Thank you for your comment. We will take this into consideration when we develop the final product.
Anonymous
Jan 11, 2017
I'm assuming this is another "if applicable" question? Not all grants have this opportunity.
Anonymous
Jan 18, 2017
Not certain this would be an appropriate answer but the only thing I can think of would be cost-sharing (say with a contributing partner, like a land trust) - is that the kind of information you're looking for? Sometimes these contributions will be part of the match and if that's the case, that wouldn't be a cost efficiency. I'd like to see this be an optional question.
Again we believe that getting meaningful answers to this question at the grant scale is unlikely. We of course carry out everything we do in as cost-efficient a manner as possible. Large scale efficiency increases tend to occur as a result of long-term program analysis, not within the life of one individual grant. These decisions are typically driven by priorities outside the scale of the grant itself.
-Heather Kieweg MN Dept. of Natural Resources
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017
Is this mandatory? What if something was developed and is proprietary?
Tammy Snyder, NE Game and Parks
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017
Is this a required measure of grant performance? It is not necessarily a problem to ask if an answer of NO is generally acceptable, which will likely be the case for most grants. Not sure how valuable this question really is.
Randy Curtis, NH Fish and Game Dept.
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017
If states develop new techniques which yield cost efficiencies, that information should certainly be shared with colleagues...through professional meetings, regional committees, species work groups, etc. Sharing of this type of information is a noble cause, but is it the role of the federal government to assimilate this data? I'm just not sure a performance report/TRACS is the appropriate venue.
I understand that in today's political climate we are very sensitive to government spending and would like to put our best face forward. However, I'm a little concerned that we will end up with an ever-growing list of questions to address in performance reports which reflect the current political climate, but are never removed when the winds change. For example, "Did this project relate to global climate change?" "Was this project related to pollinators?" I've heard both questions tossed around for consideration. Neither is terribly daunting (especially if the answer is no) but the cummulative impact of hot topic questions may be cumbersome. I think we need to stick with that which is truly required for effective grant management, rather than trying to use our reports to be all things to all people. .
Andrea Crews, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
While this information may be nice, it is not necessary or required by CFR. Please provide an explanation of the purpose, intent, and fate of this information being requested.
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017
This item may also be a bit challenging as it could be several years after the close of a grant where cost-efficiencies are realized. So, I am curious about the intended measure of this item is; what should be reported? Anticipate dollar savings or a description of what may come to fruition? Perhaps an example of what they are looking for here would help?
I would not expect this question to be answered in the affirmative often. Most of our programs have been operating for decades with as much efficiency as possible within the parameters we work in. States are often held to strict purchasing policies and practices that are not able to be influenced at a program level.
If this question remains, there needs to be greater clarity on what level of cost efficiencies are being asked for.
| Privacy Statement
to ask a question, suggest a topic, or to get more information.
19 Comments
Anonymous
Jan 04, 2017We never use this.
Anonymous
Jan 10, 2017I am not convinced that this is useful to the grant performance report..... does the question apply to reporting on "objectives"?
Phil King
Jan 10, 2017Thank you for your comment. We will take this into consideration when we develop the final product.
Anonymous
Jan 11, 2017I'm assuming this is another "if applicable" question? Not all grants have this opportunity.
Anonymous
Jan 18, 2017Not certain this would be an appropriate answer but the only thing I can think of would be cost-sharing (say with a contributing partner, like a land trust) - is that the kind of information you're looking for? Sometimes these contributions will be part of the match and if that's the case, that wouldn't be a cost efficiency. I'd like to see this be an optional question.
DeAnn Johnigk, WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife, deann.johnigk@dfw.wa.gov
Heather Kieweg
Jan 18, 2017Again we believe that getting meaningful answers to this question at the grant scale is unlikely. We of course carry out everything we do in as cost-efficient a manner as possible. Large scale efficiency increases tend to occur as a result of long-term program analysis, not within the life of one individual grant. These decisions are typically driven by priorities outside the scale of the grant itself.
-Heather Kieweg MN Dept. of Natural Resources
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017Is this mandatory? What if something was developed and is proprietary?
Tammy Snyder, NE Game and Parks
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017Is this a required measure of grant performance? It is not necessarily a problem to ask if an answer of NO is generally acceptable, which will likely be the case for most grants. Not sure how valuable this question really is.
Randy Curtis, NH Fish and Game Dept.
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017If states develop new techniques which yield cost efficiencies, that information should certainly be shared with colleagues...through professional meetings, regional committees, species work groups, etc. Sharing of this type of information is a noble cause, but is it the role of the federal government to assimilate this data? I'm just not sure a performance report/TRACS is the appropriate venue.
I understand that in today's political climate we are very sensitive to government spending and would like to put our best face forward. However, I'm a little concerned that we will end up with an ever-growing list of questions to address in performance reports which reflect the current political climate, but are never removed when the winds change. For example, "Did this project relate to global climate change?" "Was this project related to pollinators?" I've heard both questions tossed around for consideration. Neither is terribly daunting (especially if the answer is no) but the cummulative impact of hot topic questions may be cumbersome. I think we need to stick with that which is truly required for effective grant management, rather than trying to use our reports to be all things to all people. .
Andrea Crews, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Phil King
Jan 20, 2017Thank you for the insightful feedback. All comments will be given consideration.
Sheila Cameron
Jan 19, 2017This is not something we track and we do not believe it is necessary or required by CFR.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017Does not seem necessary or reasonable for measuring Agency progress towards meeting grant objectives.
Bob Longcor NJDFW
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017While this information may be intriguing, it is irrelevant in regard to measuring performance.
Ultimately, how would the WSFR program use/quantify this information?
NYSDEC, Division of Fish & Wildlife
Michael Sawyers
Jan 20, 2017While this information may be nice, it is not necessary or required by CFR. Please provide an explanation of the purpose, intent, and fate of this information being requested.
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017This item may also be a bit challenging as it could be several years after the close of a grant where cost-efficiencies are realized. So, I am curious about the intended measure of this item is; what should be reported? Anticipate dollar savings or a description of what may come to fruition? Perhaps an example of what they are looking for here would help?
NE Game & Parks
Julie Kempf
Jan 20, 2017I would not expect this question to be answered in the affirmative often. Most of our programs have been operating for decades with as much efficiency as possible within the parameters we work in. States are often held to strict purchasing policies and practices that are not able to be influenced at a program level.
If this question remains, there needs to be greater clarity on what level of cost efficiencies are being asked for.
Sherry Crouch
Jan 26, 2017Don't believe this is value added, necessary, or required by CFR. Why is this being requested?
Anonymous
Jan 27, 2017I do see value added as it allows States to collaborate in acquiring better ideas and options. Plus, if nothing to report then nothing to report.
Ryan Leamy
Feb 23, 2017This seems to connect back to the deviations question earlier. Could combine them.