Post on 11-Jan-2016
Why, How, Who, and WhatNIFA and Outcomes
Bob MacDonald, DirectorPlanning, Accountability, and Reporting Staff
Office of the Director
October 13, 2010
Topics
• Federal Budget Situation – Why your reports are important
• How NIFA uses your reported outcomes and to whom we send them
• What - NIFA’s reporting tools for Extension• Advertisement – Building Consensus on
National Outcomes and Indicators Workshop
Federal Budget Situation
Why your reports are important
Source: Government Accountability Office
2007 GAO Report – Pre-Recession
Source: Congressional Budget Office as published in The Washington Post 4/27/2010
Source: Congressional Budget Office as published in The Washington Post 4/27/2010
How NIFA uses your reported outcomes and to whom we send them
How NIFA uses reported outcomes
• Budget– Secretary (Agency Estimates – June)– White House (Department Estimates –
September)– Congress (President’s Budget – February)
How NIFA uses reported outcomes
• Budget– Past performance by goal and objective– Proposed increases
• Past performance (if existing budget line)• Future expected results if receive proposed increase
How NIFA uses reported outcomes
• USDA Performance Annual Report– Examples of Research, Education, and
Extension have high visibility (see handout for what NIFA sent forward this year)
• Portfolio planning and assessment– NIFA and OMB
What - NIFA’s reporting tools for Extension
Plan of Work
• Required by law – AREERA, 1998• Used by NIFA for
– National Program Leadership– Liaison Program– Reporting Outcomes
• Newsletter
Review of Plan of WorkThe 2008 Farm Bill (H.R. 6124) states that “The
Secretary shall work with university partners in extension and research to review and identify measures to streamline the submission, reporting under, and implementation of plan of work requirements, … In carrying out the review and formulating and compiling the recommendations, the Secretary shall consult with the land-grant institutions.”
Panel – University Members
• Bill Brown, U TN• Nancy Franz, Va Tech• Karen Hinton, U NV• Steve Loring – NMSU• Deb Segla – U AK• Mary Jane Willis - Rutgers
• Charlene Herrick – U ME• Marshall Martin – Purdue• Ellen Taylor Powell – U WI• Oscar Udoh – Southern• Jose Ulises Toledo –
WVSU
Panel – NIFA Members
• Ellen Danus - OEP• Marty Draper – PAS• Gary Jensen – PAS• Bart Hewitt - OPA• John Mingee - ISTM
Findings
1. The current POW and Reporting process appears to be meeting Congressional and OMB needs and is a vast improvement over the previous, burdensome process.
2. The panel found places within the current reporting system where data no longer needs to be collected.
Findings
3. Through this review process, the panel expects to enhance the quality and usefulness of information collection and lessen the reporting burden.
4. OPA and NPLs should continue to provide Institutions feedback including useful comments about the Plan of Work and Annual Reports.
Findings
• Eight specific recommendations and nine other recommendations are contained in the report
• Full report was emailed to the POW Newsletter list and is on the NIFA Grant and Project Reporting web page (www.nifa.usda.gov/reporting) under News
The Leadership Management Dashboard (LMD) 3.0
Two types exist for two different audiences:o NPL - National Program Leaders at NIFA (internal facing)
o Partner – NIFA partners (external facing)
The data in LMD currently draws from 3 sources:o Current Research Information System (CRIS)o AREERA State Plan of Work (POW) Information System o Cooperative Research, Education, and Extension
Management System (C-REEMS)
Building Consensus on National Outcomes and Indicators Workshop
Building Consensus on National Outcomes and Indicators Workshop
• Purpose - To develop one or two regional/national outcomes and indicators for each of the five NIFA priorities
• Scheduled for February 21 - 24, 2011 in New Orleans at the Wyndham Riverfront Hotel
Workshop Participants• 55 Land-Grant Participants needed
– 25 Research, 25 Extension• One Research, One Extension from each Region on each of the
Five NIFA Priority Area Teams• Directors/Associate/Assistant Directors• State Program Leaders
– Five Evaluation Specialists (one on each team)
• Five Facilitators (One for each team)• Ten NPLs – NIFA (2 per Team)• Two Office of Planning and Accountability Staff