Caird E. Rexroad, Jr. Wilbert H. Blackburn.  ARS is a matrix organization comprised of National Program Staff who establish national research program.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
WCDR Thematic Panel Governance: Institutional and Policy Frameworks for Risk Reduction Annotated Outline UNDP – UNV – ProVention Consortium – UN-Habitat.
Advertisements

USDA May 21, 2003 Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable.
CDCs 21 Goals. CDC Strategic Imperatives 1. Health impact focus: Align CDCs people, strategies, goals, investments & performance to maximize our impact.
Office of Scientific Quality Review Dr. Joyce Loper, Scientific Quality Review Officer Dr. Michael Strauss, Peer Review Coordinator.
Campus Improvement Plans
April 6, 2011 DRAFT Educator Evaluation Project. Teacher Education and Licensure DRAFT The ultimate goal of all educator evaluation should be… TO IMPROVE.
Queensland Treasury Department Role and Function of Treasury Financial Framework Charter of Fiscal and Social Responsibility and Priorities in Progress.
The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 An Updated Government Performance and Results Act: What it means for CSBG National Association for State Community Services.
The Agricultural Research Service Steven R. Shafer Deputy Administrator Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Systems.
Peer Assessment of 5-year Performance ARS National Program 301: Plant, Microbial and Insect Genetic Resources, Genomics and Genetic Improvement Summary.
1 Program Performance and Evaluation: Policymaker Expectations 2009 International Education Programs Service Technical Assistance Workshop Eleanor Briscoe.
Orientation to Performance and Quality Improvement Plan
PHAB's Approach to Internal and External Evaluation Jessica Kronstadt | Director of Research and Evaluation | November 18, 2014 APHA 2014 Annual Meeting.
Chair, Department of Management & Marketing
Resource Allocation in Canada Evaluation, Accountability and Control Brian Pagan Expenditure Operations and Estimates Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
Common recommendations and next steps for improving local delivery of climate finance Bangkok, October 31, 2012.
The Competitive Grants Environment Presented by: Dr. Deborah Sheely Dr. Mark Poth Competitive Programs Unit.
Leadership: Connecting Vision With Action Presented by: Jan Stanley Spring 2010 Title I Directors’ Meeting.
Dr. Anna Palmisano, Deputy Administrator, Competitive Programs The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service Competitive Programs.
Overview of ARS National Programs Steven Kappes Deputy Administrator Animal Production & Protection National Program Staff Agricultural Research Service.
Monitoring and Evaluation in MCH Programs and Projects MCH in Developing Countries Feb 10, 2011.
1 Introduction to Evaluating the Minnesota Demonstration Program Paint Product Stewardship Initiative September 19, 2007 Seattle, WA Matt Keene, Evaluation.
Evaluation Assists with allocating resources what is working how things can work better.
Dr. Anna Palmisano Deputy Administrator- Competitive Programs Unit Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service.
ADD Perspectives on Accountability Where are We Now and What does the Future Hold? Jennifer G. Johnson, Ed.D.
National Science Foundation 1 Evaluating the EHR Portfolio Judith A. Ramaley Assistant Director Education and Human Resources.
USDA Agricultural Research Service. 16% of the $9 trillion gross domestic product. 8% of U.S. exports. 17% of employment. < 2% U.S. workforce on farms.
IAOD Evaluation Section, the Development Agenda (DA) and Development Oriented Activities Julia Flores Marfetan, Senior Evaluator.
Report on the Evaluation Function Evaluation Office.
Commissioning Self Analysis and Planning Exercise activity sheets.
Larry R. Miller, Acting Associate Administrator; Bart Hewitt, Program Analyst, Planning and Accountability; Greg Crosby, National Program Leader The Cooperative.
Minnesota Council for Quality Driving Excellence, Sustaining the Journey Landmark Center, St. Paul, MN May 18, 2010 Minnesota Department of Human Services.
Knowing What ¢ount$: Connecting Performance to the Budget
Week 12: Performance Management and Performance Budgeting Discuss Eureka exercise Review mid-term Conceptual Origins of Performance Management Government.
WHO EURO In Country Coordination and Strengthening National Interagency Coordinating Committees.
Revisions Proposed to the CIS Plan by the Global Office Misha V. Belkindas Budapest, July 3-4, 2013.
1 Strategic Plan Review. 2 Process Planning and Evaluation Committee will be discussing 2 directions per meeting. October meeting- Finance and Governance.
Kathy Corbiere Service Delivery and Performance Commission
1 Cross-Cutting Issues 5310-JARC-New Freedom U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration SAFETEAU-LU Curriculum August 7, 2007.
TCP/SNO/3401 Optimizing the Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture for Adaptation to Climate Change Prof. Dr. Hanaiya El Itriby National.
How is a grant reviewed? Prepared by Professor Bob Bortolussi, Dalhousie University
Monitoring and Evaluation in MCH Programs and Projects MCH in Developing Countries Feb 9, 2012.
EcoPRO Vision Trained, certified professionals will establish sustainable landscaping as the norm for homes, institutions, and public spaces, thus contributing.
New Mexico State University Land-Grant System Accountability: Learning from the CSREES Portfolio Review Process Steven Loring Assistant Director Agricultural.
1 Community-Based Care Readiness Assessment and Peer Review Overview Department of Children and Families And Florida Mental Health Institute.
Multistate Research Program Roles & Responsibilities Eric Young SAAESD Meeting Corpus Christi, TX April 3-6, 2005.
Excellence for Each Student Utah State Board of Education Strategic Plan.
New Scientists and Project Plans Building a Plan for Success OSQR.
Agricultural Research Service Office of Technology Transfer Agricultural Research Partnerships (ARP) Network.
HLC Criterion Five Primer Thursday, Nov. 5, :40 – 11:40 a.m. Event Center.
Chapter 5 5 Planning C H A P T E R. Outcomes Differentiate between strategic planning and master planning. Understand the strategic and master planning.
Office of Research and Development Photo image area measures 2” H x 6.93” W and can be masked by a collage strip of one, two or three images. The photo.
Building Consensus on Nationwide Outcomes and Indicators for Extension November 13, 2009.
OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) and Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Grantees Meeting.
Program Planning for Evidence-based Health Programs.
External Review Exit Report Campbell County Schools November 15-18, 2015.
Delivering Results and Satisfaction: Strategic Planning for Information Professional Leaders and Managers SLA 2016 Annual Conference Donald Malcolm Smith,
School Building Leader and School District Leader exam
Institutional Effectiveness Plan
Budgeting systems : Monitoring and Evaluation
9/16/2018 The ACT Government’s commitment to Performance and Accountability – the role of Evaluation Presentation to the Canberra Evaluation Forum Thursday,
Advances in Aligning Performance Data and Budget Information:
Outline: OCS Overview: Organizational Structure USDA Coordination
Planning for Continuous Improvement: The importance of goal setting
Capacities for Successful Implementation
February 21-22, 2018.
Dr Margaret Makelo (SDAR)
Implementing the 2030 Agenda in the Asia- Pacific region, January 2019, Shanghai Institutional arrangements to facilitate coherence in sustainable.
Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Health System (PRIHS) /2020 Sean Dewitt, Program Manager, Health, Alberta Innovates Marc Leduc,
National one Health Strategy( )
Presentation transcript:

Caird E. Rexroad, Jr. Wilbert H. Blackburn

 ARS is a matrix organization comprised of National Program Staff who establish national research program direction and Line Management responsible for geographic area implementation coordinated by the strategic plan and national programs  National program staff has primary responsibility for: national programs research relevance strategic planning, and agency budget  Line Management has primary responsibility for: implementation of relevant high quality research programs, performance accountability, and capacity building

ARS Locations 3

Animal Production Natural Resources Crop Production Human Nutrition Water Quality & Management Soil & Air Resource Management Rangeland, Pasture & Forages Manure & Byproduct Utilization Integrated Agricultural Systems Bioenergy & Energy Alternatives Plant, Microbial & Insect Germplasm Conservation & Development Plant Biological & Molecular Processes Plant Diseases Crop Protection & Quarantine Crop Production Methyl Bromide Alternatives Food Animal Production Animal Health Arthropod Pests of Animals and Humans Aquaculture Human Nutrition Food Safety (animal & plant products) New Uses, Quality & Marketability of Plant & Animal Products Dr. David Klurfeld, Acting

. Program Planning & Priority Setting Scientific Merit Peer Review Program Assessment Project Implementation Program Coordination Quality  National Program Developed (including NP Strategic Plan and Action Plan)  Workshop with Customers and Scientists  Program planning (including centralized project direction and resource allocation)  Project planning (including Project Plan Outline and Project Plan)  Scientific peer review for project quality (OSQR)  Research initiated  Research project and personnel performance monitored annually  National Program performance monitored annually  Retrospective national program review by external customer panel  Retrospective Assessment Report prepared for and provided to customers Impact Relevance Performance

 Increasingly, political leaders and society as a whole are becoming more results and accountability oriented The need for accountability is dictated by the Congress, and the Administration  Focuses attention on customer needs & achieving desired outcomes & results, not just effort (e.g., studies, data collection)

 Agency  National Programs  Projects  Locations/Research Units  People

 Government Performance & Results Act (GPRA)  Annual Budget Process  Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)

Government Performance & Results Act-1993 Changed ARS From an Output to an Outcome Organization Quality The Commitment to Quality was Institutionalized

 Research Excellence Meeting Customer / Stakeholder Expectations Deliver Products (information, knowledge & technology) That Meet Customer / Stakeholder Expectations

 ARS reports to Congress selected research accomplishments, providing evidence of the performance of the research programs  Receive specific congressional inquires on the performance (status) of selected research projects

 Supports the Presidents Management Agenda & Government Performance & Results Act (GPRA) Strengthens & reinforces GPRA performance reporting Oversight is provided by OMB  Used as an accountability tool to drive program improvement Identifies a program’s strengths & weaknesses Drives funding and management decisions Allows programs to show improvements over time, and comparisons between similar programs

 Annual Reports  Retrospective Review

 Office of Scientific Quality Review (OSQR) A prospective peer-review of proposed research projects Panel scores: no, minor, moderate, or major revision or not feasible. “certified” projects must receive a score of moderate revision or better  Annual Report Provides data for GPRA, Budget & PART

 On-site review Conducted by a panel of scientists from outside ARS Focused on the Unit’s research performance, quality, capacity, and leadership Conducted every 5 years prior to OSQR review Supplements OSQR’s prospective assessment by a retrospective review

 Customer Focus Group Individuals of influence, early implementers of technology and Local, State, or National leaders Interface with the research staff to identify Research needs Perpetuate innovative ideas Ensures research plans are implemented & outcomes are achieved Organize activities that increase the adoption and visibility of the research Ensure that ARS research has a positive impact on the lives of the agriculture community

 Performance Appraisal System Aligns project objectives to: National Program Action Plans Agency’s and Department’s Strategic Plans Publish in refereed peer reviewed journals  Research Position Evaluation System (RPES) “impact-of-the-person-in-the-job” concept Peer panel review every 3 years – grade 12; every 4 years grade 13; every 5 years grade 14 & 15 Scientists qualifications, scientific contributions & impact have the greatest influence

 Agency GPRA GPRA - annual performance measures (white house, OMB & congressional oversight) Budget - research accomplishments & congressional inquires (OMB & congressional oversight) PART (White House & OMB oversight)  National Programs Annual Reports (White House & congressional oversight) Retrospective Assessment (peer review)

 Research Projects OSQR (peer review, OMB & congressional oversight)  Research Units On-Site Review (peer review) Customer Focus Groups (research needs, customer accountability)  People Performance Appraisal System Publish in Refereed Journals (peer review) RPES (peer review)