Guidelines for State Plans of Work for the Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds

SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension

Service (CSREES) is implementing the Guidelines for State Plans of Work

for the Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds. These

guidelines prescribe the procedures to be followed by the eligible

institutions receiving Federal agricultural research and extension

formula funds under the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a et

seq.); sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 343 (b)(1) & (c)); and sections 1444 and 1445 of the

National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of

1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3221 and 3222). The recipients of these

funds are commonly referred to as the 1862 land-grant institutions and

1890 land-grant institutions, including Tuskegee University. This

action also establishes the research and extension protocols used to

evaluate the success of multistate, multi-institutional, and

multidisciplinary research and extension activities, and joint research

and extension activities, in addressing critical agricultural issues

identified in the submitted plans of work.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George Cooper; Deputy

Administrator, Partnerships; Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Washington, D.C.

20250; at 202-720-5285 or 202-720-5369, 202-720-4924 (fax) or via

electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CSREES published a notice and request for

comment on the Guidelines for State Plans of Work for the Agricultural

Research and Extension Formula Funds in the Federal Register on April

19, 1999 (64 FR 19242-19248).

Background and Purpose

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

(CSREES) is implementing the following Guidelines for State Plans of

Work for the Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds in order

to meet the plan of work reporting requirements enacted in the

Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998

(AREERA), Public Law 105-185. The AREERA amendments added new and

consistent plan of work requirements for agricultural research and

extension formula funds provided under the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C.

361a et seq.), the Smith-lever Act (7 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), and sections

1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and

Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA) (U.S.C. 3221 and 3222). The

specific plan of work reporting requirements are outlined in the

``Preface and Authority'' section of the Guidelines.

These guidelines were developed by CSREES in consultation with the

State partners at the 1862 land-grant institutions and the 1890 land-

grant institutions, including Tuskegee University. Since the enactment

of AREERA on June 23, 1998, the Agency has engaged in these

consultations, under an exemption to the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(7 U.S.C. 3124a(e)), with members of both the Federal and State

partnership focusing on different aspects of the plan of work and

requirements for the agricultural research and extension formula funds

(i.e., stakeholder input, multistate and integrated activities), and

has received input and comments from the 1862 and 1890 land-grant

community to ensure that the Guidelines, while meeting the legal

requirements of the legislation, address the issues and concerns of the

recipients. The Proposed Guidelines were published in the Federal

Register as a notice with a 30-day comment period on April 19, 1999,

and these Final Guidelines reflect consideration by CSREES of the

comments received.

The amendments to the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts plan of work

requirements made by section 202 of AREERA require the Secretary of

Agriculture to develop protocols to evaluate the success of multistate,

multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary research and extension

activities, and joint research and extension activities, in addressing

the critical agricultural issues identified in the plans of work. As

part of the previous notice and request for comment, CSREES sought

comment on these evaluation protocols, including four evaluation

criteria. Comments received were considered in the final version of

section II.C.3., ``Evaluation of Multistate and Integrated Research and

Extension Activities.'' CSREES will be using 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 5-Year Plans of Work. CSREES will be using the

following evaluation criteria: (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 and under-represented 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? This section also stipulates that these protocols be

developed by CSREES in shared consultation with the National

Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory

Board. CSREES has developed these protocols in consultation with this

Advisory Board.

The due date for submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work for the

period covering October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2004, is July

15, 1999.

Public Comments and Guideline Changes in Response

In the Notice of the Proposed Guidelines, CSREES invited comments

on the Proposed Guidelines as well as comments on the protocols to

evaluate success of the multistate, multi-institutional, and

multidisciplinary research and extension activities, in addressing

critical agricultural issues identified in the plans of work. Fourteen

comments were received. Eleven were from deans, directors, or

administrators of research and extension programs at the 1862 land-

grant institutions and three were from organizations representing

stakeholder groups and agricultural producers.

Positive Comments

Ten of the 14 comments focused on some of the positive aspects of

the Proposed Guidelines such as flexibility, accountability,

appreciation for engaging the State partner institutions in the

development of the plan of work guidelines as well as the opportunity

to comment on the Proposed Guidelines, meeting the intent of Congress

and AREERA, focus of the plan of work process on outcomes and impacts,

and efforts to integrate research and extension activities. Thirteen of

the comments addressed issues requiring clarification resulting in

minor revisions to the Proposed Guidelines. Some areas of concern

included the evaluation of the success of multistate, multi-

institutional, and multidisciplinary

[[Page 35911]]

research and extension activities, and joint research and extension

activities, implementation of sections 105 and 204 of AREERA for

multistate extension activities and integrated research and extension

activities, definitions of ``activities'' and programs,'' the

stakeholder input process, and the merit review and scientific peer

review processes.

Seven out of 14 commenters appreciated the flexibility that both

the plan of work process and the Proposed Guidelines provide as State

programs have major differences due to geographic uniqueness and

location specificity. Emphasizing the benefits of such flexibility, one

commenter wrote: ``The flexibility will result in the strengths of the

State, regional, and national programs being contained in the annual

reports and will manifest the strength of the Federal/State partnership

in meeting the needs of consumers and producers.''

Seven of the commenters expressed appreciation for either the

opportunity CSREES afforded the partnership institutions to engage in

the discussions about the process and approach to implementing the

provisions of AREERA or the opportunity to comment on the Proposed

Guidelines. Other positive comments noted that the Proposed Guidelines

focused on accountability through reporting on outcomes and impacts,

met the intent of Congress and AREERA, and made efforts to further

integrate research and extension activities.

Evaluation Protocols and Criteria

Six commenters discussed the research and extension protocols for

evaluating the success of multistate, multi-institutional, and

multidisciplinary research and extension activities, in addressing the

critical agricultural issues identified in the plans of work. CSREES

proposed using 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 in the 5-Year

Plans of Work. CSREES proposed using the following evaluation criteria:

(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 prescribe the expected outcomes

and impacts? and (4) Did the planned program result in improved

effectiveness and /or efficiency? Three of the evaluation commenters

said that they looked forward to the public comment process on these

evaluation protocols. However, they offered no comments on the process.

The Proposed Guidelines that were published in the Federal Register on

April 19, 1999, included the proposed evaluation protocols for these

activities as well as the proposed evaluation criteria. Therefore,

there will be no need for a future comment process as CSREES has

already received comments on these proposed evaluation protocols.

The fourth commenter questioned the evaluation criteria for

measuring the success of multistate, multi-institutional, and

multidisciplinary research and extension activities, and joint research

and extension activities, particularly evaluation criteria nos. 2 and

4. The commenter noted that no. 2 asks if the needs of the under-served

populations were addressed by the planned program and that this

question was not asked during the planning process (development of the

5-Year Plan of Work). The commenter suggested that this be included in

the planning process.

In response, CSREES has revised the section on targeted audiences

under ``Planned Programs'' to: ``The targeted audiences identifies the

set of stakeholders, customers, and/or consumers for which the program

is intended. The 5-Year Plan 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 and to meeting the

needs of under-served and under-represented individuals, groups, and/or

organizations.''

The commenter also questioned evaluation criterion no. 4 which asks

whether the planned program resulted in improved program effectiveness

and/or efficiency. The commenter wanted to know how improvement in

efficiency was to be measured, when the planning process focuses on

effectiveness--impacts and outcomes.

CSREES has revised the section on internal and external linkages to

clarify this issue under ``Planned Programs'' to: The internal and

external linkages include activities identified as integrated,

multidisciplinary, 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. Within this planning component,

discussion should be made regarding any efficiencies achieved through

these external and internal linkages both in the use of resources and

in the ability to solve critical agricultural issues.''

The fifth commenter commended CSREES for specifically seeking

comment on the development of protocols to evaluate the success in

meeting the new directives concerning multistate, multi-institutional,

and multidisciplinary'' and integration.'' This commenter along with

the sixth commenter on these evaluation protocols urged CSREES to

include a strong stakeholder review and input process as an integral

part of the review process for the 5-Year Plans of Work, for the Annual

Reports of Accomplishments and Results, and for measuring the success

of multistate, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary research and

extension activities and joint research and extension activities.

CSREES at this time does not plan to have stakeholders involved at

the Federal level in the review of the 5-Year Plans of Work, the review

of the Annual Reports of Accomplishments and Results, or the evaluation

of the multistate, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary research

and extension activities, and joint research and extension activities,

in addressing critical agricultural issues identified in the 5-Year

Plans of Work. CSREES feels that the stakeholder input processes at the

1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions in the States will be the most

effective protocol for stakeholders to provide input on these reviews

and evaluations. See proposed stakeholder input rule, 64 FR 18534,

April 14, 1999. However, CSREES does plan to make available through the

CSREES homepage all the approved 5-Year Plans of Work and Annual

Reports of Accomplishments and Results so that stakeholders may be

provided an opportunity to review these documents in order to

participate more fully in the stakeholder input processes in the

States.

The sixth commenter felt that the Annual Report of Accomplishments

and Results would not be an adequate vehicle for the evaluation of

multistate and integrated research and extension activities. CSREES

plans to use these reports, the 5-Year Plans of Work, and the four

evaluation criteria stated in these Guidelines as the evaluation

protocols and has consulted with the National Agricultural Research,

Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board in both development

[[Page 35912]]

and adoption of these evaluation protocols. CSREES, however, plans to

continue to dialogue with the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions on

both the programmatic and administrative aspects of these activities as

AREERA has placed significant emphasis on these types of activities.

Stakeholder Input Process

Two commenters discussed the stakeholder input process as it

relates to the plan of work reporting requirements. Section 102(c) of

AREERA requires the 1862 land-grant institutions, 1890 land-grant

institutions, and 1994 land-grant institutions receiving agricultural

research, education, and extension formula funds from CSREES to

establish a process for stakeholder input on the uses of such funds. As

mentioned in the Federal Register notice for the Proposed Guidelines on

April 19, 1999, CSREES is in the process of promulgating separately

regulations to implement these stakeholder input requirements. See

proposed stakeholder input rule, 64 FR 18534, April 14, 1999. CSREES

anticipates the final rule being published by July 31, 1999.

One of the commenters supported the decision of CSREES to provide

the maximum flexibility to institutions in the way they report their

stakeholder input in their plans of work. The other commenter focused

on the definition of seek stakeholder input. The previous notice for

these Guidelines defined seek stakeholder input ``means an open and

fair process which allows opportunities for individuals, groups, and

organizations a voice in a process that treats all with dignity and

respect.'' The commenter urged CSREES to adopt a new definition,

building upon the concepts of ``open and fair,'' ``equality of

service,'' and ``ease of access'' in the Final Guidelines, as follows:

``Seek stakeholder input means an open, fair, transparent, accessible,

inclusive, accountable, and comprehensive process which provides

opportunities for diverse individuals, groups, and organizations,

especially the traditionally under-served and under-represented, to

have a voice in a process and one that treats all with dignity and

respect.''

CSREES has modified the definition of seek stakeholder input to

``Seek stakeholder input means an open, fair, and accessible process by

which individuals, groups, and organizations may have a voice and one

that treats all with dignity and respect.'' However, although CSREES

does encourage States to implement a stakeholder input process

satisfying the above definition posed by the commenter, CSREES has

recognized in consultation with the State partners that each State has

unique characteristics and should implement a stakeholder input process

that best suits the needs of their State. CSREES has determined to use

this modified definition of seek stakeholder input as the lowest

acceptable threshold of stakeholder input process because CSREES wishes

to maintain an environment in which States may quickly modify their

stakeholder input processes to respond effectively to existing and

emerging critical agricultural issues. Also, CSREES does not wish to

place undue administrative burdens upon the States in meeting the

stakeholder input requirement that potentially may interfere with the

conduct and delivery of research and extension programs.

The above commenter made three additional comments about

stakeholders. First, the commenter noted that while the definition for

under-served is referenced once in the review criteria (C.2.), the

definition for under-represented did not appear in the Proposed

Guidelines. As the commenter had thought, this was an oversight and has

been included in the review criteria. Second, this commenter thought we

should address under-served and under-represented stakeholders in

target audiences (B.1.c.5) under ``Program Descriptions.'' As mentioned

previously, we have revised this section to include these stakeholders.

Third, the commenter urged CSREES to broaden the definition of under-

represented to specifically include ``small farm owners and

operators.'' CSREES has revised the definition as suggested.

Research and Extension Cooperation

Five comments were received requesting clarification of the phrase,

``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 the

activities to be carried out separately, sequentially, or jointly''

under ``I. Preface and Authority.'' This is a specific requirement of

the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts and NARETPA as amended by sections 202

and 225 of AREERA. At a minimum, States should be reporting under

``Program Descriptions'' on those research and extension activities,

supported with Federal formula funds (allocated by CSREES and

identified as formula funds for the purposes of this 5-Year Plan of

Work) and the associated required matching funds. States are required

to discuss other funds only under planning component #,7 allocated

resources, when a research and/or extension program, supported by

either Federal formula funds (allocated by CSREES and identified as

formula funds for purposes of this 5-Year Plan of Work) or the

associated required matching funds, is also receiving funds from other

sources. All that is required is a brief statement about the funding

sources and how these funds contribute to the conduct and delivery of

the research and/or extension program(s).

Programs, Projects, and Activities

Three comments were received on the use of the terms: ``programs,''

``projects,'' and ``activities.'' All three commenters requested that

the casual use of the terms ``programs'' in the Proposed Guidelines

should be reconciled with section 103(d)(1) of AREERA which refers to

``activities,'' not ``programs'' for peer review. To these commenters,

this issue was critical as their institutions would want to peer review

``projects'', not collections of ``projects'' (``programs'').

``Projects'' historically has been recognized by the agricultural

experiment station community in planning and assigning responsibility

to agricultural experiment station staff and ``programs'' has been

recognized by the cooperative extension services in their planning and

assigning responsibility to extension staff. CSREES has determined that

an ``activity'' is either a ``project,'' ``program,'' or a combination

thereof; and that for the sake of plan of work reporting purposes,

``planned programs'' are collections of these research and extension

activities, or research projects and extension programs. Accordingly, a

definition of ``activities'' and ``planned programs'' has been added to

the Final Guidelines.

Due Date

Two commenters thought that the due date of July 15, 1999, for the

5-Year Plan of Work is unreasonable considering the workload being

imposed. The requirements of the 5-Year Plan of Work as described in

the Proposed Guidelines very closely resemble the requirements imposed

by the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts as amended by sections 202 and 225 of

AREERA for State Plans of Work and reflect the collaborative efforts of

CSREES and the State partners in developing the proposed guidelines

since the enactment of AREERA on June 23, 1998. CSREES needs to receive

the 5-Year Plans of Work by July 15, 1999, in order to review and

approve these 5-Year Plans of Work prior to October 1, 1999, in order

to guarantee the timely release of first quarter FY 2000 formula funds.

[[Page 35913]]

Multistate and Integrated Activity Baselines

Five comments were received expressing concern about the

implementation of the Hatch and Smith-Lever Act amendments, section 105

and 204 of AREERA, particularly the establishment of the FY 1997

baselines for multistate extension activities and integrated research

and extension activities. CSREES has established a workgroup comprised

of representatives from the fiscal and plan of work reporting staffs at

the land-grant institutions, staff from the Office of Extramural

Programs, and plan of work staff from the Partnerships Unit. These

workgroup participants will be meeting 6/30-7/1/99 in Washington, D.C.

to make recommendations for the guidelines on the implementation of

sections 105 and 204 of AREERA. This group will be focusing on three

areas: (1) How to ``account'' for multistate extension activities and

integrated research and extension activities, (2) how to establish FY

1997 baselines for multistate extension activities and integrated

research and extension activities, and (3) establishment of criteria

for a reduction in the minimum percentage required to be expended for

multistate extension activities and integrated research and extension

activities. One of the goals of this workgroup will be developing

guidelines that place the least amount of administrative and fiscal

reporting burden on the States while meeting the intent of the AREERA

legislation.

As mentioned in the notice of the Proposed Guidelines, CSREES will

be issuing separate guidance on the implementation of these two

sections of AREERA. CSREES anticipates issuing this guidance by July

31, 1999.

One commenter thought that the evidence (formal agreements, letters

of memorandums, contracts or other instruments) required for

documentation of multistate extension activities as indicated under

section II.B.4.b, ``Smith-Lever Multistate Extension,'' was an onerous

task that added no value to the work being done and created a negative

value to the paperwork now being required. The commenter also felt that

this onerous paperwork would motivate States to initiate minimal

multistate efforts, rather than to increase them. CSREES can appreciate

the amount of paperwork generated by section 105 of AREERA. However,

this requirement only applies to the minimum percentage of Federal

formula funds that must be expended on multitate activities. Multistate

activities reported under the 5-Year Plan of Work component

4 of the 5-Year Plan of Work for ``Smith-Lever

Multistate Extension'' should be only those activities used to meet the

requirements imposed by section 105 of AREERA. Additional multistate

activities may be identified in overall program descriptions under

planning component #4, internal and external linkages. In contrast to

the commenter's view that this requirement may discourage multistate

extension activities, CSREES feels that this requirement may actually

stimulate multistate activities in States and regions and in programs

where they have not existed previously.

Another commenter was unclear whether regional and/or national

efforts which maximize the resources in developing program curriculum

and publications are recognized in the stated criteria for multistate

activities and whether national networks (technology based) with States

contributing human resources should be recognized as multistate program

efforts. Assuming that participation in the above activities meets the

criteria set forth in the Final Guidelines (that the State staff

contribute towards the impacts of the program, collaborate towards the

objectives, and are involved in the outcomes), the above activities,

including technology-based networks, could be identified as multistate

activities for the purposes of meeting the requirements of the Smith-

Lever Act amendment in section 105 of AREERA.

One commenter requested, as part of his overall comments, a waiver

from the Hatch and Smith-Lever Act requirements in section 204 of

AREERA that require that States expend the lesser of 25 percent or

twice the percentage of funds expended in FY 1997 on integrated

research and extension activities. As mentioned previously, CSREES will

be issuing separate guidance on the administrative and fiscal

implementation of section 204 for integrated research and extension

activities.

Three comments were received requesting clarification on section

204 and its applicability to the matching funds. Section 204 only

applies to the Federal funds allocated. Section II.B.5, ``Integrated

Research and Extension Activities,'' has been revised to clarify this

point.

Education and Outreach Programs

One commenter questioned the requirement under ``Planned Programs''

for a description of the education and outreach programs (section

II.B.1.c.8) that are already underway to convey the research results

and efforts to encourage multicounty cooperation in dissemination of

research results. The commenter questioned the rationale of this

requirement when calling for a forward looking plan and that the

requirements were busy work that add zero value to the plan of work

process.'' Describing the ``education and outreach programs already

underway to convey available research results that are pertinent to a

critical agricultural issue, including the efforts to encourage

multicounty cooperation in the dissemination of research results' is a

requirement for the plans of work under section 202(a)(1) of AREERA

which amended section 4 of the Smith-Lever Act and under section

225(a)(1) of AREERA which amended section 1444(d) of NAREPTA. As noted

in the Proposed Guidelines this planning component applies only to

those 5-Year Plans of Work incorporating extension activities of the

1862 and/or 1890 land-grant institutions.

Annual Update

Three comments were received on the Annual Update to the 5-Year

Plan of Work. All three commenters requested that CSREES consider a

``roll-forward'' time frame for a plan of work that has substantive

change reflected in the annual update. In other words, the 5-year clock

would start over from the date of the updated 5-Year Plan of Work.

Commenters suggested this for two primary reasons: (1) Reduce the 5-

year rush at the Federal level to review the 5-Year Plans of Work and

(2) Potentially provide additional incentive at the State level to keep

a refined plan in place as planned programs evolve to address emerging

critical agricultural issues.

Although CSREES is appreciative of the concern from the State

partners about the ``rush'' to review these 5-Year Plans of Work,

CSREES is committed to a timely and meaningful review process. This was

demonstrated when CSREES sent an email message to the State partners

entitled ``SPECIAL MESSAGE RE: POW'' on May 12, 1999, regarding the

criteria for review of the 5-Year Plans of Work, the evaluation

protocols for these plans, and the anticipated timetable. CSREES has

determined to keep the existing fixed 5-Year time frame for the plan of

work process in place. By keeping all the 5-Year Plans of Work on the

same 5-year cycle, both the evaluation of the Annual Reports of

Accomplishments and Results against the current 5-Year Plans of Work

and the Federal reporting requirements, including annual budget

justifications and Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) reporting,

will be accomplished more effectively and more

[[Page 35914]]

efficiently. In addition, these 5-Year Plans of Work will have been

prepared based on the existing five national goals established in

CSREES Strategic Plans and linked to the five national goals within the

Research, Education, and Economics (REE) Mission Areas of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

Merit and Peer Review

Four comments were received about the merit review and peer review

processes. One commenter noted that the merit review process must be

established prior to October 1, 1999, and requested clarification

whether the plan of work itself needed to be merit reviewed. Section

103(e) of AREERA requires that effective October 1, 1999, to be

eligible to obtain agricultural research or extension funds for an

activity, each 1862 and 1890 institution shall: (1) Establish a process

for the merit review of the activity; and (2) Review the activity in

accordance with the process. Only the research projects supported with

Hatch Multistate Research Funds are subject to a scientific peer review

which will also satisfy the merit review requirement. CSREES has

intended that the merit review process and/or scientific peer view

process be in place by October 1, 1999, as required by the legislation,

and that a description of the process(es) be provided in the 5-Year

Plan of Work. Since the Final Guidelines requires reporting on planned

programs which are collections of research activities or projects and/

or extension activities or programs, the plan of work does not have to

be merit reviewed, but the individual research projects or activities

and/or the extension programs or activities have to be merit reviewed

according to the established process at the land-grant institution. And

in the case of Hatch Multistate Research projects, a scientific peer

review is required in lieu of a merit review.

Two of the commenters also were concerned that by having these

merit reviews and scientific peer reviews conducted by the

institutions, the research projects or activities and/or extension

programs or activities will be subject to a review process twice.

Although it may appear that research and extension activities are being

reviewed twice, the merit review and/or scientific peer review of

research and extension activities conducted at the institutions and the

review of the 5-Year Plans of Work are evaluated against different

criteria and for different purposes. The merit review and/or scientific

peer review process(es) are established by the land-grant institutions

within the general framework of these Guidelines and the 5-Year Plan of

Work is an evaluation of the planned programs (which are collections of

research and/or extension activities) against the criteria set forth in

section II.C.2., ``Review Criteria.''

The fourth commenter on the program review processes expressed

concern that their existing merit review and scientific review

processes for both research and extension activities may result in

Annual Updates to the 5-Year Plan of Work each year as they perform

their reviews each year. Since the Final Guidelines require reporting

on planned programs which are collections of research and/or extension

activities, the results of annual merit reviews and scientific peer

reviews may not result in substantive changes in the 5-Year Plans of

Work that would require the submission of an Annual Update to the 5-

Year Plan of Work.

Separate Extension and Research Administrative Structures

One commenter noted that their cooperative extension service and

their agricultural experiment station are under separate administrative

structures and that it may be difficult to have consistent reporting on

joint research and extension efforts. They expressed concern that they

may be penalized for not being completely aligned in their reporting

when they submit two separate reports. These Final Guidelines provide

as much flexibility as possible in the submission of the 5-Year Plans

of Work, Annual Updates to the 5-Year Plans of Work, and Annual Reports

of Results and Accomplishments in order to accommodate the needs of

each State and its land-grant institutions.

Withholding of Funds

One commenter noted that the Proposed Guidelines lacked a procedure

to ``withhold formula funds'' if the goals and objectives have not been

met. CSREES has had established procedures for ``witholding formula

funds'' when certain programmatic, administrative, and fiscal

requirements are not met by the land-grant institutions. The land-grant

institutions are notified and given ample opportunity to satisfy these

requirements prior to the next quarterly allocation of funds. These

procedures have worked well in the past; while the procedures help to

ensure that requirements are met, the conduct and delivery of research

and extension programs are neither interrupted nor jeopardized. As

stated in section II.C.1, ``Schedule,'' adherence to the Plan of Work

schedule by the recipient institution is critical to assuring the

timely allocation of funds by CSREES.

Annual Reports of Accomplishments and Results

One commenter thought that the submission date for the Annual

Reports of Accomplishments and Results should be March or April,

instead of December 31. CSREES can appreciate institutions' desire for

more time to synthesize information from the previous calendar year's

research and extension activities and therefore submit a more

meaningful report; however, CSREES uses these reports in preparation of

CSREES budget documents as well as for questions posed by congressional

committees during the annual budget process. Consequently, CSREES has

not changed the due dates for the Annual Reports of Accomplishments and

Results.

Another commenter suggested that some form of web-based reporting

mechanism be used in the Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results

for reporting on multistate extension activities and integrated

research and extension activities in order to simplify the process. As

the system progresses through this 5-Year Plan of Work cycle, CSREES

will consider this suggestion before the first Annual Reports of

Accomplishments and Results are due.

Continuing Dialogue

The last and final comment concerned the importance of continuing

the dialogue between the Federal and State Partners to ensure

flexibility in both the Plan of Work and the reporting against the Plan

of Work. CSREES intends to invite the State partners back within the

next year to engage in discussions regarding the submission of the 5-

Year Plan of Work as well as the review process conducted by CSREES.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as

amended (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the collection of information

requirements contained in these Final Guidelines have been reviewed and

approved by OMB and given OMB Document No. 0524-0036. Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to a

collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control

number.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information

contained in these guidelines is estimated at 1349.44 hours per

response for the 5-Year Plan of Work; 134.94 hours per response for the

Annual Update to the 5-Year Plan of Work; and 1,366.67 hours per

response for the Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results. This

includes the time for reviewing

[[Page 35915]]

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate

or any other aspect of this collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Department of Agriculture,

Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Stop 7603,

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-7630, and to the

Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project,

Washington, DC 20503. These guidelines have no additional impact on any

existing data collection burden.

Pursuant to the plan of work requirements enacted in the

Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, the

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service hereby is

implementing the Guidelines for State Plans of Work for Agricultural

Research and Extension Formula Funds as follows:

Guidelines for State Plans of Work for Agricultural Research and

Extension Formula Funds

Table of Contents

I. Preface and Authority

II. Submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work

A. General

1. Planning Option

2. Period Covered

3. Projected Resources

4. Submission and Due Date

5. Certification

6. Definitions

B. Components of the 5-Year Plan of Work

1. Planned Programs

a. National Goals

b. Format

c. Program Descriptions

2. Stakeholder Input Process

3. Program Review Process

a. Merit Review

b. Scientific Peer Review

c. Reporting Requirement

4. Multistate Research and Extension Activities

a. Hatch Multistate Research

b. Smith-Lever Multistate Extension

c. Reporting Requirement

5. Integrated Research and Extension Activities

C. Five Year Plan of Work Evaluation by CSREES

1. Schedule

2. Review Criteria

3. Evaluation of Multistate and Integrated Research and

Extension Activities

III. Annual Update of the 5-Year Plan of Work

A. Applicability

B. Reporting Requirement

IV. Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results

A. Reporting Requirement

B. Format

I. Preface and Authority

Sections 202 and 225 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and

Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA), Public Law 105-185, enacted

amendments requiring all States and 1890 institutions receiving formula

funds authorized under the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a

et seq.), the Smith-Lever Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), and

sections 1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research,

Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA), as amended (7

U.S.C. 3221 and 3222), to prepare and submit to the Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) a plan of work for

the use of those funds.

While the requirement for the Hatch Act and Smith-Lever Act funds

applies to the States, CSREES assumes that in most cases the function

will be performed by the 1862 land-grant institution in the States. The

only ``eligible institutions'' to receive formula funding under

sections 1444 and 1445 of NARETPA are the 1890 land-grant institutions

and Tuskegee University. Therefore, these guidelines refer throughout

to ``institutions'' to include both the 1862 and 1890 land-grant

institutions, including Tuskegee University.

Further, these guidelines require a plan of work that covers both

research and extension. Although the District of Columbia receives

extension funds under the District of Columbia Postsecondary Education

Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 93-471, as opposed to the Smith-Lever Act,

CSREES has determined that it should be subject to the plan of work

requirements imposed under these guidelines except where expressly

excluded.

All the requirements of AREERA with regard to agricultural research

and extension formula funds were considered and were incorporated in

these plan of work guidelines including descriptions of the following:

(1) The critical short-term, intermediate, and long-term agricultural

issues in the State and the current and planned research and extension

programs and projects targeted to address the issues; (2) the process

established to consult with stakeholders regarding the identification

of critical agricultural issues in the State and the development of

research and extension projects and programs targeted to address the

issues; (3) the efforts made to identify and collaborate with other

colleges and universities that have a unique capacity to address the

identified agricultural issues in the State and the extent of current

and emerging efforts (including regional and multistate efforts) to

work with those other 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 the 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.

These guidelines also take into consideration the requirement in

section 102(c) of AREERA for the 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant

institutions receiving agricultural research, extension, and education

formula funds to establish a process for receiving stakeholder input on

the uses of such funds. This stakeholder input requirement, as it

applies to research and extension at 1862 and 1890 land-grant

institutions, has been incorporated as part of the plan of work

process.

The requirement of section 103(e) of AREERA also is addressed in

these plan of work guidelines. This section requires that the 1862,

1890, and 1994 land-grant institutions establish a merit review

process, prior to October 1, 1999, in order to obtain agricultural

research, extension, and education funds. For purposes of these

guidelines applicable to formula funds, a merit review process must be

established for extension programs funded under sections 3(b)(1) and

(c) of the Smith-Lever Act and under section 1444 of NARETPA, and for

research programs funded under sections 3(c)(1) and (2) of the Hatch

Act (commonly referred to as Hatch Regular Formula Funds) and under

section 1445 of NARETPA. Section 104 of AREERA amended the Hatch Act of

1887 also to stipulate that a scientific peer review process (that also

would satisfy the requirements of a merit review process under section

103(e)) be established for research programs funded under section

3(c)(3) of the Hatch Act (commonly referred to as Hatch Multistate

Research Funds). As previously stated, these program review processes

must be established prior to October 1, 1999, in order for the

institutions to obtain agricultural research and extension formula

funds. Consequently, a description of the merit review and scientific

peer review process has been included as a requirement in the

submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work.

[[Page 35916]]

These plan of work guidelines also require reporting on the

multistate and integrated research and extension programs. Section 104

of AREERA amended the Hatch Act of 1887 to redesignate the Hatch

regional research funds as the Hatch Multistate Research Fund,

specifying that these funds be used for cooperative research employing

multidisciplinary approaches in which a State agricultural experiment

station, working with another state agricultural experiment station,

the Agricultural Research Service, or a college or university,

cooperates to solve the problems that concern more than one State.

Section 105 of AREERA amended the Smith-Lever Act to require that each

institution receiving extension formula funds under sections 3(b) and

(c) of the Smith-Lever Act expend for multistate activities in FY 2000

and thereafter a percentage that is at least equal to the lesser of 25

percent or twice the percentage of funds expended by the institution

for multistate activities in FY 1997. Section 204 of AREERA amended

both the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts to require that each institution

receiving agricultural research and extension formula funds under the

Hatch Act and sections 3(b) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act 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 of funds expended by the institution for

integrated research and extension activities in FY 1997. These sections

also require that the institutions include in the plan of work a

description of the manner in which they will meet these multistate and

integrated requirements.

These applicable percentages apply to the Federal agricultural

research and extension formula funds only. Federal formula funds that

are used by the institution for a fiscal year for integrated activities

may also be counted to satisfy the multistate activities requirement.

The multistate and integrated research and extension requirements

do not apply to formula funds received by American Samoa, Guam,

Micronesia, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Since the Smith-Lever Act is not directly applicable, the multistate

and integrated extension requirements do not apply to extension funds

received by the District of Columbia, except to the extent it

voluntarily complies.

The amendments made by sections 105 and 204 of AREERA also provide

that the Secretary of Agriculture may reduce the minimum percentage

required to be expended by the institution for multistate and

integrated activities in the case of hardship, infeasibility, or other

similar circumstance beyond the control of the institution. CSREES will

issue separate guidance on the establishment of the FY 1997 baseline

percentages for multistate activities and integrated activities and on

requests for reduction in the required minimum percentage.

Also included in these guidelines are instructions on how to report

on the annual accomplishments and results of the planned programs

contained in the 5-Year Plan of Work, information on the evaluation of

accomplishments and results, and information on when and how to update

the 5-Year Plan of Work if necessary.

II. Submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work

A. General

1. Planning Option

This document provides guidance for preparing the plan of work with

preservation of institutional autonomy and programmatic flexibility

within the Federal-State Partnership. The plan of work is a 5-year

prospective plan that covers the period of fiscal year 2000 through

2004, with the option to submit annual updates to the 5-Year Plan of

Work. The 5-Year Plans of Work may be prepared for an institution's

individual functions (i.e., research or extension activities), for an

individual institution (including the planning of research and

extension activities), or for state-wide activities (a 5-year research

and/or extension plan of work for all the eligible institutions in a

State). Each 5-Year Plan of Work must reflect the content of the

program(s) funded by Federal agricultural research and extension

formula funds and the required matching funds. This 5-Year Plan of Work

must describe not only how the program(s) address critical short-term,

intermediate, and long-term agricultural issues in a State, but how it

relates to and is part of the broad national goals.

2. Period Covered

The 5-Year Plan of Work should cover the period from October 1,

1999, through September 30, 2004.

3. Projected Resources

The resources that are allocated for various planned programs in

the 5-Year Plan of Work, in terms of human and fiscal measures, should

be included and projected over the next five years. The baseline for

the institution's or State's initial plan (for five years) should be

the Federal agricultural research and extension formula funds for FY

1999 and the required matching funds. During the course of the 5-Year

Plan of Work, if the baseline for the formula funds at the FY 1999

level changes by more than 10 percent in one year or by 20 percent or

more cumulatively during the 5-year period, a revised 5-Year Plan of

Work should be submitted as an annual update the following fiscal year.

4. Submission and Due Date

The 5-Year Plan of Work must be submitted by July 15, 1999, to the

Partnerships Unit of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is preferred that

these 5-Year Plans of Work be submitted electronically to

[email protected] in either WordPerfect file format, Microsoft Word

file format, or ASCII file format. If this submission method is not

available, an original and two copies of the 5-Year 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, SW.; Washington, DC. 20250-2214.

5. Certification

The 5-Year 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.

6. Definitions

For the purpose of implementing the Guidelines for State Plans of

Work for Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds, the

following definitions are applicable:

Activities means either research projects or extension programs.

Formula funds for the purposes of the plan of work guidelines means

funding provided by formula to 1862 land-grant institutions under

section 3 of the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a) and

sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act, as amended (7 U.S.C.

343(b)(1) and (c)) and to the 1890 land-grant institutions under

sections 1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research,

Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3221

and 3222).

Formula funds for the purposes of stakeholder input means the

funding by formula to the 1862 land-grant institutions and 1890 land-

grant institutions covered by these plan of work guidelines as well as

the formula funds provided under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative

Forestry Research Program (16 U.S.C. 582, et seq.), the

[[Page 35917]]

Animal Health and Disease Research Program (7 U.S.C. 3195), and the

education payments made to the 1994 land-grant institutions under

section 534(a) of Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note).

Integrated or joint activities means jointly planned, funded, and

interwoven activities between research and extension to solve problems.

This includes the generation of knowledge and the transfer of

information and technology.

Merit review means an evaluation whereby the quality and relevance

to program goals are assessed.

Multi-institutional means two or more institutions within the same

or different States or territories that will collaborate in the

planning and implementation of programs.

Multistate means collaborative efforts that reflect the programs of

institutions located in at least two or more States or territories.

Multi-disciplinary means efforts that represent research,

education, and/or extension programs in which principal investigators

or other collaborators from two or more disciplines or fields of

specialization work together to accomplish specified objectives.

Outcome indicator means an assessment of the results of a program

activity compared to its intended purpose.

Output indicator means a tabulation, calculation, or recording of

activity of effort expressed in quantitative or qualitative manner

which measures the products or services produced by the planned

program.

Planned programs means collections of research projects or

activities and/or extension programs or activities.

Program review means either a merit review or a scientific peer

review.

Scientific peer review means 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.

Seek stakeholder input means an open, fair, and accessible process

by which individuals, groups, and organizations may have a voice, and

one that treats all with dignity and respect.

Stakeholder is any person who has the opportunity to use or conduct

agricultural research, extension, and education activities in the

State.

Under-served means individuals, groups, and/or organizations whose

needs have not been addressed in past programs.

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, limited resource clients, and small farm owners and

operators.

B. Components of the 5-Year Plan of Work

1. Planned Programs

a. National Goals. The 5-Year Plan of Work should be based on the

five national goals established in the Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) Agency Strategic Plans and

linked to the five national goals within the Research, Education, and

Economics (REE) Mission Area of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

These national goals were adopted by the National Agricultural

Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board. These

goals were developed from stakeholder input in conjunction with

existing Federal-State Partnerships. The body of the 5-Year 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.

b. Format. As mentioned under the Planning Options section, 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 5-Year 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 5-Year Plan of Work is submitted, the various

units within the entity for which the 5-Year 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

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

c. 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

[[Page 35918]]

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, multidisciplinary, 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. Within this planning

component, discussion should be made regarding the efficiencies

achieved through these internal and external linkages both in the use

of resources and/or in the ability to solve critical agricultural

issues.

5. The target audiences identifies the set of stakeholders,

customers, and/or consumers for which the program is intended. The 5-

Year 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 and to meeting the needs of under-

served and under-represented individuals, groups, and/or organizations.

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 5-Year Plans of Work incorporating extension

activities of the 1862 and/or 1890 land-grant institutions.

2. Stakeholder Input Process

Section 102(c) of AREERA requires the 1862 land-grant institutions,

1890 land-grant institutions, and 1994 land-grant institutions

receiving agricultural research, extension, and education formula funds

from CSREES to establish a process for stakeholder input on the uses of

such funds. CSREES is in the process of promulgating separately in the

Federal Register regulations to implement this stakeholder input

requirement.

As a component of the 5-Year 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. However, the above

procedures are contingent upon the outcome of the Final Rule on

Stakeholder Input Requirements for Recipients of Agricultural Research,

Education, and Extension Formula Funds.

3. Program Review Process

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. Reporting Requirement. As a component of the 5-year 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.

4. Multistate Research and Extension Activities

a. 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.

b. 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 5-Year

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.

c. Reporting Requirements. The 5-Year 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 5-Year Plan of Work of the cooperating State(s) or

State institutions.

5. Integrated Research and Extension Activities

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

[[Page 35919]]

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 5-Year Plan of Work and be reported consistently across

the units of the institutions as well as with the 5-Year 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.

The requirements of this section apply only to the Federal funds.

C. 5-Year Plan of Work Evaluation by CSREES

1. Schedule

All 5-Year Plans of Work will be evaluated by CSREES. The 5-Year

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. Five Year 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 5-year plan of work two years prior to the plan's expiration on

September 30.

2. Review Criteria

CSREES will evaluate the 5-Year 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 and under-represented

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 multidisciplinary and

integrated activities; and identify the expected outcomes and impacts

from the proposed 5-Year Plan of Work.

3. Evaluation of Multistate and Integrated Research and Extension

Activities

CSREES will be using 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 5-Year Plans of Work. CSREES will be using the following evaluation

criteria: (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 and

under-represented 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?

III. Annual Update of the 5-Year Plan of Work

A. 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.

B. 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 5-Year 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 5-Year Plan of

Work.

IV. Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results

1. Reporting Requirement

The 5-Year 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 5-Year Plan

of Work.

2. Format

This annual report should include the relevant information related

to each component of the program in the matrix cells of the 5-Year 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 multidisciplinary and integrated activities, as

appropriate to the 5-Year Plan of Work.

Done at Washington, D.C., this 25 day of 1999.

I. Miley Gonzalez,

Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.

[FR Doc. 99-16774 Filed 6-30-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-22-P