July 28, 2004

Dr. Theodore R. Alter
Director
CES, The Pennsylvania State University
217 Ag. Administration Bldg.
University Park, PA 16802

Dear Dr. Alter:

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service has reviewed the Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results submitted by the Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Extension Service 1862 Programs as required under the Agricultural, Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998. The report is accepted. We appreciate your efforts in submitting the report and hope you find the reviewer's comments useful.

The (revised) review of your report was completed by James V. Parochetti, Sr. and J. Preston Jones, National Program Leaders, and the Planning and Accountability staff of the Office of the Administrator. The review was based on the criteria published in the Federal Register notice dated July 1, 1999, with subsequent guidance on the Annual Report published on the CSREES AREERA Plan of Work Website (http://www.reeusda.gov/part/areera/), and the "Review Team Summary" you received as a result of the 2002 Annual Report review.

The "Review Team Summary" from the National Program Leaders who reviewed your report is attached with their comments. Also attached is the review checklist used by the National Program Leaders to help them evaluate your report. Please read the review comments carefully for recommendations and requirements needed to help you in preparing your FY 2004 Annual Report, which will come next year. The review checklist should also be a useful reference for completing your next report.

You will be receiving a separate letter from the Office of Extramural Programs, Funds Management Branch, concerning the review of the Multistate Extension and Integrated Research and Extension funds for the requirements of sections 105 and 204 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.

We are currently working with CSREES staff and representatives from land-grant institutions to explore ways to improve and simplify the process for future Plans of Work and Annual Reports of Accomplishments and Results.

We appreciate you working with us to improve our reporting and accountability system. If you have questions following your review of our comments, please contact Bart Hewitt, Program Analyst, by E-mail at bhewitt@csrees.usda.gov, or by phone at 202-720-0747.

Sincerely,

CHERYL J. OROS
Director, Planning and Accountability
Office of the Administrator

Attachments(2)

cc: CSREES Office of Extramural Programs
CSREES State Reviewers

USDA-CSREES FY 2003 STATE ANNUAL REPORT REVIEW TEAM SUMMARY

State: Pennsylvania

Institution: The Pennsylvania State University

State Contact: Theodore R. Alter

Type of Report: Extension 1862

NPL Reviewers: James V. Parochetti, Sr. and J. Preston Jones

This Review Team Summary reflects the consensus opinion of the review team members regarding the Annual Report.

Strengths of the Impact Statements in the Planned Programs: (Related to important impacts and any other statements that highlight programmatic strength)
The report provides a very good synopsis of the activities and accomplishments of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Cooperative Extension Service.

Weaknesses of the Impact Statements in the Planned Programs:
Some of the quantifiable impacts could be strengthened. As one example, the following is cited:
"Fruits, Vegetables and Crop Production
b. Impact/Accomplishment:
Agronomy Note-a monthly newsletter providing timely production, integrated pest management and risk management articles-is distributed to about 3,500 readers in one region. A comprehensive survey showed the results of reading the newsletter.
-50% reported increased scouting insects, 56% increased weed scouting practices.
-47% increased applying appropriate pesticides at the proper time.
-49% calibrated their pesticide application equipment."
While these numbers have merit, and these do indicate that this specific program has been successful, it would be much more powerful if this data could be extrapolated into economic terms. Perhaps that is not possible.

Stakeholder Input Process Comments: (make comments on the three requirements on the checklist)
The three requirements on the checklist are addressed.

Program Review Process Comments:
No significant changes in these review processes since the 5-Year Plan of Work was submitted.

Evaluation of the Success of Multi and Joint Activities Comments:
Acceptable

Multistate Extension Comments: (If Applicable)
Very good.

Integrated Research and Extension Comments:
Acceptable

Suggested Improvements for Next Year:
See "Weaknesses of the Impact Statements in the Planned Programs" above.

Required Improvements for Next Year:
None

Penn State University | College of Agricultural Sciences | POW Homepage | Listserv Sign Up
POW Help | POW Teams | POW Titles

Copyright Information
This publication is available in alternative media on request.
Penn State is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity University.
This site is a product of Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences.

Last Updated: Wednesday, August 11, 2004