Spurring Innovation in Food and Agriculture A Review of the USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Program (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Program Management
5 Program Management
Pages 107-142
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 107... ...
Although AFRI has been in operation only since 2009, its offerings have changed yearly in response to stakeholder input, the scientific leadership of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) , and budget considerations.
|
From page 108... ...
• A set of research focus areas under each priority, which changes in number and degree of specificity. Second, Foundational Program RFAs have narrowed the scope of proposal submissions by emphasizing the need to focus on organisms of rel 1 lthough A the term "multidisciplinary" was not defined under the 2008 Farm Bill, NIFA has taken a broad and comprehensive approach to incorporating multiple disciplines in addressing complex topics that not only include the biological and physical sciences but also the social, behavioral, education, and economic sciences.
|
From page 109... ...
Proposals that include other organisms as model systems have needed to supply special justification to align with AFRI program goals. Proposals for research, education, and extension in the Farm Bill's six priority areas have been eligible for funding each year since 2009 except in 2012, when no foundational grants were offered.2 RFAs have changed in program emphasis and focus.
|
From page 110... ...
Research priorities for the five challenge areas were developed for 3 years of the program (2010, 2011, and 2012)
|
From page 111... ...
Appendix F presents a complete list of the grant types offered in each of the 25 RFAs for foundational and challenge-area programs from 2009 through 2013 and shows a strikingly complex collection of grant offerings with considerable variation year by year. GRANT TYPES As described in this chapter and in Chapter 3, AFRI offers various types of grants.
|
From page 112... ...
Epigenetic regulation Plants in any single or Agricultural Production in b. ight and hormone L combination of any single or combination control a.
|
From page 113... ...
The shift from standard grants aimed at fundamental research to large CAP grants integrating research, extension, and education aimed at specific challenges constituted a strategic change for AFRI. As previously mentioned, even in the Foundational Program, RFAs identified detailed topic areas rather than less directed exploratory efforts.
|
From page 114... ...
- orest systems: southern F dairy production systems aquaculture and specialty conifers - Forest systems: western conifers livestock - rassland, pastureland, and G - orest systems: deciduous F rangeland systems hardwoods and mixed forests - groecosystems that provide A ecosystem services (e.g., provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services identified under the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) Childhood obesity prevention Preschool and early elementary Same areas as FY 2010 but for Same areas as FY 2010 but for school-age children (ages 2-8 older children (ages 9-14)
|
From page 115... ...
or Child Development or Related Fields to Prevent Childhood Obesity - ethodological Research to M Assess the Effectiveness of Obesity Prevention Strategies - ommunity-Based Childhood C Obesity Prevention Food safety - higa toxin–producing S - Salmonella and Campylobacter - Microbial ecology of food Escherichia coli (STEC) in poultry borne pathogens - Food processing technologies - Control of other food-borne - Viruses in food pathogens of concern, e.g., - ood safety education and F Listeria monocytogenes emerging food safety issues continued 115
|
From page 116... ...
TABLE 5-3 Continued 116 RFA AFRI Challenge Areas FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Food security - mproving feed efficiency of I - ranslating genomics into T - ncreasing reproductive fertility I agriculturally relevant animals practical applications for in food animals - inimizing losses from one M selection of animals with - inimizing losses from a third M livestock disease with major genetic resistance to diseases livestock disease with major impact on food production, - inimizing losses from a M impact on food production, marketing, and/or trade second livestock disease marketing, and/or trade - inimizing crop plant losses M with major impact on food - anagement of plant insect M from oomycete pathosystems production, marketing, and/ pests - rogram delivery and P or trade - anagement of plant bacterial M implementation of wide-area - anagement of fungal diseases M diseases pest monitoring in plants - nhancing the viability of small E - mproving sustainable food I - anagement of vector M and mid-sized farms in the systems to reduce hunger and associated pathogens in plants context of global food security food insecurity domestically - nhancing animal welfare in E through and globally sustainable food systems – a - valuating trade and E systems approach that evaluates sustainable food systems -- labor, biological, environmental, and environment, animal welfare, societal impacts of different and related issues in major production systems food-exporting countries to the - valuating Life Cycle Analysis E United States of sustainable food systems - etermining U.S. consumer D - etermining the impact of use D willingness to pay for standards of sustainable food system best that enhance food security practices in communities - mproving public policies and I business strategies that enhance sustainable food systems and global food security
|
From page 117... ...
Sustainable bioenergy - rop protection for sustainable C - mpacts of policy on feedstock I - and-use changes resulting L feedstock production systems production systems from feedstock production and - nhanced-value co-product E - calable conversion of S conversion development feedstock to "drop-in" biofuels - ocioeconomic impacts of S - arbon sequestration and C - mpacts of feedstock I biofuels in rural communities sustainable bioenergy production systems on - ogistics of handling feedstocks L production pollinators and wildlife for biofuels aAreas that are crossed out indicate projected RFAs for 2011 and 2012 that were not issued in those years.
|
From page 118... ...
of research supported by AFRI. Table 5-4 lists the percentage of overall funding of grant research focus areas from 2009 to 2012, as reported in the published AFRI annual synopses.
|
From page 119... ...
In 2009, AFRI offered only foundational grants; in 2010, it offered foundational and all the challenge-area grants; in 2011 and 2012, some programs were not offered; and in 2013, all programs were offered again. As mentioned above, AFRI adopted a policy of "continuation funding" for the CAP grants in the challenge-area program.
|
From page 120... ...
120 TABLE 5-7 Budget for New Programs, by Program Area Over Years of Program Program Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 In millions of dollars Foundational 190 64 78 0 136 Challenge Climate Change 0 55 0 12 5 Childhood Obesity 0 25 8.5 5 5 Food Safety 0 20 7 0 10 Food Security 0 19 0 19 5 Sustainable Bioenergy 0 40 0 11 10 Subtotal for Challenge 0 159 15.5 47 35 Total for all new 190 223 93.5 47 171 Total for all grants, as announced in RFAs 190 262 262 264 264 % of total for new 100% 85% 36% 18% 65% SOURCE: USDA-NIFA, 2009, 2011a, 2012a, 2013g.
|
From page 121... ...
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 121 TABLE 5-8 Number of New Grants Awarded, by Year FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 470 403 281 254 SOURCE: USDA-NIFA, 2009, 2011a, 2012a, 2013g. FIGURE 5-1 Setting AFRI's challenge-area program.
|
From page 122... ...
; this makes it difficult for investigators to predict which priority or program areas will be offered and emphasized at any given time. Allocation of funds for challenge and foundational program RFAs is also determined by "NIFA leadership taking into account stakeholder input, previous year investments, non-AFRI program support from NIFA and other funding agencies, and scientific judgment" (USDA-NIFA, 2013h)
|
From page 123... ...
are prepared by the RFA writing group, which comprises a number of NPLs and program specialists, on the basis of the established NIFA proposal and award policy, parts of which are found on the NIFA website and at Grants.gov. The approval chain of AFRI RFAs consists of the leadership of the relevant NIFA institute, NIFA senior executives (the Science Leadership Council)
|
From page 124... ...
NIFA aims to provide at least 30 days of preparation time for letters of intent from the date of RFA issuance for most standard grant programs and at least 2 months for CAP proposals. Responses to letters of intent are to be provided within 2–3 weeks of the deadline.
|
From page 125... ...
Panel managers are part-time, temporary USDA employees recruited for the sole purpose of managing AFRI proposal review, whereas NPLs are full-time, permanent USDA employees. The panel-manager system is a modification of the rotator system used at NSF.4 An advantage of the panel-manager system is that its part-time nature makes it easier to recruit busy active researchers to participate.
|
From page 126... ...
Often, additional review criteria are used to review proposals submitted to specific programs; these are usually described in the RFAs. Panel members submit written reviews before the face-to-face panel meetings, which are usually held in Washington, DC.
|
From page 127... ...
TABLE 5-9 AFRI Proposal-Review Activitiesa Number of Number of RFAs Number of Programs Number of Proposals Number of Panels Panel Members FY 2009 1 40 2,335 29 517 FY 2010 7 51 1,571 39 551 FY 2011 3 24 1,904 21 382 FY 2012 5 17 960 12 165 aMost data are derived from AFRI's annual synopses (USDA-NIFA, 2009, 2011a, 2012a, 2013g)
|
From page 128... ...
The budget of any particular AFRI program is established in advance of peer review, so the program can approximate the number of proposals that can be funded when the funding plan is presented to the Division Director and Institute Assistant Director. After peer review, funds are normally not redistributed among programs in a Division or throughout an institute on the basis of the quality or number of fundable proposals or a desired change or to balance portfolios among scientific areas or among types of research.
|
From page 129... ...
That means that projects may need to be redistributed among NPLs for post-award management, depending on the numbers and complexity of foundational, challenge, CAP, and standard grants in any particular portfolio. 100 90 80 70 Percent Time Spent on AFRI 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 AFRI National Program Leaders FIGURE 5-3 Time allocation for AFRI by NIFA NPL.
|
From page 130... ...
, Hispanicserving institutions, Native American institutions, and many other related non-LGUs and others through listservs maintained by NIFA NPLs for the communities that they serve. NIFA believes that the entire research community typically monitors such postings and promptly distributes them among their various constituencies and that therefore the availability of the RFA announcements is sufficiently wide to meet the needs of nontraditional agricultural research communities.
|
From page 131... ...
Those data offer a clear window into participation in AFRI programs and begin to answer the question of whether AFRI has successfully recruited a broad mixture of nontraditional agricultural scientists and nontraditional agricultural institutions.
|
From page 132... ...
In the American Society of Plant Biology's survey of its membership, 50% of respondents believed that AFRI was an important source of fund 6 esearchers trained is defined by NIFA as undergraduate students, graduates, and post R doctoral scientists funded by NRI and AFRI grants. Data were provided in an Excel file titled "Training Data for NRI and AFRI programs from 2000–2012." 7 FRI grants are awarded to the institution, not the researcher; therefore, there are no A restrictions for submitting proposals based on citizenship.
|
From page 133... ...
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report to the President (PCAST, 2012) recommended that "the USDA, in collaboration with NSF, expand a national competitive fellowship program for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers." PCAST noted a repeated concern among testifying experts that agriculture is facing a workforce deficit and that the best and brightest students are not interested in agricultural research and instead are flocking to medicine, law, and business.
|
From page 134... ...
w Some also believed that large institutions were advantaged because they could handle the lower than standard overhead specified for AFRI grants better, but it is clear that these institutions also submit the largest number of proposals. At first glance, data from the AFRI annual synopses appears to support the perception of advantage enjoyed by LGUs, which on the average submitted 77% of the applications and received 79% of the dollars awarded (Table 5-10)
|
From page 135... ...
. According to data supplied by NIFA, management of AFRI programs requires 24 full-time equivalents, which are spread out over the 58 NPLs, representing an average time spent on AFRI of about 41%.
|
From page 136... ...
Both strategies incorporate collecting and analyzing diversity data on all NSF's activities and activities supported by NSF. Broadening participation is also embedded firmly in NSF's two merit-review criteria, "Intellec tual Merit" and "Broader Impacts," which have been in effect since 1997.
|
From page 137... ...
The report notes NIH's long history of working to increase the diversity of the intramural and extramural research workforce and suggests further research into the review process. Concurrently with the release of the Ginther et al.
|
From page 138... ...
Other program-management processes -- such as overall port olio manage f ment, award decision-making, and post-award assessment -- are not entirely transparent and would benefit from advice of an external advisory body dedicated to helping AFRI. Finding 5-2: The AFRI program procedures are not clearly defined or accessible and are difficult to assess.
|
From page 139... ...
This practice differs from NSF or NIH where funding decisions are made by the agency taking programmatic goals into consideration along with the scientific merit of proposals as deter mined by reviewers. NPLs and panel managers exhibit a high level of commitment and dedication to conducting fair and thorough review.
|
From page 140... ...
In the past, scientists at some institutions, mostly non–land-grant universities, were discouraged from applying to AFRI programs because of the limit on cost recovery. While this indirect cost limit has increased to a level where it is nearly equal to the average negotiated rates at most institutions, the continued existence of the indirect cost limit
|
From page 141... ...
AFRI is asked to support training programs, young esearchers, r new institutions, and a broad array of agricultural disciplines in addiion to the traditional areas. AFRI has followed the same t p attern of outreach and funding previously followed by the NRI, relying largely on LGUs to propose and conduct research in tradi tional agricultural sciences.
|
From page 142... ...
2011b. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.