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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-16774

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** July 1, 1999
- **Citation:** 64 FR 35910

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-16774. Public record. Not legal advice.