Performance Measures, Outcomes, and Impacts
Sharon StoutOffice of Planning and Accountability
April 24, 2007
Objectives
● To discuss CSREES use of performance measures in the recent past and in the present;
● To review what CSREES OPA hopes to find in future performance measures, outputs, outcomes, impacts; and
● To encourage ongoing dialogue on performance measurement, measures and indicators within the CSREES Land-Grant University System.
Fundamental Principles
● Axiom 1: What is measured can be improved. ● Axiom 2: The above statement is true – only if
we are measuring the right things.
Critical Elements for Success
1) Select the right things to measure – both controllable and important to achieving success;
2) Measure those things in the right ways – with useable indicators and targets;
3) Employ measures in a framework to improve performance; and
4) Create an organizational culture valuing and encouraging use of measures.
Outline
● CSREES Past Use of Performance Data ● Using a Performance Measures Framework,
including Logic Models, to Improve ● CSREES Examples ● Developing and Using Performance Indicators and
Targets ● Using and Valuing Measures
CSREES Past Use of Performance Data
CSREES Program Leadership and Showcasing Results
CSREES and the Land-grant System are ● Addressing the national problems identified in the
Strategic Plan;● Choosing the right actions to respond; ● Achieving results; and ● Communicating with stakeholders, including
funders, the public, and the Land-grant System.
CSREES Accountability
● Defined as “the state of being accountable; liability to be called on to render an account; the obligation to bear the consequences for failure to perform as expected.”
● CSREES is accountable to the American people, the Administration, and Congress for the use of public funds.
Webster’s Dictionary, 1913
Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts
State Plans of Work and Annual Reports were used to provide examples for:
● Budget justification and narrative;● PART self-assessments; ● USDA Reports of Accomplishments;● Communication with Partners, other agencies, and
the public.
Success Extracting Results?
● CSREES has not been as successful as we would like to be in presenting a systematic report of results from State POW annual reports.
● External panels brought in to review CSREES accomplishments for the Portfolio Review Expert Process noted the lack of an adequate data system – and results.
Representative Comments by Experts in Reports on PREP…
● “The panel was disappointed with the evidence provided…”
● “The portfolio failed to present a complete picture of all the inputs, outputs and outcomes.”
● “There is a strong need to improve accountability showing measurable impacts, not just in CSREES, but throughout the system and down to individual investigators.”
Improved POW System is Raising Panelists’ Expectations
● “… Plan of Work and One Solution are expected to improve the documentation of significant findings.”
● “In 5 years, [the panel] expects to see the consistent information across knowledge areas necessary to evaluate the portfolio properly.”
Expectations of Panelists for CSREES OPA and NPLs
● CSREES OPA will work …”to improve data collection, performance measurement and reporting.”
● “CSREES and NPLs should have better communication with state partners in order to get significant evidence of outputs and impacts.”
What is Happening With CSREES POW and 1Solution?
● Exciting developments – as reported in other presentations here by Bart Hewitt – and CSREES ISTM.
● “Management dashboards” will enable CSREES deputies, NPLs, and P&A to examine trends – and drill down to specific projects.
● States can access information from other states.
Present Status, Future Hopes
● Exciting developments refers to changes in our information systems
● CSREES OPA, ISTM, and Budget Office work together to make better use of our information
● How can we jointly improve the information in our systems?
Reducing Burden, Increasing Use
● CSREES is no longer collecting ‘‘impacts” through a separate system.
● CSREES is relying on Plans of Work and annual reports for both “stories and statistics” for planning, reporting, and budget justification.
Using Performance Measurement
Frameworks to Improve
Performance Measurement Definition and Use
● Ongoing, regular collection of information for monitoring how a policy, program or initiative is doing at any point in time.
● Designed and used to report on the level of attainment of planned results and on performance trends over time.
Performance Measurement Framework
● Begins with design of a policy, program or initiative and evolves over time.
● Always is engaged as part of the ongoing management of a policy, program or initiative.
● Continues from the initial choices of performance measures and indicators, through performance monitoring to formative and summative evaluation.
Performance Measurement Framework Cycle
5
1
0
2 3
4
6
78
SpecifyMeasures
EstablishData collectionProcedures
DevelopInformation System
Measure& Report Performance
Performance MeasurementUnderstanding
FormativeEvaluation
SummativeEvaluation
ProgramProfileLogic model
Review AndModify
FE
ED
BA
CK
Criteria for Assessing PM Frameworks
● Useful for results management and accountability
● Shared ownership ● Transparent ● Decision- and action-oriented ● Credible and realistic ● Flexible
CSREES Use of PM Framework● Planning tools (‘strategic thinking’) -- to focus
attention on desired outcomes● Model to identify and track measures of interest --
inputs, outputs, and outcomes. ● Evaluability assessment – does this program on its
face make sense? (Identify questions to be addressed in an implementation plan)
PM Framework in CSREES Context …
Performance measurement framework is designed with organization
● Mission; ● Vision;● Strategic Goals;● Objectives; and ● Organizational and functional linkages.
CSREES Mission and Vision… Mission ● To advance knowledge for agriculture, the
environment, human health and well-being, and communities
Vision ● To improve the lives of people worldwide through
an agricultural knowledge system sustained by the innovation of scientists and educators.
Types of StrategiesO
rgan
izat
ion
al
Sti
mu
liIntended Strategy
Deliberate Strategy
Realized Strategy
UnrealizedStrategy
Source: Mintzberg, H. Ahlstrand, B. Lempel, J. (1998)
Emergent Stra
tegy
CSREES Strategic Goals ● Enhance international competitiveness of American agriculture;● Enhance competitiveness and sustainability of Rural and Farm
economies;● Support increased economic opportunity and improved quality
of life in rural America;● Enhance protection and safety of the Nation’s agriculture and
food supply;● Improve the Nation’s nutrition and health; and● Protect and enhance the Nation’s Natural Resource Base and
Environment.
CSREES Logic Model as “Roadmap”
Describethe problem, challenge, and opportunities
Situation Inputs Outputs
Occurs when there is a change in knowledgeor theparticipantsactuallylearn
Actions Conditions
Outcomes
$$$Other PartnersNIH, ARS
Describewhat comes out from funded activities
Activities
What we do in ResearchExtensionEducation
Knowledge
Occurs when there is a change in behavior or theparticipantsact on whatthey have learned
Occurs when a societalconditionis improveddue toa participantaction takenin the previous column
ASSUMPTIONS EXTERNAL FACTORS
Water Quality Program: Logic Model
Inputs OutputsActivities Participants
Outcomes- Impact
Knowledge Actions Conditions
SITUATION
PRIORITIES
Staff
Money
Materials
Partners
On-farm visits
Set up record keeping systems to track phosphorus
Educational workshops
Farmers at risk of overfeeding phosphorus
Increased knowledge of link between cattle diet and water quality
Increased understanding of recommended phosphorus levels
Make appropriate adjustments to cattle feed
Monitor phosphorus levels in feed, manure, and soil
Improved water quality
Feed cost savings
Reductions in phosphorus use
Increased knowledge of tracking phosphorus levels
Were the inputs sufficient, timely? Did they meet the program goals? Were they sufficient given the situation?
Did all activities occur as intended? Quality of intervention: appropriate content; usable record keeping system; well planned visits?
Did the targeted farmers participate? Who did not? What were their reactions? Who else was reached?
Did knowledge increase? Did know-ledge of P levels increase? What else happened?
Are farmers monitoring P levels?
Are they adjusting cattle feed? Anything else?
Is there a reduction in P use?
How much $ saved? Other benefits? Negative consequences?
Water Quality Program: Performance Measurement, Evaluation Questions
Inputs OutputsActivities Participants
Outcomes
Knowledge Actions Conditions
Indicators: How will you know it?
# of staff; $ invested; delivery timetable
# of workshops data systems, on-farm visits, Farm self-reports of quality
Actual vs. desired attendance. #, % attended per session
#, % with increased knowledge of … Additional outcomes: + & -
#, % monitoring P levels; making adjustments to cattle feed Additional outcomes: + & -
#, % reducing P use; level of reduction. # dollars saved/farmer. Additional outcomes: + & -
Water Quality Program: Indicators
Inputs OutputsActivities Participants
Outcomes
Knowledge Actions Conditions
Uses of the Logic Model● Clarifies the linkages between activities, outputs and
expected outcomes of the policy, program or initiative
● Communicates externally about the rationale, activities and expected results of the policy, program or initiative;
Uses of the Logic Model● Tests whether the policy, program or initiative
"makes sense" from a logical perspective; and
● Provides the fundamental framework on which the performance measurement and evaluation strategies are based (i.e., determining what would constitute success).
Performance Measures vs. Performance Indicators
● Performance measures are conceptual, and need to be operationalized
● Performance indicators are operationalized, to specify actual data (qualitative or quantitative) to be collected and used
What is a Performance Indicator?
An indicator is a quantitative or qualitative amount used to determine the extent to which progress is made toward an outcome.
● Quantitative Example: percent of firms exporting 10 percent of their produce
● Qualitative Example: distance between mother and child pairs in video of play activity
Outputs
Products, services and events that are:● Intended to lead to outcomes; and ● Linked to problems or issues to be addressed –
through the logical or causal chain of events depicted in the model.
Performance MeasuresExamples -- Outputs
● Number of training sessions held● Number of participants trained● Number of instructional hours● Number of publications● Number of patents
OutcomesPlanned results or changes for individuals,
groups, communities, organizations or systems, including:
● Changes in knowledge;● Changes in behavior; and ● Changes in conditions (impacts) -- resulting in
solution of the original problem or issue.
Examples of Outcomes
● Knowledge: Change in level of knowledge regarding plant production
● Behaviors: Change in farming practices● Conditions: Increased food security
CSREES ExamplesPerformance Measures
and Indicators
Examples …
● Soybean Rust ● CEAP ● Cryptosporidium ● Nutrition and Obesity
● Family Financial Security
What are We Seeking?
Quantitative and qualitative evidence that● Researchers are identifying possible solutions to
national problems;● Educators and extension faculty and staff are
helping the public learn; and ● The public is applying new knowledge and
addressing national problems, thus● Producing changes in conditions.
Soybean Rust● Devastating disease worldwide – some regions
lost 60-80% of their soybean crop● First found in November, 2004 by an Extension
Specialist at Louisiana State University trained by a CSREES program, SPDN
● Rapid response by USDA agencies and Land Grant partners
● CSREES and its National Plant Diagnostic Network (NPDN), provided disease recognition and pathogen diagnostic tools.
● Helped save $11 to $299 million in 2005 …
Penn State Soybean Rust Model
SBR Observation – 12-14-2005
Soybean Rust in 2005
Zooming to a state brings up county level resolution and specific guidelines for that state.
Producer Access to Information
Soy Bean Rust Outputs
● Research papers modeling spread of soy bean rust;
● Training for extension agents in identifying and treating soy bean rust;
● Development of Internet Pest Information Platform.
Soy Bean Rust Output Indicators
● # of research papers modeling spread of soy bean rust;
● # of training hours for extension agents● # of participants trained● Completed development of Pest Information
Platform
Soy Bean Rust Outcomes
● Knowledge – producers aware of spread of soy bean rust and access Pest Information Platform for advice on treatment;
● Behavior – producers reduce fungicide use (cease treating in advance of spread);
● Conditions – crops appropriately treated, cost savings, less fungicide in ground water.
Indicators
Outcomes:● Knowledge – number of producer consultations
with Extension agents;● Behavior – amounts and locations of applied
fungicide; claims filed for crop damage ● Conditions – TBD – ERS model of cost savings
Water
● Basic need and pressing national problem● Directly related to public health, food safety, and other
critical public concerns ● Requires research, education, and extension ● Model exemplar for CSREES and the Land Grant
System results under the new reporting system?
“Surf your watershed…”
http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/map2.cfm
CSREES Actions
● Listening sessions ● Cross-agency planning ● Partnerships● CSREES White Papers● Coordinated programming ● Funding, including Formula and Competitive
Water Situation … ● Of 147 countries ranked for water efficiency, the
United States ranked last … (NCSE, 2004).● Growing populations and changing values have
increased demands, increasing water use and management conflicts.
● Agricultural needs conflict with urban needs and with demands to sustain or improve ecosystem services, recreation, and tourism.
● Overuse of water resources adversely affects water quality.
Research
Program Development
Education/Outreach
Policy Development
Sustainable Water Resources
Management
Water Users: Industrial, Ag
Sector, Rural/Urban
Communities
Existing WQNetwork
Desire for Formula Funds
Limited Human Resources
Status Quo
Funding
Global Visibility
Oversight
Behavioral Science
Biological Science
Physical Science
Water Education Foundations
Outreach and Demonstrations
Adoption Education K-12
Water Security
CEAP – Research Outputs Indicators
Publications Water quality and agricultural management
parameters and data linking water quality and agricultural management trends.
Land use/water quality model (AnnAGNPS) of Rock Creek.
CEAP – Research and Extension Outcomes
● Knowledge of best management practices for agricultural producers
● Actions: Agricultural producers adopt best management practices
● Conditions: Reduced contamination of water and food supply by livestock pathogens
CEAP – Research and Extension Outcome Indicators
● Knowledge: Feedback from seminars for producers (e.g., evaluations, surveys, etc.)
● Actions: Documentation of adoption of best practices
● Conditions: Fewer pathogens identified in surface and ground water, reduced number of contaminants found in water and food supply
CEAP, Outcomes, Conditions
Discovered increased dissolved phosphorus concentrations in Lake Erie tributaries, associated with conservation tillage -- enriching the surface layer of the soil in phosphorus, which then leaches out into the water.
Ohio EPA convened a phosphorus task force to examine the extent and severity of the issue, and impact on Lake Erie.
Water Quality Outcomes Conditions…
“… improve the quality of the Nation’s surface water and groundwater resources in agricultural, rural, and urbanizing watersheds.”
National Integrated Water Quality Program, FY 2007 Request for Applications
Cryptosporidium, Situation
Cryptosporidium is one of the most common causes of waterborne disease within humans in the United States
May be found in drinking water and recreational water in every region of the United States and throughout the world
Parasite may be carried by agricultural animals, wildlife, and humans
Cryptosporidium, Situation
In 1993, an estimated 403,000 residents of Milwaukee, Wisconsin became ill with cryposporidiosis
Ineffective filtration process led to the inadequate removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts from the municipal water supply
CDC investigators, in a retrospective cost-of-illness analysis, found the total cost of illness was $96.2 million: $31.7 million in medical costs and $64.6 million in productivity losses.
EPA now requires screening for cryptosporidium.
Cryptosporidium Activities
Research – genome sequencing; transmission, survival and spread of oocysts;
analysis of spread through water shed and into water supply.
Extension – methods to prevent transmission through agricultural animals into surface and ground water
Cryptosporidium, Research Outputs Developed a stochastic model of pathogen transport
over the soil surface Developed a deterministic model including
environmental parameters Compared modeled oocyst transport data to
experiments Applied engineering risk assessment to expand
model to analysis of an entire water supply consisting of multiple watersheds.
Cryptosporidium, Output Indicators Stochastic model itself Deterministic model, and its environmental
parameters Oocyst transport data, as predicted by models and
collected experimentally Risk assessments, parameters and data values
from multiple watersheds.
Cryptosporidium, Research Outcomes
Knowledge – Provided information on how environmental factors in a watershed affect transport of oocysts before they reach a water supply system.
Behavior – Enabled water treatment managers to better determine risks of pollution in extreme hydrological events
Conditions – TBD, Prevention of treatment failures, Prevention of outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis.
Cryptosporidium, Research Outcome Indicators Knowledge – Parameters and data on
environmental factors in watershed affecting transport of oocysts, as provided to agricultural producers and water treatment managers
Behavior – Changes in best management practices by producers and water treatment managers
Conditions – TBD, Cryptosporidium identified in watersheds, water supply
Cryptosporidium, Outcomes,Extension
Knowledge – Farmers and ranchers learn of best management practices (BMPs) for adequate set back distances and buffers to safeguard leafy greens from livestock pathogens and contaminated rangeland runoff
Behavior – Producers adopt BMPs, with cost-share programs as needed
Condition – Reduce pathogens in water supply
Cryptosporidium, Outcomes,Extension Indicators
Knowledge – Feedback from seminars for producers
Behavior – Documented adoption of BMPs, participation in cost-share programs
Condition – Reductions in pathogens found in in water supply, cost savings in water treatment
1995
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. AdultsBRFSS, 1990, 1995, 2005
(*BMI 30, or about 30 lbs overweight for 5’4” person)
2005
1990
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
Nutrition and Obesity Situation
Nutrition and Obesity
• Between 1970-1980 & 2003-2004, overweight among adolescents (12-19 years) increased from 5% to 17%.
Nutrition and Obesity Among Adolescents, Outputs
● Completed 1st study to apply dietary pattern methodology to systematically evaluate the diets of adolescents.
● Presentation: National Nutrient Databank Conference, Wash DC 2003
● Publication: Journal of Nutrition, Feb 2007
Nutrition and Obesity
Outcomes, Knowledge● Four distinct dietary patterns were identified.
Healthy pattern -- high intake of fruit, vegetables, dairy, grains & low intake of sweets and fried foods --was followed by 12% of White girls.
● Healthy pattern was associated with more favorable nutrient intakes & a smaller waist circumference.
● None of the dietary patterns followed mitigated adiposity (reduced body fat) among Black girls.
Nutrition and Obesity,Outcome Indicators
● Four distinct dietary patterns were identified among adolescent girls.
● Healthy pattern -- high intake of fruit, vegetables, dairy, grains & low intake of sweets and fried foods --was followed by 12% of White girls.
● Healthy pattern was associated with more favorable nutrient intakes & a smaller waist circumference.
● Among Black girls, none of the dietary patterns were associated with mitigating adiposity (increased body fat).
Nutrition and Obesity, Outcomes
● Food intake pattern consistent with guidance for healthy eating (like the USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines for Americans) appears to help prevent overweight – among those who followed it in a longitudinal study.
● Only a minority of adolescent girls followed healthy food intake pattern.
Nutrition and Obesity, Outcomes, Behavior
● Food intake pattern consistent with guidance for healthy eating (like the USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines for Americans) appears to help prevent overweight – among those who followed it in a longitudinal study.
● Only a minority of adolescent girls followed healthy food intake pattern.
Nutrition and Obesity, Outcomes, Conditions
● Results of this study can be used to set goals for effective obesity prevention strategies for adolescent girls.
● Reductions in adiposity reduce risks for heart disease, diabetes, etc. in later life.
● Reductions in health care costs associated with obesity.
Financial Security
Creating ability to meet future needs while keeping pace with day-to-day obligations.
Preparing for retirement and potential long-term care costs
Requiring planning, saving, and debt control.
Financial Security Outputs
Toolkit of web-based and face-to-face programs; Guidebook to Help Late Savers Prepare for
Retirement, Training of educators, and Development of eXtension program,
http://www.extension.org/personal+finance
Financial Security Outcome Indicators, Behavior
41% percent reported using one or more recommended financial management practices from an initiative program;
46% reported they developed plans to achieve retirement and/or future income goals; and
57% reported that they had increased their financial security.
Financial Security Outcome Indicators, Knowledge
89% of program participants increased their financial knowledge related to later life issues
64% planned to use recommended financial management practices
56% planned to manage their use of credit, reduce debt, and/or reduce household spending in light of their long-term goals for later life
Financial Security Outcome Indicators, Conditions
7,663 individuals reported a total of $6,501,945 in dollars saved, debt reduced, and/or new dollars invested--an average of $848 per person.
Developing and Using Performance
Indicators and Targets
Performance Measurement Framework Cycle (revisited)
1
0
2 3
4
5
6
78
SpecifyMeasures
EstablishData collectionProcedures
DevelopInformation System
Measure& Report Performance
Performance MeasurementUnderstanding
FormativeEvaluation
SummativeEvaluation
ProgramProfileLogic model
Review AndModify
FE
ED
BA
CK
Critical Steps –Using Indicators to Improve
Create a target performance level for each indicator Assign someone to that indicator Derive targets carefully Check indicators against targets periodically Anticipate shortfalls and correct them Shortfalls generally of two types –
Design flaws – redesign process? Execution issues -- training, better equipment, etc.
Performance Measure Example
Cumulative number of expanded commercially adaptable processes that convert biomass to fuels through the development of cost effective biochemical or thermochemical technologies, and used commercially
Performance Indicator Example
Long Term Outcome Measure -- Cumulative number of expanded commercially adaptable processes that convert biomass to fuels through the development of cost effective biochemical or thermochemical technologies, and used commercially
Performance Indicator Criteria
Precision – How well-defined is the indicator? Accuracy – Actual indicators are only
approximations of ideal measure, but how good an approximation?
Simplicity – Easily measured and interpreted? Cost Robustness (balance) – use multiple indicators,
especially for potentially competing criteria
Challenges and Trade-offs (1)
In the private sector, competing dimensions of performance to be captured by indicators –
Cost Quality Speed
Challenges and trade-offs (2)
In the public sector, competing dimensions of performance to be captured by indicators –
Adequacy Cost Equity Efficiency Effectiveness
Challenges and trade-offs (3)
For Federal programs, including CSREES, competing dimensions of performance to be captured by indicators –
• Relevance • Quality
• Performance
LOGIC MODEL
ELEMENT Indicator
Data Source/
Method
Used
Collected
By …
Timing/Frequency of Measurement
Ongoing Measure
Process
Evaluation
Outcome
Evaluation
Outputs Output 1
Output 2
Output X
Outcomes Knowledge Outcome 1
Knowledge Outcome 2
Behavior Outcome 1
Behavior Outcome 2
Condition Outcome 1
Condition Outcome 2
Condition Outcome X
Using and
Valuing Measures
Critical Steps – Using Performance Measures
Using PM to enhance learning and improve performance
Cycling between and among research, education, and extension
Better use of limited funding Stimulating new and better questions, approaches
to programs – and performance measurement and evaluation…
Multiple Uses of PM and Indicators
Communicating Success – ‘stories and statistics’ Modeling Performance monitoring, including indicators and/or
milestones Analysis and planning Evaluation (formative, definitely, and possibly
summative)
Rolling up results…
Strategic Objective
Intermediate Result 1
IntermediateResult 2
Sub IR 1.1 Sub IR 1.2
Activity B
Why? So What?
How?
Assuming What?
What Else? What Else?
Activity A Activity C
Cryptosporidium example…
Improve water quality
Farmers adopt BMPImproved ability
to detect and treat
Sub IR 1.1 Sub IR 1.2
Green payments
Why? So What?
How?
Assuming What?
What Else? What Else?
Farm demo Improved models
Wetland Restoration for Sediment Yield Reduction:A Conceptual Model
Benefit of Wetland Restoration for Sediment Yield Reduction
Marginal Change in Total Downstream Sediment Yield per Restoration Dollar
Marginal Change in Restored Wetland Area per Restoration Dollar
Marginal Change in Hydrologic Response per Restored Wetland
Area
Marginal Change in Sediment Yield per
Change in Hydrologic Response
Key
Concept
Vellidis et al., 2003. Prioritizing wetland restoration for sediment yield reduction: A conceptual model. Environmental Management 31(2): 301-312.
Wetland Restoration for Sediment Yield Reduction:A Conceptual Model
Benefit of Wetland Restoration for Sediment Yield Reduction
Marginal Change in Total Downstream Sediment Yield per Restoration Dollar
Marginal Change in Restored Wetland Area per Restoration Dollar
Community Willingness
Purchasing Efficiency
Restorability
Presence of: Watershed Protection Activities;
Conservation Programs
Watershed & environmental protection groups; conservation easements; protected areas
Restorability
Wetland characteristics; disturbance
Property Value
Land Cost
Key
Concept
Descriptor
Indicator
Measurement Point
Wetland Restoration for Sediment Yield Reduction:A Conceptual Model
Benefit of Wetland Restoration for Sediment Yield Reduction
Marginal Change in Total Downstream Sediment Yield per Restoration Dollar
Marginal Change in Hydrologic Response Wetland Area
Headwater Response
Floodplain Response
Watershed Yield; Runoff Delivery; Runoff
Interception
Precipitation; topography, permeability; hydrologic connectivity; flow friction
Upstream Velocity; Flood Frequency;
Interception
Stream order; return period; structural modifications; hydrologic connectivity
Key
Concept
Descriptor
Indicator
Measurement Point
Wetland Restoration for Sediment Yield Reduction:A Conceptual Model
Benefit of Wetland Restoration for Sediment Yield Reduction
Marginal Change in Total Downstream Sediment Yield per Restoration Dollar
Marginal Change in Hydrologic Response Wetland Area
Headwater Sediment Sources
Floodplain Sediment Sources
Upland Runoff; Unpaved Road Runoff;
Development Site Runoff
Land use; RUSLE; unpaved road density; conversion rate
Channel Sources; Upland Runoff; Unpaved Road Runoff;
Development Site Runoff
Total flow; bank materials; channel slope; contribution watershed area; sinuosity; land use; RUSLE; unpaved road density; conversion rate
Key
Concept
Descriptor
Indicator
Measurement Point
Summary
“Doing it right…”
Develop a logical/causal framework – model Gather data Turn data into information – use it for analysis Continually refine the model Base actions on findings Assess outcomes
Back to Accountability…
“… The old saw that one cannot be held responsible for what one does not fully control has outlived its usefulness; it is both reasonable and necessary to hold everyone with some influence over a metric [measure] jointly accountable for it.”
Next Steps?
● Questions? ● Where do we go from here? ● Increased communication… ● Increased synthesis…
Contact Information ● Sharon Stout, Social Scientist, OPA, CSREES 202-
401-0183, [email protected] ● Kitty Cardwell, [email protected]● Mike O’Neill, [email protected] ● Mary Ann Rozum, [email protected]● Etta Saltos, [email protected]● Jane Schuchardt, [email protected]
Office of Planning and Accountability Websitehttp://www.csrees.usda.gov/about/strat_plan.html