NIFA Reporting Web Conference - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

libitha
nifa reporting web conference l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
NIFA Reporting Web Conference PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
NIFA Reporting Web Conference

play fullscreen
1 / 51
Download Presentation
NIFA Reporting Web Conference
184 Views
Download Presentation

NIFA Reporting Web Conference

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. NIFA Reporting Web Conference October 14, 2010

  2. Start the Recording…

  3. Bart Hewitt Bart is the Accountability and Reporting Leader for the Planning, Accountability and Reporting Staff under the Office of the Director, NIFA. He leads the Accountability and Reporting Team and has responsibility for REEport and Legacy CRIS business functions, the national effort for the State Plan of Work and Annual Report process, the Multistate Research Fund Project Proposal approvals for NIFA; and develops performance information for the PART and NIFA Budget. (202) 720-0747 bhewitt@nifa.usda.gov www.nifa.usda.gov/opa E-mail questions to rwc@nifa.usda.gov

  4. User Support • (202) 690-2910 orservicedesk@nifa.usda.gov • Do not contact Texas A&M support • FAQs and other information on the NIFA Reporting Web Conference web page at www.nifa.usda.gov/rwc E-mail questions to rwc@nifa.usda.gov

  5. Format and Logistics E-mail questions to rwc@nifa.usda.gov E-mail topic suggestions to rwc@nifa.usda.gov Conferences are recorded and will be available on the Reporting Web Conference web page at www.nifa.usda.gov/rwc E-mail questions to rwc@nifa.usda.gov

  6. To Receive Announcements An RWC e-mail list will notify interested parties on news, schedules, and other issues relating to the series. To subscribe: • Send an e-mail to lyris@lyris.nifa.usda.gov. • Skip your subject line and in the body of your message type: subscribe reportingwc.  • Be sure you receive an e-mail confirming your subscription. E-mail questions to rwc@nifa.usda.gov

  7. REEport Update Bart Hewitt October 2010

  8. REEport Deployment Postponed • The previously announced deployment of REEport, originally scheduled to occur October 1, 2010 for non-formula grants project initiation, has been postponed.   Until a new transition date is confirmed, please continue to use the CRIS reporting system as you have been.  E-mail questions to rwc@nifa.usda.gov

  9. REEport Postponed • NIFA plans to transition to REEport have not changed.  REEport will become NIFA’s grant and formula project reporting system, building on and replacing the existing CRIS system. • There is no change to plans to cease collecting AD-419 data for non-formula grants. E-mail questions to rwc@nifa.usda.gov

  10. Plan of Work Update Bart Hewitt October 2010

  11. Welcome Katelyn Sellers! Katelyn is the Management and Program Analyst on the Accountability and Reporting Team in the Planning, Accountability and Reporting Staff under the Office of the Director, NIFA. She will be responsible for the day-to-day operations for the State Plan of Work and Annual Report process and its data analysis. (202) 270-0747 pow@nifa.usda.gov E-mail questions to rwc@nifa.usda.gov

  12. Five NIFA Priorities • Dr. Beachy’s December 2009 Memorandum • Must address all five in 2012 – 2016 POW Update and 2010 Annual Report • Zero is a valid answer

  13. Splitters and Lumpers • Acceptable Planned Program Titles for the Five NIFA Priorities • Must contain the EXACT wording up front in the title • Examples: • Climate Change - Water Quality & Quantity • Climate Change: Home, Garden and Environment • Childhood Obesity - Youth/Adult Obesity • Global Food Security and Hunger: Animal Production • Global Food Security and Hunger: Plant Production • Global Food Security and Hunger – Aquaculture

  14. Value of the Formula Grant • Formula Grants need to have their value quantified • Quality of the outcomes are continually being improved

  15. Value of the Formula Grant • A discussion in the Plan of Work and Annual Report on how the Formula Grant uniquely contributes to the body of research and extension work is greatly needed to remain relevant in this world of limited resources.

  16. Value of the Formula Grant • What sets it apart from other non-formula grants? • What would your institution not be able to do without the Hatch or Evans-Allen research grants? Smith-Lever 3b&c? 1890 Extension? • What economic impact is it having in terms of dollars generated or saved?

  17. Value of the Formula Grant - Outcomes • Give examples of economic impact in your overview, and in your Planned Programs, include these as change in condition outcomes.

  18. Value of the Formula Grant - Outcomes • Example: • The Colorado State University (CSU) Extension Wheat Improvement Work Team provides 18% of the total investment in developing and promoting CSU wheat varieties. Plantings of improved wheat varieties increased Colorado farmers' farm gate income by $12,840,000 in 2008. Extension's share (18%) of this impact for the Colorado wheat industry is $2,311,000, or about $13.70 returned for each $1.00 invested.

  19. Why Outcomes are so Important The Federal Budget Situation

  20. 2007 GAO Report – Pre-Recession Source: Government Accountability Office

  21. Source: Congressional Budget Office as published in The Washington Post 4/27/2010

  22. Source: Congressional Budget Office as published in The Washington Post 4/27/2010

  23. How NIFA uses your reported outcomes and to whom we send them

  24. How NIFA uses reported outcomes • Budget • Secretary (Agency Estimates – June) • White House (Department Estimates – September) • Congress (President’s Budget – February)

  25. 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

  26. How NIFA uses reported outcomes • USDA Performance Annual Report • Examples of Research, Education, and Extension have high visibility • Portfolio planning and assessment • NIFA and OMB

  27. Examples (Quality and quantity of outcomes in Annual Reports has really improved)

  28. What is needed to convince a decision-maker? • Concise and comprehensible • Context and interpretation • Public, National value

  29. Farmers Grow Higher Revenue Generating Crops – With NIFA funding scientists in North Dakota developed three barley cultivars which are recommended for malting and brewing by the American Malting Barley Association. The two-rowed malting barley cultivar Conlon was grown on 18% of the North Dakota barley acreage or 265,000 acres. Since Conlon is a malting barley, it commanded on average a $1.25 premium over feed barley. In 2009, this resulted in Conlon generating an additional $23 million in revenue for North Dakota growers that grew this cultivar.

  30. More Efficient Bio-refineries - Improved conversion of lignocellulosic biomass into biofuels is a high priority national research goal that will enhance national security, balance of trade, rural employment opportunities, and the nation’s environmental performance, including net reductions in CO2 emissions. NIFA funded scientists in Georgia developed a new chemical reaction that converts waste biomass lignin into high-value chemical components that will make bio-refineries more efficient and effective. This new reaction will yield high-value, renewable, chemical components derived from lignin. The new products can be used in a variety of products that are currently dependent on petroleum-based resources, as well as improve modern ethanol conversion programs.

  31. Improving Efficiency in Pork Production – Pork producers who formulate diets on a digestibility basis, maximize their use of synthetic amino acids, and make use of alternative ingredients can reduce total feed costs by more than $20 per ton in some cases at an average savings per ration of $12 per ton. This information was provided by NIFA funded University of Missouri to more than165 Missouri pork producers who raise more than 80 percent of the pork in Missouri. The feed savings generated by reformulating diets resulted in an average of $5.50 per pig marketed. Therefore, a Missouri pork producer who finishes 6,000 head of pigs had a $30,000 savings in feed costs. For Missouri, the economic impact for pork producers is over $14.8 million savings in feed costs.

  32. Research Aims to Improve Child Nutrition – About 12% of the U.S. population do not consume enough zinc in their diets and are at risk for marginal zinc deficiency.  NIFA funded researchers at Oregon State University found that rats fed even marginally zinc-deficient diets had more DNA damage, increased levels of oxidative stress and decreased ability to repair DNA compared to control animals fed diets containing adequate levels of zinc.  Impairment of DNA integrity can adversely impact immune function and increase risk for cancer.  This study has important implications for child nutrition because infants and children are more likely to suffer from marginal zinc deficiency than adults.

  33. Fighting Food Pathogens at the Source – Although cattle are important reservoirs of foodborne pathogens, no validated method exists to monitor them on farms. The goal of this project was to improve food safety by developing efficient, effective methods to determine the E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella status of pens of feedlot cattle and to reduce the potential that these foodborne pathogens are transmitted outside the feedlot. NIFA funded scientists in Nebraska developed and validated a pen-testing protocol as a monitoring tool for feedlot production HACCP programs and as a research tool to identify and test potential HACCP control points. This work was important to the understanding of when and where food safety pathogens occur in cattle feedlots and enable the development of control strategies.

  34. National Outcomes and Indicators Workshop New Orleans February 22 - 24

  35. Purpose • Consensus on a few Outcomes and Indicators that can be reported on nationally and/or regionally in the Plan of Work and Annual Report. • Outcomes that can be aggregated across the nation to show a national impact.

  36. Outcome Teams • Five Teams • Childhood Obesity • Climate Change • Food Safety • Global Food Security and Hunger • Sustainable Energy

  37. Outcome Teams • Will define two or more national outcomes and measures (research and extension) and/or two or more regional outcomes and measures for each of the five NIFA priority areas.

  38. Who’s Participating? • 55 Land-Grant Representatives • Research and Extension • Directors, Associate and Assistant Directors • Administrators, Associate and Assistant Administrators • Regional Executive Directors • State Program Specialists • Evaluation Specialists • Plus 5 Land-Grant Facilitators

  39. Who’s Participating? • From Each of the 5 Regions • 1 Research and 1 Extension Representative on each of the 5 teams = 50 persons • 1 University Evaluation Specialist on each team • 1 University Facilitator for each team • From NIFA • 2 NPLs for each team = 10 persons • 2 Planning, Accountability, and Reporting Staff

  40. Who’s Choosing Participants? • Regional Executive Directors working with Directors • NIFA Executive Leadership assigning NPLs

  41. Team Makeup • 14 Persons per team • 10 Land-Grant Program Experts • 1 Land-Grant Evaluation Expert • 2 National Program Leaders – NIFA • 1 Land-Grant Facilitator (non-decision making role) • 2 Planning, Accountability and Reporting Staff from NIFA will provide support and guidance

  42. Logistics • New Orleans, LA – Feb. 22 – 24, 2011 • 2 full days (Tues. & Wed.) and one half-day (Thur.) • Participants will be invited • University support for Land-Grant participants

  43. CRIS Issues

  44. Future CRIS Enhancement • NIFA will require the state partners to complete all the components of the formula grant proposal package, including the project outline, before it is considered complete and ready to submit to NIFA. • NIFA will only accept project outlines in pdf format, uploaded via the CRIS Forms Assistance web site.

  45. Financial Report – AD-419 • Due February 1, 2011 !!! • Only for Formula Grant and State Projects • Hatch (and Multistate Hatch) • Evans-Allen • McIntire-Stennis (forestry) • Animal Health (1433) • State projects (voluntary and not required) • Usefulness for Animal Health capacity for formula calculation

  46. Future CRIS Enhancement • The CRIS staff will “defer” a formula grant proposal prior to routing to a reviewer in the event that the wrong proposal was initially submitted. • The CRIS site administrator will have the ability to remove an erroneously submitted project outline and upload the correct project outline and resubmit the entire project in the event that an defer action was performed by the CRIS staff or reviewer for the same issue.

  47. Financial Report – AD-419 • Funds expended on NIFA non-formula grants in Field 204 no longer required or accepted • Use CRIS Forms Assistance Web Site; or • Send spreadsheets to cris@nifa.usda.gov • Summary sheets will be created and returned as part of verification process

  48. Financial Report – AD-419 • Multistate Hatch Projects • Terminated MRF projects may be extended one year as a regular Hatch project. • MRF Funds can be reported on that project only in the transition year • Expenditures not permitted in Multistate field beyond transition year

  49. Financial Report – AD-419 • Funds should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar • Do not use zero or negative funds. These will be disregarded. • Staff support years are not allowed on projects with no funds reported.

  50. Questions? E-mail questions to rwc@nifa.usda.gov