The AREERA amended the Hatch Act of 1887, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, and sections 1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA) to require plans of work to be received and approved by CSREES prior to the distribution of funding authorized under these Acts. This collection of information includes 3 parts: the submission of a 5-year plan of work every five years; the submission of an annual update of the 5-year plan of work, if applicable; and, the submission of an annual report of accomplishments and results.

This Act also amended the Hatch Act to redesignate the Hatch Regional Research Fund as the Multistate Research Fund specifying that these funds be used for cooperative research employing multi-disciplinary approaches in which a SAES, working with another SAES, USDA/ARS, or a college or university, cooperates to solve the problems that concern more than one State. The Smith-Lever Act was amended to require that each institution receiving funds under Sections 3(b) and (c) of the Act expend funds for multistate activities in FY 2000 and thereafter, a percentage of these funds equal to the lesser of 25 percent or twice the percentage of funds expended by the institution for multistate activities during FY 1997.^{(2) (3)}

The AREERA further amended both the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts to require that each institution receiving agricultural research and extension formula funds as noted above, expend for integrated research and extension activities in FY 2000 and thereafter, a percentage that is at least equal to the lesser of 25 percent or twice the percentage expended for these activities in FY 1997. In addition to descriptions of planned programs including multistate activities and integrated research and extension activities, the 5-year plan of work must include information on:

1. How critical short-term, intermediate, and long-term agricultural issues will be addressed in research and extension programs;
2. How the State or eligible institution has developed a process to consult users of agricultural extension and research (stakeholders) in the identification of critical agricultural issues in the State and the development of programs and projects targeting these issues;
3. How the State or eligible institution has made efforts to identify and collaborate with other universities and colleges that have a unique capacity to address the identified agricultural issues in the State and the extent of current and emerging efforts (including the regional and/or multistate efforts) to work with these institutions;
4. The manner in which research and extension, including research and extension activities funded other than through formula funds, will cooperate to address the critical issues in the State, including activities to be carried out separately, sequentially, or jointly; and,
5. For extension, the education and outreach programs already underway to convey available research results that are pertinent to a critical agricultural issue, including efforts to encourage multicounty cooperation in the dissemination of research information.
6. Descriptions of the merit review and/or scientific peer review processes used. These review processes must be established prior to October 1, 1999.

 

1. Did the planned program address the critical issues of strategic importance, including those identified by the stakeholders?
2. Did the planned program address the needs of under-served populations of the State(s)?
3. Did the planned program describe the expected outcomes and impacts? And,
4. Did the planned program result in improved program effectiveness and/or efficiency?

 

1. Integrates agricultural research, extension, and education functions to better link research to technology transfer and information dissemination activities;
2. Encourages regional and multistate programs to address relevant issues of common concern and to better leverage scarce resources; c) and achieves agricultural research, extension, education objectives through multi-institutional and multi-functional approaches and by conducting research at facilities and institutions best equipped to achieve these objectives.

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

1. An institution may submit plans for each function (i.e., research or extension activities)
2. An institution may submit a single plan for both research and extension activities.
3. The institutions within a State may submit plans for all research and/or extension activities state-wide for all eligible institutions in the State.

 

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

bhewitt@reeusda.gov

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

Partnerships/POW
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Stop 2214
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20250-2214

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

Definitions

1. Formula funds for purposes of plan of work guidelines ­ Funds provided by formula to 1862 land-grant institutions under section 3 of the Hatch Act, as amended, and sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act, as amended, and to 1890 land-grant institutions under sections 1444 and 1445 of the NARETPA, as amended.
2. Formula funds for purposes of stakeholder input ­ Formula funds received as noted in number 1 above and funds received under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program, the Animal Health and Disease Research Program, and the education payments made to the 1994 land-grant institutions.
3. Integrated or joint activities. Activities that are jointly planned, funded, and interwoven between research and extension for purposes of solving problems. This includes the generation of knowledge and the transfer of information and technology.
4. Merit review. Merit reviews are evaluations whereby quality and relevance to program goals are assessed.
5. Multi-institutional. Two or more institutions within the same or different states or territories collaborating in the planning and implementation of programs.
6. Multistate. Collaborative efforts that reflect the programs of institutions located in at least two or more states or territories.
7. Multi-disciplinary. Multi-disciplinary efforts are those which represent research, education, and/or extension programs conducted by principal investigators or other collaborators from two or more disciplines or fields of specialization. [The combination of CRIS Field of Science (FOS) with Research Problem Area (RPA) may be used to determine discipline or field of specialization in regular Hatch and Multi-state research projects.]
8. Outcome Indicator. Outcome indicators are assessments of the results of a program activity compared to its intended purpose.
9. Output Indicator. Output indicators are tabulations, calculations, or recordings of activities or effort expressed in a quantitative or qualitative manner which measure the products or services produced by a planned program.
10. Program review. Program reviews are either merit reviews or scientific peer reviews.
11. Scientific peer review. A scientific peer review is an evaluation performed by experts with scientific knowledge and technical skills to conduct the proposed work whereby the technical quality and relevance to program goals are assessed.
12. Seek Stakeholder Input. To seek stakeholder input means to conduct an open and fair process which allows opportunity for individuals, groups, and organizations a voice in a process that treats all with dignity and respect.
13. Stakeholder. A stakeholder is any person who has the opportunity to use or conduct agricultural research, extension, and education activities in the State.
14. Under-served. Under-served means individuals, groups, and/or organizations whose needs have not been addresses in past programs.
15. Under-represented. Under-represented means individuals, groups, and/or organizations especially those who may not have participated fully including, but not limited to, women, racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and limited resource clients.

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

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

Goal 2: A safe and secure food and fiber system. To ensure an adequate food and fiber supply and food safety through improved science based detection, surveillance, prevention, and education.

Goal 3: A healthy, well-nourished population. Through research and education on nutrition and development of more nutritious foods, enable people to make health promoting choices.

Goal 4: Greater harmony between agriculture and the environment. Enhance the quality of the environment through better understanding of and building on agriculture's and forestry's complex links with soil, water, air, and biotic resources.

Goal 5: Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans. Empower people and communities, through research-based information and education, to address economic and social challenges facing our youth, families, and communities.

Format. An institution or State may opt to submit independent plans for the various units (e.g. 1862 research) or an integrated plan which includes all units in the institution or State. Regardless of the option chosen, the plan of work should be reported in the appropriate matrix format, each cell of which identifies planned programs that fall under one of the national program goals. If an integrated plan of work is submitted, the various units within the entity for which the plan of work has been developed (i.e., 1862 research, 1890 research, 1862 extension, 1890 extension) would appear on the vertical axis. Individual cells within the matrix would be used to summarize the State programs. The following example illustrates the desired matrix.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 3

Goal 4

Goal 5

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1862 Research

1862 Extension

1890 Research

1890 Extension

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. The statement of issue to be addressed. This component should discuss the critical agricultural issue within the State that was identified and being targeted by this planned program. This component may also reference the stakeholder input which identified the critical agricultural issue in the State and the need for the targeted research and/or extension program.
2. The performance goal(s) is a target level of performance. The output indicators should reflect the tabulation, calculation, or recording of activity or effort expressed in quantitative or qualitative manner which measures the products or services produced by the program. The outcome indicators should assess the results of a program activity compared to its intended goal.
3. The key program component(s) identify the major efforts included in the work to be conducted.
4. The internal and external linkages include activities identified as integrated, multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional, and/or multistate. This component may also address any efforts made to identify and collaborate with other colleges and universities that have a unique capacity to address the identified agricultural issues within the State and the extent of current and emerging efforts (including regional efforts) to work with those institutions.
5. The target audiences identifies the set of stakeholders, customers, and/or consumers for which the program is intended. The plans of work should address the institution's commitment to facilitating equality of service and ease of access to all research and extension programs and services.
6. The program duration should be expressed as short-term, intermediate (one to five years), or long-term (over five years).
7. The allocated resources (human and fiscal measures) must be described for each planned program. This component may not only include the amount of Federal agricultural research and/or extension formula funds and matching funds allocated to this planned program, but also the manner in which funds, other than formula funds, will be expended to address the critical issues being targeted by this planned program.
8. Education and outreach programs must be described that are already underway to convey the research results that are pertinent to the critical agricultural issue identified in the "Statement of Issue.'' Efforts to encourage multicounty cooperation in dissemination of research results should also be identified. This planning component applies only to those plans of work incorporating extension activities of the 1862 and/or 1890 land-grant institutions.

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

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

 

1. Hatch Multistate Research. Effective October 1, 1998, the Hatch Multistate Research Fund replaced the Hatch Regional Research Program. The Hatch Multistate Research Fund must be used for research employing multidisciplinary approaches to solve research problems that concern more than one State. For such research, State agricultural experiment stations must partner with another experiment station, the Agricultural Research Service, or another college or university.
2. Smith-Lever Multistate Extension. Effective October 1, 1999, the cooperative extension programs at the 1862 land-grant institutions must expend up to 25 percent of their formula funds provided under sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act for activities in which two or more State extension services cooperate to solve problems that concern more than one State. As required by law, CSREES will work with each 1862 land-grant institution to identify the amount each institution expended for multistate extension activities for fiscal year (FY) 1997. For FY 2000 and thereafter, cooperative extension programs must commit two times their FY 1997 baseline percentage or 25 percent, whichever is less, for multistate activities. Institutions should describe the contributions of extension staff and programs toward impacts rather than to describe the programs. Each participating State or territory must be a collaborator towards objectives and involved in the outcomes. Evidence of the proposed collaboration must be provided in the plan of work submitted by each State. This planning is documented through formal agreements, letters of memorandums, contracts, or other instruments that provide primary evidence that a multistate relationship exists.
3. Reporting Requirements. The plan of work should include a description of the Multistate Research, where applicable, and Multistate Extension programs as specified above and these programs must be reported consistently across the units of an institution as well as with the plan of work of the cooperating State(s) or State institutions.

 

Effective October 1, 1999, up to 25 percent of all funds provided under section 3 of the Hatch Act and under section 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act must be spent on activities that integrate cooperative research and extension. As required by law, CSREES will work with each 1862 land-grant institution to establish the institution's baseline for integrated research and extension activities for FY 1997. For FY 2000 and thereafter, 1862 land-grant institutions must commit twice the FY 1997 baseline percentage or 25 percent, whichever is less, for integrated activities. Integration may occur within the State or between units within two or more States. Integrated programming must be reported in the plan of work and be reported consistently across the units of the institutions as well as with the plan of work submitted by cooperating State(s). Federal formula funds used by a State for integrated activities may also be counted to satisfy the multistate research and the multistate extension activity requirements.

1. Schedule. All plans of work will be evaluated by CSREES. The plans of work will either be accepted by CSREES without change or returned to the institution, with clear and detailed recommendations for its modification. The submitting institution(s) will be notified by CSREES of its determination within 90 days (review to be completed in 60 days, communications to the institutions allowing a 30-day response) of receipt of the document. Adherence to the Plan of Work schedule by the recipient institution is critical to assuring the timely allocation of funds by CSREES. Plans of work accepted by CSREES will remain in effect for five years and will be publicly available in a CSREES database. CSREES will notify all institutions of a need for a new plan of work two years prior to the plan's expiration on September 30.
2. Review Criteria. CSREES will evaluate the plans of work to determine if they address agricultural issues of critical importance to the State; identify the alignment and realignment of programs to address those critical issues; identify the involvement of stakeholders in the planning process; give attention to under-served populations; indicate the level of Federal formula funds in proportion to all other funds at the director or administrator level; provide evidence of multistate, multi-institutional, and multi-disciplinary and integrated activities; and identify the expected outcomes and impacts from the proposed plan of work.
3. Evaluation of Multistate and Integrated Research and Extension Activities. CSREES is proposing to use the Annual Reports of Accomplishments and Results to evaluate the success of multistate, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary activities and joint research and extension activities, in addressing critical agricultural issues identified in the plans of work. Once evaluation protocols are developed, these guidelines will be modified to specify the protocols that will be used to evaluate the Annual Reports of Accomplishments and Results.

 

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

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

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

Format. This annual report should include the relevant information related to each component of the program in the matrix cells of the plan of work. Accomplishments and results reporting should involve two parts. First, institutions should submit an annual set of impact statements linked to sources of funding. Strict attention to just the preceding year is not expected in all situations. Some impact statements may need to cover ten or more years of activity. Focus should be given to the benefits received by targeted end-users. Second, institutions should submit annual results statements based on the indicators of the outputs and outcomes for the activities undertaken the preceding year. These should be identified as short-term, intermediate, or long-term critical issues in the 5-Year Plan of Work. Attention should be given to highlighting multistate, multi-institutional, and multi-disciplinary and integrated activities, as appropriate to the plan of work.

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

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

Planned Programs:

Function	Goal 1	Goal 2	Goal 3	Goal 4	Goal 5
1862 Research	Program 1	Program 2(a)	Program 2(b)	Program 3	Program 4

 

Program 2 (a and b)

A healthy, well-nourished population that has access to an adequate, safe and secure food system.

Issue(s)

Stakeholder listening sessions held throughout the State of West Virginia during 1997 and 1998 have pointed out citizen concerns for their access to a nutritious, safe and secure supply of foods.

Performance Goal(s)

Increased consumer access to targeted agricultural and forest products of West Virginia that provide enhanced nourishment, greater assurances for safety, and better access through lower costs, added nutritional components, extended shelf-life, and better product distribution systems.

Output Indicators

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

Outcome Indicators 



1. Increased access to food for West Virginia consumers (b).
2. Greater consumer confidence in West Virginia produced and/or processed foods (a and b).
3. Reduced malnutrition in rural and urban poor populations (b).

Research projects will focus on:

• Enhanced safety for West Virginia's agricultural products through detection and treatment;
• Shelf-life-extending technologies applied through food processing and packaging; and
• Better market distribution methods, identified through economic and consumer studies.

Internal and External Linkages

Partnership will be continued with extension, federal labs, other universities, and the private sector, as appropriate to this performance goal. We will focus on shared responsibilities for the agreed research objectives of projects, and we will use joint ventures with industry to facilitate technology transfer, when appropriate.

Target Audiences

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

Program Duration

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

Allocated Resources ($ x 1000; [units] = SYs)

Current	FY 2000	FY 2001	FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
$ 128 [2]	$ 130 [2]	$ 132 [3]	$ 134 [3]	$ 136 [3]	$ 138 [3]

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

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

[END]