 worksites throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and in four foreign countries, while CSREES administers funding for research at the land grant universities and other research institutions. CSREES is also the primary federal agency supporting agricultural education and extension activities. Figure 1.1 shows the location of the ARS facilities, land grant universities established under the Morrill Act of 1862, and universities established under the Second Morrill Act of 1890 (historically black land grant colleges). ARS, USDA’s largest research agency, performs most federal in-house agricultural research. ARS has a broad role to develop the knowledge essential to solving technical agricultural problems that are broad in scope and have high national priority. At the end of fiscal year 1994, ARS had a staff of about 6,500 permanent employees, including over 1,900 research scientists and conducted about 1,500 research projects at 128 laboratory locations nationwide and in several foreign countries. Ten years earlier, in fiscal year 1984, 2,600 ARS scientists worked on about 2,700 projects in 140 laboratory locations. In addition, ARS collaborates with land grant universities and other research institutions—through cooperative agreements, memorandums of understanding, and other means—to address research problems of mutual concern. Finally, ARS has established Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with the private sector aimed at translating research into practical products, processes, and services. Under these agreements, ARS scientists and private companies work together to develop and commercialize new technologies. Since 1987, ARS has entered into over 500 cooperative agreements, 239 of which were active in November 1995. In addition, over 200 licenses for ARS-developed technologies have been granted to industries to make, use, and sell ARS-patented inventions. In addition to ARS, the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the Forest Service conduct research. ERS provides economic and social science analyses relating to agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural America. The Forest Service conducts research on forest biology, ecology, and forest products. CSREES distributes funds for research to state agricultural experiment stations (the research arm of land grant universities), schools of forestry, the 1890 historically black land grant colleges and Tuskegee University, colleges of veterinary medicine, and other institutions. It distributes the funds for research through the formula grants program, competitive grants program, special grants program, and various other programs. Specifically: Formula funds are allocated to the states according to statutory formulas that were established in three separate acts. In fiscal year 1994, about 76 percent of the formula funds was distributed under the authority established by the Hatch Act to state agricultural experiment stations to conduct agricultural research. The experiment stations have wide latitude in deciding how to allocate and use these formula funds. Other acts provide formula funds for forestry research, animal health research, and agricultural research at the 1890 historically black land grant colleges and Tuskegee University. The competitive grants program, known as the National Research Initiative (NRI), awards funds on the basis of peer-reviewed research proposals. Each year, NRI publishes a program description and request for proposals. The program is open to scientists both inside and outside of the land grant university system. In fiscal year 1994, 833 grants were awarded to scientists at colleges and universities, other research organizations, and federal agencies. The grants are awarded for a fixed term—usually 1 to 5 years. The special research grants program was established in 1965 as a general authority for agricultural research grants. Conference committee reports accompanying USDA’s appropriations often direct USDA to fund specific research projects at designated institutions (often referred to as “earmarked” projects). These earmarked projects frequently address constituents’ specific concerns and represent the majority of special grant funding (74 percent in fiscal year 1994). The remaining funds are for projects that CSREES designates as national or regional priorities beyond the normal emphasis of the formula grants program. These projects are in areas such as water quality, aquaculture, and integrated pest management. Some of these non-earmarked projects are awarded competitively. Several other grant programs fund specific research, including research on rangelands, sustainable agriculture, and crops such as canola. The Congress also adds line item appropriations for specific research projects. There is considerable debate in the agricultural research community about the efficacy of the various funding mechanisms. The debate often centers on two issues: whether funding mechanisms are creating inefficiencies in allocation and whether federal funds should support local priorities as well as national priorities. For example, supporters of formula funding maintain that these funds provide a steady base of support for long-term research, whereas opponents contend that formula allocations may no longer reflect the areas of greatest research need. Similarly, proponents of competitive grants believe that these grants provide a flexible means of supporting new and emerging high-priority research areas. However, some groups contend that the larger, richer colleges obtain most of the competitive grants at the expense of the land grant colleges in smaller states. Special grant funding is particularly controversial. Supporters maintain that these grants provide the funding needed to address local problems, while critics argue that the states should support issues of local importance and that federal dollars should be directed toward national priorities. In addition to supporting research, CSREES supports extension and technology transfer programs that are conducted in partnership with the states. Extension activities are conducted at the state and local level by extension staff at the land grant universities and about 3,150 extension offices, primarily located in counties and cities. CSREES provides funds for these activities in three areas: basic support for state and local programs; programs designated by the Congress, such as Water Quality and Youth and Families at Risk; and facility construction. The funds for extension activities are distributed to land grant universities through formula grants and competitive programs. CSREES also provides funding for education. Although higher education is almost entirely a state and local function, CSREES supports higher education in food and agricultural sciences through four programs to enhance college and university teaching in agriculture. These programs provide grants for graduate fellowships to attract students into agricultural research and grants that provide incentives for innovations in curriculum development. Finally, to support agricultural research, extension, and higher education, CSREES administers grants to construct and renovate buildings and facilities. Each year the conference committee for USDA’s appropriations specifies funds for specific projects at specific institutions to carry out these activities. About $54 million was appropriated for building and facilities grants in fiscal year 1994. An additional $7.9 million was appropriated for extension facilities at the 1890 historically black land grant universities. The latter funding was requested by USDA. USDA provides considerable support for the agricultural research, education, and extension system; over $2 billion was appropriated for these activities in fiscal year 1994. However, it does not provide the greatest share of funding. In fiscal year 1992 (the most recent year for which private sector data were available), the private sector provided more than half of the research dollars, and the states provided most of the funding for higher education and extension activities. In fiscal year 1992, the federal government funded about 25 percent of all agricultural research, state governments about 15 percent, and the private sector about 60 percent. Federal agricultural research funds supported USDA’s in-house research and research conducted at land grant and other institutions. The states funded research conducted at land grant and other institutions. Private funds supported private sector research and research at land grant institutions and, to a lesser degree, federal laboratories. Figure 1.2 shows the flow of agricultural research funds in fiscal year 1992. $3,416 Million (est.) Industry $3,416 Million (est.) 2. Other institutions include the 1890 historically black land grant colleges and Tuskegee University and veterinary and forestry schools. 3. Private sector funding to the state system includes $143.4 million in direct grants from industry, $116.1 million from product purchases (such as sales of college-owned livestock) and patent license fees, and $121 million from other sources (such as grants from nonprofit foundations). The private sector also provides limited funding to federal research agencies. As shown in the figure, private sector funding for all agricultural research—estimated at $3.8 billion in fiscal year 1992—exceeded the total of $2.5 billion in funds provided by the federal and state governments in that year. Most private sector funds—$3.4 billion—supported specific industry needs, and the results of this research are generally proprietary. As figure 1.2 shows, about 10 percent of this total—$381 million—went to research at land grant universities. In fiscal year 1994, ARS spent 72 percent—$673 million—of the $939 million expended for federal in-house research. ARS’ funding has remained relatively level over the past 10 years, increasing only 5 percent in constant dollars between 1984 and 1994. However, according to ERS, the cost of conducting research increased faster than the overall rate of inflation during this period. If this factor is taken into account, the real level of ARS’ funding decreased by about 10 percent. The remaining $266 million for in-house research was spent by USDA’s Forest Service ($207 million), ERS ($56 million), and the Agricultural Cooperative Service ($3 million). In addition to these direct expenditures for research, USDA also funds the National Agricultural Library and the National Agricultural Statistics Service to provide informational and statistical support. Additional federal funds for agricultural research—$703 million in fiscal year 1994—were spent by the land grant university research system. Of these expenditures, CSREES provided just over 50 percent—about $353 million. This amount included $214 million in formula funds, $63 million in competitive grants for the NRI program, $54 million in special grants, and $22 million in other research grants administered by CSREES. A number of other federal agencies—within and outside of USDA—also contributed to the system. Other USDA agencies provided about 11 percent (about $80 million) of the research funds spent at the land grant universities. Another 38 percent (over $270 million) was provided by other federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health ($68 million), National Science Foundation ($39 million), Department of Health and Human Services ($31 million), and Agency for International Development ($27 million). While the federal contribution to research at the land grant universities is significant, most research support for these institutions comes from the states—over $1 billion in fiscal year 1994. The private sector also provides funds for research, which include grants from industry and nonprofit organizations and revenue generated by commercial sales of products (such as college-owned livestock) and licenses. According to USDA officials, product sales are different in source and purpose from industry grants. Land grant universities can actively develop, manage, and invest in sales operations to provide steady, predictable income. Funding from industry grants, however, is less unpredictable. Figure 1.3 shows the distribution of fiscal year 1994 funds for land grant system research. (App. I provides information on research funding for each state and other jurisdiction in fiscal year 1994.) States ($1,010,861) Private Sector ($417,828) Dollars in parentheses are in thousands. Total funding = $2,131,698,000. Shaded areas note the total federal funding, which is $703,009,000. Percentages total more than 100 percent because of rounding. As shown in figure 1.4, overall funding for land grant research has steadily increased from $1.3 billion to $2.1 billion from 1975 to 1994. However, in constant dollars, funding from the states has declined since 1990, while both federal and private support has increased. Taking all sources of support for land grant research into account, the states’ share decreased by 10 percent between 1975 and 1994. Private sector funding more than doubled over the period, from about $196 million to about $418 million in constant 1994 dollars. In 1975, the greatest proportion—49 percent—of private sector funding came from product sales by the universities, with an additional 31 percent from grants and 20 percent from other sources (e.g., grants from nonprofit foundations). However, by 1995, product sales accounted for 29 percent of private sector funding, ranking third behind grants (37 percent) and other sources (35 percent). Overall, federal, state, and county governments provided almost $1.4 billion in fiscal year 1994 for extension activities. Extension activities also received approximately $76 million from such sources as private grants, endowments, and fees charged for services. Total funding for higher education in the agricultural sciences is not available. (App. I provides information on federal extension funding for each state and other jurisdiction in fiscal year 1994.) To support extension and education activities in fiscal year 1994, the federal government provided about $419 million for extension activities—over 70 percent of these funds was distributed by formula, and the remainder was designated by USDA or congressional committees for specific programs. The federal government’s support for extension activities constituted about 29 percent of all funding for extension activities. The states’ and counties’ funding for extension activities are clearly much more significant. In fiscal year 1994, state and county governments provided almost $1 billion, or about 65 percent of the total funding for these activities. While the total funding for higher education in agriculture-related areas is not available, the federal support in this area has been and continues to be subordinate to the states’ support. In fiscal year 1994, USDA provided about $12.8 million for higher education. As shown in figure 1.5, the total funds for extension services increased slightly between 1975 and 1994. However, the federal share of the total decreased from 40 percent to 29 percent over the period. The Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House Committee on Agriculture and its Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research and Forestry asked us to examine the U.S. research, education, and extension system. Specifically, we agreed to (1) provide an overview of the system; (2) obtain the views of various users of agricultural research on the extent to which USDA and the land grant universities are meeting their research needs and on how effectively research results are being disseminated; and (3) assess USDA’s processes for planning and establishing research priorities. To address the first objective, we reviewed the legislative history of the agricultural research, education, and extension system; examined the literature assessing various aspects of the system; and obtained and reviewed documents describing the mission, organizational structures, staffing, funding mechanisms, and budgets of USDA’s research organizations. We obtained information on federal, state, and private expenditures for agricultural research from USDA’s Current Research Information System. We performed a limited review of the accuracy of the funding data, but we did not independently verify it. We engaged a consultant, Dr. Ron Cooper, to provide technical advice on agricultural research and assist in analyzing funding data obtained from USDA. For the second objective, we conducted a nationwide mail survey of 492 associations that deal with food and agriculture issues. We obtained the list of associations from the 1995 Encyclopedia of Associations. The food- and agriculture-related associations in the encyclopedia represent areas such as agribusiness, agricultural science, animal breeding, conservation, forestry, fruits and vegetables, livestock, nurseries, and poultry. These organizations provide a cross-section of the potential customers of agricultural research. However, they do not include such customers as individual farmers, producers, and extension agents. A total of 218 associations, representing a 44-percent response rate, completed and returned the survey. The responses from these associations, which we report in chapter 2, cannot be generalized to other users of agricultural research. An additional 41 associations returned the survey and indicated they were not familiar with agricultural research; they did not complete the survey. A copy of the survey, including total responses, is included in appendix II. Appendix III lists the 218 associations that completed the survey. To address the second objective, we also interviewed land grant university scientists and administrators in eight states (California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas) and other research customers, including farmers, commodity groups, public interest groups, private companies, and extension specialists and/or administrators in those states and Washington, D.C. To address the third objective, we reviewed relevant literature and USDA planning documents and strategic plans; previous GAO reports; and reports from USDA’s Office of Inspector General, the Congressional Research Service, the National Research Council, the Office of Technology Assessment, and ERS. Within USDA, we interviewed officials from ARS, CSREES, and the Research, Education, and Economics mission area. In addition, we interviewed the Chair, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges’ Board on Agriculture; the Executive Director, National Research Council’s Board on Agriculture; ARS laboratory and regional directors; and deans, department heads, and extension specialists at the land grant universities in the eight states mentioned above. We also interviewed officials and obtained documents concerning research evaluation from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology at the Department of Commerce. Unless otherwise noted, the dollar figures we report are in constant 1994 dollars. We conducted our review from July 1995 through February 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We provided USDA with a draft of our report for comment. USDA’s comments and our response are in appendix VII. Most of the 218 associations responding to our survey, representing a broad spectrum of the food and agriculture sector, believe that the research performed by ARS and the land grant universities is either somewhat or very effective in meeting their needs. Similarly, most associations that responded said that state extension services are either somewhat or very effective in disseminating research results. Not surprisingly, however, many of the associations believe that the sector needs more funding for agricultural research and extension. In response to perceived funding constraints, some associations and private companies are funding desired research themselves or entering into partnerships with ARS laboratories and land grant universities. Similarly, USDA and the land grant universities are initiating collaborative efforts to make better use of limited resources. Over 65 percent of the associations responding to our survey believed that the research conducted by ARS and the land grant universities was somewhat or very effective in meeting their needs. The respondents also indicated that the areas of plant sciences, integrated pest management,animal sciences, and food safety were most useful to them. The associations’ views were mixed regarding ARS’ and the land grant universities’ ability to respond to changing research needs. Of the 218 associations responding to our survey, 81 percent rated research conducted at land grant universities as somewhat or very effective in meeting their research needs. Sixty-six percent gave these ratings for ARS’ research. Figure 2.1 summarizes the respondents’ views on the effectiveness of the research. Some of the associations that rated ARS and/or land grant universities as very effective in meeting their members’ needs supplemented their ratings with written comments. For example, an association of plant physiologists indicated that the National Research Initiative’s competitive grant research, which is primarily conducted at land grant universities, was contributing significantly to advancements in agricultural research. A state association of apricot producers commented that both ARS and land grant universities play a major role in the continuing survival of the agricultural economy. Another association, representing ranchers, commented on the high caliber of the scientists performing research at land grant universities, but it also expressed the need for scientists to spend more time with agricultural groups to identify producers’ needs. The need for obtaining greater input from customers was also raised by some associations that rated ARS’ and the land grant universities’ research as somewhat effective in meeting members’ needs. For example, an association representing the poultry and egg industry commented that agricultural research should be more problem-oriented and that industry should have a greater voice in the program. On the other hand, an environmental and research association rated ARS’ and land grant universities’ research as very ineffective because it believed that their research programs were largely determined by commercial needs and did not sufficiently address environmental needs. As shown in figure 2.2, research on plant and animal sciences was most useful to 37 percent (23 percent and 14 percent, respectively) of the respondents. In addition, 18 percent of the responding associations rated the research areas of integrated pest management and food safety as most useful. Our survey results were mixed concerning USDA’s and the land grant universities’ ability to respond to emerging research needs. Specifically, 43 percent of the associations responding to the survey believed that ARS’ response to changing research needs was somewhat or very adequate, while about 26 percent believed that it was somewhat or very inadequate. With respect to the land grant universities, about 52 percent rated their response to emerging needs as somewhat or very adequate, while about 21 percent rated it somewhat or very inadequate. (See fig. 2.3.) For example, a public policy organization commented that both ARS and, to a lesser extent, the land grant universities are slow in responding to changing priorities unless they are of high public interest. This institute indicated that higher priority should be given to research on the nutritional quality of food and growing food with fewer chemicals. Another association that conducts and funds agricultural research commented that the departmental structure of land grant universities made it difficult for them to develop new programs. Finally, an association that represents farmers indicated that both ARS and the land grant universities needed to give higher priority to research on rural development. Seventy percent of the respondents indicated that state extension services were somewhat or very effective in disseminating research results. (See fig. 2.4.) While 45 percent indicated that extension services were one of their primary sources for obtaining research results, the respondents also obtained research information from other sources. Seventy-seven percent obtained research results from publications and 55 percent through professional networking. While most associations we surveyed found value in the extension services’ role in disseminating research results, 44 percent believed that increased funding was necessary to improve research dissemination. One respondent commented that in addition to a reduction in funding, there has been a shift of funds from agriculture to social issues. In 1995, USDA sponsored focus groups with users of agricultural research and extension. The participants agreed that many issues needed to be addressed in connection with the extension services, including the appropriate role for the services. Other research customers that we spoke with, as well as state and federal research and extension officials, raised similar concerns. For example, several land grant officials told us that the effectiveness of the extension services in disseminating agricultural research results has been diminished as a result of the increased emphasis on social issues, such as community and economic development, family and youth services, and nutrition and health information. One administrator of a land grant university commented that the need to respond to social issues has diverted the extension services from their basic mission of transferring research information and technology. Other customers of agricultural research commented that it was difficult for extension agents to provide all the information that producers need because there are too few agents. On the other hand, two extension service administrators said that the services’ increased emphasis on social issues was needed and appropriate. USDA officials recognize that there are divergent concerns and are examining the federal role in supporting extension services. Not surprisingly, many users of agricultural research believe that current funding for research is inadequate and needs to be increased. As discussed in chapter 1, funding for ARS has been relatively level over the past decade, while the cost of performing research increased faster than the rate of inflation. Similarly, although total funding for land grant university research and the extension services increased moderately during the 1990s, state funding for these activities decreased. Concerns about funding constraints by users of research as well as those conducting it have resulted in alternative funding arrangements, the formation of research partnerships among members of the research community, and calls for more efficient use of existing resources. The respondents to our survey expressed varying degrees of concern about the appropriate levels of federal and state funding for agricultural research. Forty-five percent of the respondents said that too little federal funding was provided for ARS, and 58 and 62 percent, respectively, indicated that too little federal and state funding was provided for research by the land grant universities. (See fig. 2.5.) For example, a state association of fruit producers responded that federal and state governments provided too little funding for land grant universities and that funding cuts would jeopardize the agricultural sector. Another association of farmers commented that ARS fulfills a necessary and vital function but that its ability to fulfill its role is often limited by inadequate physical and financial resources. An association of agricultural scientists voiced similar concerns about inadequate funding and added that greater coordination of research between the government, industry, and academia was particularly important when budgets are constrained. Some of the administrators of land grant universities that we spoke with also discussed the impact of funding constraints on their operations. For example, Kansas State University eliminated its corn, grass, and alfalfa breeding programs because administrators felt that research in these areas already being conducted by the Universities of Nebraska and Missouri would be applicable to Kansas farmers. They noted, however, that over time the university may lack adequate programs to train future scientists to conduct research in these breeding programs. At Michigan State University, officials said that federal funding for agricultural research had not increased for many years and that formula grant funds had not kept pace with inflation. In response to funding limitations, some private sector organizations we visited as well as some of the associations we surveyed are providing resources to USDA and the land grant universities to perform the research they need. For example, a Pennsylvania meat processing company has supported ARS’ research over the last 10 years by allowing agency scientists to have access to the company’s facilities. Through this arrangement, ARS scientists conduct research on meat in the processing plant itself. The research undertaken in this partnership includes efforts to reduce pathogens on equipment, eliminate salmonella in meat, and develop a system for using recycled water in food processing plants. Another association representing producers and processors in the poultry and egg industry told us it spends about $1.2 million annually on research in poultry processing, poultry breeding, feed mill management, and poultry health. In 1995, it helped fund about 80 research projects at ARS and land grant universities. Additionally, since 1987, over 500 companies have entered into Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with ARS to develop and commercialize new technology. In addition, some land grant universities are initiating efforts to use resources more efficiently through increased collaboration, as shown in the following examples: The Midwest Water Quality Initiative has brought together scientists from land grant universities, ARS, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection Agency as well as extension service specialists. The project involves designing and field-testing alternative farming systems in five states and evaluating their effects on water quality. The ARS Food Animal Protection Research Laboratory at College Station, Texas, works with a land grant institution to reduce salmonella in poultry. The ARS laboratory is a focal point for (1) developing new technology, (2) obtaining the Food and Drug Administration’s approval to test the technology in commerce, (3) developing research partnerships with universities and private industry, and (4) transferring the technology to the private sector. A tri-state food safety consortium—comprising Kansas State University, Iowa State University, and the University of Arkansas—was initially funded by a special grant but is currently funded by a combination of formula funds, special grants, state funds, and private industry grants. Memorandums of understanding were prepared to spell out the funding, structure, and cooperative agreements among the universities to perform interdisciplinary research on meat-borne pathogens. Kansas State specializes in beef animal research, Iowa State in swine research, and the University of Arkansas in poultry research. According to Kansas State officials, this coalition of researchers has improved communication and collaboration, education and training, technology transfer, and the overall efficiency and effectiveness of conducting research. To promote more efficient use of resources, USDA officials are proposing regional centers specializing in high-priority research areas. Scientists participating in these centers would not necessarily be physically co-located. Fundamental to this concept is the notion that not all institutions need to have research programs in all specialties or problem areas. USDA officials believe that such centers would be less costly to taxpayers since they make better use of resources by reducing the need for a broad range of specialized expertise at every laboratory or university. In view of the concerns about funding levels for agricultural research and the current environment of fiscal constraint, it is critical that USDA’s funds be allocated as effectively and efficiently as possible. USDA’s primary influence on research priorities lies in the over $800 million budgeted for ARS and the National Research Initiative (NRI) competitive grants program, which is administered by CSREES. In connection with these programs, we found that the following problems hamper the effectiveness and efficiency of USDA’s processes for identifying research priorities, allocating resources among those priorities, and achieving accountability for research expenditures: USDA lacks a Department-wide research agenda to guide priority setting. Furthermore, the priority-setting processes used by two of its principal research agencies—ARS and CSREES—do not include important elements of planning and accountability. For example, neither agency incorporates performance goals or indicators into its processes or comprehensively evaluates the outcomes of its research programs. USDA’s research information system does not provide sufficient information on the costs of research or the outcomes of research projects. The three general advisory boards established to assist USDA’s research agencies in setting priorities have had limited impact. In addition, USDA’s ability to shift resources among research priorities is limited by an aging infrastructure (e.g., laboratories and equipment), directives from congressional committees that specific research activities be undertaken, pressures from commodity and interest groups to maintain funding in their areas of interest, and low funding levels for the NRI program. As a result of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and the administration’s 1995 Farm Bill Guidance, USDA has developed plans and proposals to improve its priority setting for research. Key to these actions is a move toward an outcome-oriented strategic planning process with performance goals and indicators to determine if the goals were achieved. While these initiatives have the potential to address some of the problems we identified, more time will be needed to assess their impact. USDA has not developed a Department-wide agenda to guide the activities of its research agencies. Instead, ARS and CSREES independently plan and set priorities for the research over which they have primary influence—ARS’ in-house research and CSREES’ NRI program. Although CSREES also funds agricultural research through formula funds and special grants to the land grant universities and other institutions, it has a minimal impact in directing the use of these funds. In addition, neither ARS nor the NRI program (1) incorporates performance goals or indicators into its priority-setting processes, (2) assesses the relative importance of its research priorities in the context of USDA’s total research portfolio (i.e., research activities conducted and/or funded by USDA), or (3) comprehensively evaluates the outcomes of its research programs. ARS and CSREES plan and implement in-house research programs independently, with limited coordination between them and without the benefit of Department-level mission objectives and strategies. According to USDA officials, problems in cooperation among USDA’s research agencies are long-standing and result, in large part, from (1) a lack of incentives for interagency cooperation and (2) competition for funding. The officials added that although cooperation between the agencies has been lacking, scientists from ARS and the land grant universities frequently collaborate and share information on scientific issues. In addition, the NRI program has a board of directors comprising the administrators of USDA’s research agencies. USDA officials noted that the board is designed to provide coordination in such areas as program planning and reviewing proposals. While ARS and the NRI program have their own priority-setting processes that serve their particular needs, the processes are similar in several ways. Both categorize their research into broad program areas (currently six for ARS and seven for NRI) that generally correspond to the priorities established in the 1990 Farm Bill. Within these broad program areas, ARS has identified 52 research priorities and the NRI program, 27. In addition, both obtain information on research needs from a wide range of stakeholders, including the Congress, commodity and interest groups, USDA advisory groups, and others. ARS has shifted its emphasis among its six research areas only marginally over the past 12 years. As shown in table 3.1, funding in each area, as a percentage of total funding, changed less than 4 percentage points from fiscal years 1982 to 1994. The percentage of funding allocated among six of NRI’s seven research areas changed little from fiscal year 1992 to 1994. As discussed later, directives from congressional committees and legislation have affected the allocation of funds among NRI’s research areas. With total funding of about $100 million during those years, the program has allotted about 40 percent of its funds to plant systems, 25 percent to animal systems, 20 percent to natural resources, 7 percent to nutrition, and 4 percent each to (1) processing for value-added and (2) markets, trade, and rural development. The seventh research area—agricultural systems—was added by program staff in fiscal year 1994 and funded with 2 percent of the funds from each of the other six areas. Concerns about the inadequacies in USDA’s research planning and priority-setting processes are not new. Reports dating back 15 years have identified the need to improve USDA’s strategic planning to provide a basis for more efficient research management. For example, in a 1981 review of long-term planning for agricultural research, GAO called upon USDA to prepare a long-term assessment of the food and agriculture sector’s needs and to determine the research necessary to meet those needs. Similarly, in 1993 the Office of Technology Assessment testified on the need to set better and more consistent goals for USDA’s research. It noted that resources cannot be allocated appropriately unless priorities are determined and goals established. Although formula funds and special grants made up about 70 percent of CSREES’ research funding in fiscal year 1994, USDA generally has had a limited impact on establishing priorities for these programs. The systemwide priorities for formula funds distributed to agricultural experiment stations under the Hatch Act are laid out by a committee of experiment station administrators under the auspices of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. CSREES is one of many participants involved in the strategic planning process used to develop these priorities every 4 years. (See app. IV for a summary of this process.) According to a CSREES official, the agency’s role in the planning process is to help ensure that systemwide priorities fall within the six broad program areas set out in the 1990 Farm Bill. While CSREES administers the Hatch Act’s formula funds and has certain oversight responsibilities for them, it does not play an agenda-setting role in directing their use. This situation is not surprising since CSREES provided less than 30 percent of the total funding for land grant research in fiscal year 1994. (See ch. 1 for information on agricultural research funding.) CSREES awards two categories of special grants: those involving funds for specific research projects at specified institutions designated in reports from appropriations committees (often referred to as “earmarked” grants) and those that CSREES awards to address areas it has identified as national or regional needs. In fiscal year 1994, special grant funding was about $71 million, of which about $53 million was designated in congressional committees’ reports. USDA has little to no impact on setting priorities for earmarked special grants. These grants, which often reflect local interests, support projects in all 50 states and several other locations. (See app. I for the locations and amounts of special grant funding in fiscal year 1994.) As with formula funds, CSREES has administrative and oversight responsibilities for the grants. For example, CSREES staff review all special grant proposals from eligible institutions, focusing on potential duplication of research and the quality of the science. The agency discusses its comments with grant applicants; however, according to an agency official, it rarely disapproves earmarked special grant proposals. According to USDA officials, CSREES has considerable influence over the special grants that are not earmarked. In fiscal year 1994, CSREES was allocated approximately $18 million to fund projects that primarily involve problems of national and local interest in such areas as water quality and integrated pest management. CSREES awarded about $7 million of these grants competitively. These grants were also used to support interagency agreements, cooperative agreements, and research consortia. Neither ARS nor the NRI program has incorporated performance goals or indicators into its research programs. Such tools would allow target levels of performance to be set and the results of program performance to be measured. These measures would enhance the management of research programs and strengthen accountability for research expenditures. Furthermore, the data obtained from such measures are important in evaluating research outcomes. In addition, neither program systematically assesses the relative importance of its research priorities in the context of USDA’s overall research portfolio. Although individual research projects are assessed for scientific merit within a specific area of research, the projects are not assessed in terms of their relative contributions to USDA’s total portfolio. Without such assessments, there can be little assurance that research resources are being appropriately allocated to the areas of greatest need. Similarly, USDA does not employ comprehensive evaluations of the impacts of research programs—the total consequences of research programs, including both intended and unintended positive and negative results. Such evaluations can provide important information, such as social and economic costs and benefits. This information is useful in making informed decisions on research investments and enhancing accountability. Currently, NRI’s and ARS’ evaluations primarily involve peer reviews of proposed projects. For example, in ARS, scientists peer-review project plans to improve the scientific quality of proposed projects. ARS also uses various types of peer review in assessing individual scientists’ accomplishments for purposes of promotion; conducting research planning workshops; and reviewing manuscripts, laboratories, and research areas. The NRI program uses peer review panels to assess the quality, relevance, and importance of each proposal submitted to NRI. Panels rank proposals and submit recommendations to NRI’s chief scientist for use in determining which proposals to fund. In 1994, the National Research Council’s Board on Agriculture found that USDA had done little to track the output of the NRI program and recommended that USDA systematically evaluate the program’s performance. In addition, the board suggested that USDA evaluate its investment in agricultural research across all four of its research funding areas—NRI competitive grants, in-house research, formula funds, and special grants. According to USDA research officials, the Department’s upcoming strategic planning process for research will address these issues. According to USDA officials, the Department’s Current Research Information System (CRIS) does not provide the information needed to facilitate strategic planning, priority setting, and accountability. CRIS is a computerized database, used by thousands of researchers and others, to document and inventory publicly funded agricultural research. Developed in the late 1960s, the system was intended to help researchers and others to identify research projects. However, it was not designed to be a management information system that would give managers the information they need for strategic planning and priority setting. As a result, CRIS lacks information important to managers and policymakers, such as planned expenditures and outcomes for research conducted by other agencies. Although CRIS is the only national database with information on publicly funded agricultural research, it has significant limitations, according to USDA and university officials. First, its system for classifying research activities into categories does not include many current research areas. For example, neither sustainable agriculture nor biotechnology, which are current areas of major concern, are standard CRIS categories. To identify projects in these areas, CRIS users must judgmentally select a combination of standard categories, with no assurance that projects identified by one user will be the same as those identified by another user. As a result, USDA cannot accurately identify the extent of publicly funded research in those categories. In 1993, USDA contracted with the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station to assess CRIS. The assessment recommended, among other things, that USDA change the classification system by adding new categories, such as biotechnology, and eliminating others that are obsolete. USDA has initiated a project to develop a new classification system with a target completion date of summer 1997. In addition, CRIS lacks such information as planned research expenditures and comprehensive data on agricultural and food science projects supported by other federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, CRIS does not track progress toward achieving desired research outcomes. In addition, according to USDA officials, information on outcomes is often incomplete because land grant universities and others do not systematically collect data on the outcomes of their research projects. USDA and other members of the research community believe that such information is necessary in order to provide accountability for public research expenditures. Oregon Invests, a database developed by Oregon State University, is one of the few agricultural research databases that describe the potential economic, social, and environmental outcomes of its research projects. (App. V describes this system.) Finally, CRIS’ data are not current. For example, financial information on fiscal year 1995 research activities will not be compiled until June 1996 because some states and agencies delay in providing data to USDA. To address these problems, USDA officials stated that the Department has requested funding in its fiscal year 1997 budget request to develop a system to include data on research, extension, and education issues. Agency officials said that if the Congress does not provide the requested funds, USDA will be unable to develop a system with the substantial improvements and expanded capabilities needed to respond to congressional mandates, including the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and other accountability requirements. Without additional funds, they will consider scaling back the data maintained in CRIS and focus on improving the timeliness and quality of the remaining data. The three general advisory boards established by the Congress to advise USDA on research activities have played a negligible role in establishing research priorities. Two of the boards—the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences and the National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board—were established in 1977 to improve coordination and priority setting within USDA and the land grant research and extension system. A third board, the Agricultural Science and Technology Review Board, was established in 1990 to provide advice on emerging technologies. (See app. VI for an overview of these boards as well as 10 other research advisory committees.) According to USDA’s Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, the practical impact of these boards has been minimal. The boards’ recommendations have been used primarily to validate what USDA has already determined should be priorities and to support budget requests. In recent years, funding for the general advisory boards has been so reduced that they have been unable to adequately fulfill their roles, according to USDA officials. In fiscal years 1992 through 1994, the funding levels decreased by more than 50 percent. The limited budget has affected some boards’ ability to fulfill their mandated responsibilities, such as updating the Joint Council’s 5-year plan and preparing the Users Advisory Board’s annual report commenting on the President’s budget for agricultural sciences. As a result of the environment in which its research programs are conducted, USDA faces a number of limitations on its ability to shift resources among research areas. These include ARS’ aging infrastructure that cannot easily be adapted to meet new research needs, direction from congressional committees on specific research activities and laboratories, pressures from commodity and interest groups to maintain funding levels for projects in their areas of interest, and low funding levels for the NRI program. ARS’ infrastructure—facilities, equipment, research scientists, and land—has evolved over the decades to support specific research needs, some of which have declined in importance. The need to maintain this infrastructure has limited ARS’ ability to move into new research areas that require different equipment, facilities, and scientific expertise. ARS has over 1,900 permanent research scientists, almost 3,000 buildings, and about 400,000 acres at 107 laboratory locations and 35 worksites in the United States and Puerto Rico and at 4 foreign locations. Some of this infrastructure, such as quarantine facilities and special equipment for work on recombinant DNA and foreign animal diseases, was acquired to conduct specific types of research and cannot be easily modified for use in other research areas. Moreover, scientists at these facilities have acquired specialized expertise. ARS has about 40 scientific career tracks for research scientists, the primary ones being chemistry, entomology, plant physiology, genetics, and microbiology. Within these fields, many ARS scientists have acquired expertise in specific commodities, insects, and diseases. According to an ARS official, while the agency moves these scientists to related areas, major shifts can cause reductions in productivity. Successful research depends on the training and experience of individual scientists and on the teamwork that develops within and among laboratories. For both individuals and groups, many years are required to reach peak productivity. Congressional committees’ directives and legislation affect CSREES’ and ARS’ abilities to implement priorities by limiting their ability to shift funding to different research areas, commodities, and/or facilities. Congressional committees’ directives have had the greatest impact on CSREES’ special grants program—in particular, the earmarked grants. As discussed earlier, each year the conference committee for USDA’s appropriations legislation directs that a large portion of special grant funding be awarded to specific institutions for specific purposes. The National Research Council reported in 1995 that congressionally earmarked special grants are much more significant today, in terms of total USDA research funding to the land grant universities, than they were 20 years ago. According to USDA, while the earmarking of special grants meets the priorities of constituents in specific congressional districts, the process dilutes the Department’s ability to coordinate research activities and address national priorities. USDA has recommended that earmarks be eliminated and that all special grants be awarded competitively. USDA’s ability to establish priorities for the NRI program has also been affected by directives from congressional committees and by legislation. According to USDA officials, congressional direction and legislation drive the broad priorities of the NRI program; however, CSREES sets specific priorities for research within these broad categories. When the program was established in the 1990 Farm Bill, the Congress specified that it fund research in six broad categories, as discussed above, and, where appropriate, that grants be consistent with the goals of sustainable agriculture. The legislation also identified the percentages of funds to be allocated for specific types of research. For example, at least 30 percent of NRI funds was to support multidisciplinary research by fiscal year 1993. In addition, in fiscal year 1995, the House Committee on Appropriations directed that $10.8 million of the program’s $103 million be awarded for specific programs. The Committee designated $2.5 million for the U.S.-Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development programand $8.3 million for three research programs—water quality, integrated pest management, and pesticide impact assessment. The fiscal year 1996 appropriations had no committee directives for the NRI program. While CSREES plans to continue funding research in the three designated areas, it does not plan to fund the U.S.-Israel research program with NRI’s funds. In connection with the formula funds authorized by the Hatch Act, legislation has shaped the structure, purpose, and funding of research programs supported by these funds. However, congressional committees’ directions have had little impact on the agricultural research conducted by land grant universities that are the recipients of formula funds. As discussed in chapter 1, Hatch Act formula funds are distributed to the states on the basis of a mandated formula. Systemwide priorities are established for these funds. However, in reality, each experiment station has considerable latitude in allocating and using formula funds to meet the needs of its respective state and local communities. Congressional committees’ directives have also affected ARS’ ability to reallocate resources. For example, two appropriations committees’ reports on agriculture appropriations have stated that in complying with the committees’ intentions, ARS is expected not to “redirect support for programs from one state to another without prior notification to and approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.” According to a former ARS Administrator and other ARS officials, most research funds can be traced through the years as having been earmarked or targeted by congressional committees for specific commodities or states. Local economies are sometimes closely tied to a particular commodity. Thus, it is not surprising that the congressional representatives of such communities will seek to ensure that research efforts relating to that commodity are undertaken and maintained. Appropriations committees’ directives have also made it difficult for ARS to close laboratories that are old, possibly underutilized, and perform research similar to that of other ARS locations. For example, according to an ARS official, over 60 percent of ARS’ facilities are over 30 years old, and in 1995, 50 ARS laboratories had less than 10 scientists each. As of fiscal year 1993, ARS estimated that $700 million was required to repair its facilities, many of which do not meet modern building codes or the technical demands of high-technology research programs. When funds are spent on building renovation and modernization, fewer funds are available for research. Recognizing this problem, ARS proposed closing 12 laboratories in its fiscal year 1996 budget request. However, the House and Senate committees’ reports for USDA’s appropriations directed that a total of nine of these laboratories remain open and that the research conducted at the remaining three continue to be funded. In addition, ARS and other USDA research officials noted that pressures from commodity and other interest groups affect ARS’ ability to shift resources among research areas. According to USDA, the responsiveness of the federal research agencies has been driven by the ability of groups to organize and gain access to the policy-making process. USDA officials noted that these groups act as “watchdogs,” tracking funding by commodity or problem area and working through their congressional representatives or through ARS to ensure that funding in their areas of interest is not reduced. For example, according to ARS officials, as a result of the Cotton Council’s long-term influence, ARS funds cotton research at levels higher than it would otherwise. ARS currently conducts about 100 cotton-related research projects—which include breeding, production, pest control, and cotton processing and finishing—at 20 separate locations. The NRI program has never been fully funded, thus limiting the program’s effectiveness in meeting its goals. The 1990 Farm Bill authorized the program at $150 million in fiscal year 1991, with increases each year, reaching $500 million in fiscal year 1995. However, appropriations have hovered at about $100 million for each of fiscal years 1992 through 1995. Both the Office of Technology Assessment and the National Research Council’s Board on Agriculture, in separate evaluations of the NRI program, concluded that the program was underfunded. In 1994, the Council’s Board on Agriculture recommended that the program be funded at its authorized level of $500 million. According to the Board, competitive grants are the best way to stimulate fundamental research activities in specific areas of science. At current funding levels, the Board felt that the program would be unable to achieve the goals envisioned for it. In a report issued the following year, the Office of Technology Assessment concluded that insufficient funding was detrimental to NRI’s goals, increased the frustration and lowered the productivity of participating scientists, and made obtaining foundational knowledge (i.e., knowledge that serves as a basis for applied research) more difficult. According to the Acting Deputy Administrator, CSREES, the NRI program was set up to support a $150 million to $200 million annual program, in terms of the number of priority areas receiving funding. Because of the funding shortfalls, program staff have begun reducing the number of research priorities funded each year. Starting in fiscal year 1996, not all of the 27 priorities will be funded annually. For example, in fiscal year 1996, they are not requesting project proposals for “biological control research,” a current priority under the plant research area. As a result of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and the administration’s 1995 Farm Bill Guidance, USDA has taken, or is planning to take, several actions to improve the planning and management of research. It is too soon, however, to evaluate the effectiveness of these steps. GPRA requires, among other things, that agencies develop strategic plans that contain goals and objectives for the agencies’ major functions. In response to this mandate, USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics mission area is spearheading the development of a 5-year strategic plan that it expects to begin implementing in fall 1996. The draft plan includes desired outcomes for the mission area as well as general goals intended to facilitate attainment of the outcomes and articulate the mission area’s direction for the 5-year period. The mission area plans to prepare its annual plan and budget using the priorities of the strategic plan. Beginning with the fiscal year 1998 budget request, its goals, objectives, and outcomes are expected to be published, thus enabling the Congress to base appropriation decisions on the mission area’s performance in executing its strategic plan. The mission area’s current draft strategic plan outlines five desired outcomes: An agricultural production system that is highly competitive in the global economy. A safe and secure food and fiber system. A healthy, well-nourished population. Greater harmony between agriculture and the environment. Enhanced opportunity for farmers, ranchers, and rural people and communities. The plan also lists several important challenges, such as the need to strengthen federal-state partnerships, manage the downsizing of programs without compromising their priorities, and improve the public’s understanding and appreciation of the value of agricultural research. Ultimately, USDA intends to measure the performance of research activities according to their contributions to one or more of these outcomes. However, as discussed earlier, CRIS currently does not track research outcomes. To be consistent with GPRA, each agency in the mission area is developing its own strategic plan describing how it will contribute to achieving the mission area’s outcomes. The mission area anticipates that its draft strategic plan will be completed by March 31, 1996. After that, the mission area is planning an extensive review process with the Congress, customers, partners, and stakeholders before the plan is finalized by early fall 1996. The draft strategic plan addresses, or plans to address, many of the shortcomings we identified in USDA’s processes for setting research priorities. Specifically: Through its desired outcomes, the mission area’s draft plan provides an agenda and a direction for the research programs of its component agencies. To be consistent with GPRA, the mission area’s strategic plan, as well as the plans of its component agencies, will identify priorities and use those priorities as the basis for developing annual budgets. GPRA requires agencies to establish performance goals and indicators. ARS’ draft plan contains such goals and indicators, and CSREES officials said they plan to define performance goals and measures for the NRI program. The need for improved evaluations of the outcomes of USDA’s research programs has been recognized both within and outside of USDA. At the same time, however, there is acknowledgement that such evaluations are difficult to implement and costly to perform. For example: Research efforts—particularly those in basic research—often take many years before they yield results that are apparent as measurable impacts. Research outcomes are usually the result of many factors, not just one project or set of projects. Furthermore, they are often not easily quantifiable, particularly in areas such as the environment or human health. The costs of evaluation studies can range from under $50,000 to over $1 million, according to a 1994 study prepared by a practitioners’ working group on research evaluation for the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The study adds that evaluations cannot be done competently unless they receive adequate funding. Comprehensive evaluations of research programs have been relatively rare, according to a RAND draft report being developed for the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Most assessments of federal research programs are descriptive—far removed from the quantification of performance generally required under GPRA. However, several agencies are undertaking efforts to quantify the impacts of research. For example: The Advanced Technology Program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology funds projects expected to lead to new technologies that award recipients will commercialize through the use of funds from other sources. The program is attempting to track short-term results and long-term national economic impacts. Research evaluation begins with market and industry assessments to better understand the potential of proposed projects. During project implementation, the program attempts to assess the research’s impact through occasional surveys of, among other things, awardees’ perceptions of the program’s short-term impacts. It also conducts case studies of projects to determine the rate at which new technologies are adopted and changes experienced by the participating company as a result of the project. The program is currently exploring ways to project the impact of the research across the entire economy (e.g., national employment and industrial output measures) through the use of large-scale macroeconomic models in conjunction with microeconomic project analysis. The Office of Energy Research at the U.S. Department of Energy conducts highly structured peer assessments of selected programs, evaluating hundreds of projects each year. Projects are rated using standard categories, which results in quantitative ratings that can be compared across projects to identify those projects needing improvement. While recognizing the difficulties inherent in evaluating research outcomes, USDA officials say they are committed to strengthening the evaluation of their research programs. To meet GPRA’s requirements, the Research, Education, and Economics mission area plans to develop a set of quantitative and qualitative evaluations for its research programs. According to USDA officials, the quantitative assessments will measure research outcomes in a variety of ways, depending on the research being evaluated. For example, some programs may use a scored survey of customers’ satisfaction, whereas others may employ a retrospective (after-the-fact) review based on benchmark data. These reviews will be used in conjunction with more subjective qualitative assessments, such as experts’ reviews of research programs and anecdotal success stories. These evaluations will require varying amounts of resources. USDA officials noted that some evaluation methods that are labor intensive may be prohibitively expensive and that data systems will need to be modified to collect the necessary information. The administration’s 1995 Farm Bill Guidance called for, among other things, changes in USDA’s agricultural research and extension program to improve coordination among USDA’s agencies and to streamline the advisory committees’ structure. The proposal would create a council of high-ranking officials from USDA’s research agencies and all the Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries in the Department. This council is intended to help establish agencywide research priorities. In addition, the proposal would have USDA consolidate its three general research advisory boards into one National Research, Education, and Economics Advisory Committee, advised by four regional subcommittees. This proposal reflects the concern of USDA officials that there are more advisory groups than are needed and can be adequately supported. The membership of the proposed committee would include representatives of commodity groups, general agriculture organizations, resource conservation groups, consumers, and the land grant university community. The committee would advise USDA and the land grant universities on the priorities relating to the five outcomes outlined in the mission area’s strategic plan and play a role in obtaining broader input to the plan from customers. This reorganization will require congressional approval. Finally, the administration called for the reauthorization of an Agriculture Research Facilities Study Commission to make recommendations for closing, consolidating, constructing, or modernizing federally funded facilities. The 1990 Farm Bill authorized a similar commission; however, the commission was never funded. The newly proposed commission would include representatives from the land grant university community and from farm, commodity, resource conservation, scientific, and consumer organizations. In addition, the commission would outline a 10-year strategic plan for federally funded facilities from a national and regional perspective.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided an overview of the U.S. agricultural research, education, and extension system, focusing on: (1) how well certain agricultural research users believe the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and land grant universities are meeting users' research needs and disseminating their research results; and (2) USDA approaches to setting research priorities. GAO found that: (1) the U.S. agricultural research, education, and extension system is diverse and decentralized and has both governmental and private components; (2) USDA is a key player in that it conducts in-house research and funds in partnership with states activities at 74 land-grant universities and other institutions; (3) the private sector also conducts and funds research, usually for proprietary purposes; (4) in fiscal year (FY) 1992, agricultural research expenditures totaled about $6.3 billion with the private sector contributing 60 percent, the federal government 25 percent, and states 15 percent; (5) in FY 1994, the federal government spent $419 million on extension activities while states and counties spent almost $1 billion; (6) most agricultural research users believe that USDA and land grant universities' research and information dissemination is effective in meeting their needs, but many also believe that the research's level of public funding and dissemination are inadequate; (7) users, USDA, and universities have formed partnerships and collaborative efforts to stretch limited research resources; (8) USDA lacks a departmentwide research agenda, adequate priority-setting and accountability processes, adequate information systems, and the ability to shift resources among priorities to plan and implement research priorities; and (9) USDA is developing actions to address these problems, but it is too soon to determine their effectiveness.