|
January 11, 2008
To: Beef Industry Colleagues
From: Carl Crabtree, Chairman, Joint Evaluation Advisory Committee
Rich Otley, Director of Evaluation
Subject: FY 2007 Checkoff Evaluation Report
Accountability to producers for the use of their checkoff funds is a primary responsibility of the evaluation function at the Cattlemen’s Beef Board. This document presents the results of checkoff-funded programs for the past fiscal year and some considerations for the next year.
Behind the first tab of this report is a short overview of the work completed with checkoff funding during FY 2007. This also includes the annual poll of state beef council executives and their staffs regarding nationally "rolled out" programs. Under tab two are the results of research projects that were funded prior to 2007, but completed in the last year. Evaluations of each of the FY 2007 checkoff-funded projects are located behind the third tab.
Each year, the Joint Evaluation Advisory Committee conducts program evaluation audits of selected checkoff-funded projects. Under the last tab you will find the Executive Summary of the FY 2007 Project Evaluation Audit completed on the Market Research function managed by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. If you would like a complete copy of the audit, visit the Beef Board website, www.beefboard.org, and click on Project Evaluation Audits or call the phone number listed below.
During the upcoming meeting in Reno, joint committees and subcommittees will be considering plans and developing priorities that focus checkoff-funded efforts to increase beef demand in the future. The evaluations in this book provide a measurement of past programs that could be helpful in successfully planning for the year ahead (FY 2009).
Please take a few minutes before the meeting and review the information related to your committee. Rich Otley will be attending joint program committee meetings and will be prepared to answer your questions. If you have any immediate questions, please call Rich at (800) 388-2333.
FY 2007 – Some of the Checkoff-Funded Successes and Statistics
One of the primary objectives of the Beef Industry Long Range Plan and the Beef Checkoff Program is to increase demand for beef and increase producer profitability. Beef checkoff funding is employed in many different ways to achieve these objectives. Thus, sometimes it is difficult for producers to see how checkoff-funded work is benefiting them.
The pages under tab 2 of this document report on all of the results of checkoff-funded projects completed in FY 2007. Shown below are some of the factors that had positive effects on the beef industry last year. Some are a direct result of checkoff-funding, while others were positively influenced by check-funded programs:
+ There were 8,910 checkoff-funded public relations placements in publications during the year, up from 6,789 in FY 2006. The placements generated over 5 billion media impressions vs. 4.3 billion last year.
+ The National Beef Cook-Off was held in a destination city: Chicago. Through December 2007, the event had generated 125 million media impressions, about half of what is expected from the TV coverage to follow in early 2008.
+ Beef producers received 90,000 copies of the new Care and Handling brochure designed to help improve beef quality.
+ Consumer confidence that US beef is safe from BSE remained high at 88 percent.
+ US beef and variety meats exports increased 18% by volume during the year to 737,644 metric tons. The value of that product increased by 28% in FY 2007 to $2,465,382,000.
+ During the year, a bold new beef print advertising campaign was produced and will begin appearing in consumer magazines in January/February 2008.
+ Five new product applications, from the chuck roll, are ready for commercialization.
+ The Beefmobile Program reached about 500,000 beef producers with positive messages about how their checkoff dollars were being spent during FY 2007.
+ Market research was completed on new product concepts including Steak & Egg Breakfast Bites, Standing Beef Sandwich, Breakfast Pancake Flip, and a Steak Sandwich.
+ A benchmark survey done in 2005 found that 70.3 percent of consumers were confident in the safety of ground beef. The latest survey, completed in October 2007 (after several ground beef recalls), found that 70 percent of consumers were confident that ground beef is safe.
+ Total beef foodservice volume in FY 2007 was 8.668 billion pounds, a3% increase of nearly 300 million pounds over FY 2006.
FY 2007 Evaluation Overview of Checkoff-Funded Programs
For many in the cattle industry, FY 2007 was a good year. There was a 1% increase in beef production to 26.4 billion pounds, with record high prices in the cattle, retail and wholesale sectors. Total exports increased from 1.2 billion pounds to 1.65 billion pounds, plus, there was a dollar value increase in exports during the fiscal year (October 1 to September 30) of 28%, totaling $2,465,382,000. Most cow-calf and stocker operators, along with retailers and food service operators enjoyed a successful year in the beef business. Cattle feeders and packers were caught in a financial squeeze with the cattle market during FY 2007.
While final numbers for beef demand in the US will not be available until the second or third week of January, it appears that demand for 2007 will probably be up slightly, in the range of one to 1.5%. Assuming that range is accurate, demand for beef in the US has increased about 14.5% since the low point of the Beef Demand Index in 1998.
During the year, there have been recalls and media concerns regarding the discovery of
E. coli in various segments of US agriculture. As the chart below shows, all categories except chicken have shown an increase in consumer concern about the safety of these food products. Beef continues to be perceived by consumers to be safer than chicken. To ensure the continued safety of beef products, the checkoff has funded and is funding many research projects to help eliminate E. coli from beef that reaches consumers. The results of this work can be found under Research Results (tab 2)
A second measure of consumer acceptance and satisfaction with our product is their confidence that beef is safe from BSE or "mad cow" disease. The chart below shows the consumer confidence level that beef is safe from "mad cow" stands at 88 percent. Checkoff-funded Issues Management work continues to expose false or misleading information about BSE and beef and correctly inform consumers about these issues.
Increasing demand for beef by 10% between 2006 and the end of 2010, as stated in the Industry Long Range Plan (LRP), continues to be a fundamental goal of the Beef Checkoff Program. Figuring out the best way to increase demand for our product is not a simple assignment. The Joint Evaluation Advisory Committee recently commissioned a research study to determine the primary determinants of demand. With this information in hand by the end of 2008, it will help to set a course to reach the goal of the LRP.
In the meantime, the poultry industry continues to introduce new, consumer-friendly chicken products. Anything that can be done to increase the new product development effort for the beef industry will pay long term dividends. And, of course, the sooner overseas markets like South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia are fully open to US beef products, the sooner we will see a healthier, more profitable beef industry here at home.
One factor that we track annually is the retail price spread between beef and chicken. The spread has more than doubled in the last ten years and escalates each year as the chart below indicates. As long as this spread continues to grow, it is another reason (price) for the consumer to consider alternative protein sources.
Looking back at completed checkoff-funded programs during the last year, progress was made in many forms. In Consumer Marketing, a fully staffed retail team was very helpful to states in building stronger retail programs at the state level. Bold new advertising campaigns (print ads) were developed for general consumer print advertising and food service print ads. The Culinary Center in Chicago developed many new beef recipes for use both at the state and national levels. With the move to a destination city and the re-introduction of the Food Editors Seminar, the National Beef Cook-Off considerably increased the visibility of the event and of the winning beef recipes. The Northeast Initiatives in Retail Marketing and Foodservice are achieving what they intended to do: extending the reach of national efforts in these areas.
In the Foreign Marketing arena, USMEF staff here and abroad worked to keep US beef in front of consumers in the markets that are still closed to our products. Prospects for increased sales of US beef in Europe are improving for the first time in many years, even though the hormone ban remains in effect. The sale of US beef livers to Egypt was so large during the year that the Middle East was the third largest export market for US beef and variety meats in FY 2007. With the markets in the Orient in various stages of being open or still closed to US beef products, Mexico remained the largest individual export market with a total of 356,696 metric tons last fiscal year. Both Beef Board and USMEF personnel have struggled over the years to make the evaluation of checkoff-funded foreign marketing programs more meaningful and useful. With the completion of the Authorization Requests now in process for FY 2008, we should be able to report real progress in measuring results. USMEF has retained an independent third party to conduct surveys of all target accounts to confirm if stated goals have indeed been met.
The results stated in the FY 2007 evaluations are based upon data and information on target account tracking and feedback from USMEF overseas staff.
| Country/Region |
10/05-9/06 |
10/06-9/07 |
% Change
9/06-9/07 |
| Mexico |
$1,148,091 |
$1,175,517 |
2% |
| Japan |
$32,511 |
$222,954 |
586% |
| Middle East |
$110,721 |
$110,109 |
-1% |
| Korea, Republic of |
$175 |
$108,409 |
61848% |
| Taiwan |
$77,955 |
$97,703 |
25% |
| Caribbean |
$56,823 |
$64,155 |
13% |
| European Union |
$31,775 |
$36,760 |
16% |
| Hong Kong/China |
$7,940 |
$32,234 |
306% |
| ASEAN |
$18,447 |
$29,448 |
60% |
| Central & South America |
$10,424 |
$16,078 |
54% |
| Russia |
$728 |
$2,265 |
211% |
| |
|
|
|
| WORLD TOTAL |
$1,920,976 |
$2,465,382 |
28% |
Research provides a knowledge base for many of the other areas funded by the checkoff. During the year, sixty research projects were completed in the areas of safety, nutrition, and product enhancement research. Work in these checkoff-funded areas will lead to safer, healthier beef that is also more consumer-friendly and competitive with other protein sources, such as poultry. Work done in nutrition research was useful in providing facts that helped "debunk" some of the comments made by our critics when the World Cancer Report was released shortly after the end of FY 2007. Market research was
involved in the testing of new advertising concepts, collecting data about the Hispanic market, testing new beef product concepts with consumers to name but a few of its areas of concentration during the year.
In the area of Consumer Information, the Public Relations function generated more than five billion impressions with consumers about beef and beef products. Attendance at the American Dietetic Association convention reached over 5,000 health professionals with positive nutritional messages about beef. Over thirty state beef councils attended a one and one half day seminar that provided them with sound information for use in their state nutrition programs. Along the same lines, nutrition seminars for health professionals were conducted in thirty-four states last year. Work in FY 2007, leading up to the release of the World Cancer Report prepared producer leaders, and state and national staff to effectively respond to press inquiries once the report was released in early November 2007. The spokesperson training program was a valuable tool, again at both the state and national levels, providing producers and staff with tips and techniques that helped to tell and deliver a more positive story about beef. The Food Communicators program increased the subscription base of the e-newsletter Beef So Simple from 36,100 to 46,800 consumers during the year. This publication is a direct link for us to deliver beef messages to consumers who are interested in our product.
From a state beef council perspective, Issues Management is one of the most important functions funded by the checkoff. During the year, Issues Management (IM) was involved in many areas, as detailed in following section containing comments from state beef councils. However, the aspect of IM that received the most praise was the role it played in the team effort to address and clarify inaccurate information about the World Cancer Report. Continually improving the quality of our product is an important aspect in raising the demand for beef by 10% between 2006 and the end of 2010. In FY 2007, the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) area began implementing a new strategic plan for BQA. The result has been that the program now has a clear direction and is moving forward with efforts designed to improve the overall quality of beef.
The checkoff put more emphasis on dairy communications in FY 2007, in part because 20% of all beef animals harvested in the US have dairy origins. The checkoff was represented at seven dairy tradeshows and events during the year. Beef Board members from the dairy industry and state beef council staff spoke with thousands of dairy producers about their beef checkoff investment via one-on-one interactions and seminar presentations.
The two Beefmobiles, funded by the checkoff, reached 492,000 producers with positive messages about what the checkoff was doing to help increase demand and producer profitability. Approximately 113,000 producers received these messages on a one-on-one basis. The Beefmobiles, which acted as "rolling billboards", traveled to auction barns and other events, visiting 234 sites in 39 states, while covering more than 94,500 miles. In the process as they moved on down the road, they created over 12 million impressions for beef.
Stories featuring the beef checkoff increased in the trade media by 15% between FY 2007 and FY 2006 (FY 2007 = 400 articles vs. 347 in FY 2006). There were 42 national checkoff program news releases, 51 audio releases and seven video news releases during the year. Market research, done on a qualitative basis, was used to help develop the new FY 2007 producer communications advertising campaign. Media used included radio, print and TV.
Last year’s year-end evaluation report mentioned the fact that there is some misunderstanding throughout the country about the Beef Checkoff Program and the roles of some of the organizations that are involved in it. The following points and the accompanying chart are presented in an effort to clarify the issues:
+ The Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) are two separate organizations.
+ CBB is the organization responsible for administering the Beef Checkoff Program under the oversight of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
+ NCBA has two divisions or parts, separated by a firewall – the Federation of State Beef Councils and the Policy Division, which is a membership organization. Checkoff funding can not be used to support the Policy Division.
+ The Federation of State Beef Councils provides checkoff funding to national programs conducted by NCBA. This funding is combined with funding from CBB.
The following chart shows how many of the organizations function and inter-relate to each other:
In years past, proper acknowledgement of checkoff funded programs has been a challenge on many occasions. While work remains to be done in this area, the cooperation of major contractors improved dramatically during FY 2007, thus producing better understanding of the programs funded by the checkoff.
Comments from State Beef Council Executives and Staff – State Roll-Out of National Programs and Some New Ideas
As part of the evaluation process each year, we poll many of the executives and their staffs from state beef councils about the results of programs rolled out from national contractors. As the information that follows will indicate, there are many programs that the state beef councils felt were important and worked very well.
The following program information is presented not as a popularity contest, but so state staff and directors can assess how their contemporaries view these programs and so that committee members and project managers can use the "programs that didn’t work well" and the "we need " comments as tools to help make positive changes to future programs.
In reviewing the information shown on the following pages, we should keep two points in mind. First, the needs, available funding levels, and priorities of state councils vary. Thus, a program may be important to one state, but may not be important to another state. Therefore, the reader may see programs on both the "worked well" and "didn’t work well’ lists. Second, the programs shown below are ranked by the number of times they were mentioned by each state.
| |
|
Number of Mentions |
| Programs That Worked Well at the State Level |
| |
|
|
| Retail Marketing |
26 |
| |
Retail Market Managers are helpful = 8 |
|
| |
Beef U = 6 |
|
| |
Beef Training Camp = 5 |
|
| |
General comments = 5 |
|
| |
Retail Beef Backer Award = 1 |
|
| |
Value Cuts program = 1 |
|
| Issues Management |
24 |
| Nutrition |
23 |
| |
General comments = 8 |
|
| |
Seminar program = 5 |
|
| |
Dietitian program = 4 |
|
| |
Materials/kits = 2 |
|
| |
More responsive than in the past = 1 |
|
| |
Website = 1 |
|
| |
CWNS = 1 |
|
| |
Health influencers = 1 |
|
| State Services |
14 |
| |
General comments = 8 |
|
| |
Annual Report = 5 |
|
| |
Monday Memo = 1 |
|
| Consumer advertising |
11 |
| Beef Quality Assurance |
10 |
| |
The program is working better = 7 |
|
| |
General comments = 2 |
|
| |
Dairy Quality Assurance starting to see things happen = 1 |
|
| Foodservice |
10 |
| |
Advertising = 3 |
|
| |
Foodservice Beef Backer program = 2 |
|
| |
General comments = 2 |
|
| |
Foodservice idea starter books = 1 |
|
| |
School foodservice recipes = 1 |
|
| |
ServSafe program = 1 |
|
| New Product Development |
9 |
| |
New value cuts = 4 |
|
| |
General comments = 4 |
|
| |
Has helped improve producers attitudes about the checkoff = 1 |
|
| Culinary Center |
6 |
| Extranet (electronic bulletin board used by NCBA and state beef councils) |
6 |
| Spokesperson and media training |
6 |
| Research |
6 |
| |
Help reviewing our proposals = 4 |
|
| |
Beef safety review = 2 |
|
| Producer Communications |
6 |
| |
Have the Beef Board do it is a good idea = 3 |
|
| |
General comments = 3 |
|
| Youth Education |
4 |
| |
Materials/kits = 3 |
|
| |
General comment = 1 |
|
| Beefmobile |
3 |
| CookOff headed in the right direction |
3 |
| International marketing/USMEF |
3 |
| Food Communications |
2 |
| Hispanic marketing |
2 |
| IT (Information Technology) |
1 |
| Public Relations |
1 |
| Summer Grilling |
1 |
| Holiday Roast program |
1 |
| Fit for a Princess (youth program for girls) |
1 |
| New director orientation |
1 |
| Northeast Initiatives |
1 |
| Meetings with states on retail and foodservice |
1 |
| NCBA is responsive to our needs |
1 |
| There is more inter-consecutiveness to planning (between program functions) |
1 |
| Programs That Did Not Work Well at the State Level |
Number of Mentions |
| Beef Ambassador |
7 |
| Beefmobile |
6 |
| Extranet needs to be better organized |
5 |
| Advertising we have concerns about the new advertising |
4 |
| Foodservice we need more lead time on partnerships |
3 |
| Brand enhancement what does it mean? |
3 |
| Retail Beef Backer Award there is little interest |
3 |
| Foodservice Beef Backer Award there is little interest |
2 |
| Holiday Roast program cost of materials/since pre-ordered, why posters? |
2 |
| Retail need more lead time on partnerships |
1 |
| USMEF need better communications |
1 |
| Youth program its getting harder and harder to get materials into schools |
1 |
| Why no advertising for Summer Grilling 2008? |
1 |
| Summer Grilling doesnt work for us its too hot to grill in the summer |
1 |
| Healthy Beef Cookbook isnt new anymore! |
1 |
| Retail there are too many programs we need to narrow the focus |
1 |
| Rural News Service we had some delivery problems this year |
1 |
| Retail Market Managers the turnover was awkward |
1 |
| Producer Communications is a challenge because we spend so much of our time trying to reach the folks that dont care about the checkoff program |
1 |
| Items Mentioned by State Staff as "Things That We Need" – A must read section for national staff of contracting organizations |
+ We need simple, convenient recipes – mentioned four times
+ Basic PowerPoint presentation slides of checkoff success stories –three mentions of this item
+ The Extranet is great, but we need a way to make it easier to get around inside it – four mentions of this issue
+ We need an NCBA organization chart with names, titles, and a brief, two or three sentence description of what each person does, or their area of focus
+ There needs to be more unity between the states as members of the Federation. How do we do that?
+ Could NCBA’s Research Department let states know if they are looking for co-funding
for projects?
+ A steak doneness chart that’s pocket size for wait persons (restaurant staff)
+ An education tear sheet showing what materials are available
+ I wish the Producer Attitude Survey was affordable enough for our state to do it
+ We need more pointed direction at the state level on rolling out veal programs
+ We need some type of a booklet or seminar on how to put together a good (but small)
advertising plan
+ We need some type of brochure rack/holder to give to retailers, etc. to hold our brochures at point of sale
Items Mentioned by State Staff as "Things That We Need"
+ More timely deliver of Beef Month materials – we need them in March, not May
+ We need more new product development contests and fewer high priced consultants
+ We need more lead time on Rural News Service releases
+ Updated display materials for the NCBA booth
+ We need more school foodservice recipes
Financial Considerations
Included in the evaluation process is an analysis of contractors’ accuracy in projecting the timing of payments needed from the Beef Board to reimburse costs incurred on approved projects. This analysis was performed for FY 2007 Authorization Requests (ARs) for which payments were made by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) during the period of October 2006 through October 2007 (the "CPE" – Cost Projection Estimate Period).
For all ARs funded during FY 2007, the total that contractors indicated they would need to be reimbursed by CBB during the CPE period was approximately $49.7 million. However, actual payments made by CBB during the CPE period for those same ARs totaled only $38.7 million, which is $11 million, or 22% less than the total amount projected by the contractors. This amount is $900,000 more than the difference last year, so contractor accuracy of projecting the timing of payments needed from CBB declined in FY 2007. Once again as these numbers indicate, contractors need to improve the accuracy of their cash flow projections.
The program areas that accounted for the largest differences for FY 2007 were Foreign Marketing ($2,062,000), Public Relations ($1,431,000), Product Research ($1,120,000), Foodservice Promotion ($1,021,000), Market Research ($893,000), Program Implementation ($738,000), Retail Promotion ($849,000), New Product and Culinary Initiatives ($691,000), Producer Communications ($610,000), Issues Management ($549,000), Advertising ($461,000), Quality Assurance ($360,000), Youth Education ($212,000), Nutrition Influencers ($175,000), and Veal ($70,345).
For FY 2007, the Beef Promotion Operating Committee approved Beef Safety, Product Enhancement, and Nutrition Research ARs totaling $4,582,600. Of that amount, $1.1 million (or 24%) had not been assigned to specific research projects by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2007. One possible solution to this on-going challenge could be for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) to hire an outside firm to provide a seminar for project managers on financial planning and implementation. Better planning and timing could help to substantially reduce the percentage of unfunded projects mentioned above.
Another component of the Beef Board’s annual evaluation process is an analysis of contractors’ accuracy in budgeting funds needed from the CBB to conduct the projects included in the ARs. This analysis includes data as of November 30, 2007 for ARs approved by the Beef Promotion Operating Committee during fiscal years 1997 – 2006. The FY 2007 ARs are not included in this analysis because the CBB has not yet received the final invoices from contractors.
In general, the contractors’ accuracy of budgeting steadily improved during the years 1997 through 2002, but dramatically reversed the trend in FY 2003 through FY 2005. FY 2006 is an improvement over FY 2005. The following summarizes the portion of budgeted expenses that were not expended by the Beef Board contractors ($ in thousands):
| Fiscal Year |
Total AR Budgets |
Funds Unspent |
% of Funds
Unspent |
| |
|
|
|
| 1997 |
$46,141 |
$4,517 |
9.8%
|
| 1998 |
$47,839 |
$4,673 |
9.8% |
| 1999 |
$50,232 |
$3,657 |
7.3%
|
| 2000 |
$48,881 |
$3,045 |
6.2%
|
| 2001 |
$50,480 |
$2,288 |
4.5%
|
| 2002 |
$48,313 |
$2,056 |
4.3%
|
| 2003 |
$45,585 |
$4,982 |
10.9%
|
| 2004 |
$49,736 |
$5,434 |
10.9%
|
| 2005 |
$47,690 |
$4,911 |
10.3%
|
| 2006 |
$49,385 |
$3,647 |
7.4% |
A portion of the large unspent budget amount in FY 2006 (approximately $784,000) relates to long duration research projects that have not been completed as of November 30, 2007.
The ARs with the largest amount of unspent funds in FY 2006 were:
|
Name of AR |
Funds Unspent |
% Funds
Unspent |
| |
|
|
| NCBA Implementation ARs |
$1,157,740 |
15.6% |
| Nutrition Research |
782,169 |
66.9% |
| NCBA/USMEF Implementation |
358,055 |
23.3% |
| Foodservice Marketing |
250,990 |
10.3% |
Retail Marketing |
181,454 |
6.4% |
Consumer Advertising |
148,079 |
1.0% |
Market Research |
142,265 |
7.1% |
Japan Promotion |
138,817 |
7.8%
|
| Korea Promotion |
98,988 |
22.6% |
| Nutrition Influencers |
88,303 |
6.9% |
Using the percentage of unspent funds to budgeted funds, the following FY 2006 ARs had the highest percentages of unspent funds (excludes those projects listed above):
|
Name of AR |
% Funds Unspent |
Funds
Unspent |
| |
|
|
| China/Hong Kong |
43.5% |
$49,231 |
Europe Promotion |
43.5% |
16,727 |
Quality Assurance |
25.5% |
53,349
|
| Russia Promotion |
25.3% |
4,229 |
CBB Producer Communication |
10.6% |
16,988 |
New Methods to Increase Accountability and Measurability
The evaluation process at the Beef Board has historically been one that has continually evolved - today is no exception. While there have been strategic objectives tied to the individual Authorization Requests in years past, they have lacked any real measurability and very seldom were there any strategic objectives that could be measured on an annual basis. Producer leadership has challenged the Evaluation Committee and Beef Board evaluation staff to continue evaluating all checkoff work at the tactical level, while at the same time, developing new methods for evaluating all programs at a more strategic level. Put another way, "How does this program or Authorization Request (AR) help achieve the Long Range Plan goal of increasing beef demand by 10% by the end of FY 2010?"
The work to accomplish this request was started during FY 2007. To date it includes:
- The Long Range Plan includes three other goals besides increasing demand by
10% by the end of 2010 that need to constantly be included in the
measurement process. They are:
- The establishment of a Consumer Index - to measure consumer satisfaction with beef. The Evaluation Committee oversaw the process of developing the Index and its benchmark measurement during FY 2007.
- Increasing U.S. beef exports from 1 billion pounds in 2005 to 3 billion
pounds by 2010. By the end of FY 2007, we exported about 1.65 billion pounds or 33% of the goal.
- Improve the balance of trade by becoming a net exporter in terms of value by 2010. At the end of FY 2007 we were about $800 million dollars short of that goal. Two factors could lead to success here – first the opening of the South Korean market and the relaxing of restrictions on US beef in Japan. Second, if the value of the dollar continues at its present low level, that will have a positive effect on reaching this goal.
- A key ingredient to measuring checkoff work at a more strategic level is having measurable strategic objectives. During the past summer, staff at both the Beef Board and NCBA made many changes and improvements to the FY 2008 strategic objectives to help address these concerns.
- Through the Beef Demand Study Group, the Evaluation Committee made
improvements to the Beef Demand Index during FY 2007. These
improvements will help add more accuracy to the annual measurement of
beef demand in the US. The improvements include:
- The use of All-Fresh beef data in the Index calculation
- An analysis of the demand shifts for major primals
- Inclusion of the value-per head in the Index data.
- When the next evaluation of checkoff work begins in October 2008, project
managers will be asked to make a direct logical linkage between the
successful completion of a specific tactic in an AR and its contribution to
achieving a related strategic objective, as well as the outcomes and overall goals of the Beef Industry Long Range Plan.
The Beef Checkoff Evaluation Program and this evaluation report are designed to provide more accountability for the use of beef checkoff funds and to assist producer leaders in both the planning and execution of programmatic decisions. The Evaluation Committee will continue in FY 2008 to refine and improve the entire evaluation system for checkoff funded work. |