You are probably reading this handbook because you’ve been asked to serve the SARE program in some capacity, as a member of the Administrative Council, Technical
Committee, Professional Development Committee, or as staff working on a SAREfunded state or regional sustainable agriculture project. The purpose of this handbook is to explain the Northeast SARE program, how it operates, and the roles of people who assume leadership positions within SARE. It won’t answer every question you might have, and the content will change as our programs are modified to address new ideas and issues.
You may be a farmer, work for Extension, conduct research, represent a regional or national nonprofit, work for NRCS, EPA or a state department of agriculture; you may be employed by an agricultural business or be a private consultant. You may be very familiar with the SARE program or know nothing much at all about it. To help you better understand how the program operates, we will lay out the background, the roles of people involved, the grant review process, and other key aspects of participation.
The details of our individual grant programs—eligibility, timelines, funding levels and application forms—are on the Northeast SARE web site at www.nesare.org, so that information will not be repeated here.
Please feel free to contact Northeast SARE staff anytime you have a question or concern you’d like to discuss.
The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, or SARE, was authorized as part of the 1985 Farm Bill and first funded in 1988 as LISA, or the Low-
Input Sustainable Agriculture program. The goal of both LISA and then SARE has been to support farmers, researchers, and educators as they develop new information and practices that improve stewardship, profitability, and the social well-being of farms and their communities. Congress charged SARE with promoting and supporting sustainable agriculture, with grants as the primary tool for accomplishing the mission.
These grants are offered annually to farmers, researchers, educators, and other people in the agricultural community.
SARE is part of USDA’s National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and serves the entire United States, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. There is a national SARE office in Washington that coordinates overall direction, but grants and program services are delivered through four regional programs in the North Central,
Northeast, South, and West. While they all adhere to a common set of guidelines as established in our authorizing legislation, these regional programs enjoy significant autonomy in terms of grant making priorities and program content, and each region is
2

encouraged to address the different agricultural audiences and challenges within its boundaries.
The Northeast region is made up of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
SARE funds are subject to congressional approval, and the SARE appropriation has varied from year to year, from about $11 million in 1993 to about $19 million in 2013.
From this, 6.5% is set aside for NIFA operations, and about $1 million is allocated for the national SARE office and a national outreach program (called SARE Outreach) that publishes books and bulletins of interest to farmers and agricultural service providers, provides support to conferences that feature SARE projects, and develops on-line information at nesare.org about SARE and sustainable agriculture issues. The rest of the Federal funding is divided equally among the regions. In recent years Northeast
SARE has received just over $4 million annually for making grants and covering regional operating expenses.
SARE funds come to each region through a land grant university which has fiscal responsibility for the program under contracts with the USDA. Each year, there are two separate contracts, called cooperative agreements, based on the original legislation. One funding stream is called Chapter 1, and these funds support most of our work, with farmers as the primary beneficiaries. Chapter 3 funds are for professional development to enhance the capacity of service providers who work with farmers on sustainable agriculture issues, by “training the trainer.”
The Northeast SARE outcome statement, or overarching goal, says that agriculture in the Northeast will be diversified and profitable, providing healthful products to its customers; it will be conducted by farmers who manage resources wisely, who are satisfied with their lifestyles, and who have a positive influence on their communities
and the environment. This outcome statement guides our grant making process.
Our grant programs. Northeast SARE currently funds five different competitive grant programs, and each type of grant benefits a different constituency. These grants can be divided into two broad categories.
First, there are the “big-grant” programs—for Research and Education (R&E) and for
Professional Development Programs (PDP). These grants are for projects that typically run for three years and have an average budget of about $120,000.
There is no specific cap on the size of these grants, but the range is from about
3

$50,000 to $250,000, although sometimes larger or smaller grants are applied for.
These larger grants require an approved preproposal before a full proposal can be submitted, and they use the outcome funding approach, explained on our web site.
Several years ago Northeast SARE initiated an Agroecosystems Research Grant aimed at long-term complex systems research. It is funded as a Research and Education grant with a cap of $400,000 and the option of renewing (after review) for a total of three three-year applications in a row. This is a pilot program; two projects have been funded to date; no new proposals are being solicited.
Our “smaller-grant” programs are the Farmer, Partnership, and Graduate Student grants. Farmer grants are only for farmers, though they may work with others in their community and are required to have a technical advisor. Partnership grants are for agricultural service providers, researchers, non-profits and government organizations that work directly with farmers. Graduate student grants are for Masters or PhD students already enrolled in an accredited college or university to study a sustainable agriculture topic. The smaller grants have no preproposal requirement, nor are applicants asked to meet the outcome funding requirements. Specific results are expected, but on a more modest scale than the larger grants. In general, these smaller-grant proposals are easy to write and, if funded, straightforward to manage, with simpler reporting requirements. These grants typically run for one or two years and are currently capped at $15,000.
Our State Programs. Northeast SARE also provides funding to support on-the-ground professional development programs aimed at extension and other service providers through our state coordinators. This began as a modest support for sustainable agriculture work at each Land Grant university in the region, but the effort has recently been ramped up to fund part of the salaries of sustainable agriculture staff at the state level. Their role is to develop educational efforts on sustainable agriculture and to promote awareness of, and successful participation in, SARE’s grant programs
Northeast SARE has a leadership structure that encourages each member to contribute while at the same time distributing responsibilities in a way that allows for focus and the timely completion of tasks. Four groups work together, each with a distinct function: Northeast SARE staff, the Administrative Council, the Technical
Committee, and the State Coordinators and their support staff. There is also a national Operations Committee with representation from all four regions.
4

The role of staff is to run the Northeast SARE program on a day-to-day basis. Their work is funded by the annual contracts between USDA and the land grants in the region that host the SARE program. Staff are employees of the host universities in the region, and their terms of employment, salaries, and benefits are determined by their home institution, not by Northeast SARE. In the Northeast, the host institutions are the University of Vermont and the University of Connecticut.
The staff at the University of Vermont includes the regional coordinator (Vern
Grubinger), program manager (David Holm), communications specialist (Helen
Husher), financial specialist (Lee Hendrickson), farmer grant specialist (Carol Delaney), program associate (Candice Huber) and an office manager (Jennilee Foster).
The staff at the University of Connecticut includes the professional development program coordinator (Tom Morris) and the program associate (Janet McAllister).
Role: The primary function of the Administrative Council, or AC, is to allocate the available grant funds each year. This includes deciding what type of grants will be offered and how funds will be distributed among the grant programs. The AC also approves the grant review process and makes the final decisions about grants to be awarded based on the results and recommendation of the grant review teams. Most AC members participate in the review process by serving on grant review teams.
Membership: There are 20 seats on the AC. Some of the seats are designated by the
SARE’s enabling legislation and others have been added by the AC over time. Seats are linked to a constituency such as farmers, environmental non-profits, or agricultural experiment station directors, for example. The national SARE office also sends a representative to the AC meetings in each region.
Term of service: Members serve a four-year term with the option of signing on for an additional two years.
Recruitment: As mentioned above, some seats on the AC have affiliations set by statute, such as the seats specifically allocated for representatives from EPA, NRCS, and other agencies. Those agencies appoint their SARE representative, usually with input from the outgoing AC member holding that seat and the regional coordinator.
For seats created by the AC, such as those reserved for environmental nonprofits or rural lending organizations, staff advertises the availability of the positions and solicits applications in the year before a seat becomes vacant. For the farmer seats, staff identifies candidates from the Technical Committee who have experience reviewing
5

SARE grants. These candidates are reviewed and a slate of nominees is developed by staff in consultation with the Executive Committee of the AC. The entire AC then votes on that slate at the winter meeting. New members join the AC at the summer meeting.
Executive Committee: To maintain the flow of work between its two meetings each year, the AC elects an Executive Committee (EC) to work with staff through monthly conference calls.
The primary responsibilities of the EC are to consult with staff to set the agenda for the AC meetings, oversee the periodic review of host institutions and regional coordinators, assist staff with preparing materials for policy discussions and proposals to be voted on at AC meetings, review the program budget, and recommend a slate of proposals to the AC for funding, based on the ranked list developed by review teams.
The EC also facilitates decision making that may be needed by the AC in-between its regular meetings, via e-mail or conference calls.
There are usually four AC members on the EC; the staff liaisons are the regional coordinator, the PDP coordinator, and the program manager. There are representatives from three “yearly classes” of the AC—one person with three years of service remaining, one with two, and the third with one year left on their AC term. The fourth at-large member is a farmer representative to the AC. If an EC member extends their term on the AC and continues on the EC, then another member is added to assure representation from each class. The national SARE director has an ex-officio post on the EC for the purposes of host institution and regional coordinator reviews.
Attendance: All AC members are expected to attend two yearly meetings, usually requiring three or four days each, including travel, in mid to late February and mid to late July. The purpose of these meetings is to decide on grant awards, set policy, and make outreach and programmatic funding decisions. The active participation of council members is critical to the effective oversight and guidance of the SARE program, as well as critical to the satisfaction you will get out of council membership.
Since the majority of the council’s functions are carried out through its regular semiannual meetings, it is important that members make every effort to attend these meetings from start to finish.
It is also important to assure effective representation of all constituencies on the council to optimize the work of the council. The AC’s policy is that if a member demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in council work, violates SARE policies or guidelines, or is absent for two meetings, the EC shall communicate with the member about the council’s concerns and, at their discretion, the EC may recommend that the AC vote to remove the member.
Communication: A binder of information is mailed to every member several weeks
6

prior to each meeting of the AC. This should be thoroughly reviewed to assure an efficient use of time at the meeting. Any proposal for significant change in Northeast
SARE policies or procedures must be included in this pre-meeting notebook. The specific proposal for change must be accompanied by a brief background statement that provides the rationale for the proposal and a summary of costs, impacts on staff time, and overall impact on the SARE program. These proposals are reviewed by the EC prior to being included in the meeting notebook.
Northeast SARE also has a blog that is maintained by the regional staff to help the AC communicate about issues and easily locate information such as past meeting minutes and monthly EC meeting notes. It is at https://blog.uvm.edu/nesare/
The role of the technical committee (TC) is to serve on grant review teams as needed.
TC members may also be asked to comment on new program initiatives, serve on a subcommittee, or read draft calls for proposals The TC is comprised of a wide variety of agricultural stakeholders with different subject matter expertise, including farmers, extension, consultants, NRCS personnel, nonprofit representatives, researchers and other agricultural professionals. Members are recruited by staff to assure a range of expertise and geographic representation.
TC members normally serve for three years, and it is not unusual for a member of the technical committee to act first as a reviewer and then fill a vacancy on the administrative council.
The role of the state coordinators is to promote involvement with SARE’s programs and to facilitate educational programming and networking on sustainable agriculture topics in their state.
Each SARE state coordinator is affiliated with a land-grant university, and typically has an extension appointment; they are appointed by their state’s Extension Director.
They serve on the region’s Professional Development Program (PDP) Committee.
The PDP Committee has two meetings a year. The summer meeting is held in conjunction with the AC meeting and includes a jointly attended farm tour; this tour is normally planned by the coordinator from the state where the meeting is held, in collaboration with regional staff. The goal of the tour is to highlight successful farm practices, especially those developed with SARE grants, and to stimulate discussion and greater awareness of issues that affect our work.
The PDP Committee has an executive committee made up of three members serving
7

staggered three-year terms, with the most senior typically serving as chair. The role of this committee is to work with the PDP staff to develop the semi-annual meeting agendas, and to provide input on other issues as needed in between meetings.
State coordinators submit and oversee the state program plan of work for their state, and sometimes for neighboring states, in the case of a multi-state project. They manage the use of this SARE funding and typically supervise any professional staff hired to assist with programming and outreach designed to meet the needs of their state or multistate sub-region.
State coordinators may provide general advice to farmer grant applicants but may not read and comment on these application nor can they serve as technical advisors on farmer grants. They can and should assist farmers in finding a technical advisor if asked.
Representatives of all four SARE regions come together twice a year, along with national SARE office staff and stakeholders, to address national SARE program issues and to vote on the allocation of the overall program’s funds.
Each region sends a member of their AC, typically the EC Chair, along with their regional coordinator and PDP coordinator to this meeting. The ‘Ops Committee’ also includes national representatives from the NRCS, EPA, ARS and the 1890 Land Grant
Universities.
Each region also has representation on the national SARE Outreach steering committee to discuss publishing and communications priorities, which are then considered for funding by the Ops Committee.
Northeast SARE will pay travel, lodging, meals, and communications expenses for AC and TC members as they discharge their duties by attending meetings, or participating in other program activities such as grant reviews. Farmers and other non-salaried selfemployed individuals are not compensated, but may be paid a per-diem of $240 for their time, which allows them to hire replacement help on the farm or business.
Expense reimbursement requests are processed through UVM and must follow UVM policy and procedures. State coordinators and staff are expected to pay their travel expenses from the budget of their SARE State Program awards.
Regional SARE staff manage AC and PDP meeting logistics, travel, conference calls, and general communications. Their other functions include project monitoring and reporting, managing grant contracts, regional publications and web site management, record keeping, and overall administrative support for the program.
8

Research and Education and Professional Development grants. Grant review begins in the summer with preproposals — summaries of project concepts, personnel, activities, and outcomes — submitted for the big-grant programs (R&E and PDP) described above. A subcommittee of the AC and staff is established each year to evaluate, rank, and select the strongest preproposals. Only applicants with approved preproposals are invited to submit full proposals in the fall.
Full applications for the big grants are normally due in late October. The review teams are composed of AC and TC members. On average, each team is asked to read 9 full proposals, and each team member serves as a lead reviewer for two or three of these proposals. This structure makes it possible for members to evaluate a small group of applications in depth, writing thorough comments on those proposals, and still be familiar with all the applications being reviewed by their team.
The review teams assist staff in developing clarification questions that are sent to applicants for their response. Clarification questions address issues that need explanation so that an otherwise good proposal is not rejected due to a simple oversight or misunderstanding. Staff collect and send the applicant’s responses to the review teams. Each review team has a leader who collates the team’s comments on each proposal, addressing strengths and weaknesses based on the criteria in the Call for Proposals. These comments are passed on to second tier review panel.
Two members from each review team attend the next stage of review, the second tier panel. The panel considers the comments and rankings from all the teams, and selects a final slate of proposals deemed strong enough to be funded. This ranked slate of fundable proposals, with a cut-off based on available funds, is presented to the AC at its winter meeting for a vote. Staff subsequently meets by teleconference with project
PIs and key collaborators on funded proposals to reiterate outcome funding principles, to explain the reporting expectations, and to offer ongoing support and answer any questions.
Farmer, Partnership, and Graduate Student grants. These smaller grant programs do not have preproposals. Their application deadlines are staggered, with Farmer and
Partnership due in November and December and Graduate Student due in May.
These grant reviews also are done by teams made up of AC and TC members who read, evaluate and provide comments on 12 to16 proposals. Each team meets by conference call to discuss their scores and seek consensus on final scores and rankings. A staff member leads these conference calls.
Regional staff and the EC review the aggregated rankings of review teams and develop
9

a single slate of proposals for each grant program for consideration by the AC.
Funding decisions are made by the AC, voting on the slates at their winter meeting for
Farmer and Partnership and at summer meeting for Graduate Student grants.
Guidelines for reviewers are available for each type of grant that Northeast SARE offers so that reviewers fully understand the goals, process, and criteria for review. Of critical importance is the feedback to applicants; reviewers should provide specific, unbiased comments based on the criteria in a grant program’s call for proposals.
Revised by the AC on July 24, 2012 to go into effect October 1, 2014.
1) No person will participate in review of a proposal that is from their institution or organization, or from an institution or organization with which the person has a formal relationship (whether or not paid by that institution).
2) No person will participate in review of a proposal in which their major professor (or their student) or post-doctoral advisor is a participant. This restriction shall remain in effect no matter how many years have passed since the professor-student relationship finished.
3) No person will participate in review of a proposal in which collaborators on research projects or co-authors on peer reviewed publications (including pending publications and submissions) serve as project leaders. This restriction shall remain in effect until three years have passed since the research project ended or the final draft of the publication was submitted for review.
4) No person will participate in review of a proposal in which a close personal friend or family member is serving as a project leader.
5) No member of the Administrative Council, state coordinators, and regional or state program staff will be part of a project submitted for consideration during the time they serve on the committees or in their SARE positions. (The exception is that state coordinators and state staff may be part of proposals for state program plans, since this directly fits and supports their SARE roles). No member of the Technical
Committee will submit proposals for review while serving on the committee, nor participate as reviewer in a grant program in which a proposal is pending that has that members name listed as a participant, advisor, or collaborator.
6) Members of the Technical Committee, Administrative Council, state coordinators, and regional or state program staff may provide general advice to potential SARE
10

applicants about the characteristics of a strong proposal and whether an idea seems to be eligible for SARE funding, but drafts of proposals or specific ideas for proposals may not be reviewed. It is acceptable and encouraged to provide assistance to potential applicants with finding outside reviewers for their draft proposals, which includes technical advisors for farmer grants.
7) If a member of the Technical Committee, Administrative Council, state coordinators, and regional or state program staff provide assistance to potential applicants with finding outside reviewers, as allowed in 6 above, then that member cannot participate in review of the project.
8) When any discussion is held about a proposed project with which a person has a conflict of interest (as defined in 1-7 above), the person will leave the meeting room.
In addition, a person with a conflict of interest regarding a particular project will not discuss the project with other members of a review panel or Administrative
Council until after the respective group has made a final decision regarding disposition of the project.
Northeast SARE is committed to evaluation of its projects, grant programs, and overall program effectiveness. Individual projects are required to report on their results, and these annual and final reports are all included in the national SARE project database
(see www.sare.org).
Applicant surveys. Each year, surveys are conducted of all R&E and PDP grant applicants to determine the level of satisfaction with staff and support materials.
Exit surveys. Surveys are conducted of R&E and PDP grantees who have completed their projects to determine their level of satisfaction with the SARE program and to gain insights that help us improve our policies and procedures.
Host Institution reviews. National SARE office requires an evaluation of each region’s administrative performance on a regular basis. In the Northeast, this review is conducted under the oversight of the EC. The review includes an evaluation of grant applicant and exit surveys since the previous review cycle and a survey of Northeast
SARE stakeholders, more specifically state coordinators, AC and TC members, and
SARE staff. Based on the evaluation of the grantee and stakeholder survey responses, the review committee may decide to conduct interviews with selected AC members and grantees.
The review committee presents its written findings and recommendations to the AC at their summer meeting. The AC then decides whether program performance has been
11

acceptable, and what actions may be needed for improvement. The most recent review was completed during the fall of 2012.
Program evaluations. Northeast SARE has hired external evaluators to examine the impact of its grant programs. In 2008, an evaluation was concluded that looked at the effectiveness of outcome funding as a framework for our R&E and PDP grants. In 2009 the Community Grants program was evaluated. In 2010, the Farmer and Partnership
Grant programs were evaluated.
There are currently regional and national evaluation committees with AC members and staff participating to look at ways to improve review of project results and coordinate regional and national evaluation efforts.
An obvious reward for people who join the SARE leadership is the satisfaction of having a say in how tax dollars are spent to promote a vibrant agricultural system.
Another reward comes from interactions with people from different backgrounds who have interesting and often inspiring conversations. A great deal of knowledge is exchanged during these discussions.
Outgoing council members almost always cite the synergy of the SARE program as its primary strength. As one farmer recently put it, “I got to be heard, but I also got to listen, and I’m amazed at how much I’ve learned.”
12

AC This refers to the regional Administrative Council. The AC sets policies for the program and makes final funding decisions.
Chapter 1 This has nothing to do with books. Instead, Chapter 1 is shorthand for the section in SARE’s authorizing legislation that lets USDA funds be used for Research and Education, Farmer, Community, Partnership, and
Graduate student grants as well as most of the regional administrative and outreach costs.
EC This refers to the Executive Committee of the Administrative Council.
The EC provides input and direction to staff in setting the AC meeting agendas and preparing proposals for programs and policy changes.
Chapter 3 This refers to another section in the language that created SARE, this one is used to fund the Professional Development Program (see below) and selected administrative and outreach activities. If you’re wondering about Chapter 2, Congress never appropriated any money for it.
Ops This is short for Operations Committee, the national group that has representatives from each of the regions and allocates funding to SARE outreach or other national initiatives before dividing remaining funds among the four regions for grant making.
Outcome This refers to Northeast SARE’s approach to making Research and
Funding Education and Professional Development grants. The format requires projects to seek specific and verifiable changes in the conditions and actions of farmers and/or agricultural service providers.
PDP This refers to the Professional Development Program, which is funded by
Chapter 3 (see above). PDP projects train extension educators and service providers who work directly with farmers on sustainable agriculture techniques. The Northeast SARE PDP program has a half-time regional coordinator, Tom Morris, housed at the University of Connecticut.
PI
R&E
Principal Investigator
This is shorthand for the Research and Education grant program, which is funded under Chapter 1 (see above). R&E grants are the region’s largest single expenditure, and the focus is on applied research, verifiable outcomes, and compelling benefits to farmers.
RFP/RFA Request for Proposals/Request for Applications, also referred to as the call or call for proposals. These are the application instructions.
13

SAN This was the Sustainable Agriculture Network, the national outreach arm of the SARE program, now called SARE Outreach. It publishes farmerfriendly books and bulletins, and generally promotes SARE information.
TC This refers to the Technical Committee. This group of volunteer reviewers helps review and rank grant proposals, and collectively offers SARE access to a very broad range of expertise
1862s Land Grant institutions established by the first Morrill Act, 1862 (one in every state; in the Northeast they are the University of Maine, University of Vermont, University of New Hampshire, University of Massachusetts,
University of Connecticut, University of Rhode Island, Rutgers, Cornell,
Pennsylvania State, University of Maryland, University of Delaware, West
Virginia University, and the University of the District of Columbia.)
1890s Land Grant institutions of higher learning that are historically black and were founded by the second Morrill Act, 1890. In the Northeast, the
1890s are Delaware State University, University of Maryland Eastern
Shore, and West Virginia State University.
1994s Native American institutions of higher learning. There are no 1994s in the Northeast.
The first three letters in grant award and project number identifiers designate the region and the grant program. NE stands for “Northeast” and the first two numbers after the letters indicate the year awarded (LNE10- were awarded in 2010).
LNE Research and Education grants. The original SARE grant program. L stands for “LISA,” the original name for SARE.
ENE
FNE
ONE
Professional Development grants. The E stands for “Extension.”
Farmer grants
Partnership grants. The O is for “On-Farm Research,” the name of this grant program in the Southern region where it began.
CNE Sustainable Community grants. This program has been merged into the
Partnership grants, so no longer stands as a separate offering.
GNE Graduate Student Grants
14

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, a NIFA grants program AFRI
AFSIC
ARS
EPA
FSA
IPM
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center
Agricultural Research Service, a unit within USDA
Environmental Protection Agency
Farm Service Agency (Part of USDA)
Integrated Pest Management Centers (funded by USDA)
NAL National Agricultural Library
NERCRD Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development (funded by USDA)
NIFA National Institute for Food and Agriculture. This replaced CSREES in
October of 2009 as a result of the 2008 Farm Bill.
NOP
NRCS
RMA
USDA
USGS
UVM
National Organic Program (part of USDA)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (part of USDA)
Risk Management Agency (part of USDA)
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Geological Survey
University of Vermont (acronym of the university’s Latin pseudonym)
15