COMPETITIVE GRANTS

1
COMPETITIVE GRANTS

• Opportunities and Approaches
• by
• David R. MacKenzie
• Executive Director
• NERA

2
TWO SESSIONS

• Morning Session (I)
• Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food
  Systems
• Afternoon Session (II)
• Principles of Grantsmanship

3
Initiative for FutureAgriculture and Food
Systems (IFAFS)Workshop Session I

4
Acknowledgments

• Special thanks to
• Rodney Foil
• Director of IFAFS,
• Acting Associate Administrator
• CSREES, USDA
• Jim Hanson
• Assistant Director
• Maryland Cooperative Extension Service

5
Session I Road Map

• History of IFAFS
• Review of the 01 RFP Whats new and whats not
• Analysis of 00 IFAFS Award Patterns
• Attributes of Successful Proposals
• Notes from a Successful 00 IFAFS Applicant
• Hints on stating your proposals relevance
• Describing your intended public goods
• How to develop a functionally integrated proposal
• Hints on team building
• How to build a proposal on an existing activity
• Management schemes for multi-institutional
  consortia
• Open Discussion/Questions/Comments
• Closing Comments

6
A Definitionfor RFP

• Request for Proposals

7
IFAFSSection 1

• History of IFAFS

8
History of IFAFS

• 1996 Farm Bill (Freedom to Farm Act)
• Movement to market economy
• Ramping down the commodity subsidies
• Note 71 billion direct farm payments since
  1996
• 1998 Farm Bill (Research Reform Act)
• Knowledge to keep U.S. Farming profitable
• Fill voids with research, extension and education
• Section 401 (aka IFAFS) inserted
• Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act
  of 1996
• Agricultural Research, Extension and Education
  Reform Act of 1998

9
What the 98 Farm BillSeeks to Do

• Better integrate research, extension and
  education (i.e., teaching)
• Encourage multistate programs
• Leverage scarce resources in an effective manner
• Support multi-institutional and multi-functional
  approaches
• Support activities at those institutions that are
  best positioned to do so (competitive awards)
• Provide some advantages to the smaller, less
  successful institutions

10
Section 401(a.k.a. IFAFS)

• 600 million over 5-year life of AREERA
• 120 million per year
• Grants to be awarded competitively
• Mandatory funding (i.e., not appropriated)
• Integrating education, research and extension
• Open to all applicants (Note only for 00)
• Purpose to support activities that address
• critical emerging agricultural issues related to
• 1) Future food production
• 2) Environmental quality and natural resource
  management, OR
• 3) Farm income

11
Priority Missions (98 Farm Bill)

• Agricultural genome
• Food safety, food technology, and human nutrition
• New and alternative uses and production of
  agricultural commodities and products
• Agricultural biotechnology
• Natural resource management, including precision
  agriculture
• Farm efficiency and profitability, including the
  viability and competitiveness of small- and
  medium-sized dairy, livestock, crop, and other
  commodity operations

12
Politics of FFY 1999

• Authorization vs Appropriation Committees
• 1999 restrictions on funds to manage grants
• No awards possible in FFY 1999
• 2000 funds used to manage 1999 money
• Some sleight-of-hand used
• Challenged by Appropriations Members
• Finally allowed for past year (2000)
• Good congressional support for 2001

13
Priorities and Distinctions

• Priorities
• Multi-state/Multi-institutional/Multidisciplinary,
  and/or
• Integration of functions (research, education and
  extension)
• Distinctions
• Concern for small mid-sized farm operations
• Emphasis on agricultural production issues
• Goal of supporting relatively large projects

14
IFAFSSection 2

• Review of the 01 RFP
• Whats new, and whats not

15
Eliminated This Year

• No consortia this year
• Programs 10.3 and 14.4 moved
• Now two joint RFPs
• NSF
• NASA
• These RFPs to be issued soon

16
New Addresses

• US Postal Service
• Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food
  Systems
• c/o Proposal Service Unit, CSREES, USDA
• Stop 2245
• 1400 Independence Ave. S.W.
• Washington, DC 20250-2245

• Overnight
• Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food
  Systems
• c/o Proposal Service Unit, CSREES, USDA
• Room 1307 Waterfront Center 800 9th Street
  S.W.
• Washington, DC 20224

17
Added to the 01 RFP

• Letter of Intent due March 23, 2001
• Eligibility limited to colleges and universities
  their research foundations
• Types of proposals expanded
• New and resubmitted
• Critical or emerging issues
• Multidisciplinary Graduate Education Traineeships
  (MGET)
• Bridge grants

18
01 Funding Available

• 113,400,00
• Ag. Genome and Biotechnology - 32,800,000
• Food Safety, Tech. Nutrition - 21,900,000
• New and Alternative Uses - 10,000,000
• Natural Resource Management - 29,000,000
• Farm Efficiency and Profitability - 19,000,000
• MGET -
  2,200,000
• Microbial Genome (w/NSF) - 9,000,000
• Precision Agriculture (w/NASA) - 9,500,000

19
01 Deadlines

• Letter of Intent March 23, 2001
• Proposals April 23, 2001
• MGET April 23, 2001
• Critical/Emerging Issues June 1, 2001
• Public Comments in 6 months (9/23/01?)

20
Agency Intentions

• Not to be redundant with NRI
• High quality activities with quick payoffs
• Functional integration
• Eligibility
• FFY 2001 appropriation designated LGUs only
• Subsequently all colleges and universities
• Provisions for sub-contracting
• Consideration given to international projects (to
  enhance competitiveness)

21
Granting Conditions

• Matching funds or in-kind support required for
• Commodity-specific activities
• Work not of national scope
• Priorities to be set by stakeholder listening
• Advantages given to small and mid-sized
  institutions that have poor success patterns
• No funding for buildings or facilities
• No funding for fixed equipment
• No funding for human cloning

22
Priority Attention

• Multistate,
• Multi-institutional, or
• Multidisciplinary
• OR
• Projects that are integrated
• Teaching
• Research
• Extension

23
Project Grants

• Limited to 5 million over 4 years
• A lead institution will administer funds to the
  other participants
• Larger proposals (over 1 million or many
  participant institutions) must state
• How it will be administered
• How it will be monitored
• Plans for maintaining and monitoring the
  activities after the funding ends

24
Bridge Grants

• Designated for institutions to sustain and
  enhance important collaborations that might lead
  to future grant getting success
• Awards made only to small- and mid-sized
  institutions
• Review placed the proposal below the funding
  cut-off point
• Limited to a one time infusion of 100,000

25
Critical or EmergingIssues Grants

• Topics that transcend specific elements of the
  individual program areas
• Up to 5 million over 4 years
• Cannot be submitted to another IFAFS program area
• To be judged for relevance by higher standards
• Must make the case for uniqueness or urgency
  lack or fit to other programs

26
Multidisciplinary Graduate Education Traineeships

• Support innovative, research-based, graduate
  education and training activities in critical,
  emerging areas of agricultural sciences
• Must be cohesive multidisciplinary theme
• Must involve a diverse group of faculty
• Grants may total 2,200,000 for 4 years
• Stipend allowance is 18,000/year plus
  cost-of-education allowance of 10,500/yr
• Recipients must be US citizens or permanent
  residents

27
Priority Mission Areas

• Agricultural Genomics and Biotechnology
• Food Safety and Role of Nutrition in Health
• New Uses for Agricultural Products
• Natural Resources Management, Pest Management and
  Precision Agriculture
• Farm Efficiency and Profit

28
More Information

• Application Kits
• www.reeusda.gov/IFAFS
• 202-401-5048
• psb_at_reeusda.gov
• RFP
• http//www.escop.msstate.edu/IFAFS.pdf

29
01 Program Areas

• 10.0 Agricultural Genomics
• 10.1 Plant Genome
• 10.2 Animal Genome
• 10.3 Microbe Genome (offered separately in 01)
• 10.4 Bioinformatics
• 11.0 Agricultural Biotechnology
• 11.1 Effects of Agricultural Biotechnology on
  Human, Animal, and Plant Health
• 11.2 Social and Economic Aspects of
  (Agricultural) Biotechnology
• 11.3 Ecological Risk Management of Agricultural
  Biotechnology (new)

30
01 Program Areas(continued)

• 12.0 Food Safety and the Role of Nutrition in
  Health
• 12.1 Consumer Food Choices
• 12.2 Nutritional Impact of Functional Foods
• 13.0 New Uses for Agricultural Products

31
01 Program Areas(continued)

• 14.0 Natural Resource Management, Including
  Precision Agriculture
• 14.1 Alternative Natural Resource Management
  Practices for Private Lands
• 14.2 Non-Native Invasive Species
• 14.3 Animal Manure Management
• 14.4 Application of Precision Technologies
  (offered separately in 01)
• 15.0 Farm Efficiency and Profitability

32
01 Program Areas(continued)

• 16.0 (new) Critical or Emerging Issues Grants
• Created for those critical issues that transcend
  other elements of IFAFS
• Must be generally related to IFAFS interest, but
  clearly falls outside the boundaries
• Will be judged by much higher relevance standards
• Proposals for this category should have strong
  evidence of uniqueness or urgency
• Deadline is extended six weeks
• 17.0 (new) Multidisciplinary Graduate Education
  and Traineeship Program

33
Proposal Content

• Cover page
• Table of Contents
• Project Summary
• Response to Previous Review (NEW)
• Project Description (see next slide for details)
• References (in the project description)
• Appendices (to the project description)
• Key Personnel
• Conflict of Interest
• Collaborative and/or Sub-contractual Arrangements
• Budget and Budget Narrative
• Current and Pending Support
• Assurance Statements
• Certifications
• NEPA Compliance

34
Project Description(see previous slide)

• Standard Projects
• Introduction
• Relevance Significance
• Approach
• Time Table
• Collaborative Arrangements
• Management Plan (for grants gt 1 million)
• Evaluation and Monitoring of Project

35
Appendix A (Most Successful NE LGUs)

• Cornell Univ.
• Penn State Univ.
• Rutgers Univ.
• Univ. of Maryland College Park
• Univ. of Mass.-Amherst

36
Appendix A The Advantaged NE LGUs

• UDC
• U. Del
• WVU
• UMD-Eastern Shore
• Del State U.

• U. Conn
• Conn. AES-NH
• URI
• UNH
• UVM
• U. Maine

37
Reviews and Awards

• Preliminary review for responsiveness
• Peer review for
• Relevance
• Merit
• Grants not to exceed 4 years
• RFP limits time to 4 years
• Presumably allows for one year no cost
  extensions

38
IFAFS Review Process
PROGRAM DIRECTOR CSREES National Program
Leader Oversees each Program
PANEL MANAGER Active, established expert
Part-time USDA employee Assists Program
Director with panel tasks (selecting panelists
assigning reviewers to
proposals budget
decisions ) Chairs the Panel Meeting

39
Panel Member Selection Criteria

• Education Research Experience
• Actively involved in research, extension, /or
  education
• Ability to assess relevance of proposals to
  target audiences and program needs (may include
  users and customers)

40
Panel Member Selection

• Balanced For
• Discipline/activities
• Geography
• Organizational type
• Rank ( Prof Assoc. Prof Asst. Prof )
• Women minorities equitable age distribution
• Members that can judge usefulness

41
Guidance to Panels RELEVANCE

• Relevant to critical emerging agricultural issues
  related to future food production environmental
  quality, natural resource management or farm
  income, with
• Documentation that the activities are directed
  towards current or likely future agricultural
  problem identified in the RFP
• Evidence of linkage of research, education and
  extension functions
• Evidence of stakeholder involvement and/or
  communities of interest

42
Guidance to Panels MERIT

• Novelty, innovation, uniqueness, and originality
• Conceptual adequacy of the proposed activity
• Clarity and delineation of objectives
• Adequacy of description of undertaking, and
  suitability and feasibility of methodology
• Demonstration of feasibility
• Probability of success

43
Guidance to Panels QUALITY

• Includes the most appropriate and qualified team
• Training and awareness of alternative approaches
• Time allocation is adequate to attaining
  objectives
• Institutional experience and competence in
  subject
• Adequacy of
• Facilities, personnel and equipment
• Plans for reporting, assessing and monitoring
• The planned administration and monitoring

44
IFAFSSection 3

• Analysis of the
• 00 IFAFS Award Patterns

45
AGRICULTURAL GENOMICS

• 184 Proposals received
• 15 Proposals funded
• 8.2 Success rate
• 320.3 million requested
• 19.76 million awarded
• Average size of award 1.32 million

46
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY

• 59 Proposals received
• 9 Proposals funded
• 15.3 Success rate
• 82.788 million requested
• 12.402 million awarded
• Average size of award 1.38 million

47
Food Safety and the Role of Nutrition in Health

• 130 Proposals received
• 10 Proposals funded
• 7.7 Success rate
• 189.874 million requested
• 21.965 million funded
• Average size of award 2.20 million

48
New Uses forAgriculture Products

• 73 Proposals received
• 8 Proposals funded
• 11 Success rate
• 87.015 million requested
• 9.070 million funded
• Average size of award 1.01 million

49
Natural Resources, Including Precision Agriculture

• 336 Proposals received
• 25 Proposals funded
• 7.4 Success rate
• 486.512 million requested
• 30.913 million funded
• Average size of award 1.24 million

50
Farm Efficiencyand Production

• 202 Proposals received
• 19 Proposals funded
• 9.4 Success rate
• 288.701 million requested
• 18.813 million funded
• Average size of award 0.99 million

51
Who Competed ?

• Proposals Proposals
  Percent Total Funds
• Type of Institution Submitted
  Successful Success Recommended
• 1862 Land Grant 606 69 11.4
  90,185,915
• Other Public Univ 74 3 4.0
  2,082,500
• Non-Profit Orgs 74 5 6.7
  5,358,679
• USDA, ARS 66 5 7.6
  7,279,800
• 1890 Land Grant 37 2 5.4
  4,271,453
• Private Univ. 28 2 7.1
  3,246,983
• For Profit Orgs 26 0 0
  560,000
• All Others 64 0 0
  0
• Totals 978 87 8.9
  112,985,330
• as self-reported not audited or corrected.

52
Winners and Losers Review Process Results
Number of Proposals Percent Returned, No
Review 58 5.9 Do Not Fund 144 14.7 Som
e Merit 248 25.4 Subtotal 450 46.0 L
ow Priority 281 29.0 High
Priority 188 19.0 Outstanding 59
6.0 Subtotal 247 25.0 38.5 of these
proposals were funded.
53
The Need to Submit
Number of Proposals Submitted
54
Measures of Effort

• The correlation between the number of
  proposals submitted from a state and the number
  of awards granted to that state
• WAS .73 !!

55
For Those Institutions Receiving Awards

• Success Ratio Ranged
• from 2.6 to 20
• Average 10.2
• Or y0.1N

56
What About the Contributions of Institutional
Reputation ?

57
States That Were Above Average in Their Percent
of Success
CA, FL, WI, CO, WA, AR, SC, DE, MT, ND, AZ, SD,
NV, WY
58
Some Surprised Institutions

• Cornell University
• Penn State University
• Kansas State University
• Michigan State University
• Virginia Tech
• The Tribal Colleges

59
Pattern of Awardsin the Northeast for 00

• Non-LGUs
• NC 3.1
• S 2.6
• W 4.2
• NE 5.5

• LGUs
• NC 28.0
• S 23.6
• W 23.5
• NE 3.6

60
IFAFS Section 4

• General Attributes of Successful Proposals

61
Notes From a Successful00 IFAFS Applicant

• Jim Hanson
• Cooperative Extension
• University of Maryland
• TITLE Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide
  Marketing Local Food in the Mid-Atlantic

62
Points-to-Considerby Jim Hanson

• 1. Determine IFAFS to be an appropriate funding
  source (read the RFP)
• 2. Select a topic and define the scope
• 3. Invest in team building
• a. Overall
• b. Specific
• 4. Select criteria for focus
• 5. Plan for the stack-ups
• 6. Maintain complete transparency

63
1. Determine IFAFS to be anAppropriate Funding
Source

• Looking at future food production
• Issue was environmental quality and natural
  resource management
• Farm income was central to concerns

64
2. Select Topic and Define Scope

• Fitted to the program (not visa versa)
• Decided on going for Standard Grant
• Consortia were complicated
• Went for upper limit on amount

65
3. Invest in Team Building

• Issued open invitation
• Non-profits
• West Virginia U., Penn State U. and U. of
  Maryland
• Decision
• High value crops (UMD)
• Forage and Pasture (WVU)
• Crop production team (MCES, PCES, USDA/ARS BARC,
  Wallace Center, Accokeek Foundation, Future
  Harvest/CASA, Pa Assoc. of Sustainable Agriculture

66
4. Select Criteria for Focus(a. Overall)

• Small and medium-size farms
• How target audiences will benefit
• Finding new partnerships
• Took a systems approach
• Included
• Sustainability
• Community viability

67
4. Select Criteria for Focus(b. Specific)

• Management marketing (reducing costs)
• Effective marketing programs
• Farm-based value added
• Managing risks
• Decision-making tools
• Access to resources
• Environmental quality

68
5. Plan for the Stack-ups

• Held multiple meetings
• Gave assignments and tasks
• Worked on budget early (can be handled
  simultaneously)
• Finish completely 3 days before deadline

69
6. Maintain Complete Transparency

• Everybody knows
• How much everybody is getting
• What everybodys responsibilities are

70
Points-to-Considerby Rodney Foil,IFAFS Director

1. Functional integration
2. Proposal content
3. Goodness-of-fit to program
4. Justification
5. Clarity
6. Perspective (i.e., just who has the money)

71
Attributes ofSuccessful Proposals(Functional
Integration)

• Category Number Percent
• Multi-State 74 86
• Multi-Institutional 78 91
• Multi-Disciplinary 80 93
• Multi-Functional 82 95

72
Attributes ofSuccessful Proposals(Proposal
Content)

• Innovative idea
• Highly relevant
• Likelihood of success
• Likely to provide impact on problem area during
  duration of project (i.e., pick the low hanging
  fruit)
• Project can sustain itself after funding is over

73
Attributes ofSuccessful Proposals(Goodness-of-fi
t to Program)

• Well-designed methodologies
• Evidence of technical expertise
• Appropriate activities for IFAFS
• If possible, show preliminary data or other
  information to demonstrate feasibility

74
Attributes ofSuccessful Proposals(Justification)

• Clear justification
• Relevance to mission of IFAFS (as stated in the
  RFP)
• Addresses stakeholder-identified priorities
• Consideration has been given to alternative
  approaches

75
Attributes ofSuccessful Proposals(Clarity)

• Thoughtful, up-to-date literature review
• Well-written, logical succinct
• Well focused
• Clear, well-stated objectives
• Well developed outreach or tech transfer plan
• Appropriate audiences/stakeholders identified for
  education and extension programs

76
Packaging a Good Idea

• Make it easy to read, i.e.,
• Write for the REVIEWER -
• Have a colleague to review proposal before
  submitting
• First impressions ARE important!
• Comply with print size, page limits
• Print only on one side
• Number order pages correctly
• Everything stapled attached
• Reconsider photo originals, or plates of
  photographs
• Check for typos sentence structure

77

• Attributes ofSuccessful Proposals(Perspective)
• Ask not what the Grantor can do for you ...
• Tell them what you can do for them !
• 
  
  

78
Essential Proposal Attributes

• Excellent idea
• Goodness-of-fit to program
• Scientific quality
• Valid design, with acceptable procedures
• Achievable objectives
• Well written
• Professional credibility

79
Necessary, But Not Sufficient

• Relevance to stakeholder-identified need(s)
• Worthwhile deliverables
• Functional integration
• Partnerships (multistate, or at least
  multi-institutional)
• Qualified participants
• Some follow-on activities
• Sound management scheme

80
Strategic Points-to-Consider

• 1. Stating your proposals relevance
• 2. Describing your intended public goods
• 3. Developing a functionally integrated proposal
• 4. Team building principles
• 5. Constructing a proposal on an existing
  activity
• 6. Planning for continuity
• 7. Management schemes for multi-institutional
  consortia

81
1. Stating Your Proposals Relevance

• Stakeholder listening is important
• Get you States Plan(s) of Work
• Engage your users
• Cite AREERAs purposes
• State alignment with IFAFS programs purposes
• Link to strategic planning (esp. USDA/REE your
  institutions)
• Use the recent statement on NE regional
  priorities for research and extension

82
Current NE Prioritiesfor Research and Extension

• (1) Environment, natural resources, land
  stewardship (a) intersection of urban/rural
  communities related to land use (including open
  space planning) and (b) water management
  including wetlands, watershed, and water quality
  and quantity and other topics.
• (2) Family and youth, promoting health
  lifestyles youth/families at risk and other
  topics.
• (3) Relationship of food to health, food
  security throughout the food chain, including
  integrated pest management and other topics.
• (4) Rural and urban community vitality,
  (a) agricultural viability, including
  profitability, niche market opportunities,
  ag-tourism, aquaculture systems, non-labor
  intensive production and (b) community capacity
  building, including leadership, urban-rural issue
  policy formation/practice, access to new
  technologies, workforce development and other
  topics.
• (5) Crop and livestock issues, (a) functional
  genomics and bioinformatics (b) biobased products
  (forest products, nutraceuticals, functional
  foods, value-added products development consumer
  acceptance of biotechnology products) and other
  topics.

83
2. Describing Your IntendedPublic Goods

• Public sectors responsibilities the need to do
  those socially important things that are
• Not appropriable (no one can own it), and
• Not profitable (no one can make money)
• Expected impacts
• Pick the low hanging fruit
• Explain how the intended users will benefit
• Public good is not just making a small farm
  profitable
• Public Good is not Feel Good

84
3. Developing a Functionally Integrated Proposal

• Find your complementary partners and involve them
  from the beginning
• Build on their strengths, and yours
• Consider the needs of all participants
• Adopt their priorities, along with yours
• Be sensitive to sensitivities
• Share the rights to decision making

85
4. Team Building Principles

• Solicit initial members with care and attention
• Select a leader very early
• Write a founding document on who you are, what
  is specifically to be done, and by whom
• Agree on how your decisions will be made
• Define who can be a member of the team
• Agree on the assignment of tasks
• Agree on the allocation of resources (done as a
  mechanism? As a fixed budget?)

86
5. Constructing a Proposalon an Existing Activity

• Review the entire multistate research portfolio
  for opportunities
• Consider existing projects as platforms
• Review professional society activities
• Consider teaching as a focus
• Consider international activities
• Ask about funding to meet as a group

87
NE Multistate Research Portfolio

• 30 NE projects (ca. 40 million investment)
• All 15 NE SAES participate
• Many SAES beyond the region participate as well
• 1862 LGUs
• 1890 LGUs
• 1994 LGUs
• Extension participation
• 10 less-formal committees
• Several informal consortia
• A few regional centers and programs

88
6. Planning for Continuity

• There are expectations for an IFAFS-funded
  project to continue after the funding ends. How
  might that affect you planning for the project?

89
Project Continuation Strategies

• Letter(s) of commitment from your administration
• Folding activities into your base program
• Commercialization plan
• Training-the-trainers
• Seeking other sponsors other donors
• Fees-for-services
• Objectives completed no need to follow-on

90
7. Management Schemes for Multi-institutional
Consortia

• Appoint a governing/oversight board (for program
  and policy issues)
• State the projects decision-making procedures
• Consider forming a technical advisory committee
• Provide a process for reporting results and
  achievements
• Include an internal monitoring system
• Plan a process for
• external review(s)
• external auditing capacities (program and fiscal)
• Design a processes for appeals to decisions
• Decide on a process for removal-from-project-for-c
  ause

91
Management Issues for Multi-institutional
Proposals

• Prior agreement on
• Organizational structure
• Contributions by each entity
• Budget allocations
• Disbursement procedures
• Plans for partnerships with other teams
• Terms of appointments
• Channels of communication
• Evaluation of work performance (reviews and
  accountability)

• Property ownership
• Intellectual property assignments
• Publication rights
• Rights to data and materials
• Confidentiality
• Budget modification procedures
• Financial reports
• Division of incomes
• Arbitration of disputes

92
Implementing an MOU

• Continuing agreement on management scheme by the
  participating NE SAES for
• Policy issues
• Organizational terms
• Operational considerations
• Additional partners agree to the management terms
  by letter-of-commitment
• Other regions SAES
• Extension
• ARS/FS/ERS
• Private sector

93
Fabricating the Boilerplatefor a Proposal

• Adoption-by-reference of the management scheme
  (MOU) (and adding the signed MOU to your
  proposals appendix)
• Include a statement on any special terms or
  conditions not stated in the MOU (a check list
  for this is under development)
• Append letters-of-commitment from all other
  partners (a model letter-of-agreement is under
  development)

94
Final Note

• The NERA Office of the Executive Director stands
  ready to assist the regional association and its
  member institutions in remedying the apparent
  situation we found ourselves in this past IFAFS
  competition.

95
THE END

• For more information contact
• David R. MacKenzie
• 301-403-4242 (voice)
• dm184_at_umail.umd.edu (e-mail)