Agricultural Research: Information on Research System and USDA's Priority
Setting (Chapter Report, 03/28/96, GAO/RCED-96-92).

For more than a century, U.S. agricultural research, education, and
extension activities have been major catalysts in creating a vigorous
agricultural economy and a plentiful, low-cost supply of food and fiber.
Although each has its own purpose--research, to discover solutions to
food and agriculture problems; education, to formally teach future
farmers and others in the food and agricultural sector; and extension,
to disseminate the results of agricultural research and other
information to the public--the functions are closely linked. The
Agriculture Department (USDA) spent more than $2 billion in fiscal year
1994 to support its agricultural research, education, and extension
system. This report (1) provides an overview of the system, (2) provides
the views of users of agricultural research on the extent to which USDA
and the land grant universities are meeting their research needs and on
the effectiveness with which research results are being disseminated,
and (3) assesses USDA processes for planning and establishing research
priorities.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-96-92
     TITLE:  Agricultural Research: Information on Research System and 
             USDA's Priority Setting
      DATE:  03/28/96
   SUBJECT:  Agricultural programs
             Research programs
             Agricultural colleges
             Information dissemination operations
             Agricultural research
             Management information systems
             Colleges/universities
             Research grants
IDENTIFIER:  USDA Water Quality Initiative
             USDA National Research Initiative
             USDA Current Research Information System
             ARS U.S.-Israel Binational Agricultural Research and 
             Development Program
             USDA Integrated Pest Management Program
             USDA National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment 
             Program
             NIST Advanced Technology Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

March 1996

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH -
INFORMATION ON RESEARCH SYSTEM AND
USDA'S PRIORITY SETTING

GAO/RCED-96-92

Information on Agricultural Research System

(150890)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ARS - Agricultural Research Service
  CSREES - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
     Service
  CRIS - Current Research Information System
  ERS - Economic Research Service
  ESCOP - Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
  NRI - National Research Initiative
  USDA - U.S.  Department of Agriculture

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-271250

March 28, 1996

The Honorable Pat Roberts
Chairman
The Honorable E (Kika) de la Garza
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Agriculture
House of Representatives

The Honorable Wayne Allard
Chairman
The Honorable Tim Johnson
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Resource Conservation,
 Research and Forestry
Committee on Agriculture
House of Representatives

This report responds to your request for information on the
agricultural research, education, and extension system.  The report
provides (1) an overview of the system, (2) the views of users of
agricultural research on the extent to which the U.S.  Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the land grant universities are meeting users'
research needs and on how effectively research results are being
disseminated, and (3) USDA's approaches to setting research
priorities. 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we will make no further distribution of this report
until 14 days after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will
send copies to the Secretary of Agriculture and other interested
parties.  Copies will also be made available to others upon request. 

If you have any questions, I can be reached at (202) 512-5138.  Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix VIII. 

Robert A.  Robinson
Director, Food and
 Agriculture Issues


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0


   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

For over a century, U.S.  agricultural research, education, and
extension activities have been major catalysts in creating a vigorous
agricultural economy and a plentiful, low-cost supply of food and
fiber.  While each has its own purpose--research, to discover
solutions to food- and agriculture-related problems; education, to
formally teach future farmers and others who will work in the food
and agricultural sector; and extension, to disseminate the results of
agricultural research and other information to the public--the
functions are closely linked.  Hence, they are often referred to
jointly as the agricultural research, education, and extension
system.  The U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a major role
in the system, providing over $2 billion to support these activities
in fiscal year 1994. 

To help the Congress determine the future course of federal support
for the system, the House Committee on Agriculture and its
Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research and Forestry asked
GAO to (1) provide an overview of the system; (2) obtain the views of
various users of agricultural research on the extent to which USDA
and the land grant universities are meeting their research needs and
on how effectively research results are being disseminated; and (3)
assess USDA's processes for planning and establishing research
priorities. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

The U.S.  agricultural research, education, and extension system is a
diverse, decentralized network of federal, state, and private
research and educational institutions intended to support the
agricultural sector and others.  USDA plays a key role in the
system--it conducts in-house research at over 100 USDA laboratory
locations and acts as a partner with the states by funding research,
higher education, and extension activities at 74 land grant
universities and other institutions.  In addition, the private sector
conducts and funds research, primarily for proprietary purposes. 

Over 65 percent of the food- and agriculture-related associations
responding to GAO's survey found value in the research and
information dissemination activities performed by USDA and the land
grant universities.  These associations represent a broad range of
users of agricultural research, such as commodity groups, public
interest groups, and professional societies.  However, as might be
expected, many associations and others within the research community
believe that the level of public funding for research and research
dissemination activities is inadequate. 

Several problems have hampered USDA's ability to plan and implement
research priorities.  First, USDA lacks a Department-wide research
agenda, and its priority-setting and accountability processes are
flawed in several key areas.  Furthermore, its research information
system does not provide the information needed to facilitate research
planning.  Finally, USDA's ability to shift resources among
priorities is limited by factors such as an aging infrastructure
(e.g., facilities and equipment) and directives from congressional
committees that specific research efforts be initiated or maintained. 
USDA is developing plans and has proposed actions aimed at addressing
some of these problems.  However, it is too early to determine their
effectiveness. 


   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3


      OVERVIEW OF THE AGRICULTURAL
      RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND
      EXTENSION SYSTEM
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1

The agricultural research, education, and extension system is
composed of numerous federal, state, and private sector entities that
conduct both independent and joint activities.  USDA's Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) conducts most federal in-house agricultural
research.  The states' land grant universities also perform research,
which is funded by the states, the federal government--primarily
USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES)--and the private sector.  Finally, private firms conduct
research, largely proprietary, in support of their food or
agricultural businesses.  In fiscal year 1992 (the most recent year
for which private sector data were available), agricultural research
expenditures totaled about $6.3 billion.  The private sector provided
60 percent of these resources, while the federal and state
governments provided 25 percent and 15 percent, respectively. 

The extension activities that disseminate research results to the
public are carried out by the land grant universities and county
extension offices located throughout the nation.  In fiscal year
1994, USDA's funding for extension activities totaled about $419
million.  The states and counties provide most of the funding for
extension activities--almost $1 billion in fiscal year 1994. 


      MOST SURVEY RESPONDENTS FIND
      VALUE IN SYSTEM'S
      ACTIVITIES, BUT MANY ARE
      CONCERNED ABOUT FUNDING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.2

About two-thirds of the 218 food- and agriculture-related
associations responding to GAO's survey rated ARS' research as
somewhat or very effective in meeting their needs, and over 80
percent gave this rating to research conducted at land grant
universities.  Seventy percent of the associations that responded
indicated that extension services were somewhat or very effective in
disseminating research results.  While most of the respondents found
the system at least somewhat effective in meeting their needs, their
views were mixed on its ability to respond to emerging research
needs. 

Not surprisingly, many survey respondents as well as others who use
or conduct agricultural research, such as administrators of land
grant universities, believe that funding for research is inadequate. 
As a result, some associations and private companies are funding
research to meet their specific needs or are entering into
partnerships with ARS laboratories and land grant universities. 
Similarly, ARS and land grant universities are undertaking
collaborative efforts to make better use of limited resources.  For
example, the Midwest Water Quality Initiative brings together
scientists from the land grant universities, ARS, and other federal
agencies to design alternative farming systems in five states and
evaluate their effects on water quality. 


      USDA'S PRIORITY SETTING IS
      HAMPERED BY LACK OF A
      RESEARCH AGENDA AND OTHER
      FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.3

USDA's processes for identifying research priorities and facilitating
accountability for research expenditures are flawed in several
important ways.  First, USDA lacks a Department-wide research agenda
to guide priority setting for two of its principal research
agencies--ARS and CSREES.  Second, the two agencies' priority-setting
processes do not incorporate performance goals or indicators.  Third,
USDA does not comprehensively evaluate the outcomes of these
agencies' research programs.  Fourth, USDA's research information
system does not provide the data necessary to facilitate strategic
planning, priority setting, and accountability.  Finally, the three
general advisory boards established to assist in setting priorities
at USDA's research agencies have had a limited impact. 

In addition, USDA's ability to shift resources to new research
priorities and to implement existing priorities is limited by an
aging infrastructure (e.g., laboratories and equipment), directives
from congressional committees, pressures by commodity and interest
groups to maintain funding levels in their areas of interest, and low
funding levels for the competitive grants program.  Because the
infrastructure evolved to support the research needs of past decades,
USDA is constrained in its ability to move into new research areas
that require different equipment, facilities, and scientific
expertise.  Directives from congressional committees that specific
research areas be funded and certain ARS laboratories remain open
have also limited USDA's ability to allocate resources. 

USDA is developing plans and has proposed actions to improve the
management of its research resources.  Its plans include a move
toward an outcome-oriented strategic planning process that will
establish five desired outcomes for its research agencies, along with
performance goals and indicators and improved research evaluation. 
USDA also plans to establish a council of high-ranking officials from
its research agencies to improve research coordination within the
Department and help develop agencywide research priorities.  In
addition, USDA has proposed that (1) an independent commission be
reauthorized to recommend closures and consolidations of federally
funded research facilities and (2) the three general advisory boards
be consolidated into one.  Finally, USDA has requested funding in its
fiscal year 1997 budget to develop a new research information system. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

GAO is making no recommendations in this report. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

GAO transmitted a draft of this report to USDA for its review and
comment.  In commenting on this report for USDA, the Under Secretary
for Research, Education, and Economics stated that the report
accurately described ARS' and CSREES' research expenditures.  He
noted overall, however, that the value of the report was limited by
the lack of specific recommendations.  In addition, he maintained
that the questionnaire's value is limited by statistical weaknesses
and the failure to survey farmers, ranchers, and extension personnel. 
He further maintained that the report does not reflect discussions
with U.S.  scientific leaders in the agricultural or general
sciences. 

Concerning the first issue, GAO believes that recommendations are not
necessary at this time because USDA is developing plans and has
initiated actions to address the major problems identified in the
report:  the lack of an agencywide research agenda, shortcomings in
ARS' and CSREES' planning and accountability processes, and
inadequacies in USDA's research information system.  GAO believes
that USDA's initiatives have the potential to address these problems
but that more time will be needed to assess their impact.  Second,
regarding his concerns about GAO's survey methodology, GAO surveyed a
universe of 492 food- and agriculture-related associations, and the
report clearly states that the survey results cannot be generalized
to all research customers.  Nevertheless, GAO believes that the
information obtained from the 218 organizations responding to the
questionnaire (including organizations representing farmers and
ranchers) provides valuable insights into how customers value
agricultural research and extension.  Furthermore, GAO supplemented
the survey by obtaining anecdotal information on customers' views
through interviews with individual farmers, ranchers, and extension
personnel, among others, in seven states.  Concerning the third
issue, GAO held numerous discussions throughout the review with a
broad range of scientific leaders in the public and private sectors,
including top-level research officials from USDA, the National
Research Council, the National Science Foundation, and several
food-processing companies as well as deans and extension specialists
at land grant universities in eight states.  The views of these
experts were integral to GAO's assessment of USDA's approaches to
planning and priority setting.  Appendix VII contains the complete
text of USDA's comments, along with GAO's responses. 


INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

For over a century, productivity-enhancing agricultural research has
been an important catalyst in creating a vigorous agricultural
economy and a plentiful, low-cost supply of food and fiber.  Together
with extension and education, agricultural research has helped
transform U.S.  agriculture into a productive, technology-based
operation.  While each of the three functions has its own purpose,
they are interwoven and, hence, are often referred to jointly as the
agricultural research, education, and extension system. 

The research component of the system, devoted to discovering new
solutions for food- and agriculture-related problems, is carried out
through several agencies in the U.S.  Department of Agriculture
(USDA)--including over 100 USDA laboratory locations;\1 74 land grant
colleges and universities;\2 other institutions of higher education;
and numerous private research facilities.  The system's extension
component, which disseminates agricultural research results and
related educational information to the public, is implemented by
thousands of state and county extension specialists and agents.  Land
grant colleges and other universities bear the primary responsibility
for implementing the education component of the system, which
involves providing formal education to future farmers and others who
will be employed in the food and agricultural sector. 

Because of the vast number of participants in the system and the
proprietary nature of some of the information, composite funding
information for the entire system is difficult to obtain.  In fiscal
year 1992 (the most recent year for which private sector data were
available), agricultural research expenditures totaled about $6.3
billion.  The private sector spent about $3.8 billion on agricultural
research--about 60 percent of the combined federal, state, and
private expenditures for that year.  Information on total funding for
higher education to support the agricultural sector is not readily
available; however, USDA allocated about $12.8 million for higher
education in fiscal year 1994.  For extension activities, federal,
state, and county governments allocated about $1.4 billion in fiscal
year 1994. 


--------------------
\1 A laboratory location may include one or more laboratory
facilities. 

\2 The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 established the land grant
college system, and the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C.  361 et seq.)
established a system of state agricultural experiment stations under
the direction of the land grant colleges. 


   THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE
   AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
   EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SYSTEM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

Agricultural research and extension historically have focused on
increasing agricultural productivity and improving the economic
well-being of a largely rural U.S.  population.  Initially, research
concentrated on (1) mechanical innovations for planting and
harvesting that would remove much of the physical labor from farming
and (2) improving the output and productivity of crop and animal
production on farms.  Today, much agricultural research continues to
focus on increasing production through ways to better protect crops
and livestock from insects, disease, and other hazards.  However,
along with farmers and producers, users of agricultural research now
include consumers, as well as groups interested in the environment,
sustainable agriculture, and rural development.  Decreasing the use
of chemicals in agricultural production, creating sustainable
agricultural systems, improving food safety and nutrition, and
enhancing the viability of small farms and rural communities are some
of the newer research areas being addressed in response to this
broadened customer base. 

The 1914 Smith Lever Act established extension services nationwide to
disseminate the knowledge generated by agricultural colleges to
farmers and consumers.  "University extension" is based on the
concept that education and research developments achieved through
public funding should be more readily available to those not
attending universities.  Today, agricultural extension specialists
are often located at land grant universities.  University-based
extension specialists interact with scientists and relay scientific
learning and other knowledge to farmers and other research customers. 
They also serve as the university's link to county extension agents. 
As in agricultural research, the customer base for extension services
currently includes urban populations as well as farmers.  In addition
to providing agricultural information, extension programs are aimed
at the development of communities, families, youth, and leadership
and include diverse programs such as nutrition, 4-H organizations,
and youth and families at risk. 

Education is almost entirely a nonfederal function, but USDA has the
responsibility for strengthening higher education in food and
agricultural sciences through programs to enhance university teaching
programs in agriculture.  The origins of higher education in the
agricultural sciences date back to the Morrill Act of 1862, which
gave the states public lands for use in establishing colleges to
teach agriculture and the mechanical arts.  Initially, the purpose of
these land grant colleges was to meet the educational needs of the
nation's largely rural population and farm-based economy.  However,
most land grant colleges of agriculture are now full-fledged
universities, having expanded well beyond the teaching of
agriculture.  In addition, legislative actions expanded the system of
agricultural colleges to include schools of veterinary medicine and
forestry programs. 

The agricultural research, education, and extension system is
supported by numerous federal, state, county, and private sector
activities.  Many of the participants in the system (particularly
those associated with land grant universities), have multiple
responsibilities for teaching, conducting research, and providing
extension services.  While the system's components (e.g., USDA, the
land grant universities and other institutions, and private
companies) are autonomous and have no central governing authority,
there is some collaboration.  For example, USDA scientists and land
grant university scientists sometimes work together on research
projects.  Similarly, land grant universities in states with common
interests form consortiums that bring together specialized expertise
to address problems relating to commodities or problems common to
those states.  Furthermore, USDA's Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) has established formal arrangements with private companies
aimed at developing and commercializing new technologies through the
use of Cooperative Research and Development Agreements.  Finally,
private companies and commodity groups provide funding to land grant
universities and, to a lesser extent, to USDA to conduct research. 


   USDA'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE
   RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND
   EXTENSION SYSTEM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

USDA is involved in the research, education, and extension system
primarily through ARS and the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service (CSREES).\3 ARS conducts research at its 107
laboratory locations and 35 worksites\4

throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and in four foreign
countries, while CSREES administers funding for research at the land
grant universities and other research institutions.  CSREES is also
the primary federal agency supporting agricultural education and
extension activities. 

Figure 1.1 shows the location of the ARS facilities, land grant
universities established under the Morrill Act of 1862, and
universities established under the Second Morrill Act of 1890
(historically black land grant colleges). 

   Figure 1.1:  Sites of Land
   Grant Universities and ARS
   Locations

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Note:  At the beginning of
   fiscal year 1996, ARS
   laboratories were also located
   in Argentina, France, and
   Panama; 1862 land grant
   universities were also located
   in American Samoa, Guam,
   Micronesia, Northern Marianas
   Islands, and the U.S.  Virgin
   Islands.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\3 In addition, the Economic Research Service and the Forest Service
conduct in-house agricultural research. 

\4 ARS defines a worksite as a location with four or fewer scientists
with leadership at another location. 


      ARS PERFORMS MOST FEDERAL
      IN-HOUSE AGRICULTURAL
      RESEARCH
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.1

ARS, USDA's largest research agency, performs most federal in-house
agricultural research.  ARS has a broad role to develop the knowledge
essential to solving technical agricultural problems that are broad
in scope and have high national priority.  At the end of fiscal year
1994, ARS had a staff of about 6,500 permanent employees, including
over 1,900 research scientists\5 and conducted about 1,500 research
projects at 128 laboratory locations nationwide and in several
foreign countries.\6 Ten years earlier, in fiscal year 1984, 2,600
ARS scientists worked on about 2,700 projects in 140 laboratory
locations. 

In addition, ARS collaborates with land grant universities and other
research institutions--through cooperative agreements, memorandums of
understanding, and other means--to address research problems of
mutual concern.  Finally, ARS has established Cooperative Research
and Development Agreements\7 with the private sector aimed at
translating research into practical products, processes, and
services.  Under these agreements, ARS scientists and private
companies work together to develop and commercialize new
technologies.  Since 1987, ARS has entered into over 500 cooperative
agreements, 239 of which were active in November 1995.  In addition,
over 200 licenses for ARS-developed technologies have been granted to
industries to make, use, and sell ARS-patented inventions. 

In addition to ARS, the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the
Forest Service conduct research.  ERS provides economic and social
science analyses relating to agriculture, food, natural resources,
and rural America.  The Forest Service conducts research on forest
biology, ecology, and forest products. 


--------------------
\5 Other personnel include research technicians and administrative
personnel, such as procurement specialists and clerical staff. 

\6 As of February 29, 1996, ARS had reduced the number of laboratory
locations to 107. 

\7 The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L.  99-52) [15
U.S.C.  3710a] authorizes each federal agency to permit its
government or contractor-operated laboratories to enter into
cooperative research and development agreements. 


      CSREES DISTRIBUTES FUNDS FOR
      RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND
      EXTENSION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.2

CSREES distributes funds for research to state agricultural
experiment stations (the research arm of land grant universities),
schools of forestry, the 1890 historically black land grant colleges
and Tuskegee University, colleges of veterinary medicine, and other
institutions.  It distributes the funds for research through the
formula grants program, competitive grants program, special grants
program, and various other programs.  Specifically: 

  -- Formula funds are allocated to the states according to statutory
     formulas that were established in three separate acts.\8 In
     fiscal year 1994, about 76 percent of the formula funds was
     distributed under the authority established by the Hatch Act to
     state agricultural experiment stations to conduct agricultural
     research.  The experiment stations have wide latitude in
     deciding how to allocate and use these formula funds.  Other
     acts provide formula funds for forestry research, animal health
     research, and agricultural research at the 1890 historically
     black land grant colleges and Tuskegee University. 

  -- The competitive grants program, known as the National Research
     Initiative (NRI),\9 awards funds on the basis of peer-reviewed
     research proposals.  Each year, NRI publishes a program
     description and request for proposals.  The program is open to
     scientists both inside and outside of the land grant university
     system.  In fiscal year 1994, 833 grants were awarded to
     scientists at colleges and universities, other research
     organizations, and federal agencies.  The grants are awarded for
     a fixed term--usually 1 to 5 years. 

  -- The special research grants program was established in 1965 as a
     general authority for agricultural research grants.\10

Conference committee reports accompanying USDA's appropriations often
direct USDA to fund specific research projects at designated
institutions (often referred to as "earmarked" projects).  These
earmarked projects frequently address constituents' specific concerns
and represent the majority of special grant funding (74 percent in
fiscal year 1994).  The remaining funds are for projects that CSREES
designates as national or regional priorities beyond the normal
emphasis of the formula grants program.  These projects are in areas
such as water quality, aquaculture, and integrated pest management. 
Some of these non-earmarked projects are awarded competitively. 

  -- Several other grant programs fund specific research, including
     research on rangelands, sustainable agriculture, and crops such
     as canola.  The Congress also adds line item appropriations for
     specific research projects. 

There is considerable debate in the agricultural research community
about the efficacy of the various funding mechanisms.  The debate
often centers on two issues:  whether funding mechanisms are creating
inefficiencies in allocation and whether federal funds should support
local priorities as well as national priorities.  For example,
supporters of formula funding maintain that these funds provide a
steady base of support for long-term research, whereas opponents
contend that formula allocations may no longer reflect the areas of
greatest research need.  Similarly, proponents of competitive grants
believe that these grants provide a flexible means of supporting new
and emerging high-priority research areas.  However, some groups
contend that the larger, richer colleges obtain most of the
competitive grants at the expense of the land grant colleges in
smaller states.  Special grant funding is particularly controversial. 
Supporters maintain that these grants provide the funding needed to
address local problems, while critics argue that the states should
support issues of local importance and that federal dollars should be
directed toward national priorities. 

In addition to supporting research, CSREES supports extension and
technology transfer programs that are conducted in partnership with
the states.  Extension activities are conducted at the state and
local level by extension staff at the land grant universities and
about 3,150 extension offices, primarily located in counties and
cities.  CSREES provides funds for these activities in three areas: 
basic support for state and local programs; programs designated by
the Congress, such as Water Quality and Youth and Families at Risk;
and facility construction.  The funds for extension activities are
distributed to land grant universities through formula grants and
competitive programs.\11

CSREES also provides funding for education.  Although higher
education is almost entirely a state and local function, CSREES
supports higher education in food and agricultural sciences through
four programs to enhance college and university teaching in
agriculture.\12 These programs provide grants for graduate
fellowships to attract students into agricultural research and grants
that provide incentives for innovations in curriculum development. 

Finally, to support agricultural research, extension, and higher
education, CSREES administers grants to construct and renovate
buildings and facilities.  Each year the conference committee for
USDA's appropriations specifies funds for specific projects at
specific institutions to carry out these activities.  About $54
million was appropriated for building and facilities grants in fiscal
year 1994.  An additional $7.9 million was appropriated for extension
facilities at the 1890 historically black land grant universities. 
The latter funding was requested by USDA. 


--------------------
\8 These acts are the Hatch Act of 1887, the McIntire-Stennis
Forestry Research Act of 1962, and sections 1433 and 1455 of the Farm
Bill of 1977. 

\9 The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (also
known as the 1990 Farm Bill) authorized the National Research
Initiative, which replaced a smaller competitive grants program. 

\10 The Act of August 4, 1965 (7 U.S.C.  450i). 

\11 Authority for most extension funding is provided in the
Smith-Lever Act of 1914, sections 3(b), (c), and (d) (7 U.S.C.  343
et seq.).  The act limits the distribution of funds to land grant
universities established under the Morrill Act of 1862. 

\12 These programs are the Higher Education Challenge Grants Program,
Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program, 1890 Institution
Capacity-Building Grants Program, and the Food and Agricultural
Sciences National Needs Graduate Fellowship Grants Program. 


   SYSTEM IS FUNDED BY A MIX OF
   FEDERAL, STATE, AND PRIVATE
   EXPENDITURES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

USDA provides considerable support for the agricultural research,
education, and extension system; over $2 billion was appropriated for
these activities in fiscal year 1994.  However, it does not provide
the greatest share of funding.  In fiscal year 1992 (the most recent
year for which private sector data were available), the private
sector provided more than half of the research dollars, and the
states provided most of the funding for higher education and
extension activities. 


      FUNDING FOR THE RESEARCH
      COMPONENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3.1

In fiscal year 1992, the federal government funded about 25 percent
of all agricultural research, state governments about 15 percent, and
the private sector about 60 percent.  Federal agricultural research
funds supported USDA's in-house research and research conducted at
land grant and other institutions.  The states funded research
conducted at land grant and other institutions.  Private funds
supported private sector research and research at land grant
institutions and, to a lesser degree, federal laboratories.  Figure
1.2 shows the flow of agricultural research funds in fiscal year
1992. 

   Figure 1.2:  Flow of Research
   Funds, Fiscal Year 1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Notes:
   1.  Public sector data are
   expenditures reported in USDA's
   Current Research Information
   System.  Private sector data
   are estimates of research
   expenditures made by ERS. 
   Fiscal year 1992 was the most
   recent year for which private
   sector data were available. 

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   2.  Other institutions include
   the 1890 historically black
   land grant colleges and
   Tuskegee University and
   veterinary and forestry
   schools.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   3.  Private sector funding to
   the state system includes
   $143.4 million in direct grants
   from industry, $116.1 million
   from product purchases (such as
   sales of college-owned
   livestock) and patent license
   fees, and $121 million from
   other sources (such as grants
   from nonprofit foundations). 
   The private sector also
   provides limited funding to
   federal research agencies.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  ERS.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As shown in the figure, private sector funding for all agricultural
research--estimated at $3.8 billion in fiscal year 1992--exceeded the
total of $2.5 billion in funds provided by the federal and state
governments in that year.  Most private sector funds--$3.4
billion--supported specific industry needs, and the results of this
research are generally proprietary.  As figure 1.2 shows, about 10
percent of this total--$381 million--went to research at land grant
universities.\13

In fiscal year 1994, ARS spent 72 percent--$673 million--of the $939
million expended for federal in-house research.\14 ARS' funding has
remained relatively level over the past 10 years, increasing only 5
percent in constant dollars between 1984 and 1994.  However,
according to ERS, the cost of conducting research increased faster
than the overall rate of inflation during this period.  If this
factor is taken into account, the real level of ARS' funding
decreased by about 10 percent. 

The remaining $266 million for in-house research was spent by USDA's
Forest Service ($207 million), ERS ($56 million), and the
Agricultural Cooperative Service ($3 million).  In addition to these
direct expenditures for research, USDA also funds the National
Agricultural Library and the National Agricultural Statistics Service
to provide informational and statistical support. 

Additional federal funds for agricultural research--$703 million in
fiscal year 1994--were spent by the land grant university research
system.  Of these expenditures, CSREES provided just over 50
percent--about $353 million.  This amount included $214 million in
formula funds, $63 million in competitive grants for the NRI program,
$54 million in special grants, and $22 million in other research
grants administered by CSREES.  A number of other federal
agencies--within and outside of USDA--also contributed to the system. 
Other USDA agencies provided about 11 percent (about $80 million) of
the research funds spent at the land grant universities.  Another 38
percent (over $270 million) was provided by other federal agencies,
including the National Institutes of Health ($68 million), National
Science Foundation ($39 million), Department of Health and Human
Services ($31 million), and Agency for International Development ($27
million). 

While the federal contribution to research at the land grant
universities is significant, most research support for these
institutions comes from the states--over $1 billion in fiscal year
1994.  The private sector also provides funds for research, which
include grants from industry and nonprofit organizations and revenue
generated by commercial sales of products (such as college-owned
livestock) and licenses.  According to USDA officials, product sales
are different in source and purpose from industry grants.  Land grant
universities can actively develop, manage, and invest in sales
operations to provide steady, predictable income.  Funding from
industry grants, however, is less unpredictable.  Figure 1.3 shows
the distribution of fiscal year 1994 funds for land grant system
research.  (App.  I provides information on research funding for each
state and other jurisdiction in fiscal year 1994.)

   Figure 1.3:  Fiscal Year 1994
   Funding for Land Grant System
   Research

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Dollars in parentheses are in thousands.  Total funding =
$2,131,698,000.  Shaded areas note the total federal funding, which
is $703,009,000.  Percentages total more than 100 percent because of
rounding. 

Source:  USDA, Current Research Information System. 

As shown in figure 1.4, overall funding for land grant research has
steadily increased from $1.3 billion to $2.1 billion from 1975 to
1994.  However, in constant dollars, funding from the states has
declined since 1990, while both federal and private support has
increased.  Taking all sources of support for land grant research
into account, the states' share decreased by 10 percent between 1975
and 1994.  Private sector funding more than doubled over the period,
from about $196 million to about $418 million in constant 1994
dollars.  In 1975, the greatest proportion--49 percent--of private
sector funding came from product sales by the universities, with an
additional 31 percent from grants and 20 percent from other sources
(e.g., grants from nonprofit foundations).  However, by 1995, product
sales accounted for 29 percent of private sector funding, ranking
third behind grants (37 percent) and other sources (35 percent). 

   Figure 1.4:  Funding for Land
   Grant Research by Source,
   Fiscal Years 1975-94

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  USDA, Current Research Information System. 


--------------------
\13 Private sector funding to the state system includes direct grants
from industry, product purchases (such as sales of college-owned
livestock) and patent license fees, and support from other sources,
such as grants from nonprofit foundations. 

\14 Most research funds were provided by USDA.  Another 3 percent
came from other federal agencies and private sector funds provided to
federal organizations. 


      FUNDING FOR EXTENSION AND
      EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3.2

Overall, federal, state, and county governments provided almost $1.4
billion in fiscal year 1994 for extension activities.  Extension
activities also received approximately $76 million from such sources
as private grants, endowments, and fees charged for services.  Total
funding for higher education in the agricultural sciences is not
available.  (App.  I provides information on federal extension
funding for each state and other jurisdiction in fiscal year 1994.)

To support extension and education activities in fiscal year 1994,
the federal government provided about $419 million for extension
activities--over 70 percent of these funds was distributed by
formula, and the remainder was designated by USDA or congressional
committees for specific programs.  The federal government's support
for extension activities constituted about 29 percent of all funding
for extension activities.  The states' and counties' funding for
extension activities are clearly much more significant.  In fiscal
year 1994, state and county governments provided almost $1 billion,
or about 65 percent of the total funding for these activities.  While
the total funding for higher education in agriculture-related areas
is not available, the federal support in this area has been and
continues to be subordinate to the states' support.  In fiscal year
1994, USDA provided about $12.8 million for higher education. 

As shown in figure 1.5, the total funds for extension services
increased slightly between 1975 and 1994.  However, the federal share
of the total decreased from 40 percent to 29 percent over the period. 

   Figure 1.5:  Funding for
   Extension Services, Fiscal
   Years 1975-94

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Funding in constant 1994 dollars.  "Other" includes non-tax sources,
such as private grants and endowments, and fees charged for services. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4

The Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House Committee on
Agriculture and its Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research
and Forestry asked us to examine the U.S.  research, education, and
extension system.  Specifically, we agreed to (1) provide an overview
of the system; (2) obtain the views of various users of agricultural
research on the extent to which USDA and the land grant universities
are meeting their research needs and on how effectively research
results are being disseminated; and (3) assess USDA's processes for
planning and establishing research priorities. 

To address the first objective, we reviewed the legislative history
of the agricultural research, education, and extension system;
examined the literature assessing various aspects of the system; and
obtained and reviewed documents describing the mission,
organizational structures, staffing, funding mechanisms, and budgets
of USDA's research organizations.  We obtained information on
federal, state, and private expenditures for agricultural research
from USDA's Current Research Information System.  We performed a
limited review of the accuracy of the funding data, but we did not
independently verify it.  We engaged a consultant, Dr.  Ron Cooper,
to provide technical advice on agricultural research and assist in
analyzing funding data obtained from USDA. 

For the second objective, we conducted a nationwide mail survey of
492 associations that deal with food and agriculture issues.  We
obtained the list of associations from the 1995 Encyclopedia of
Associations.\15 The food- and agriculture-related associations in
the encyclopedia represent areas such as agribusiness, agricultural
science, animal breeding, conservation, forestry, fruits and
vegetables, livestock, nurseries, and poultry.  These organizations
provide a cross-section of the potential customers of agricultural
research.  However, they do not include such customers as individual
farmers, producers, and extension agents.  A total of 218
associations, representing a 44-percent response rate, completed and
returned the survey.\16 The responses from these associations, which
we report in chapter 2, cannot be generalized to other users of
agricultural research.  An additional 41 associations returned the
survey and indicated they were not familiar with agricultural
research; they did not complete the survey.  A copy of the survey,
including total responses, is included in appendix II.  Appendix III
lists the 218 associations that completed the survey. 

To address the second objective, we also interviewed land grant
university scientists and administrators in eight states (California,
Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas)
and other research customers, including farmers, commodity groups,
public interest groups, private companies, and extension specialists
and/or administrators in those states and Washington, D.C. 

To address the third objective, we reviewed relevant literature and
USDA planning documents and strategic plans; previous GAO reports;
and reports from USDA's Office of Inspector General, the
Congressional Research Service, the National Research Council, the
Office of Technology Assessment, and ERS.  Within USDA, we
interviewed officials from ARS, CSREES, and the Research, Education,
and Economics mission area.  In addition, we interviewed the Chair,
National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges'
Board on Agriculture; the Executive Director, National Research
Council's Board on Agriculture; ARS laboratory and regional
directors; and deans, department heads, and extension specialists at
the land grant universities in the eight states mentioned above.  We
also interviewed officials and obtained documents concerning research
evaluation from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the
National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology at the Department of Commerce. 

Unless otherwise noted, the dollar figures we report are in constant
1994 dollars. 

We conducted our review from July 1995 through February 1996 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We
provided USDA with a draft of our report for comment.  USDA's
comments and our response are in appendix VII. 


--------------------
\15 Our list included all food- and agriculture-related associations
located in the United States that we judged to be potential users of
agricultural research.  We excluded associations, such as boards of
trade and stock exchanges, that we expected would not use
agricultural research.  We sent questionnaires to the resulting
universe of 492 associations and did not sample from it. 

\16 To increase our response rate, we sent postcard reminders
followed by telephone calls to all associations that had not
responded. 


ASSOCIATIONS FIND VALUE IN
RESEARCH AND EXTENSION BUT
PERCEIVE FUNDING CONSTRAINTS
============================================================ Chapter 2

Most of the 218 associations responding to our survey, representing a
broad spectrum of the food and agriculture sector, believe that the
research performed by ARS and the land grant universities is either
somewhat or very effective in meeting their needs.  Similarly, most
associations that responded said that state extension services are
either somewhat or very effective in disseminating research results. 
Not surprisingly, however, many of the associations believe that the
sector needs more funding for agricultural research and extension. 

In response to perceived funding constraints, some associations and
private companies are funding desired research themselves or entering
into partnerships with ARS laboratories and land grant universities. 
Similarly, USDA and the land grant universities are initiating
collaborative efforts to make better use of limited resources. 


   ASSOCIATIONS VIEW RESEARCH AS
   SOMEWHAT OR VERY EFFECTIVE IN
   MEETING THEIR NEEDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

Over 65 percent of the associations responding to our survey believed
that the research conducted by ARS and the land grant universities
was somewhat or very effective in meeting their needs.\17 The
respondents also indicated that the areas of plant sciences,
integrated pest management,\18 animal sciences, and food safety were
most useful to them.  The associations' views were mixed regarding
ARS' and the land grant universities' ability to respond to changing
research needs. 


--------------------
\17 Appendix II shows the number of responses for each survey
question. 

\18 Integrated pest management uses all suitable techniques,
including biological controls--such as predators, parasites, and
pathogens--as well as chemicals to control pests. 


      VIEWS ON EFFECTIVENESS IN
      MEETING RESEARCH NEEDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.1

Of the 218 associations responding to our survey, 81 percent rated
research conducted at land grant universities as somewhat or very
effective in meeting their research needs.  Sixty-six percent gave
these ratings for ARS' research.  Figure 2.1 summarizes the
respondents' views on the effectiveness of the research. 

   Figure 2.1:  Effectiveness of
   ARS and Land Grant Universities
   in Meeting Research Needs

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Some of the associations that rated ARS and/or land grant
universities as very effective in meeting their members' needs
supplemented their ratings with written comments.  For example, an
association of plant physiologists indicated that the National
Research Initiative's competitive grant research, which is primarily
conducted at land grant universities, was contributing significantly
to advancements in agricultural research.  A state association of
apricot producers commented that both ARS and land grant universities
play a major role in the continuing survival of the agricultural
economy.  Another association, representing ranchers, commented on
the high caliber of the scientists performing research at land grant
universities, but it also expressed the need for scientists to spend
more time with agricultural groups to identify producers' needs. 

The need for obtaining greater input from customers was also raised
by some associations that rated ARS' and the land grant universities'
research as somewhat effective in meeting members' needs.  For
example, an association representing the poultry and egg industry
commented that agricultural research should be more problem-oriented
and that industry should have a greater voice in the program.  On the
other hand, an environmental and research association rated ARS' and
land grant universities' research as very ineffective because it
believed that their research programs were largely determined by
commercial needs and did not sufficiently address environmental
needs. 


      AREAS VIEWED AS MOST USEFUL
      TO RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.2

As shown in figure 2.2, research on plant and animal sciences was
most useful to 37 percent (23 percent and 14 percent, respectively)
of the respondents.  In addition, 18 percent of the responding
associations rated the research areas of integrated pest management
and food safety as most useful. 

   Figure 2.2:  Types of Research
   Most Useful to Respondents

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  "Other" includes specialized areas of agricultural research,
such as aquaculture and apiculture. 


      VIEWS ON RESPONSIVENESS TO
      CHANGING NEEDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.3

Our survey results were mixed concerning USDA's and the land grant
universities' ability to respond to emerging research needs. 
Specifically, 43 percent of the associations responding to the survey
believed that ARS' response to changing research needs was somewhat
or very adequate, while about 26 percent believed that it was
somewhat or very inadequate.  With respect to the land grant
universities, about 52 percent rated their response to emerging needs
as somewhat or very adequate, while about 21 percent rated it
somewhat or very inadequate.  (See fig.  2.3.)

   Figure 2.3:  Adequacy of
   Response by ARS and Land Grant
   Universities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

For example, a public policy organization commented that both ARS
and, to a lesser extent, the land grant universities are slow in
responding to changing priorities unless they are of high public
interest.  This institute indicated that higher priority should be
given to research on the nutritional quality of food and growing food
with fewer chemicals.  Another association that conducts and funds
agricultural research commented that the departmental structure of
land grant universities made it difficult for them to develop new
programs.  Finally, an association that represents farmers indicated
that both ARS and the land grant universities needed to give higher
priority to research on rural development. 


   RESPONDENTS VALUE EXTENSION
   SERVICES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

Seventy percent of the respondents indicated that state extension
services were somewhat or very effective in disseminating research
results.  (See fig.  2.4.) While 45 percent indicated that extension
services were one of their primary sources for obtaining research
results, the respondents also obtained research information from
other sources.  Seventy-seven percent obtained research results from
publications and 55 percent through professional networking. 

   Figure 2.4:  Effectiveness of
   State Extension Services in
   Disseminating Research Results

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

While most associations we surveyed found value in the extension
services' role in disseminating research results, 44 percent believed
that increased funding was necessary to improve research
dissemination.  One respondent commented that in addition to a
reduction in funding, there has been a shift of funds from
agriculture to social issues.  In 1995, USDA sponsored focus groups
with users of agricultural research and extension.  The participants
agreed that many issues needed to be addressed in connection with the
extension services, including the appropriate role for the services. 
Other research customers that we spoke with, as well as state and
federal research and extension officials, raised similar concerns. 

For example, several land grant officials told us that the
effectiveness of the extension services in disseminating agricultural
research results has been diminished as a result of the increased
emphasis on social issues, such as community and economic
development, family and youth services, and nutrition and health
information.  One administrator of a land grant university commented
that the need to respond to social issues has diverted the extension
services from their basic mission of transferring research
information and technology.  Other customers of agricultural research
commented that it was difficult for extension agents to provide all
the information that producers need because there are too few agents. 
On the other hand, two extension service administrators said that the
services' increased emphasis on social issues was needed and
appropriate.  USDA officials recognize that there are divergent
concerns and are examining the federal role in supporting extension
services. 


   CONCERNS ABOUT FUNDING ARE
   LEADING TO ALTERNATIVE FUNDING
   ARRANGEMENTS AND INCREASED
   COLLABORATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

Not surprisingly, many users of agricultural research believe that
current funding for research is inadequate and needs to be increased. 
As discussed in chapter 1, funding for ARS has been relatively level
over the past decade, while the cost of performing research increased
faster than the rate of inflation.  Similarly, although total funding
for land grant university research and the extension services
increased moderately during the 1990s, state funding for these
activities decreased. 

Concerns about funding constraints by users of research as well as
those conducting it have resulted in alternative funding
arrangements, the formation of research partnerships among members of
the research community, and calls for more efficient use of existing
resources. 


      RESPONDENTS' CONCERNS ABOUT
      FUNDING LEVELS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.1

The respondents to our survey expressed varying degrees of concern
about the appropriate levels of federal and state funding for
agricultural research.  Forty-five percent of the respondents said
that too little federal funding was provided for ARS, and 58 and 62
percent, respectively, indicated that too little federal and state
funding was provided for research by the land grant universities. 
(See fig.  2.5.)

   Figure 2.5:  Perceived Adequacy
   of Public Funding for Land
   Grant Universities and ARS

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

For example, a state association of fruit producers responded that
federal and state governments provided too little funding for land
grant universities and that funding cuts would jeopardize the
agricultural sector.  Another association of farmers commented that
ARS fulfills a necessary and vital function but that its ability to
fulfill its role is often limited by inadequate physical and
financial resources.  An association of agricultural scientists
voiced similar concerns about inadequate funding and added that
greater coordination of research between the government, industry,
and academia was particularly important when budgets are constrained. 

Some of the administrators of land grant universities that we spoke
with also discussed the impact of funding constraints on their
operations.  For example, Kansas State University eliminated its
corn, grass, and alfalfa breeding programs because administrators
felt that research in these areas already being conducted by the
Universities of Nebraska and Missouri would be applicable to Kansas
farmers.  They noted, however, that over time the university may lack
adequate programs to train future scientists to conduct research in
these breeding programs.  At Michigan State University, officials
said that federal funding for agricultural research had not increased
for many years and that formula grant funds had not kept pace with
inflation. 


      ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR
      SUPPORTING RESEARCH
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.2

In response to funding limitations, some private sector organizations
we visited as well as some of the associations we surveyed are
providing resources to USDA and the land grant universities to
perform the research they need.  For example, a Pennsylvania meat
processing company has supported ARS' research over the last 10 years
by allowing agency scientists to have access to the company's
facilities.  Through this arrangement, ARS scientists conduct
research on meat in the processing plant itself.  The research
undertaken in this partnership includes efforts to reduce pathogens
on equipment, eliminate salmonella in meat, and develop a system for
using recycled water in food processing plants. 

Another association representing producers and processors in the
poultry and egg industry told us it spends about $1.2 million
annually on research in poultry processing, poultry breeding, feed
mill management, and poultry health.  In 1995, it helped fund about
80 research projects at ARS and land grant universities. 
Additionally, since 1987, over 500 companies have entered into
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with ARS to develop
and commercialize new technology. 

In addition, some land grant universities are initiating efforts to
use resources more efficiently through increased collaboration, as
shown in the following examples: 

  -- The Midwest Water Quality Initiative has brought together
     scientists from land grant universities, ARS, the U.S. 
     Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection Agency as
     well as extension service specialists.  The project involves
     designing and field-testing alternative farming systems in five
     states and evaluating their effects on water quality. 

  -- The ARS Food Animal Protection Research Laboratory at College
     Station, Texas, works with a land grant institution to reduce
     salmonella in poultry.  The ARS laboratory is a focal point for
     (1) developing new technology, (2) obtaining the Food and Drug
     Administration's approval to test the technology in commerce,
     (3) developing research partnerships with universities and
     private industry, and (4) transferring the technology to the
     private sector. 

  -- A tri-state food safety consortium--comprising Kansas State
     University, Iowa State University, and the University of
     Arkansas--was initially funded by a special grant but is
     currently funded by a combination of formula funds, special
     grants, state funds, and private industry grants.  Memorandums
     of understanding were prepared to spell out the funding,
     structure, and cooperative agreements among the universities to
     perform interdisciplinary research on meat-borne pathogens. 
     Kansas State specializes in beef animal research, Iowa State in
     swine research, and the University of Arkansas in poultry
     research.  According to Kansas State officials, this coalition
     of researchers has improved communication and collaboration,
     education and training, technology transfer, and the overall
     efficiency and effectiveness of conducting research. 

To promote more efficient use of resources, USDA officials are
proposing regional centers specializing in high-priority research
areas.  Scientists participating in these centers would not
necessarily be physically co-located.  Fundamental to this concept is
the notion that not all institutions need to have research programs
in all specialties or problem areas.  USDA officials believe that
such centers would be less costly to taxpayers since they make better
use of resources by reducing the need for a broad range of
specialized expertise at every laboratory or university. 


PRIORITY SETTING IS IMPAIRED BY
LACK OF A DEPARTMENT-WIDE RESEARCH
AGENDA AND CONSTRAINTS ON RESOURCE
ALLOCATION
============================================================ Chapter 3

In view of the concerns about funding levels for agricultural
research and the current environment of fiscal constraint, it is
critical that USDA's funds be allocated as effectively and
efficiently as possible.  USDA's primary influence on research
priorities lies in the over $800 million budgeted for ARS and the
National Research Initiative (NRI) competitive grants program, which
is administered by CSREES.\19 In connection with these programs, we
found that the following problems hamper the effectiveness and
efficiency of USDA's processes for identifying research priorities,
allocating resources among those priorities, and achieving
accountability for research expenditures: 

  -- USDA lacks a Department-wide research agenda to guide priority
     setting.  Furthermore, the priority-setting processes used by
     two of its principal research agencies--ARS and CSREES--do not
     include important elements of planning and accountability.  For
     example, neither agency incorporates performance goals or
     indicators into its processes or comprehensively evaluates the
     outcomes of its research programs. 

  -- USDA's research information system does not provide sufficient
     information on the costs of research or the outcomes of research
     projects. 

  -- The three general advisory boards established to assist USDA's
     research agencies in setting priorities have had limited impact. 

In addition, USDA's ability to shift resources among research
priorities is limited by an aging infrastructure (e.g., laboratories
and equipment), directives from congressional committees that
specific research activities be undertaken, pressures from commodity
and interest groups to maintain funding in their areas of interest,
and low funding levels for the NRI program. 

As a result of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and
the administration's 1995 Farm Bill Guidance, USDA has developed
plans and proposals to improve its priority setting for research. 
Key to these actions is a move toward an outcome-oriented strategic
planning process with performance goals and indicators to determine
if the goals were achieved.  While these initiatives have the
potential to address some of the problems we identified, more time
will be needed to assess their impact. 


--------------------
\19 While USDA's Economic Research Service and Forest Service also
conduct in-house research, we did not examine the processes these
agencies used to establish research priorities. 


   USDA LACKS AN AGENCYWIDE
   RESEARCH AGENDA AND EFFECTIVE
   PRIORITY-SETTING PROCESSES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

USDA has not developed a Department-wide agenda to guide the
activities of its research agencies.  Instead, ARS and CSREES
independently plan and set priorities for the research over which
they have primary influence--ARS' in-house research and CSREES' NRI
program.  Although CSREES also funds agricultural research through
formula funds and special grants to the land grant universities and
other institutions, it has a minimal impact in directing the use of
these funds.  In addition, neither ARS nor the NRI program (1)
incorporates performance goals or indicators into its
priority-setting processes, (2) assesses the relative importance of
its research priorities in the context of USDA's total research
portfolio (i.e., research activities conducted and/or funded by
USDA), or (3) comprehensively evaluates the outcomes of its research
programs. 


   ARS' AND NRI'S RESEARCH
   PRIORITIES ARE SET WITHOUT A
   DEPARTMENT-WIDE AGENDA
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

ARS and CSREES plan and implement in-house research programs
independently, with limited coordination between them and without the
benefit of Department-level mission objectives and strategies. 
According to USDA officials, problems in cooperation among USDA's
research agencies are long-standing and result, in large part, from
(1) a lack of incentives for interagency cooperation and (2)
competition for funding.  The officials added that although
cooperation between the agencies has been lacking, scientists from
ARS and the land grant universities frequently collaborate and share
information on scientific issues.  In addition, the NRI program has a
board of directors comprising the administrators of USDA's research
agencies.  USDA officials noted that the board is designed to provide
coordination in such areas as program planning and reviewing
proposals. 

While ARS and the NRI program have their own priority-setting
processes that serve their particular needs, the processes are
similar in several ways.  Both categorize their research into broad
program areas (currently six for ARS and seven for NRI) that
generally correspond to the priorities established in the 1990 Farm
Bill.\20 Within these broad program areas, ARS has identified 52
research priorities and the NRI program, 27.  In addition, both
obtain information on research needs from a wide range of
stakeholders, including the Congress, commodity and interest groups,
USDA advisory groups, and others. 

ARS has shifted its emphasis among its six research areas only
marginally over the past 12 years.  As shown in table 3.1, funding in
each area, as a percentage of total funding, changed less than 4
percentage points from fiscal years 1982 to 1994. 



                               Table 3.1
                
                 Comparison of Funding in ARS Research
                   Areas, Fiscal Years 1982 and 1994

                                        Percentage          Percentage
                                  research funding    research funding
Research area                           in FY 1982          in FY 1994
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Soil, water, and air                            13                  13
Plant productivity                              40                  37
Animal productivity                             20                  17
Commodity conversion and                        18                  20
 delivery
Human nutrition and well-                        7                   9
 being
Systems integration                              2                   4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  ARS. 

The percentage of funding allocated among six of NRI's seven research
areas changed little from fiscal year 1992 to 1994.  As discussed
later, directives from congressional committees and legislation have
affected the allocation of funds among NRI's research areas.  With
total funding of about $100 million during those years, the program
has allotted about 40 percent of its funds to plant systems, 25
percent to animal systems, 20 percent to natural resources, 7 percent
to nutrition, and 4 percent each to (1) processing for value-added
and (2) markets, trade, and rural development.  The seventh research
area--agricultural systems--was added by program staff in fiscal year
1994 and funded with 2 percent of the funds from each of the other
six areas. 

Concerns about the inadequacies in USDA's research planning and
priority-setting processes are not new.  Reports dating back 15 years
have identified the need to improve USDA's strategic planning to
provide a basis for more efficient research management.  For example,
in a 1981 review of long-term planning for agricultural research, GAO
called upon USDA to prepare a long-term assessment of the food and
agriculture sector's needs and to determine the research necessary to
meet those needs.  Similarly, in 1993 the Office of Technology
Assessment testified on the need to set better and more consistent
goals for USDA's research.  It noted that resources cannot be
allocated appropriately unless priorities are determined and goals
established.\21


--------------------
\20 The purposes in the 1990 Farm Bill include (1) satisfying human
food and fiber needs; (2) increasing global competitiveness; (3)
expanding rural economic opportunities and enhancing the quality of
life for farmers, rural citizens, and society as a whole; (4)
developing new crops and uses for agricultural commodities; (5)
enhancing the environment and natural resources; and (6) enhancing
human health. 

\21 Long-Range Planning Can Improve the Efficiency of Agricultural
Research and Development (CED-81-141, July, 24, 1981) and The Federal
Role in Agricultural Research Priority-Setting, Office of Technology
Assessment testimony before the Subcommittee on Department Operations
and Nutrition, House Committee on Agriculture, June 17, 1993. 


      USDA'S PRIORITY SETTING FOR
      FORMULA FUNDS AND SPECIAL
      GRANTS IS LIMITED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1

Although formula funds and special grants made up about 70 percent of
CSREES' research funding in fiscal year 1994, USDA generally has had
a limited impact on establishing priorities for these programs.  The
systemwide priorities for formula funds distributed to agricultural
experiment stations\22 under the Hatch Act are laid out by a
committee of experiment station administrators under the auspices of
the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges.  CSREES is one of many participants involved in the
strategic planning process used to develop these priorities every 4
years.  (See app.  IV for a summary of this process.)

According to a CSREES official, the agency's role in the planning
process is to help ensure that systemwide priorities fall within the
six broad program areas set out in the 1990 Farm Bill.  While CSREES
administers the Hatch Act's formula funds and has certain oversight
responsibilities for them,\23 it does not play an agenda-setting role
in directing their use.  This situation is not surprising since
CSREES provided less than 30 percent of the total funding for land
grant research in fiscal year 1994.  (See ch.  1 for information on
agricultural research funding.)

CSREES awards two categories of special grants:  those involving
funds for specific research projects at specified institutions
designated in reports from appropriations committees (often referred
to as "earmarked" grants) and those that CSREES awards to address
areas it has identified as national or regional needs.  In fiscal
year 1994, special grant funding was about $71 million, of which
about $53 million was designated in congressional committees'
reports.\24

USDA has little to no impact on setting priorities for earmarked
special grants.  These grants, which often reflect local interests,
support projects in all 50 states and several other locations.  (See
app.  I for the locations and amounts of special grant funding in
fiscal year 1994.) As with formula funds, CSREES has administrative
and oversight responsibilities for the grants.  For example, CSREES
staff review all special grant proposals from eligible institutions,
focusing on potential duplication of research and the quality of the
science.  The agency discusses its comments with grant applicants;
however, according to an agency official, it rarely disapproves
earmarked special grant proposals.\25

According to USDA officials, CSREES has considerable influence over
the special grants that are not earmarked.  In fiscal year 1994,
CSREES was allocated approximately $18 million to fund projects that
primarily involve problems of national and local interest in such
areas as water quality and integrated pest management.  CSREES
awarded about $7 million of these grants competitively.  These grants
were also used to support interagency agreements, cooperative
agreements, and research consortia. 


--------------------
\22 State agricultural experiment stations are the research arms of
land grant universities. 

\23 CSREES' oversight responsibilities for Hatch Act funds include
reviewing the experiment stations' annual work plans that specify
projects supported wholly or in part by formula funds.  In reviewing
these projects, CSREES focuses on relevancy to the six broad program
areas and technical quality.  It recommends modifications to projects
as it deems necessary. 

\24 In fiscal year 1994, about $54 million of the total special grant
funding was expended, as discussed in chapter 1. 

\25 USDA's Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
said that on one or two occasions, USDA has rejected earmarked grant
proposals because the proposed projects did not fall within the areas
covered by the authorizing legislation. 


      RESEARCH PROGRAMS'
      PRIORITY-SETTING PROCESSES
      LACK IMPORTANT PLANNING AND
      ACCOUNTABILITY ELEMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2

Neither ARS nor the NRI program has incorporated performance goals or
indicators into its research programs.  Such tools would allow target
levels of performance to be set and the results of program
performance to be measured.  These measures would enhance the
management of research programs and strengthen accountability for
research expenditures.  Furthermore, the data obtained from such
measures are important in evaluating research outcomes. 

In addition, neither program systematically assesses the relative
importance of its research priorities in the context of USDA's
overall research portfolio.  Although individual research projects
are assessed for scientific merit within a specific area of research,
the projects are not assessed in terms of their relative
contributions to USDA's total portfolio.  Without such assessments,
there can be little assurance that research resources are being
appropriately allocated to the areas of greatest need. 

Similarly, USDA does not employ comprehensive evaluations of the
impacts of research programs--the total consequences of research
programs, including both intended and unintended positive and
negative results.  Such evaluations can provide important
information, such as social and economic costs and benefits.  This
information is useful in making informed decisions on research
investments and enhancing accountability. 

Currently, NRI's and ARS' evaluations primarily involve peer
reviews\26 of proposed projects.  For example, in ARS, scientists
peer-review project plans to improve the scientific quality of
proposed projects.  ARS also uses various types of peer review in
assessing individual scientists' accomplishments for purposes of
promotion; conducting research planning workshops; and reviewing
manuscripts, laboratories, and research areas.  The NRI program uses
peer review panels to assess the quality, relevance, and importance
of each proposal submitted to NRI.  Panels rank proposals and submit
recommendations to NRI's chief scientist for use in determining which
proposals to fund. 

In 1994, the National Research Council's Board on Agriculture found
that USDA had done little to track the output of the NRI program and
recommended that USDA systematically evaluate the program's
performance.  In addition, the board suggested that USDA evaluate its
investment in agricultural research across all four of its research
funding areas--NRI competitive grants, in-house research, formula
funds, and special grants.  According to USDA research officials, the
Department's upcoming strategic planning process for research will
address these issues. 


--------------------
\26 Peer review is an evaluation by scholars or other individuals
with the expertise necessary to judge the scientific merit of a
project, manuscript, or other matters requiring expert assessment. 


   RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEM IS
   INADEQUATE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

According to USDA officials, the Department's Current Research
Information System (CRIS) does not provide the information needed to
facilitate strategic planning, priority setting, and accountability. 
CRIS is a computerized database, used by thousands of researchers and
others, to document and inventory publicly funded agricultural
research.  Developed in the late 1960s, the system was intended to
help researchers and others to identify research projects.  However,
it was not designed to be a management information system that would
give managers the information they need for strategic planning and
priority setting.  As a result, CRIS lacks information important to
managers and policymakers, such as planned expenditures and outcomes
for research conducted by other agencies. 

Although CRIS is the only national database with information on
publicly funded agricultural research, it has significant
limitations, according to USDA and university officials.  First, its
system for classifying research activities into categories does not
include many current research areas.  For example, neither
sustainable agriculture nor biotechnology, which are current areas of
major concern, are standard CRIS categories.  To identify projects in
these areas, CRIS users must judgmentally select a combination of
standard categories, with no assurance that projects identified by
one user will be the same as those identified by another user.  As a
result, USDA cannot accurately identify the extent of publicly funded
research in those categories.  In 1993, USDA contracted with the
Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station to assess CRIS.  The
assessment recommended, among other things, that USDA change the
classification system by adding new categories, such as
biotechnology, and eliminating others that are obsolete.  USDA has
initiated a project to develop a new classification system with a
target completion date of summer 1997. 

In addition, CRIS lacks such information as planned research
expenditures and comprehensive data on agricultural and food science
projects supported by other federal agencies, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency. 

Furthermore, CRIS does not track progress toward achieving desired
research outcomes.  In addition, according to USDA officials,
information on outcomes is often incomplete because land grant
universities and others do not systematically collect data on the
outcomes of their research projects.  USDA and other members of the
research community believe that such information is necessary in
order to provide accountability for public research expenditures. 
Oregon Invests, a database developed by Oregon State University, is
one of the few agricultural research databases that describe the
potential economic, social, and environmental outcomes of its
research projects.  (App.  V describes this system.)

Finally, CRIS' data are not current.  For example, financial
information on fiscal year 1995 research activities will not be
compiled until June 1996 because some states and agencies delay in
providing data to USDA. 

To address these problems, USDA officials stated that the Department
has requested funding in its fiscal year 1997 budget request to
develop a system to include data on research, extension, and
education issues.  Agency officials said that if the Congress does
not provide the requested funds, USDA will be unable to develop a
system with the substantial improvements and expanded capabilities
needed to respond to congressional mandates, including the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and other accountability
requirements.  Without additional funds, they will consider scaling
back the data maintained in CRIS and focus on improving the
timeliness and quality of the remaining data. 


   USDA'S ADVISORY BOARDS HAVE HAD
   LIMITED IMPACT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

The three general advisory boards established by the Congress to
advise USDA on research activities have played a negligible role in
establishing research priorities.  Two of the boards--the Joint
Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences and the National
Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board--were
established in 1977 to improve coordination and priority setting
within USDA and the land grant research and extension system.  A
third board, the Agricultural Science and Technology Review Board,
was established in 1990 to provide advice on emerging
technologies.\27 (See app.  VI for an overview of these boards as
well as 10 other research advisory committees.) According to USDA's
Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, the practical
impact of these boards has been minimal.  The boards' recommendations
have been used primarily to validate what USDA has already determined
should be priorities and to support budget requests. 

In recent years, funding for the general advisory boards has been so
reduced that they have been unable to adequately fulfill their roles,
according to USDA officials.  In fiscal years 1992 through 1994, the
funding levels decreased by more than 50 percent.  The limited budget
has affected some boards' ability to fulfill their mandated
responsibilities, such as updating the Joint Council's 5-year plan
and preparing the Users Advisory Board's annual report commenting on
the President's budget for agricultural sciences. 


--------------------
\27 The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
eliminates the three general advisory boards and replaces them with a
National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics
Advisory Board. 


   USDA HAS LIMITED FLEXIBILITY TO
   SHIFT RESEARCH PRIORITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5

As a result of the environment in which its research programs are
conducted, USDA faces a number of limitations on its ability to shift
resources among research areas.  These include ARS' aging
infrastructure that cannot easily be adapted to meet new research
needs, direction from congressional committees on specific research
activities and laboratories, pressures from commodity and interest
groups to maintain funding levels for projects in their areas of
interest, and low funding levels for the NRI program. 


      ARS' INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITS
      FLEXIBILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5.1

ARS' infrastructure--facilities, equipment, research scientists, and
land--has evolved over the decades to support specific research
needs, some of which have declined in importance.  The need to
maintain this infrastructure has limited ARS' ability to move into
new research areas that require different equipment, facilities, and
scientific expertise. 

ARS has over 1,900 permanent research scientists, almost 3,000
buildings, and about 400,000 acres at 107 laboratory locations and 35
worksites in the United States and Puerto Rico and at 4 foreign
locations.  Some of this infrastructure, such as quarantine
facilities and special equipment for work on recombinant DNA\28 and
foreign animal diseases, was acquired to conduct specific types of
research and cannot be easily modified for use in other research
areas. 

Moreover, scientists at these facilities have acquired specialized
expertise.  ARS has about 40 scientific career tracks for research
scientists, the primary ones being chemistry, entomology, plant
physiology, genetics, and microbiology.  Within these fields, many
ARS scientists have acquired expertise in specific commodities,
insects, and diseases.  According to an ARS official, while the
agency moves these scientists to related areas, major shifts can
cause reductions in productivity.  Successful research depends on the
training and experience of individual scientists and on the teamwork
that develops within and among laboratories.  For both individuals
and groups, many years are required to reach peak productivity. 


--------------------
\28 Deoxyribonucleic acid is the class of nucleic acids that function
in the transference of genetic characteristics. 


      CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES'
      DIRECTIVES AND COMMODITY
      GROUPS' PRESSURES AFFECT
      USDA'S ABILITY TO REALLOCATE
      RESEARCH RESOURCES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5.2

Congressional committees' directives and legislation affect CSREES'
and ARS' abilities to implement priorities by limiting their ability
to shift funding to different research areas, commodities, and/or
facilities.  Congressional committees' directives have had the
greatest impact on CSREES' special grants program--in particular, the
earmarked grants.  As discussed earlier, each year the conference
committee for USDA's appropriations legislation directs that a large
portion of special grant funding be awarded to specific institutions
for specific purposes.  The National Research Council reported in
1995 that congressionally earmarked special grants are much more
significant today, in terms of total USDA research funding to the
land grant universities, than they were 20 years ago.  According to
USDA, while the earmarking of special grants meets the priorities of
constituents in specific congressional districts, the process dilutes
the Department's ability to coordinate research activities and
address national priorities.  USDA has recommended that earmarks be
eliminated and that all special grants be awarded competitively. 

USDA's ability to establish priorities for the NRI program has also
been affected by directives from congressional committees and by
legislation.  According to USDA officials, congressional direction
and legislation drive the broad priorities of the NRI program;
however, CSREES sets specific priorities for research within these
broad categories.  When the program was established in the 1990 Farm
Bill, the Congress specified that it fund research in six broad
categories, as discussed above, and, where appropriate, that grants
be consistent with the goals of sustainable agriculture.  The
legislation also identified the percentages of funds to be allocated
for specific types of research.  For example, at least 30 percent of
NRI funds was to support multidisciplinary research by fiscal year
1993.\29

In addition, in fiscal year 1995, the House Committee on
Appropriations directed that $10.8 million of the program's $103
million be awarded for specific programs.  The Committee designated
$2.5 million for the U.S.-Israel Binational Agricultural Research and
Development program\30 and $8.3 million for three research
programs--water quality, integrated pest management, and pesticide
impact assessment.  The fiscal year 1996 appropriations had no
committee directives for the NRI program.  While CSREES plans to
continue funding research in the three designated areas, it does not
plan to fund the U.S.-Israel research program with NRI's funds. 

In connection with the formula funds authorized by the Hatch Act,
legislation has shaped the structure, purpose, and funding of
research programs supported by these funds.  However, congressional
committees' directions have had little impact on the agricultural
research conducted by land grant universities that are the recipients
of formula funds.  As discussed in chapter 1, Hatch Act formula funds
are distributed to the states on the basis of a mandated formula. 
Systemwide priorities are established for these funds.  However, in
reality, each experiment station has considerable latitude in
allocating and using formula funds to meet the needs of its
respective state and local communities. 

Congressional committees' directives have also affected ARS' ability
to reallocate resources.  For example, two appropriations committees'
reports\31 on agriculture appropriations have stated that in
complying with the committees' intentions, ARS is expected not to
"redirect support for programs from one state to another without
prior notification to and approval by the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations."

According to a former ARS Administrator and other ARS officials, most
research funds can be traced through the years as having been
earmarked or targeted by congressional committees for specific
commodities or states.  Local economies are sometimes closely tied to
a particular commodity.  Thus, it is not surprising that the
congressional representatives of such communities will seek to ensure
that research efforts relating to that commodity are undertaken and
maintained. 

Appropriations committees' directives have also made it difficult for
ARS to close laboratories that are old, possibly underutilized, and
perform research similar to that of other ARS locations.  For
example, according to an ARS official, over 60 percent of ARS'
facilities are over 30 years old, and in 1995, 50 ARS laboratories
had less than 10 scientists each.  As of fiscal year 1993, ARS
estimated that $700 million was required to repair its facilities,
many of which do not meet modern building codes or the technical
demands of high-technology research programs.  When funds are spent
on building renovation and modernization, fewer funds are available
for research.  Recognizing this problem, ARS proposed closing 12
laboratories in its fiscal year 1996 budget request.  However, the
House and Senate committees' reports for USDA's appropriations
directed that a total of nine of these laboratories remain open and
that the research conducted at the remaining three continue to be
funded.\32

In addition, ARS and other USDA research officials noted that
pressures from commodity and other interest groups affect ARS'
ability to shift resources among research areas.  According to USDA,
the responsiveness of the federal research agencies has been driven
by the ability of groups to organize and gain access to the
policy-making process.  USDA officials noted that these groups act as
"watchdogs," tracking funding by commodity or problem area and
working through their congressional representatives or through ARS to
ensure that funding in their areas of interest is not reduced.  For
example, according to ARS officials, as a result of the Cotton
Council's long-term influence, ARS funds cotton research at levels
higher than it would otherwise.  ARS currently conducts about 100
cotton-related research projects--which include breeding, production,
pest control, and cotton processing and finishing--at 20 separate
locations. 


--------------------
\29 The legislation also specified that at least 20 percent of NRI's
funds support mission-linked research and at least 10 percent be used
to strengthen the research and educational capacity of educational
and research institutions. 

\30 USDA transferred $2.5 million from the NRI program to the special
grants program to support the U.S.-Israel Binational Agricultural
Research and Development program, which is administered by ARS. 

\31 S.  Rep.  No.  142, 104th Cong.  1st Sess.  at 28 (1995); H.R. 
Conf.  Rep.  No.  212, 103d Cong.  1st Sess.  at 12 (1993). 

\32 The Senate and House committees' reports for USDA's
appropriations differed in their directions regarding the status of
most of these laboratories.  However, the combined reports directed
that nine laboratories remain open or be designated as worksites. 
However, based on additional verbal directions from the committees,
ARS ultimately designated eight laboratories as worksites and kept
the remaining four laboratories open. 


      FUNDING LEVELS LIMIT NRI'S
      ABILITY TO ADEQUATELY FUND
      RESEARCH PRIORITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5.3

The NRI program has never been fully funded, thus limiting the
program's effectiveness in meeting its goals.  The 1990 Farm Bill
authorized the program at $150 million in fiscal year 1991, with
increases each year, reaching $500 million in fiscal year 1995.\33

However, appropriations have hovered at about $100 million for each
of fiscal years 1992 through 1995.\34

Both the Office of Technology Assessment and the National Research
Council's Board on Agriculture, in separate evaluations of the NRI
program, concluded that the program was underfunded.  In 1994, the
Council's Board on Agriculture recommended that the program be funded
at its authorized level of $500 million.  According to the Board,
competitive grants are the best way to stimulate fundamental research
activities in specific areas of science.  At current funding levels,
the Board felt that the program would be unable to achieve the goals
envisioned for it.  In a report issued the following year, the Office
of Technology Assessment concluded that insufficient funding was
detrimental to NRI's goals, increased the frustration and lowered the
productivity of participating scientists, and made obtaining
foundational knowledge (i.e., knowledge that serves as a basis for
applied research) more difficult.\35

According to the Acting Deputy Administrator, CSREES, the NRI program
was set up to support a $150 million to $200 million annual program,
in terms of the number of priority areas receiving funding.  Because
of the funding shortfalls, program staff have begun reducing the
number of research priorities funded each year.  Starting in fiscal
year 1996, not all of the 27 priorities will be funded annually.  For
example, in fiscal year 1996, they are not requesting project
proposals for "biological control research," a current priority under
the plant research area. 


--------------------
\33 The NRI program was authorized at $275 million in fiscal year
1992, $350 million in fiscal year 1993, and $400 million in fiscal
year 1994. 

\34 The Congress funded the program at $97.5 million in fiscal year
1992, $97.5 million in fiscal year 1993, $105.4 million in fiscal
year 1994, and $103.1 million in fiscal year 1995. 

\35 Challenges for U.S.  Agricultural Research Policy, OTA-ENV-639
(Washington, D.C.:  U.S.  Government Printing Office, Sept.  1995). 


   USDA IS TAKING ACTIONS TO
   IMPROVE RESEARCH PLANNING AND
   MANAGEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:6

As a result of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA) and the administration's 1995 Farm Bill Guidance, USDA has
taken, or is planning to take, several actions to improve the
planning and management of research.  It is too soon, however, to
evaluate the effectiveness of these steps. 


      GPRA REQUIRES STRATEGIC
      PLANNING AND OUTCOME
      MEASURES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:6.1

GPRA requires, among other things, that agencies develop strategic
plans that contain goals and objectives for the agencies' major
functions.  In response to this mandate, USDA's Research, Education,
and Economics mission area\36 is spearheading the development of a
5-year strategic plan that it expects to begin implementing in fall
1996.  The draft plan includes desired outcomes for the mission area
as well as general goals intended to facilitate attainment of the
outcomes and articulate the mission area's direction for the 5-year
period.  The mission area plans to prepare its annual plan and budget
using the priorities of the strategic plan.  Beginning with the
fiscal year 1998 budget request, its goals, objectives, and outcomes
are expected to be published, thus enabling the Congress to base
appropriation decisions on the mission area's performance in
executing its strategic plan. 

The mission area's current draft strategic plan outlines five desired
outcomes: 

  -- An agricultural production system that is highly competitive in
     the global economy. 

  -- A safe and secure food and fiber system. 

  -- A healthy, well-nourished population. 

  -- Greater harmony between agriculture and the environment. 

  -- Enhanced opportunity for farmers, ranchers, and rural people and
     communities. 

The plan also lists several important challenges, such as the need to
strengthen federal-state partnerships, manage the downsizing of
programs without compromising their priorities, and improve the
public's understanding and appreciation of the value of agricultural
research. 

Ultimately, USDA intends to measure the performance of research
activities\37 according to their contributions to one or more of
these outcomes.  However, as discussed earlier, CRIS currently does
not track research outcomes. 

To be consistent with GPRA, each agency in the mission area is
developing its own strategic plan describing how it will contribute
to achieving the mission area's outcomes.  The mission area
anticipates that its draft strategic plan will be completed by March
31, 1996.  After that, the mission area is planning an extensive
review process with the Congress, customers, partners, and
stakeholders before the plan is finalized by early fall 1996. 

The draft strategic plan addresses, or plans to address, many of the
shortcomings we identified in USDA's processes for setting research
priorities.  Specifically: 

  -- Through its desired outcomes, the mission area's draft plan
     provides an agenda and a direction for the research programs of
     its component agencies. 

  -- To be consistent with GPRA, the mission area's strategic plan,
     as well as the plans of its component agencies, will identify
     priorities and use those priorities as the basis for developing
     annual budgets. 

  -- GPRA requires agencies to establish performance goals and
     indicators.  ARS' draft plan contains such goals and indicators,
     and CSREES officials said they plan to define performance goals
     and measures for the NRI program. 


--------------------
\36 The Research, Education, and Economics mission area, headed by an
Under Secretary, includes ARS, CSREES, ERS, and the National
Agricultural Statistics Service.  This mission area is one of seven
within USDA. 

\37 A research activity may include a number of projects related to a
specific area, such as methyl bromide alternatives or soil erosion
prediction and control. 


      USDA FACES CHALLENGES IN
      EVALUATING RESEARCH OUTCOMES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:6.2

The need for improved evaluations of the outcomes of USDA's research
programs has been recognized both within and outside of USDA.  At the
same time, however, there is acknowledgement that such evaluations
are difficult to implement and costly to perform.  For example: 

  -- Research efforts--particularly those in basic research--often
     take many years before they yield results that are apparent as
     measurable impacts. 

  -- Research outcomes are usually the result of many factors, not
     just one project or set of projects.  Furthermore, they are
     often not easily quantifiable, particularly in areas such as the
     environment or human health. 

  -- The costs of evaluation studies can range from under $50,000 to
     over $1 million, according to a 1994 study prepared by a
     practitioners' working group on research evaluation for the
     Office of Science and Technology Policy.  The study adds that
     evaluations cannot be done competently unless they receive
     adequate funding. 

Comprehensive evaluations of research programs have been relatively
rare, according to a RAND draft report\38 being developed for the
Office of Science and Technology Policy.  Most assessments of federal
research programs are descriptive--far removed from the
quantification of performance generally required under GPRA. 
However, several agencies are undertaking efforts to quantify the
impacts of research.  For example: 

  -- The Advanced Technology Program at the National Institute of
     Standards and Technology\39 funds projects expected to lead to
     new technologies that award recipients will commercialize
     through the use of funds from other sources.  The program is
     attempting to track short-term results and long-term national
     economic impacts.  Research evaluation begins with market and
     industry assessments to better understand the potential of
     proposed projects.\40 During project implementation, the program
     attempts to assess the research's impact through occasional
     surveys of, among other things, awardees' perceptions of the
     program's short-term impacts.  It also conducts case studies of
     projects to determine the rate at which new technologies are
     adopted and changes experienced by the participating company as
     a result of the project.  The program is currently exploring
     ways to project the impact of the research across the entire
     economy (e.g., national employment and industrial output
     measures) through the use of large-scale macroeconomic models in
     conjunction with microeconomic project analysis. 

  -- The Office of Energy Research at the U.S.  Department of Energy
     conducts highly structured peer assessments of selected
     programs, evaluating hundreds of projects each year.  Projects
     are rated using standard categories, which results in
     quantitative ratings that can be compared across projects to
     identify those projects needing improvement. 

While recognizing the difficulties inherent in evaluating research
outcomes, USDA officials say they are committed to strengthening the
evaluation of their research programs.  To meet GPRA's requirements,
the Research, Education, and Economics mission area plans to develop
a set of quantitative and qualitative evaluations for its research
programs.  According to USDA officials, the quantitative assessments
will measure research outcomes in a variety of ways, depending on the
research being evaluated.  For example, some programs may use a
scored survey of customers' satisfaction, whereas others may employ a
retrospective (after-the-fact) review based on benchmark data.\41

These reviews will be used in conjunction with more subjective
qualitative assessments, such as experts' reviews of research
programs and anecdotal success stories. 

These evaluations will require varying amounts of resources.  USDA
officials noted that some evaluation methods that are labor intensive
may be prohibitively expensive and that data systems will need to be
modified to collect the necessary information. 


--------------------
\38 Assessment of Fundamental Science Programs in the Context of the
Government Performance and Results Act, draft, Susan E.  Cozzens,
PM--417--OSTP.  According to the author, the final report should be
issued by late spring 1996. 

\39 The Institute is part of the U.S.  Department of Commerce. 

\40 In a previous GAO report, Performance Measurement:  Efforts to
Evaluate the Advanced Technology Program (RCED-95-68, June 15, 1995),
we noted a number of problems with these evaluation efforts; for
example, the evaluations have overstated the program's impact or lack
adequate support. 

\41 Benchmark data are target levels of performance (expressed as
tangible, measurable objectives) against which actual achievements
can be compared. 


      FARM BILL GUIDANCE IS
      INTENDED TO IMPROVE
      COORDINATION AND INCREASE
      FLEXIBILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:6.3

The administration's 1995 Farm Bill Guidance called for, among other
things, changes in USDA's agricultural research and extension program
to improve coordination among USDA's agencies and to streamline the
advisory committees' structure.  The proposal would create a council
of high-ranking officials from USDA's research agencies and all the
Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries in the Department.  This
council is intended to help establish agencywide research priorities. 

In addition, the proposal would have USDA consolidate its three
general research advisory boards into one National Research,
Education, and Economics Advisory Committee, advised by four regional
subcommittees.  This proposal reflects the concern of USDA officials
that there are more advisory groups than are needed and can be
adequately supported.  The membership of the proposed committee would
include representatives of commodity groups, general agriculture
organizations, resource conservation groups, consumers, and the land
grant university community.  The committee would advise USDA and the
land grant universities on the priorities relating to the five
outcomes outlined in the mission area's strategic plan and play a
role in obtaining broader input to the plan from customers.  This
reorganization will require congressional approval. 

Finally, the administration called for the reauthorization of an
Agriculture Research Facilities Study Commission to make
recommendations for closing, consolidating, constructing, or
modernizing federally funded facilities.  The 1990 Farm Bill
authorized a similar commission; however, the commission was never
funded.  The newly proposed commission would include representatives
from the land grant university community and from farm, commodity,
resource conservation, scientific, and consumer organizations.  In
addition, the commission would outline a 10-year strategic plan for
federally funded facilities from a national and regional perspective. 


AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
EXTENSION FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR
1994
=========================================================== Appendix I

This appendix presents information on federal, state, and private
sector funding, by state and other jurisdiction, for research and
extension activities in fiscal year 1994. 



                               Table I.1
                
                   Sources of Funding for Research by
                       Location, Fiscal Year 1994

                         (Dollars in Thousands)

Location                   Federal       State     Private       Total
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Alabama                    $13,247     $20,171      $7,168     $40,586
Alaska                       2,001       2,370         271       4,642
American Samoa                 670           0           0         670
Arizona                     16,275      20,137       7,590      44,002
Arkansas                    10,539      17,365       8,083      35,987
California                  56,380      96,765      26,056     179,201
Colorado                    29,655       9,929      18,409      57,993
Connecticut                  4,989       7,279       1,179      13,447
Delaware                     2,632       5,539       3,435      11,606
D. C.                          522         328           0         850
Florida                     20,772      64,719      13,906      99,397
Georgia                     15,502      40,515       7,820      63,837
Guam                         1,231       1,431           0       2,662
Hawaii                      11,173      12,817       2,080      26,070
Idaho                        7,565      12,750       4,520      24,835
Illinois                    14,538      17,589      13,720      45,847
Indiana                     17,614      22,056      12,491      52,161
Iowa                        23,661      34,763      18,402      76,826
Kansas                      10,386      22,261      10,993      43,640
Kentucky                    10,408      18,209       4,088      32,705
Louisiana                    7,490      25,325      10,703      43,518
Maine                        4,733       5,513       1,988      12,234
Maryland                    12,087      10,533       2,392      25,012
Massachusetts                8,182       3,115       2,005      13,302
Michigan                    19,810      28,160       9,768      57,738
Micronesia                     N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
Minnesota                   15,495      34,367      18,303      68,165
Mississippi                 16,970      20,317      11,484      48,771
Missouri                    15,382      18,491      11,089      44,962
Montana                      7,541       8,448       5,037      21,026
Nebraska                    13,505      24,101      17,100      54,706
Nevada                       3,961       4,584       1,221       9,766
New Hampshire                1,797       3,022         272       5,091
New Jersey                   7,799      12,542       4,246      24,587
New Mexico                   5,794       8,781       1,413      15,988
New York                    39,246      45,758      27,846     112,850
North Carolina              23,358      39,235      13,579      76,172
North Dakota                 8,977      13,017       6,882      28,876
Northern Marianas              150           0           0         150
Ohio                        12,193      20,170       6,835      39,198
Oklahoma                     8,571      18,165       4,626      31,362
Oregon                      23,864      25,160      13,045      62,069
Pennsylvania                17,313      20,872       8,413      46,598
Puerto Rico                  4,185       6,462         312      10,959
Rhode Island                 1,712       1,575           0       3,287
South Carolina               9,426      17,835       2,885      30,146
South Dakota                 3,795       6,348       4,456      14,599
Tennessee                    9,800      16,426       4,729      30,955
Texas                       38,710      55,299      23,987     117,996
Utah                         5,871       7,605       4,001      17,477
Vermont                      3,765       1,802         948       6,515
Virginia                    15,262      22,107       8,968      46,337
Virgin Islands                 959         433           0       1,392
Washington                  23,300      23,864      15,701      62,865
West Virginia                3,910       3,242       1,062       8,214
Wisconsin                   35,745      27,572      12,241      75,558
Wyoming                      2,594       3,620          83       6,297
======================================================================
Total                     $703,009  $1,010,861    $417,828  $2,131,698
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1.  Numbers do not add due to rounding. 

2.  Data are expenditures for research conducted at state
agricultural experiment stations, historically black institutions and
Tuskegee University, forestry schools, colleges of veterinary
medicine, and other institutions. 

3.  N/A = Not Available. 

Source:  USDA, Current Research Information System. 



                                    Table I.2
                     
                        Distribution of CSREES Funding for
                       Research and Facilities, Fiscal Year
                                       1994

                              (Dollars in Thousands)

Lo
ca       Hatch       Other
ti     formula     formula                Special     Other  Facility
on      grants    grants\a         NRI     grants  grants\b    grants       Total
--  ----------  ----------  ----------  ---------  --------  --------  ----------
Al      $3,645      $3,882        $950       $955    $1,800        $0     $11,232
 a
 b
 a
 m
 a
Al         914         447         313          5         0         0       1,678
 a
 s
 k
 a
Am         668           0           0          0         0         0         668
 e
 r
 i
 c
 a
 n
 S
 a
 m
 o
 a
Ar       1,791         334       1,231        635       433       776       5,201
 i
 z
 o
 n
 a
Ar       3,156       2,040         532      3,428       571     2,588      12,314
 k
 a
 n
 s
 a
 s
Ca       4,745       1,100      11,344      2,449       882     2,023      22,543
 l
 i
 f
 o
 r
 n
 i
 a
Co       2,490         591       1,828      1,478         0       310       6,697
 l
 o
 r
 a
 d
 o
Co       1,689         237       1,221        398         0         0       3,544
 n
 n
 e
 c
 t
 i
 c
 u
 t
De       1,194         639         368          5       348       319       2,874
 l
 a
 w
 a
 r
 e
D.         519           0         157          5         4         0         686
 C.
Fl       2,714       1,873       2,214      2,692       298       268      10,059
 o
 r
 i
 d
 a
Ge       4,304       2,601       2,057        649     2,016     1,635      13,261
 o
 r
 g
 i
 a
Gu         790          38           0        293         0         0       1,121
 am
Ha       1,196         149         314      1,780     3,700         0       7,140
 w
 a
 i
 i
Id       1,939         477         598      1,022       168         0       4,203
 a
 h
 o
Il       5,068         497       5,836        667       892       810      13,770
 l
 i
 n
 o
 i
 s
In       4,576         436       3,073      2,747         0         0      10,832
 d
 i
 a
 n
 a
Io       5,555         479       2,054      5,409       764         0      14,261
 wa
Ka       3,136         378       1,243      1,212        92     1,164       7,225
 n
 s
 a
 s
Ke       4,575       2,505       1,296        135       873         0       9,384
 n
 t
 u
 c
 k
 y
Lo       2,929       1,961       1,011      1,343       822         0       8,066
 u
 i
 s
 i
 a
 n
 a
Ma       1,686         590         361      1,667         0         0       4,303
 i
 n
 e
Ma       2,267       1,231       1,563        411       213     1,619       7,302
 r
 y
 l
 a
 n
 d
Ma       2,042         286       2,907        425       764         0       6,425
 s
 s
 a
 c
 h
 u
 s
 e
 t
 t
 s
Mi       4,717         605       2,978      5,373       789         0      14,462
 c
 h
 i
 g
 a
 n
Mi         294           0           0          0         0         0         294
 c
 r
 o
 n
 e
 s
 i
 a
Mi       4,548         675       1,709      1,380         0         0       8,312
 n
 n
 e
 s
 o
 t
 a
Mi       3,735       2,306         647      2,559     2,762        91      12,100
 s
 s
 i
 s
 s
 i
 p
 p
 i
Mi       4,336       2,524       2,596      2,007     1,003     2,355      14,821
 s
 s
 o
 u
 r
 i
Mo       1,929         486       1,104         47         0     1,812       5,378
 n
 t
 a
 n
 a
Ne       3,087         374       1,577      1,341     1,580         0       7,959
 b
 r
 a
 s
 k
 a
Ne       1,117          84         607        307         0         0       2,116
 v
 a
 d
 a
Ne       1,324         332         633          5         0         0       2,293
 w
 H
 a
 m
 p
 s
 h
 i
 r
 e
Ne       2,618         210       1,403      1,779         0     2,123       8,134
 w
 J
 e
 r
 s
 e
 y
Ne       1,490         284         544      1,079        38       774       4,209
 w
 M
 e
 x
 i
 c
 o
Ne       5,060         895       6,115      3,604       733     2,428      18,175
 w
 Y
 o
 r
 k
No       5,986       3,287       4,035      1,288       640     2,982      18,218
 r
 t
 h
 C
 a
 r
 o
 l
 i
 n
 a
No       2,205         128         979      1,530       879     1,662       7,381
 r
 t
 h
 D
 a
 k
 o
 t
 a
No         554           0           0          0         0         0         554
 r
 t
 h
 e
 r
 n
 M
 a
 r
 i
 a
 n
 a
 s
Oh       5,408         477       1,760        962        25       255       8,887
 io
Ok       2,865       1,796       1,016      1,171         0       341       7,190
 l
 a
 h
 o
 m
 a
Or       2,615         791       2,623      3,644        69     2,428      12,169
 e
 g
 o
 n
Pe       5,643         631       2,657      1,428        15         0      10,373
 n
 n
 s
 y
 l
 v
 a
 n
 i
 a
Pu       3,807         114         130        279         0         0       4,331
 e
 r
 t
 o
 R
 i
 c
 o
Rh       1,137         120         744        156         0         0       2,157
 o
 d
 e
 I
 s
 l
 a
 n
 d
So       3,137       1,895         726        615       900         0       7,272
 u
 t
 h
 C
 a
 r
 o
 l
 i
 n
 a
So       2,261         226         437        370        83         0       3,377
 u
 t
 h
 D
 a
 k
 o
 t
 a
Te       4,413       2,446       1,446        129     1,202     2,211      11,848
 n
 n
 e
 s
 s
 e
 e
Te       6,068       3,494       5,054      1,253     1,034       567      17,469
 x
 a
 s
Ut       1,712         212         585        264     1,759       752       5,284
 ah
Ve       1,335         311         121        222     1,722         0       3,711
 r
 m
 o
 n
 t
Vi         772       2,303       1,384        297     2,056     1,425      11,282
 r
 g
 i
 n
 i
 a
Vi       3,817          51           0        238         0         0       1,061
 r
 g
 i
 n
 I
 s
 l
 a
 n
 d
 s
Wa       3,342         819       4,766      3,026     1,312     4,655      17,918
 s
 h
 i
 n
 g
 t
 o
 n
We       2,456         400         197          5         0         0       3,058
 st
 V
 i
 r
 g
 i
 n
 i
 a
Wi       4,672         654       5,017        666       148     1,919      13,076
 s
 c
 o
 n
 s
 i
 n
Wy       1,421         247         572         87         0       971       3,297
 o
 m
 i
 n
 g
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1.  Numbers do not add due to rounding. 

2.  Data are funds obligated for grants to state agricultural
experiment stations, historically black institutions and Tuskegee
University, forestry schools, colleges of veterinary medicine, and
other institutions. 

\a Other formula grants include the McIntire-Stennis Act, the
Evans-Allen Program, and the Animal Health and Disease Research
Program. 

\b Other grants include the following grant programs:  Biotechnology
Risk Assessment, Aquaculture Centers, Critical Agriculture Materials,
Rangeland Research, Supplemental and Alternative Crops, and
Sustainable Agriculture.  Other grants also include direct
appropriations for federal administration. 

Source:  USDA. 



                               Table I.3
                
                  Sources of Extension Funding, Fiscal
                               Year 1994

                         (Dollars in Thousands)

Location                 Federal     State    County   Other\a   Total
----------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------
Alabama                  $12,537   $21,692    $2,244      $707  $37,18
                                                                     1
Alaska                     1,384     3,276         0       207   4,867
American Samoa               940       150         0         0   1,090
Arizona                    2,740     6,600       611       644  10,595
Arkansas                   8,944    17,501     1,515       483  28,442
California                10,799    37,291     9,898     4,588  62,576
Colorado                   3,660     7,473     7,576       395  19,103
Connecticut                2,591     3,135         0         0   5,726
Delaware                   2,336     2,208       123       177   4,843
D.C.                         984       903         0         0   1,887
Florida                    8,464    22,471    17,752     1,514  50,201
Georgia                   12,484    26,087     9,070     7,427  55,068
Guam                         991     1,393         0         0   2,385
Hawaii                     1,667     6,063         0         0   7,730
Idaho                      3,148     6,848         0         0   9,996
Illinois                  11,665    22,357     4,215     2,029  40,265
Indiana                    9,738    13,165    10,643       294  33,840
Iowa                      10,217    18,199     9,127     4,750  42,293
Kansas                     6,403    13,948    12,859     3,490  36,701
Kentucky                  13,104    19,011    11,369         0  43,483
Louisiana                  8,948    21,061       647       722  31,378
Maine                      2,705     3,390       404       532   7,032
Maryland                   5,556    13,270     2,241     1,814  22,881
Massachusetts              3,650     2,317       645       770   7,381
Michigan                  10,478    20,740    10,927     1,080  43,225
Micronesia                 1,025       100       248         0   1,373
Minnesota                  9,771    18,077    10,623     5,324  43,795
Mississippi               10,787    15,283     2,016     1,120  29,206
Missouri                  12,369    15,960     3,510     3,547  35,386
Montana                    2,948     2,966     2,988       902   9,803
Nebraska                   5,658    13,864     6,569     2,782  28,873
Nevada                     1,472     3,889     3,608         0   8,970
New Hampshire              1,942     3,102     2,033       479   7,556
New Jersey                 3,917     6,757     3,565       574  14,812
New Mexico                 2,757     6,668     1,734       726  11,884
New York                  11,762    10,450    23,352    18,693  64,257
North Carolina            17,190    29,383    16,065       322  62,960
North Dakota               3,981     5,179     2,625       976  12,761
Northern Marianas            921         0         0       223   1,143
Ohio                      12,167    15,199    12,480     1,993  41,838
Oklahoma                   8,162    14,885     3,493     1,651  28,190
Oregon                     4,529    14,009     3,480        29  22,046
Pennsylvania              12,562    13,191     6,560         0  32,313
Puerto Rico                7,985     6,703     1,431        17  16,135
Rhode Island               1,439     1,364        41        25   2,869
South Carolina             8,984    18,950     1,557     1,101  30,592
South Dakota               3,881     4,837     2,088       371  11,177
Tennessee                 12,996    18,702     5,242       183  37,123
Texas                     20,350    40,004    13,800       466  74,619
Utah                       2,175     6,692     1,626       273  10,766
Vermont                    2,036     3,234         0         0   5,270
Virginia                  10,937    21,234     9,257       275  41,703
Virgin Islands               965       641         0         0   1,606
Washington                 4,969    11,827     6,257       558  23,610
West Virginia              5,028     3,000       500         0   8,528
Wisconsin                  9,437    20,992    14,082     1,333  45,842
Wyoming                    1,820     3,135     1,579         0   6,534
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1.  Data for state, county, and "other" are based on USDA estimates;
federal data are allocations.  USDA allocated an additional $47.3
million for extension activities that is not reflected in this table. 

2.  Numbers do not add due to rounding. 

\a "Other" includes nontax sources, such as private grants and
endowments and fees charged for services. 

Source:  USDA. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
TOTAL RESPONSES TO GAO'S
QUESTIONNAIRE
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


ASSOCIATIONS RESPONDING TO GAO'S
QUESTIONNAIRE
========================================================= Appendix III

Adopt-A-Farm-Family of America
Agricultural Cooperative Development International
Agriculture Council of America
Agricultural Research Institute
Almond Board of California
American Academy of Veterinary and Comparative Toxicology
American Bison Association
American Cranberry Growers Association
American Commodity Distribution Association
American Dairy Science Association
American Egg Board
American Embryo Transfer Association
American Farm Bureau Research Foundation
American Forage and Grassland Council
American Honey Producers Association
American Junior Shorthorn Association
American Livestock Breeds Conservancy
American Malting Barley Association
American Mushroom Institute
American National Cattle Women
American Oat Association
American Ostrich Association
American Phytopathological Society
American Pomological Society
American Seed Research Foundation
American Seed Trade Association
American Sheep Industry Association
American Society for Plasticulture
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Animal Science
American Society of Plant Physiologists
American Sod Producers Association
American Soybean Association
American Sugar Cane League of the U.S.A.
American Veterinary Medical Association
American Vineyard Foundation
Apiary Inspectors of America
Apricot Producers of California
Association for Arid Lands Studies
Association of American Veterinary Medicine Colleges
Association of Applied Insect Ecologists
Association of Consulting Foresters of America

Atlantic Salmon Federation
Beef Promotion and Research Board
Beet Sugar Development Foundation
Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association
Bio-Integral Resource Center
Blue Diamond Growers
California Apricot Advisory Board
California Avocado Commission
California Avocado Society
California Canning Peach Association
California Cling Peach Advisory Board
California Dried Fruit Export Association
California Dry Bean Advisory Board
California Fig Advisory Board
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
California Pistachio Commission
California Prune Board
California Strawberry Advisory Board
California Table Grape Commission
Catfish Farmers of America
Catfish Institute
Center for Holistic Resource Management
Center for Plant Conservation
Center for Sustainable Agriculture
Certified Milk Producers Association of America
Chewings Fescue and Creeping Red Fescue Commission
Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination
Communicating for Agriculture
Community Farm Alliance
Conservation Tillage Information Center
Corns
Cotton Incorporated
Cranberry Institute
Crop Science Society of America
Cycad Society
Dairylea Cooperative
Demeter Association
DFA of California
Diamond Walnut Growers
Environmental Defense Fund
Eucalyptus Improvement Association
Farm Foundation

Farmland Industries
Florida Citrus Packers
Florida Department of Citrus
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
Florida Tomato Exchange
Forest Farmers Association
Georgia Peanut Commission
Grain Sorghum Producers Association
Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation
Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association
Henry A.  Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture
Hop Growers of America
Idaho Potato Commission
Institute of Food Technologies
Interamerican Confederation of Cattlemen
International Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture
International Apple Institute
International Association of Aquaculture Economics and Management
International Banana Association
International Center for the Solution of Environmental Problems
International Llama Association
International Plant Propagators Society
International Pumpkin Association
International Society of Citriculture
International Society of Tropical Foresters
International Tree Crops Institute U.S.A.
International Weed Science Society
Josephine Porter Institute for Applied Bio-Dynamics
Land Institute
Lawn Institute
Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance
Michigan Apple Committee
Micro Development Corps
National Animal Damage Control Association
National Aquaculture Council
National Arborist Association
National Association of Animal Breeders
National Association of State Foresters
National Board of Fur Farm Organizations
National Broiler Council
National Cattlemen's Association
National Corn Growers Association
National Cottonseed Products Association
National Council of Commercial Plant Breeders
National Council of Forestry Association Executives
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
National Farm-City Council
National Farmers Union
National Food Processors Association
National Grange
National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy
National Institute on Park and Grounds Management
National Milk Producers Federation
National Onion Association
National Peanut Council
National Pork Producers Council
National Potato Council
National Potato Promotion Board
National Prairie Grouse Technical Council
National Roadside Vegetation Management Association
National Saanen Breeders Association
National Sunflower Association
National Swine Improvement Federation
National Trappers Association
National Turkey Federation
National Watermelon Association
National Wild Turkey Federation
National Woodland Owners Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
New England Small Farm Institute
New England Wild Flower Society
New Jersey Asparagus Industry Council
North American Deer Farmers Association
North American Strawberry Growers Association
Northeast Organic Farming Association
Northwest Farm Managers Association
Northwest Fruit Exporters
Northwest Horticultural Council
Organic Foods Production Association of North America
Pacific Coast Canned Pear Service
People-Plant Council
Piedmontese Association of the United States

Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii
Plains Cotton Growers
Point Foundation
Potash and Phosphate Institute
Poultry Breeders of America
Poultry Science Association
Produce Marketing Association
Professional Plant Growers Association
Public Lands Council
Purebred Dairy Cattle Association
RAFI-USA
Raptor Research Foundation
Red and White Dairy Cattle Association
Red River Valley Sugarbeet Growers Association
Renewable Natural Resources Foundation
Rocky Mountain Llama and Alpaca Association
Rodale Institute
Rodale International
Roses Incorporated
Ruffed Grouse Society
Sheep Industry Development Program
Society for Range Management
Society of Commercial Seed Technologists
Sod Growers Association of Mid-America
Soil and Water Conservation Society
Soil Science Society of America
Southeastern Peanut Association
Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association
Sun-Diamond Growers of California
Sunkist Growers
Sunsweet Growers
Supima Association of America
Sweet Potato Council of the United States
The Wildlife Society
United New Conservationists
University of Minnesota\42
U.S.A.  National Committee of the International Dairy Federation
U.S.A.  Plowing Organization
U.S.  Beef Breeds Council

U.S.  Feed Grains Council
U.S.  Trout Farmers Association
U.S.  Wheat Associates
Valley Fig Growers
Vinifera Wine Growers Association Walnut Marketing Board
Wheat Quality Council
Wholesale Nursery Growers of America
Wild Canid Survival and Research Center - Wolf Sanctuary
Wildlife Information Center, Inc.
WI Rural Development Center
World Aquaculture Society


--------------------
\42 This is an individual not representing an association. 


PRIORITY SETTING IN THE LAND GRANT
SYSTEM
========================================================== Appendix IV

Planning and priority setting in the land grant system are carried
out at each of the experiment stations and through regional and
national land grant associations.  Each experiment station develops
its own plans and priorities on the basis of the agricultural needs
of stakeholders within its state--the primary funder.  Each regional
association of experiment station directors develops plans focusing
on cooperative research among neighboring states, with input from
stakeholders and partners within the region.  The national
organization, the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and
Policy (ESCOP), under the auspices of the National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, develops a plan with
national and regional priorities representing the consensus of
experiment station priorities, with input from stakeholders and
partners throughout the United States. 

ESCOP's strategic planning subcommittee (whose 12 members include 9
from land grant universities and 3 from CSREES) develops a strategic
plan every 4 years, with biennial updates.  In support of the
development of the 1994 plan, ESCOP held 12 2-day national
conferences of customers to develop recommendations on directions and
priorities for research.  Each conference involved 10 to 20 leaders
from national organizations, including producer and commodity groups,
processing and manufacturing industries, and environmental and
consumer groups.  In addition, more than 500 organizations
representing customers and professional/scientific societies were
invited to submit written recommendations on research needs and
opportunities.  These inputs were consolidated to form about 150
statements on research directions, which were used as input to the
planning workshop that followed. 

The 3-1/2 day planning workshop involved approximately 100
participants, including about 80 scientists and research
administrators from the state agricultural experiment stations; 7
from ARS; 12 from USDA's Cooperative State Research Service; and
others from USDA's Extension Service,\43 the Forest Service, the
Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, and professional
societies.  The workshop produced a set of 22 research priorities,
each with four to six research objectives. 

The directors of experiment stations ranked these 22 priorities
according to their perception of national importance.  ESCOP's 1994
plan provides the average rankings, with all regions voting the top
priorities to be (1) conserving air, soil, and water; (2) increasing
the use of integrated and sustainable production systems; and (3)
enhancing food safety. 


--------------------
\43 USDA's Cooperative State Research Service and Extension Service
were combined and reorganized as CSREES. 


DESCRIPTION OF OREGON
INVESTS--OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY'S
RESEARCH DATABASE
=========================================================== Appendix V

To provide a tool for accountability and communication to its state
legislature and taxpayers, the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station
developed a database--Oregon Invests--to describe the potential
effects of its agricultural research projects.  The database ties the
station's mission--to conduct research in the agricultural,
biological, social, and environmental sciences for the economic,
social, and environmental benefit of Oregon--to local economies, food
safety, the environment, and other public concerns. 

Each project's potential economic, social, and environmental effects
are described and ranked from -3 to +3.  For example, a project that
leads to reduced pesticide use may rank "3" environmentally, "-1"
economically (because increased monitoring adds to growers' costs),
and "1" socially (because it reduces farmworkers' exposure to toxic
chemicals).  The economic effects are measured by the net annual
benefits to producers both currently and in 5 years. 

Additional database fields include geographic areas potentially
affected by the research, general descriptions of projects,
cooperators, researchers, and methods of dissemination.  Figure V.1
illustrates four sample screens from the database.  The database has
information on about 300 projects.  The station plans to make the
database, which can be loaded on a laptop computer, accessible via
the Internet in 1996.  It also plans to incorporate outcomes of
extension programs. 

   Figure V.1:  Sample Screens
   From the Oregon Invests
   Database

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


USDA'S RESEARCH ADVISORY
COMMITTEES
========================================================== Appendix VI

Comm
itte  Establishment        FY 1994  FY 1994                       Reporting
e     and purpose            funds  meetings      Membership      requirements
----  --------------  ------------  ------------  --------------  --------------
Agri  Departmental         $33,876  One full      15 members who  No formal
cult  committee to                  committee     are primarily   report
ural  provide                       meeting; 1    scientists and  required.
Biot  external                      working       represent       However,
echn  scientific                    group         universities,   committee has
olog  advice to USDA                meeting.      industry,       published
y     and an                                      research        performance
Rese  opportunity                                 institutes,     standards for
arch  for public                                  and             biotechnology
Advi  participation                               environmental   research.
sory  in the                                      groups.
Comm  development of
itte  public policy
e     on
      agricultural
      biotechnology.

Agri  Established by       $38,126  Two           11 members who  Annual
cult  the 1990 Farm                 meetings.     represent       technology
ural  Bill to                                     private         assessment
Scie  provide                                     foundations,    report on
nce   technology                                  agricultural    current and
and   assessment of                               research and    emerging
Tech  current and                                 technology-     technologies
nolo  emerging                                    transfer        that advance
gy    public and                                  firms,          the six
Revi  private                                     nonprofit       purposes of
ew    agriculture                                 organizations,  research
Boar  research and                                land grant      stated in
d     technology                                  universities,   title 16 of
      transfer                                    and three USDA  the 1990 Farm
      initiatives.                                agencies.       Bill.



Anim  Established in       $14,353  One meeting;  12 members      No formal
al    the National                  prior to      including       report
Heal  Agricultural                  this          representative  required.
th    Research,                     meeting, the  s of 4 federal  Provides
Scie  Extension, and                Board had     agencies, 4     minutes with
nce   Teaching                      not met       university      Board
Rese  Policy Act of                 since 1990.   members, 3      recommendation
arch  1977 to advise                              livestock and   s to the
Advi  the Secretary                               poultry         Secretary of
sory  of Agriculture                              organizations,  Agriculture.
Boar  on the                                      and one
d     implementation                              organization
      of animal                                   concerned with
      health and                                  the well-
      disease                                     being of
      research                                    animals.
      programs.



Comm  Authorized by        $21,101  Three         Nine members,   No formal
itte  the Hatch Act                 meetings      including 8     report
e of  in 1946, which                (one by       agricultural    required.
Nine  requires that                 conference    experiment      Provides an
      cooperative                   call).        station         annual report
      regional                                    administrators  with
      research                                    and one         recommendation
      projects must                               administrator   s to the
      be approved by                              of home         Secretary of
      the Committee                               economics       Agriculture.
      of Nine.                                    research. The
                                                  members are
                                                  elected by
                                                  their peers.

Diet  Inter-               $21,822  One meeting.  At most, 11     HHS and USDA
ary   departmental                                members         are required
Guid  committee of                                familiar with   to jointly
elin  USDA and the                                current         issue dietary
es    Department of                               scientific      guidelines
Advi  Health and                                  knowledge in    every 5 years.
sory  Human Services                              the field of    This Committee
Comm  (HHS) to                                    human           reviews the
itte  review the                                  nutrition.      last edition,
e     latest dietary                                              makes any
      guidelines and                                              revisions
      revise the                                                  needed, and
      guidelines for                                              prepares the
      the next                                                    first draft.
      edition.

Fore  Established by       $13,924  One meeting.  20 members      Annual report
stry  the McIntire-                               representing    to the
Rese  Stennis Act of                              forest          Secretary on
arch  1962 and                                    industries,     regional and
Advi  required by                                 public          national
sory  the                                         forestry        research
Coun  Agriculture                                 agencies, non-  planning and
cil   and Food Act                                governmental    coordination
      of 1981 to                                  groups, and     of forestry
      provide advice                              forestry        research
      on the                                      schools.        within the
      McIntire-                                                   federal and
      Stennis                                                     state
      Cooperative                                                 agencies,
      Forestry                                                    forestry
      Research                                                    schools, and
      Program and                                                 the forest
      the Forestry                                                industries.
      Service
      research
      program. The
      Council also
      advises the
      Secretary of
      Agriculture on
      the
      apportionment
      of funds for
      the McIntire-
      Stennis
      program.

Join  Established in       $96,847  Two           At least 21     Two reports
t     the National                  meetings.     members who     are required:
Coun  Agricultural                                represent       (1) an annual
cil   Research,                                   organizations   report that
on    Extension, and                              or agencies     includes
Food  Teaching                                    that conduct    priorities and
and   Policy Act of                               or assist in    progress made
Agri  1977 to bring                               conducting      toward
cult  about more                                  programs of     accomplishing
ural  effective                                   research,       the
Scie  research,                                   extension, and  priorities;
nces  extension, and                              teaching in     and (2) a
      teaching in                                 the food and    five-year plan
      the food and                                agricultural    for food and
      agricultural                                sciences. In    agricultural
      sciences by                                 addition, the   sciences,
      improving                                   Joint Council   updated every
      planning and                                has four        2 years.
      coordination                                regional        However, the
      of these                                    councils and    Joint Council
      activities.                                 four national   no longer
      The Joint                                   committees      updates this
      Council                                     (structured     plan because
      represents the                              around          of budgetary
      views of                                    functional      constraints.
      various groups                              areas) that
      who comprise                                include
      the food and                                approximately
      agricultural                                160 people.
      science and
      education
      system.

Nati  Established by       $37,911  Two           Of the 11       Annual report
onal  the                           meetings.     members of      on its
Agri  Agriculture                                 this board, 7   activities to
cult  and Food Act                                must be         the Secretary
ural  of 1981 to                                  engaged in the  of Agriculture
Cost  review USDA's                               commercial      and
of    cost of                                     production of   congressional
Prod  production                                  each of the     agriculture
ucti  methodology                                 program crops   committees.
on    and the                                     and in 1 or
Stan  adequacy of                                 more of the
dard  the parity                                  other various
s     formulae.                                   major
Revi                                              agricultural
ew                                                commodities.
Boar                                              Three members
d                                                 must be
                                                  knowledgeable
                                                  about cost of
                                                  production,
                                                  and one member
                                                  will be from
                                                  USDA. The
                                                  major
                                                  geographical
                                                  production
                                                  areas of the
                                                  major
                                                  agricultural
                                                  commodities
                                                  must be
                                                  represented on
                                                  the Board.

Nati  Established by       $93,539  Two           21 members      Two reports
onal  the National                  meetings.     primarily from  are required:
Agri  Agricultural                                the private     (1) an annual
cult  Research,                                   sector.         report
ural  Extension, and                                              concerning the
Rese  Teaching                                                    allocation
arch  Policy Act of                                               responsibiliti
and   1977 to                                                     es and levels
Exte  provide                                                     of funding
nsio  independent                                                 among
n     advisory                                                    federally
User  opinions on                                                 supported
s     food and                                                    research and
Advi  agricultural                                                extension
sory  sciences. The                                               programs; and
Boar  Board                                                       (2) an annual
d     represents the                                              appraisal of
      views of the                                                the
      users of                                                    President's
      agricultural                                                proposed
      research and                                                budget for
      extension.                                                  food and
                                                                  agricultural
                                                                  sciences.
                                                                  However, the
                                                                  Board no
                                                                  longer
                                                                  prepares the
                                                                  latter report
                                                                  because of
                                                                  budgetary
                                                                  constraints.

Nati  Established by        $7,826  One meeting.  The Secretary   No formal
onal  the 1990 Farm                               of Agriculture  report
Gene  Bill to advise                              appoints at     required.
tic   the Secretary                               most nine
Reso  of Agriculture                              members that
urce  and Director                                include
s     of the                                      scientists and
Advi  National                                    leaders in
sory  Genetic                                     fields such as
Coun  Resources                                   public policy
cil   Program on the                              and trade.
      activities,                                 There are also
      policies, and                               numerous ex
      operation of                                officio
      the program.                                members of the
      The Council's                               Council that
      primary task                                include top
      is to provide                               officials from
      advice on                                   USDA and
      acquiring,                                  several
      preserving,                                 federal
      and                                         science
      distributing                                organizations.
      genetic
      resources of
      life forms
      important to
      American
      agriculture.

Nati  USDA and HHS         $19,649  One           Nine members,   Annual report
onal  joint council                 meeting.      five appointed  to the
Nutr  required by                                 by the          Secretaries of
itio  the National                                President and   Agriculture
n     Nutrition                                   one each        and HHS on the
Moni  Monitoring and                              appointed by    Council's
tori  Related                                     the Speaker of  recommendation
ng    Research Act                                the House of    s for
Advi  of 1990 to                                  Representative  enhancing
sory  provide                                     s, the          scientific and
Coun  scientific and                              minority        technical
cil   technical                                   leader of the   quality of the
      advice on the                               House, the      comprehensive
      development                                 President pro   plan and
      and                                         tempore of the  coordinated
      implementation                              Senate, and     program.
      of the                                      the minority
      coordinated                                 leader of the
      National                                    Senate.
      Nutrition
      Monitoring and
      Related
      Research
      Program and
      the Ten-Year
      Comprehensive
      Plan for
      National
      Nutrition
      Monitoring and
      Related
      Research
      Program.

Nati  Established by       $13,947  One meeting.  At least 16     Annual report
onal  the 1990 Farm                               members with    to the
Sust  Bill to                                     knowledge of    Secretary on
aina  provide                                     sustainable     sustainable
ble   general advice                              agriculture     agriculture
Agri  to the                                      including       policy
cult  Secretary of                                federal, land   recommendation
ural  Agriculture on                              grant           s.
Advi  research and                                university,
sory  extension for                               and private
Coun  sustainable                                 sector
cil   agriculture.                                members.

Scie  Departmental          $7,729  No meetings;  Members are     No formal
nce   committee to                  this          scientists      report
and   advise the                    committee     drawn from      required.
Educ  Secretary of                  last met in   government,
atio  Agriculture                   1992.         industry, and
n     concerning the                              academia.
Nati  administration
onal  of the Science
Rese  and Education
arch  National
Init  Research
iati  Initiative to
ve    assure that
Advi  research is
sory  carried out on
Comm  the highest
itte  priority areas
e     with the
      widest
      participation
      by qualified
      scientists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  The status of some of these committees is uncertain, pending
final resolution of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
COMMENTS FROM THE U.S.  DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
========================================================== Appendix VI



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on USDA's March 13, 1996,
memorandum. 


   GAO'S COMMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:1

1.  We believe that recommendations are not necessary at this time
since USDA is developing plans and has initiated actions to address
the major problems identified in the report.  While we believe that
USDA's initiatives have the potential to address these problems, more
time will be needed to assess their impact. 

2.  GAO surveyed a universe of 492 food- and agriculture-related
associations, and the report clearly states that the survey results
cannot be generalized to all research customers.  Nevertheless, we
believe that the information we obtained from the 218 organizations
responding to our questionnaire (including organizations representing
farmers and ranchers) provides valuable insights on how customers
value agricultural research and extension.  Furthermore, we
supplemented the survey by obtaining anecdotal information on
customers' views in interviews with farmers, ranchers, and extension
personnel (among others) in seven states. 

3.  During the course of our review, we held numerous discussions
with individuals and groups of experts and leaders in the U.S. 
agricultural research community, including USDA's Under Secretary and
Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics; the
Administrator, ARS; the Acting Administrator, CSREES; the Chair,
National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges'
Board on Agriculture; the Executive Director, National Research
Council's Board on Agriculture; deans, department heads, and
extension specialists located in the schools of agriculture in the
eight states we visited during our review; and officials from various
commodity and food- and agriculture-related public interest groups
and research and policy institutions.  Our discussions with these
individuals covered a broad range of issues, including the adequacy
of priority setting for publicly funded agricultural research, the
extent to which agricultural research is meeting the needs of
potential users, how effectively research results are being
disseminated, and the role of research evaluation in improving
accountability.  The views of these experts and leaders were integral
in our assessment of USDA's approaches to planning and setting
priorities.  We have added further details to chapter 1 concerning
the individuals and groups with whom we met. 

4.  We agree that the NRI program has minimal discretion to move
funds among its six broad research areas, and this situation was
recognized in the draft USDA reviewed.  However, as our report
states, the NRI program establishes and manages specific research
priorities within these broad areas.  For example, NRI program staff
recently decided to reduce the number of research priorities funded
each year by the NRI.  As a result, in fiscal year 1996, USDA did not
request project proposals for "biological control research," one of
the 27 priorities in the NRI program. 

5.  We recognize that NRI's process for setting research priorities
is generally consistent with the recommendations of the National
Academy of Science.  However, this does not alter our findings that
the NRI program (1) lacks performance goals and indicators and (2)
does not comprehensively evaluate the outcomes of its research
programs.  We believe such tools are necessary to measure program
performance and enhance accountability.  In fact, in 1994 the
National Research Council's Board on Agriculture found that USDA had
done little to track the output of the NRI program and recommended
that USDA systematically evaluate the program's performance. 

6.  Our report states that ARS' infrastructure is one of four factors
that limit USDA's ability to shift research resources.  The
limitations created by ARS' infrastructure have been corroborated by
ARS officials and in agency documents.  For example, ARS' most recent
implementation plan, published in 1991, cites several factors that
limit ARS' resource allocation and the kinds of research it conducts. 
Included among these factors is the need for costly facilities and
equipment that are problem-specific. 

7.  We concur that the research conducted by ERS and the Forest
Service has an important place in the portfolio of publicly funded
agricultural research.  However, as agreed with the requesters, we
focused our assessment of USDA's priority-setting processes on
conditions at ARS and CSREES--the Department's principal research
agencies--and on the efforts of the Office of the Under Secretary,
Research, Education, and Economics.  Similarly, although we reviewed
documents relating to the National Science and Technology Council, we
did not evaluate its efforts since this was outside of the
agreed-upon scope of this review.  We do, however, provide an
overview of the purpose, membership, and reporting requirements of
the Forestry Research Advisory Committee in appendix VI. 

8.  Our report does not assess the role of extension in USDA's
processes for setting research priorities for two reasons:  First,
USDA research officials--including the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics and the Deputy Administrator, ARS--cited the
Congress and commodity and interest groups as having the greatest
influence on its priority-setting processes; the extension services
were not included as having major influence on these processes. 
Second, a detailed evaluation of the extension services was beyond
the scope of this assignment.  As agreed with our requesters, we
addressed extension by providing (1) an overview of the overall
system--including the extension component--and (2) the views of users
of agricultural research on how effectively research results are
being disseminated by the extension services.  As stated in our
report, however, extension does play a major role in disseminating
research results and related information to the public. 

9.  See GAO comment #2. 

10.  To increase the response rate to our questionnaire, we mailed
and telephoned reminders to all nonresponding associations.  We added
information to the report's methodology section on our nonresponse
followup. 

11.  The number of associations responding to each question is listed
in appendix II. 

12.  We do not draw conclusions from figure 2.2--we are merely
providing descriptive information on the areas of research viewed
most useful by the survey respondents. 

13.  We concur with USDA on the value of empirical verification of
the impact of identified problems on the effectiveness of its
research.  Such verification could well provide an additional impetus
in USDA's efforts to address the long-standing concerns about
inadequacies in its research planning and priority-setting processes. 
However, as discussed in our report, neither ARS nor the NRI program
has incorporated performance goals or indicators into its research
programs.  Without these tools, it is extremely difficult to evaluate
the performance or the effectiveness of USDA's research programs.  In
fact, USDA itself does not comprehensively evaluate the outcomes of
its research programs.  In 1994, the National Research Council's
Board on Agriculture recommended that USDA systematically evaluate
its research investment across all four of its research funding
areas.  USDA believes that its upcoming strategic plan will address
these issues.  We fully support its efforts to improve research
evaluation and accountability. 

Relatedly, we continue to support the need for agencywide strategic
planning to guide the efforts of USDA's research agencies.  Our
support for strategic planning does not mean that we endorse
centralized direction for individual research projects (which is not
a part of strategic planning), but rather that USDA establish
Department-level mission objectives and strategies for achieving
clearly defined goals.  Furthermore, as discussed in our report, we
believe that research planning and priority setting should be done
within the context of USDA's overall research portfolio.  Finally, we
do not dispute the importance of recruiting and retaining top
scientists, peer review, and scientific guidance on program
directions.  However, we continue to believe that without effective
strategic planning, priority setting, and research evaluation, even
the most talented scientists conducting research of undisputed
scientific merit cannot be assured that their research is addressing
the areas of greatest need and does not duplicate research being
conducted elsewhere within USDA's research portfolio. 

14.  We do not dispute the important role of individuals in
developing and implementing research programs.  However, to meet our
requesters' needs, we focused our efforts on assessing USDA's
processes for planning and establishing research priorities--the
issue of staff development and its role in research implementation
was peripheral to these issues. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
======================================================== Appendix VIII

Jerilynn B.  Hoy, Assistant Director
Teresa F.  Spisak, Project Leader
Jerry W.  Coffey
Ruth Ann Decker
Kelly Ervin
W.  Fred Mayo
Beverly A.  Peterson
LaSonya R.  Roberts
Carol Herrnstadt Shulman
Leigh M.  White
Dale A.  Wolden


*** End of document. ***