Agricultural Research: USDA's Outreach to Minority-Serving
Institutions Could Improve Grant Competition (14-MAY-03,
GAO-03-541).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) awards more than $200
million annually to universities and colleges to support its
research, education, and extension missions. USDA's largest grant
program is the National Research Initiative (NRI). GAO was asked
to examine the (1) success of minority-serving institutions in
competing for NRI research grants, (2) factors that could improve
their success in competing for these grants, and (3) actions USDA
has taken to improve the quantity and quality of grant proposals
these institutions submit. GAO interviewed senior administrators
at 43 minority-serving institutions that had either applied for
an NRI grant between fiscal years 1997 and 2001 or received more
than $100,000 from USDA for research, three major land grant
universities, and cognizant USDA officials.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-541
ACCNO: A06873
TITLE: Agricultural Research: USDA's Outreach to
Minority-Serving Institutions Could Improve Grant Competition
DATE: 05/14/2003
SUBJECT: Colleges and universities
Education or training
Educational grants
Grant administration
Minority education
Research grants
USDA National Research Initiative
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-541
Report to Congressional Requesters
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
May 2003 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
USDA*s Outreach to Minority- Serving Institutions Could Improve Grant
Competition
GAO- 03- 541
In fiscal year 2001, minority- serving institutions competed more
successfully for NRI funding than in prior years, as measured by the
percentage of grant proposals awarded funding* 30 percent of their
proposals were awarded as compared with 13 percent in fiscal year 2000 and
only 7 percent in fiscal year 1997. However, because minority- serving
institutions submitted only 46 of
the 2,579 NRI proposals, they received less than 2 percent of the NRI
funding in fiscal year 2001. Senior administrators at many of the 43
minority- serving institutions told us that they submit few, if any,
proposals because their institutions* limited resources place them at a
disadvantage in competing with the major land grant universities. The
minority- serving institutions and three major land grant universities
generally told us that the key to success in competing for NRI grants is
making a commitment to research by improving an institution*s research
faculty, equipment, and facilities. Although 35 of the 43 minority-
serving institutions said they have made a commitment to performing
research, only 4 institutions believe they have the resources needed to
compete with the major land grant universities. Several institutions cited
the need, for example, to hire faculty members primarily interested in
research. The major land grant universities in Montana, Maine, and Vermont
said attracting top faculty to perform research and encouraging faculty to
submit numerous grant proposals were important factors in their recent
competitive success. Two of these universities also used their own funds
to support research.
USDA has several initiatives designed to help universities improve the
quantity and quality of grant proposals, but these efforts have not
substantially benefited many of the minority- serving institutions we
contacted. Specifically, upon request, USDA offers on- site reviews to
improve a university*s research capabilities, grant writing workshops, and
communication with USDA officials about the competitive grant programs.
However, senior administrators at most of the minority- serving
institutions told us that USDA*s outreach efforts do not address their
particular need to understand how to build a competitive research program
that will enable them to generate more NRI grant proposals and receive
more funding.
NRI Grants Awarded to Minority- Serving and All Institutions, Fiscal Years
2000 and 2001
Dollars in thousands 2000 2001 NRI grants Minority serving All Minority
serving All
Proposals submitted 46 2,746 46 2,579 Proposals awarded 6 683 14 595
Percent awarded 13.0 24.9 30.4 23.1 Funds awarded $529 $109,927 $1,751
$97,986 Source: USDA.
The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) awards more than $200 million
annually to
universities and colleges to support its research, education, and
extension missions. USDA*s largest grant program is the National Research
Initiative (NRI). GAO was
asked to examine the (1) success of minority- serving institutions in
competing for NRI research grants, (2) factors that could improve their
success in competing for these grants, and (3) actions USDA has taken to
improve the quantity and
quality of grant proposals these institutions submit. GAO interviewed
senior administrators at 43 minority- serving institutions that had either
applied for an NRI
grant between fiscal years 1997 and 2001 or received more than $100, 000
from USDA for research, three major land grant universities, and cognizant
USDA officials.
To encourage minority- serving institutions to submit more NRI grant
proposals, GAO recommends that USDA improve its outreach by tailoring on-
site reviews to address
strategies for becoming more competitive. In response to USDA*s comments
on GAO*s draft recommendation about the cost of implementing a new
outreach
effort, GAO revised its recommendation to clarify that USDA could use on-
going outreach
programs to address strategies for building competitive research programs.
www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 541. To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512- 3841 or nazzaror@ gao.
gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 541, a report to
Congressional Requesters
May 2003
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
USDA*s Outreach to Minority- Serving Institutions Could Improve Grant
Competition
Page i GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Letter 1 Results in Brief 2
Background 3 Minority- Serving Institutions Have Improved their Success
Rate in
Receiving NRI Grants, but They Have Submitted Few Proposals 7 Many
Minority- Serving Institutions Said They Need to Attract Top Faculty to
Perform Research 10 Institutions Interested in Strengthening Research Said
USDA*s Outreach Efforts Have Not Met Their Needs 13 Conclusions 15
Recommendations for Executive Action 16 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
16 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I The 43 Minority- Serving
Institutions We Contacted 19
Appendix II USDA*s Formula Funds for Land Grant Institutions, Fiscal Year
2001 21
Appendix III USDA*s 23 Competitive Grant Programs for Its Research,
Education, and Extension Missions 24
Appendix IV NRI Proposals and Grant Awards for MinorityServing
Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 27
Appendix V NRI Results of Certain Minority- Serving Institutions and Three
Comparably Sized Universities, Fiscal Years 2000- 01 30
Appendix VI Comments from the U. S. Department of Agriculture 31 Contents
Page ii GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Tables
Table 1: Highest Degree Offered by the Minority- Serving Institutions
Contacted 5 Table 2: Funding Provided by USDA*s Competitive Grant Programs
That Are Specifically Designated for Minority- Serving
Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 6 Table 3: The Success of
Minority- Serving Institutions (MSI) in Competing for NRI Grants, Compared
with All Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 8 Table 4: The
Success of New Mexico State University (NMSU) in Competing for NRI Grants,
Compared with Other MinorityServing Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001 9 Abbreviations
A& M Agricultural and Mechanical A& T Agricultural and Technical MSI
minority- serving institutions NMSU New Mexico State University NRI
National Research Initiative USDA U. S. Department of Agriculture
This is a work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
materials separately from GAO*s product.
Page 1 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research May 14, 2003 The Honorable
Robert W. Goodlatte Chairman The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm
Ranking Minority Member Committee on Agriculture House of Representatives
The Honorable Larry Combest House of Representatives
The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) awards more than $200 million
annually in competitive grants to universities and colleges to support its
research, education, and extension missions. These funds are awarded
primarily to higher education institutions that teach agricultural
sciences, including (1) the major land grant universities that were
established through federal grants of public lands beginning in 1862, (2)
historically black land grant universities, (3) Native American land grant
colleges, and (4) certain universities and colleges serving Hispanic
students. USDA*s largest competitive grant program* the National Research
Initiative (NRI)* provided $96 million in grants in fiscal year 2001 to
support basic and applied research in such areas as sustainable
agriculture, plant and animal gene studies, and food safety. USDA awards
the remaining funds through 22 other grant programs, including 5 programs
specifically designed to support research, education, or extension
activities at institutions that serve minorities.
Some minority- serving institutions have expressed concern that they
cannot effectively compete for NRI research grants. Specifically, they
said that minority- serving institutions have fewer research resources,
including
faculty, equipment, and facilities, and that USDA has not provided the
outreach assistance that these institutions need in order to compete.
As requested, we assessed the participation of minority- serving
institutions in the NRI grant program. Specifically, we examined the (1)
success of these institutions in competing for NRI research grants, (2)
factors that could improve their success in competing for these grants,
and (3) actions USDA has taken to improve the quantity and quality of the
grant proposals that these institutions submit.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research To assess the success of
minority- serving institutions in competing for NRI research grants, we
obtained NRI grant award data for fiscal years 1997 through 2001. Because
New Mexico State University is both a major land grant university and a
Hispanic- serving institution, we have included its
data in the minority- serving institution totals, but we have also
reported its data separately. To examine the factors that could improve
the success of minority- serving institutions, we interviewed senior
administrators at all of the 18 historically black land grant
institutions, 5 Native American land grant institutions, and 20 Hispanic-
serving institutions. (See app. I.) These
43 institutions included all of the minority- serving institutions that
had either (1) applied for at least one NRI grant during fiscal years 1997
through 2001 or (2) received more than $100,000 from USDA for
researchrelated activities during fiscal year 2000. Nineteen of these
institutions offer a doctoral degree, and 24 institutions offer lesser
degrees. We also interviewed senior administrators at three of the major
land grant universities* Montana State University at Bozeman, the
University of Maine, and the University of Vermont. These universities are
comparable in size to many of the minority- serving institutions that
offer doctoral degrees and have successfully competed for NRI grants in
recent years. To evaluate USDA*s actions to improve the quantity and
quality of grant
proposals submitted by minority- serving institutions, we interviewed USDA
officials and senior administrators at each of the 43 minority- serving
institutions that we contacted about USDA*s outreach efforts.
In fiscal year 2001, minority- serving institutions competed more
successfully for NRI funding than in prior years, as measured by the
percentage of grant proposals awarded funding* 30 percent of their
proposals were awarded as compared with 13 percent in fiscal year 2000 and
only 7 percent in fiscal year 1997. However, because minority- serving
institutions submitted few NRI grant proposals* only 46 (or 1.8 percent)
of the 2,579 NRI proposals in fiscal year 2001* they received less than 2
percent of the NRI funds. Senior administrators at many of the
minorityserving institutions told us that they submit few, if any,
proposals because their institutions* limited resources place them at a
disadvantage in
competing with the major land grant universities. The minority- serving
institutions and the three major land grant universities generally told us
that the key to success in competing for NRI grants is making a commitment
to research by improving an institution*s research faculty, equipment, and
facilities. Although 35 of the 43 minorityserving institutions said they
have made a commitment to performing research, only 4 institutions believe
they have the resources needed to Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research compete with the major land
grant universities. Several institutions cited the need, for example, to
hire faculty members interested primarily in
research in order to receive highly competitive NRI grant funding. In
addition, many of the minority- serving institutions do not offer doctoral
degrees and generally require faculty members to devote most of their time
to teaching. Administrators at major land grant universities in Montana,
Maine, and Vermont cited the importance of attracting top faculty to
perform research and encouraging faculty to submit numerous grant
proposals for their recent competitive success. Two of these universities
also used their own funds to support research.
USDA has several initiatives designed to help universities improve the
quantity and quality of grant proposals, but these efforts have not
substantially benefited many of the minority- serving institutions we
contacted. Specifically, upon request, USDA offers universities on- site
reviews to improve a university*s research capabilities, workshops on how
to write grant proposals, and opportunities to communicate with USDA
officials responsible for the competitive grant programs. However,
according to senior administrators at most of the minority- serving
institutions we contacted, these outreach efforts do not address their
particular need to understand how to build a competitive research program
that will enable them to generate more NRI grant proposals and receive
more funding. Specifically, only four minority- serving institutions were
among the 41 universities that requested one or more on- site reviews
during the past 3 years. Many minority- serving institutions also told us
that communications with USDA were limited and needed to be strengthened.
To encourage minority- serving institutions that offer a doctoral degree
to submit more NRI grant proposals, we are recommending that the Secretary
of Agriculture direct the department to improve its outreach to these
universities by tailoring its on- site reviews of research facilities to
address strategies for becoming more competitive in research and by
fostering direct contact between USDA and these universities.
USDA*s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service is
responsible for fulfilling the department*s research, education, and
extension missions. To achieve these missions, USDA has developed
partnerships with agricultural universities dating back to the First
Morrill Act in 1862, 1 which gave the states public lands for use in
establishing
1 Act of July 2, 1862, ch. CXXX. Background
Page 4 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research colleges to teach agriculture
and the mechanical arts. Today, the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and five U. S. territories have major
land grant universities that were established under that act. In addition,
USDA supports agricultural research, education, and extension at colleges
and universities that serve three minority populations. First, under the
Second Morrill Act in 1890, 2 16 southern and border states established
separate agricultural colleges for black students. These institutions,
plus Tuskegee University and West Virginia State College, are designated
as historically black land grant universities (also known as the 1890
institutions). Second, the Equity in Educational Land- Grant Status Act of
1994, 3 and subsequent amendments, 4 gave land grant status to 31 Native
American land grant institutions (known as the 1994 institutions). Last,
the
Department of Education considers universities and colleges to be
Hispanic- serving institutions if (1) Hispanics constitute at least 25
percent of the student population and (2) the family income of at least 50
percent of the Hispanic students is below 150 percent of the poverty
level, as determined by the U. S. Census Bureau. New Mexico State
University and the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez are major land
grant universities established under the First Morrill Act in 1862 and
also Hispanic- serving institutions.
The 43 minority- serving institutions that we contacted offer diverse
programs in higher education. As shown in table 1, half of the
historically black land grant universities and the Hispanic- serving
institutions we
contacted offer a doctoral degree. In contrast, the highest degree offered
by the five Native American land grant institutions we contacted is either
an associate degree or a baccalaureate. In addition, while the
historically black land grant universities and the Native American land
grant institutions have been legislatively designated as agricultural
universities and colleges, only 4 of the 20 Hispanic- serving institutions
we contacted have a school of agriculture* California State University at
Fresno, New
Mexico State University, the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, and
Texas A& M University at Kingsville. Furthermore, two Hispanic- serving
institutions were among the top 70 universities to receive federal
research and development funding in fiscal year 2000, 5 and three
historically black
2 Act of Aug. 30, 1890, ch. 841. 3 Pub. L. No. 103- 382, Title V, Part C,
S:S: 532, 533. 4 Pub. L. No. 105- 185, S: 251( a) (1998); P. L. No. 107-
171, S: 7201( d) (2002). 5 These are the University of Miami and the
University of New Mexico.
Page 5 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research land grant universities and five
additional Hispanic- serving institutions were among the top 200
universities to receive federal research and
development funding in fiscal year 2000.
Table 1: Highest Degree Offered by the Minority- Serving Institutions
Contacted Highest degree offered Historically black land grant
institutions Hispanic- serving institutions Native American land grant
institutions Total
Associate a 0 0 3 3 Baccalaureate 1 0 2 3 Master*s 8 10 0 18 Doctorate 9
10 0 19
Total 18 20 5 43
Source: USDA and the Department of Education. a Associate degrees
typically are offered by community colleges and junior colleges for
completion of a
2- year program.
USDA supports research, education, and extension activities at
universities and colleges each year primarily through a fixed allocation
of funding to land grant institutions, known as *formula* funds, and
through various competitive grant programs. In fiscal year 2001, formula
funding constituted 73 percent and competitive grants constituted 27
percent of USDA*s funding to universities and colleges.
USDA allocates formula funds to land grant universities and colleges on
the basis of legislatively established criteria. For example, formula
funds for research are allocated using U. S. Census Bureau data on each
state*s farms, rural population, and rural poverty. In fiscal year 2001,
USDA provided $579 million in formula funding that included from $1
million to $5.5 million to each historically black land grant institution,
$20,000 to $107,000 to each Native American land grant institution, and
$1.2 million to $23.2 million to each major land grant university. (See
app. II.) The Hatch Act of 1887 authorized formula funding for the major
land grant universities for agricultural research. 6 More recently, the
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977
extended formula funding to the historically black land grant
institutions, 7 6 Act of Mar. 2, 1887, ch. 314.
7 Pub. L. No. 95- 113, S: 1445.
Page 6 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research and the Equity in Educational
Land- Grant Status Act of 1994 authorized formula funding for the Native
American land grant institutions. 8 USDA also supports its research,
education, and extension missions by
awarding more than $200 million annually to universities and colleges
through 23 competitive grant programs. (See app. III.) Most of these
programs provide small amounts of funding* less than $5 million annually*
to support specific program goals. Table 2 shows that funding for the five
grant programs specifically designated to support minorityserving
institutions increased from $11.7 million to $17.9 million during the 5-
year period.
Table 2: Funding Provided by USDA*s Competitive Grant Programs That Are
Specifically Designated for Minority- Serving Institutions, Fiscal Years
1997 through 2001
Dollars in millions Program Eligibility 1997 awards 1998
awards 1999 awards 2000
awards 2001 awards
1890 institution capacity building grants program Any historically black
land
grant institution $8.8 $8.8 $8.7 $8.7 $8.9 Hispanic- serving institutions
education grants program Any Hispanic- serving
institution 1.4 2.4 2.7 2.7 3.3 Tribal colleges extension program Any
Native American (1994)
land grant institution 0 0 0 2.9 3.1 Tribal colleges education equity
grants program Any Native American (1994)
land grant institution 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1994 institution research
program Any Native American (1994)
land grant institution 0 0 0 0.5 0.9
Total $11.7 $12.6 $13.0 $16.5 $17.9
Source: USDA. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
NRI is USDA*s largest competitive grant program. Since 1991, USDA has
awarded NRI grants through a competitive peer review process for selecting
the best research proposals based on scientific merit, investigator
qualifications, and relevance of the proposed research to U. S.
agriculture. The purpose of NRI grants is to fund high- priority research
directed at increasing the competitiveness of U. S. agriculture; improving
human health and well- being through an abundant, safe, and high- quality
food supply; and sustaining the quality and productivity of the natural
resources upon which agriculture depends. NRI grants fund both
8 Pub. L. No. 103- 382, Title V, Part C, S:S: 532, 533.
Page 7 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research fundamental research* the quest
for new knowledge about agriculturally important organisms, processes,
systems, or products* and missionlinked
research, which targets specific problems, needs, or opportunities. USDA
uses at least 10 percent of the NRI funding primarily to support (1)
postdoctoral fellowships, (2) research by new investigators, and (3)
strengthening awards of up to $75,000 for scientists at small and midsized
institutions with limited institutional success in winning NRI awards or
in states included in USDA*s Experimental Program for Stimulating
Competitive Research. 9 USDA provides outreach on its competitive grant
programs to interested
universities through national program leaders. For NRI, each national
program leader performs outreach to interested universities and colleges
by, for example, presenting information about the grants at professional
and scientific meetings, notifying universities about grant program
activities and deadlines for submitting proposals, organizing and
presenting grant workshops, and responding to the questions of university
administrators and scientists. In comparison, a single USDA national
program leader is primarily responsible for performing outreach for three
smaller competitive grant programs specifically designated for the 31
Native American land grant institutions.
As shown in table 3, the grant proposals submitted by minority- serving
institutions have fared better in the NRI peer review process in fiscal
year 2001 than in the past* their success rate in receiving funding grew
from 7 percent of the proposals submitted in fiscal year 1997 to 13
percent in fiscal year 2000 to 30 percent in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal
year 2001, USDA awarded 14 NRI grants to minority- serving institutions*
more than twice as many grant awards as these institutions had received in
prior years. However, minority- serving institutions generally submit less
than 2 percent of the more than 2,500 research proposals for NRI grant
funding that USDA receives each year from universities and colleges*
proposals submitted by minority- serving institutions dropped from 81 in
fiscal year 1997 to less than 50 in subsequent fiscal years. Specifically,
in fiscal year 2001, 18 minority- serving institutions were among more
than 250 institutions that submitted proposals for NRI funding, with the
major
9 This program is a partnership between USDA and states designed to
encourage states* investment in science and technology. A state is
eligible to participate in the program if the 3- year average of its NRI
funding is no higher than the 40th percentile of NRI funding for all
states. Minority- Serving
Institutions Have Improved their Success Rate in Receiving NRI Grants,
but They Have Submitted Few Proposals
Page 8 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research (1862) land grant universities
accounting for almost two- thirds of the proposals submitted. While NRI
funding for minority- serving institutions
grew from $264,000 in fiscal year 1997 to $595, 000 in fiscal year 1999 to
$1.8 million in fiscal year 2001, the funds awarded in fiscal year 2001
constituted only 1.8 percent of the total NRI funds awarded.
Table 3: The Success of Minority- Serving Institutions (MSI) in Competing
for NRI Grants, Compared with All Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001
Dollars in thousands
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 NRI grants MSI Total MSI Total MSI Total MSI
Total MSI Total
Proposals submitted 81 2,837 47 2,610 49 2,724 46 2,746 46 2,579 Percent
of total proposals submitted 2.9 100 1.8 100 1.8 100 1.7 100 1.8 100
Proposals awarded 6 736 6 712 6 703 6 681 14 595 Percent of proposals that
were awarded 7.4 25.9 12.8 27.3 12.2 25.8 13.0 24.9 30.4 23.1 Percent of
total awards 0.8 100 0.8 100 0.9 100 0.9 100 2.4 100 Funds awarded $264
$88,270 $491 $89,089 $595 $113,392 $529 $109,927 $1,751 $97,986 Percent of
total funds awarded 0.3 100 0.6 100 0.5 100 0.5 100 1.8 100 Average award
$44 $120 $82 $125 $99 $161 $88 $161 $125 $165 Source: GAO analysis of USDA
data.
The performance of minority- serving institutions in competing for NRI
grants is heavily influenced by New Mexico State University, which is both
a major land grant university and a Hispanic- serving institution. Among
the minority- serving institutions, New Mexico State University generally
submitted the most NRI grant proposals and received the most grants each
year from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2001* no other
minorityserving institution was awarded more than three NRI grants during
this 5- year period. (See app. IV.) Table 4 shows that in fiscal year
2001, New Mexico State University submitted 33 percent of the grant
proposals and received 50 percent of the grant awards and 34 percent of
the grant funding among minority- serving institutions. More specifically,
NRI awarded funding to 7 of New Mexico State University*s 15 grant
proposals, for a 47- percent success rate. In comparison, NRI awarded
funding to 7 of the 31 proposals submitted by all other minority- serving
institutions, a 23- percent success rate.
Page 9 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Table 4: The Success of New
Mexico State University (NMSU) in Competing for NRI Grants, Compared with
Other MinorityServing Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001
Dollars in thousands 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 NRI grants NMSU Others NMSU
Others NMSU Others NMSU Others NMSU Others
Proposals submitted 12 69 4 43 6 43 11 35 15 31 Percent of total proposals
submitted 14.8 85.2 8.5 91.5 12.2 87.8 23.9 76.1 32.6 67.4 Proposals
awarded 2 4 1 5 2 4 3 3 7 7 Percent of proposals that were awarded 16.7
5.8 25.0 11.6 33.3 9.3 27.3 8.6 46.7 22.6 Percent of total awards 33.3
66.7 16.7 83.3 33.3 66.7 50 50 50 50 Funds awarded $21 $243 $149 $342 $300
$295 $260 $269 $592 $1,159 Percent of total funds awarded 8.0 92.0 30.3
69.7 50.4 49.6 49.1 50.9 33.8 66.2 Average award $11 $61 $149 $68 $150 $74
$87 $90 $85 $166 Source: GAO analysis of USDA data.
Senior administrators we interviewed at the 43 minority- serving
institutions cited several reasons for not submitting proposals for NRI
research grants:
The 24 institutions that do not offer a doctoral degree generally
require that faculty members devote at least 70 percent of their time to
classroom teaching, leaving little time for research.
Seventeen minority- serving institutions have submitted few, if any,
proposals because they do not have the faculty, equipment, and facilities
to compete effectively outside their own types of institutions. For
example, administrators at five historically black land grant institutions
told us that while they generally cannot compete successfully for NRI
grants, they are successful when competing for funding limited to only the
historically black land grant institutions, such as the 1890 Institution
Capacity Building Grants Program. Faculty members at several
institutions have stopped preparing NRI grant
proposals because previous proposals were not funded and feedback from the
peer review process was discouraging. Many scientists at historically
black land grant institutions conduct
research on topics that are important to minority farmers in the region
around their universities, but may not have the broader applicability that
USDA seeks to fund through NRI. Several Hispanic- serving institutions
that do not have a school of
agriculture receive insufficient information about USDA*s research
priorities and the NRI competitions.
Page 10 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research The minority- serving
institutions and the three major land grant universities we contacted told
us that to improve its success in competing
for NRI grants, a university needs to make a commitment to research by
improving research faculty, equipment, and facilities. Senior
administrators at 35 minority- serving institutions told us that their
institutions had either made a commitment to performing research or were
in the process of making this commitment. However, administrators at only
4 of these institutions believe they have the resources* faculty,
equipment, and facilities* needed to compete with the major land grant
universities for NRI grants. Minority- serving institutions might increase
the number of NRI grant awards they receive if they follow the approach
taken by three major land grant universities that have become more
competitive in recent years. These universities* Montana State University
at Bozeman, the University of Maine, and the University of Vermont*
believe that to become competitive, a university must attract top faculty
members interested in conducting advanced research. Two of the
universities supported research with their own funds, which enabled
faculty members to submit sufficient numbers of high- quality grant
proposals to build a record of long- term commitment to a particular
research area.
Overall, 35 of the 43 minority- serving institutions told us that they had
made, or were in the process of making, the commitment to a research
program. However, only 19 of the 43 institutions offer a doctoral degree,
a key component of a competitive research program. Competitive research
programs need faculty members recognized for publishing in the scientific
literature to attract doctoral students and post- doctoral scientists*
important members of a research team. These 19 universities provided the
following comments: Five of the nine historically black land grant
universities that offer
doctoral degrees said they need to give more emphasis to hiring scientists
who conduct the advanced research needed to compete for NRI research
grants. Several senior administrators also said their universities need to
improve their research infrastructure, encourage faculty to devote more
time to preparing proposals and performing research, and develop a source
of university funds to support research. Only Tuskegee University stated
that it faced no institutional barriers in competing for USDA grants.
The 10 Hispanic- serving institutions that offer doctoral degrees
identified different concerns. Because six of these universities do not
have a school
of agriculture, several administrators cited the need to better understand
USDA*s grant programs and the fields of research being funded. Some Many
MinorityServing
Institutions Said They Need to Attract Top Faculty to Perform Research
Many of the MinorityServing Institutions That Offer Doctorates Need to
Upgrade Their Resources to Better Compete for NRI Grants
Page 11 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Hispanic- serving institutions
also said they need to increase the number of faculty members conducting
research and improve their skills, allocate
more faculty time for research, and improve the quality of proposals. The
University of Miami and the University of Texas at El Paso said that they
faced no institutional barriers in competing for USDA grants.
Even though the 24 minority- serving institutions that do not offer a
doctoral degree were interested in obtaining federal funds for research,
many stated that they could not compete successfully with major land grant
universities for NRI grants because their institutions (1) expected
faculty to give priority to classroom teaching and, as a result, few
faculty members had the time or experience needed to lead research
projects and
(2) did not have the necessary research equipment and facilities.
Administrators at several of these institutions said that they would need
to gain experience in research and partner with larger universities. 10
Only California State University at Bakersfield said that it faced no
institutional barriers when competing for USDA grants.
During the 1990s, each of the three major land grant universities we
contacted made a conscious effort to become competitive for research
grants because they had found that formula funding was no longer
sufficient to support their research efforts. According to senior
administrators, each university explicitly told its faculty members in
science areas that they needed to be competitive in obtaining grant
funding to have a successful career and each university provided
incentives and assistance to encourage faculty members to prepare grant
proposals and conduct research. In addition, both Montana State University
at Bozeman and the University of Vermont provided an initial investment of
university funds in order to foster the development of a viable research
program and encouraged faculty members to submit competitive grant
proposals. Specifically, the three universities identified the following
reasons for their success in competing for research grants:
Senior administrators at Montana State University at Bozeman believe
that their faculty members are critical to winning grants. In 1992,
Montana State began using federal agencies* reimbursements of its indirect
10 Several institutions also cited the matching fund requirement of some
of USDA*s grant programs as a constraint because they did not have a ready
source of funding, such as state funding or an endowment, to provide the
necessary match. NRI*s only matching fund requirement is for equipment
costing more than $25, 000. Three Universities
Improved Their Success by Giving Priority to Research
Page 12 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research (administrative and facilities)
research costs to provide the competitive salaries and start- up packages
needed to attract top faculty. The university has provided funding
directly to the faculty and the department
performing research for purchasing more equipment and making renovations
and has established a process that reviews each proposal to ensure that
the university has the space and equipment to perform the research. The
administrators believe that good ideas are funded, regardless of the
university that submits the proposal, and that good science, coupled with
adequate facilities for conducting the research, will result in grant
funding. Similarly, a senior administrator at the University of Vermont
cited two
key factors to the university*s success in competing for NRI grants in
recent years. First, Vermont is dedicated to hiring top faculty and
providing an environment for their success. Second, beginning about 1996,
Vermont set up an internal grant program that uses formula funds from
USDA and the state. The university replicated the NRI peer review process
by requiring that faculty members submit proposals for 3- year grants and
using outside reviewers to assess the technical merits of each proposal.
This program has helped faculty to become more competitive in their
disciplines and more successful in competing for NRI grants. Senior
administrators at the University of Maine said that beginning about
1996, they made it clear in hiring interviews that new faculty members are
expected to obtain grants and perform research as part of their
responsibilities. Current faculty members are told that they cannot get
tenure at the university without obtaining grants and performing research.
The university has also implemented a mentoring program in which
successful grant writers help other faculty members with their proposals.
The administrators encourage the faculty to contact federal agencies to
gain assistance with their ideas and their proposals. The University of
Maine, through efforts of the faculty, obtained necessary funds from the
state government to help buy the equipment and build the facilities needed
for research.
Appendix V compares the NRI grant award success rates of the 19 minority-
serving universities that offer doctoral degrees with the success rates of
the 3 major land grant universities for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. In
each year, the 3 major land grant universities submitted about twice as
many proposals as the 19 minority- serving universities. While a higher
percentage of the minority- serving universities* proposals were awarded
funding in fiscal year 2001, the three major land grant universities
received more NRI grant awards and more funding.
Page 13 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Most of the 43 minority-
serving institutions told us that they were aware of USDA*s efforts to
provide outreach to universities and colleges through (1) on- site reviews
to improve a university*s research capabilities; 11 (2) workshops on how
to write grant proposals; and (3) opportunities to
communicate with national program leaders responsible for USDA*s
competitive grant programs, including one- on- one sessions to explain
USDA*s peer review process. Several of the institutions we contacted
stated that the outreach had improved their understanding of the NRI
program and how to compete more effectively for USDA*s grants. For
example, two historically black land grant universities and the University
of Maine told us that USDA*s on- site review of their research
capabilities was extremely useful and that they had implemented several of
the panel*s recommendations. Similarly, five historically black land grant
universities that offer a doctoral degree told us that USDA*s national
program leaders had provided useful information that improved the quality
of their proposals, enabling them to better compete for NRI grants.
However, most of the minority- serving institutions we contacted stated
that USDA*s outreach programs have not addressed their particular need to
understand how to build a competitive research program that will
enable them to generate more NRI grant proposals and receive more funding.
Minority- serving institutions also have not routinely used USDA*s
outreach programs. For example, only four minority serving institutions*
New Mexico State University, North Carolina A& T State University, South
Carolina State University, and the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff*
were among the 41 universities that requested one or more on- site reviews
during the past 3 years. In addition, a Florida A& M University
administrator told us that USDA*s grant writing workshops offer little to
scientists and universities that have successfully competed in other USDA
grant programs because the workshops are aimed at faculty with limited
competitive experience and universities without an established research
program. Alternatively, administrators at Lincoln University and Salish
Kootenai College believe USDA*s grant writing workshops would be extremely
helpful because they have not submitted an NRI grant proposal recently.
However, their institutions do not have sufficient travel funds to send
faculty members to the workshops, which typically are offered in cities
that serve an entire region.
11 The on- site reviews are performed in response to a request by a land
grant university. Typically, a panel of four USDA and outside university
experts conduct the review of an agricultural department or program over a
3- to 5- day period. Institutions Interested
in Strengthening Research Said USDA*s Outreach Efforts
Have Not Met Their Needs
Page 14 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research While the three major land
grant universities we contacted stated that repeated contact with USDA*s
national program leaders had been critical to building a successful
competitive research grant program at their
universities, several minority- serving institutions said that their
communications with USDA have been ineffective. For example, senior
administrators at six Hispanic- serving institutions that offer a doctoral
degree told us that USDA either had not contacted them directly or had
done so only through e- mail announcements of grant opportunities.
Similarly, three of the nine historically black land grant universities
that offer doctoral degrees stated that their communications with USDA
have been limited and need to be strengthened. In addition, 12 of the 24
minority- serving institutions that do not offer a doctoral degree
generally had minimal contact with USDA. Some had tried unsuccessfully to
contact USDA personnel to discuss grant opportunities.
Several senior administrators told us that USDA*s outreach efforts have
not substantially benefited their institutions in the short term by
helping them to compete successfully for NRI grant awards or in long term
by helping them to build a competitive research program that would result
in the submission of more NRI grant proposals. These administrators
offered two suggestions for improving their institutions* success in
building their research programs:
Administrators at 12 institutions suggested that collaborating on
research with faculty at major land grant institutions could help their
institutions develop their research capabilities. They cited the
importance of working in partnership with a larger university to compete
more effectively for NRI grants, noting for example that about 40 percent
of NRI funds in recent years have supported multidisciplinary research
involving investigators in different fields collaborating to solve complex
problems. In addition to sponsoring conferences that facilitate scientific
exchanges, these administrators believe that USDA could do more to enhance
collaborative opportunities, such as helping faculty at minority- serving
institutions identify opportunities for collaborative research. However,
they expressed concern about their ability to find partners with similar
interests, the travel costs for faculty to attend national conferences,
and the adequacy of the funding that their institutions would receive in a
collaborative effort. Administrators at 22 institutions suggested that
they could best build a
competitive research program if USDA were to (1) substantially increase
the grant funding specifically designated for minority- serving
institutions and (2) waive the matching fund requirements of certain grant
programs, while maintaining formula funding levels. While USDA provides
support to minority- serving institutions through five specifically
designated grant
Page 15 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research programs and formula funding,
many administrators noted that their institutions do not compete on a
level playing field for NRI research grants with major land grant
universities because, unlike the major universities,
they receive little state funding. Minority- serving institutions that
offer a doctoral degree and that are interested in becoming more
competitive in receiving NRI grant funding have a major hurdle to overcome
because they generally do not have the research faculty, equipment, and
facilities needed to be competitive. While most of these institutions are
committed to building their infrastructure,
many have little institutional knowledge about the best approach for doing
so. Montana State University at Bozeman, the University of Maine, and the
University of Vermont have become more successful in competing for NRI
grants because they have undergone a cultural change designed to build a
long- term research program by, for example, emphasizing research in
faculty hiring and promotion decisions.
USDA*s outreach efforts have not led to a growing number of proposals from
minority- serving institutions. For example, few minority- serving
institutions have requested USDA*s on- site reviews of their research
facilities, despite favorable comments from two minority- serving
universities that have benefited from on- site reviews in recent years. In
addition, several minority- serving institutions believe their
communications with USDA are ineffective. Fostering outreach to minority-
serving institutions and other land grant universities that generally have
submitted few NRI proposals would also benefit USDA by enabling it to
assess a greater number of advanced scientific research proposals in
making its grant award decisions. Conclusions
Page 16 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research To encourage minority- serving
and other universities that offer a doctoral degree to submit more NRI
grant proposals, we recommend that the
Secretary of Agriculture direct the department to improve its outreach to
and communications with these universities. Among other things, the
department should:
Tailor its on- site reviews of research facilities to address strategies
for minority- serving institutions, as well as major land grant
universities participating in USDA*s Experimental Program for Stimulating
Competitive Research, to become more competitive in research. The
successes of the three comparable- size major land grant universities may
offer lessons for this effort. Enhance its communications with minority-
serving institutions and other
land grant institutions by fostering direct contact so that USDA has a
greater understanding of each institution*s capabilities and the
institutions have a greater understanding of USDA*s research priorities
and needs.
We provided USDA with a draft of this report for its review and comment.
USDA agreed with the report, stating that it is technically accurate and
reasonably balanced. However, USDA disagreed with our recommendation,
stating that working closely with minority- serving institutions to
develop a cost- effective approach for building their research programs
would represent a conflict of interest. USDA said that it would
have to provide this service to all land grant institutions to be fair,
but added that it does not have sufficient staff and resources to do so.
To address USDA*s concerns, we have revised our recommendation by linking
it more directly to USDA*s existing outreach program that provides on-
site reviews of research facilities for any land grant institution and by
focusing on the need to enhance communication by fostering direct contact
between USDA and universities. (See app. VI for USDA*s written comments
and our response.)
To examine the success of minority- serving institutions in competing for
USDA research grants, we obtained USDA data for fiscal years 1997 through
2001 on all grant proposals and awards for each competitive grant program
with a research component. Grant awards data for fiscal year 2001 were the
most current data available for our analysis. To the extent possible, we
resolved data discrepancies and omissions with USDA personnel. However, in
some instances, USDA*s data did not identify the institution that was
awarded grant funding, and USDA personnel could not readily determine the
university that received the funding. Recommendations for
Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
Scope and Methodology
Page 17 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research To examine factors that could
improve the success of minority- serving institutions in competing for NRI
grants, we visited Texas A& M University
at Kingsville and Prairie View A& M University and conducted telephone
interviews with senior administrators responsible for research, education,
and extension grants at 41 other minority- serving institutions. Each of
these institutions had either applied for at least one NRI grant during
fiscal years 1997 through 2001 or received more than $100,000 from USDA
during fiscal year 2000, according to National Science Foundation data. 12
They included all 18 of the historically black land grant institutions, 5
of 31 Native American land grant institutions, and 20 of the 219
universities and colleges that the Department of Education has designated
as Hispanicserving institutions. 13 The senior administrator we
interviewed at each institution generally was the Dean of the School of
Agriculture, the Vice Provost for Research, or the Director of the Office
of Sponsored Research.
In addition to the minority- serving institutions, we visited Montana
State University at Bozeman and conducted telephone interviews with senior
administrators at the University of Maine and the University of Vermont.
Each of these universities is a major (1862) land grant university that is
comparable in size to many of the minority- serving institutions that
offer doctoral degrees. 14 Both Montana State University and the
University of Vermont participated in USDA*s Experimental Program for
Stimulating Competitive Research during fiscal year 2001. However, the
state of Montana no longer qualified in fiscal year 2002 because it
exceeded the threshold for NRI grant funding. Because all three
universities had progressed from receiving few NRI grants to being more
successful, we asked senior administrators to identify key factors that
had led to their improvement.
To assess USDA*s actions to improve the quantity and quality of grant
proposals, we interviewed cognizant USDA officials to identify USDA*s key
efforts to help the minority- serving institutions improve their
competitiveness. We then interviewed senior administrators at the
12 See National Science Foundation/ Division of Science Resources
Statistics, Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to
Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions, Fiscal Year 2000.
13 Hispanic- serving institutions* eligibility can change based on student
enrollment. We excluded San Diego State University from our review because
it currently does not meet the criteria of a Hispanic- serving
institution, according to senior university administrators.
14 Student enrollment at the three universities ranged from about 8, 900
to about 11, 800.
Page 18 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research minority- serving institutions
about the effectiveness of these outreach efforts.
We conducted our review from September 2002 through April 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days after
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; the Secretary of
Agriculture; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and
other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at http:// www. gao. gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about the report, please contact
me at (202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to this report were Richard
Cheston, Jeanne Barger, Curtis Groves, Brandon Haller, and Carol
Herrnstadt Shulman.
Robin M. Nazzaro Director, Natural Resources
and Environment
Appendix I: The 43 Minority- Serving Institutions We Contacted Page 19
GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Institution Location Enrollment Highest
degree
offered Historically black land grant institutions Alabama Agricultural
and Mechanical (A& M) University a Normal, AL 5,849 Doctorate
Alcorn State University Alcorn State, MS 3,096 Master*s Delaware State
University Dover, DE 3,343 Master*s Florida A& M University a Tallahassee,
FL 12,316 Doctorate Fort Valley State University Fort Valley, GA 2,485
Master*s Kentucky State University Frankfort, KY 2,313 Master*s Langston
University Langston, OK 2,988 Master*s Lincoln University Jefferson City,
MO 3,332 Master*s North Carolina Agricultural and Technical (A& T) State
University Greensboro, NC 8,319 Doctorate Prairie View A& M University
Prairie View, TX 6,747 Doctorate South Carolina State University
Orangeburg, SC 4,467 Doctorate Southern University and A& M College Baton
Rouge, LA 8,719 Doctorate Tennessee State University Nashville, TN 8,664
Doctorate Tuskegee University a Tuskegee, AL 2,880 Doctorate University of
Arkansas at Pine Bluff Pine Bluff, AR 3,144 Master*s University of
Maryland * Eastern Shore Princess Anne, MD 3,426 Doctorate Virginia State
University Petersburg, VA 4,638 Master*s West Virginia State College
Institute, WV 4,835 Baccalaureate Hispanic- serving institutions
California State University at Bakersfield Bakersfield, CA 7,050 Master*s
California State University at Dominguez Hills Carson, CA 12,871 Master*s
California State University at Fresno Fresno, CA 20,007 Doctorate
California State University at Fullerton Fullerton, CA 30,357 Master*s
California State University at Northridge Northridge, CA 31,448 Master*s
California State University at San Bernardino San Bernardino, CA 15,985
Master*s City University of New York, City College a New York, NY 10,378
Master*s City University of New York, Lehman College Bronx, NY 8,889
Master*s Florida International University a Miami, FL 31,727 Doctorate New
Mexico State University a Las Cruces, NM 15,224 Doctorate Occidental
College Los Angeles, CA 1,796 Master*s Texas A& M University at Kingsville
Kingsville, TX 6,148 Doctorate Universidad Metropolitana Cupey, PR 7,094
Master*s University of Miami a Coral Gables, FL 14,436 Doctorate
University of New Mexico a Albuquerque, NM 23,753 Doctorate University of
Puerto Rico at Mayaguez a Mayaguez, PR 12,244 Doctorate University of
Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus a San Juan, PR 2,708 Doctorate
University of Texas at Brownsville Brownsville, TX 9,373 Master*s
University of Texas at El Paso El Paso, TX 16,220 Doctorate University of
Texas * Pan American Edinburg, TX 13,640 Doctorate
Appendix I: The 43 Minority- Serving Institutions We Contacted
Appendix I: The 43 Minority- Serving Institutions We Contacted Page 20
GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Institution Location Enrollment Highest
degree
offered Native American land grant institutions Fond du Lac Tribal and
Community College Cloquet, MN 1,023 Associate
degree b Haskell Indian Nation University Lawrence, KS 967 Baccalaureate
Lac Courte Orilles Ojibwa Community College Hayward, WI 516 Associate
degree b Salish Kootenai College Pablo, MT 976 Baccalaureate Turtle
Mountain Community College Belcourt, ND 684 Associate degree b Source:
USDA and the Department of Education. Note: We excluded San Diego State
University from our survey because senior university administrators told
us that it does not meet the criteria of a Hispanic- serving institution.
a Among the top 200 universities and colleges to receive federal research
and development funding in
fiscal year 2000. b An associate degree typically is offered by community
colleges and junior colleges for completion of a 2- year program.
Appendix II: USDA*s Formula Funds for Land Grant Institutions, Fiscal Year
2001
Page 21 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Dollars in thousands
Institution Formula funds for research Formula funds for
extension Total formula funds
Historically black land grant institutions Alabama A& M University $1,712
$1,394 $3,106 Alcorn State University 1,722 1,371 3,093 Delaware State
University 577 454 1,031 Florida A& M University 1,297 1,185 2,482 Fort
Valley State University 1,951 1,687 3,638 Kentucky State University 2,279
2,134 4,413 Langston University 1,427 1,260 2,687 Lincoln University 2,185
2,114 4,299 North Carolina A& T State University 2,782 2,501 5,283 Prairie
View A& M University 2,869 2,610 5,479 South Carolina State University
1,492 1,223 2,715 Southern University and A& M College 1,371 0 1, 371
Tennessee State University 2,121 1,892 4,013 Tuskegee University 1,701
1,419 3,120 University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 1,503 1,257 2,760
University of Maryland* Eastern Shore 1,019 0 1, 019 Virginia State
University 1,827 1,600 3,427 West Virginia State College 973 998 1,971
Subtotal $30,809 $25,098 $55,907
Native American land grant institutions a Bay Mills Community College 26 b
26 Blackfeet Community College 36 b 36 Cankdeska Cikana Community College
24 b 24 College of the Menominee Nation 25 b 25 Crownpoint Institution of
Technology 31 b 31 D- Q University 20 b 20 Dine College 107 b 107 Dull
Knife Memorial College 25 b 25 Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College 24
b 24 Fort Belknap College 25 b 25 Fort Berthold Community College 31 b 31
Fort Peck Community College 36 b 36 Haskell Indian Nations University 79 b
79 Institute of American Indian Arts 23 b 23 Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa
Community College 35 b 35 Leech Lake Tribal College 26 b 26 Little Big
Horn College 29 b 29 Little Priest Tribal College 20 b 20 Nebraska Indian
Community College 23 b 23 Northwest Indian College 49 b 49
Appendix II: USDA*s Formula Funds for Land Grant Institutions, Fiscal Year
2001
Appendix II: USDA*s Formula Funds for Land Grant Institutions, Fiscal Year
2001
Page 22 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Dollars in thousands
Institution Formula funds for research Formula funds for
extension Total formula funds
Oglala Lakota College 72 b 72 Salish Kootenai College 68 b 68 Sinte Gleska
University 58 b 58 Si Tanka College 30 b 30 Sisseton Wahpeton Community
College 23 b 23 Sitting Bull College 26 b 26 Southwestern Indian
Polytechnic Institute 68 b 68 Stone Child College 30 b 30 Turtle Mountain
Community College 52 b 52 United Tribes Technical College 27 b 27 Subtotal
$1,144 b $1,144
Major land grant institutions American Samoa Community College 507 645
1,152 Auburn University 4,568 8,722 13,290 Clemson University 3,806 7,331
11,137 Colorado State University 3,030 3,448 6,478 College of Micronesia
713 968 1,681 Cornell University d 5,615 12,122 17,737 Iowa State
University c 6,376 9,913 16,289 Kansas State University 3,551 6,183 9,734
Louisiana State University c 3,542 7,068 10,610 Michigan State University
5,162 9,978 15,140 Mississippi State University 4,610 8,576 13,186 Montana
State University 2,065 2,747 4,812 New Mexico State University 1,837 2,610
4,447 North Carolina State University 7,075 13,807 20,882 North Dakota
State University 2,435 3,608 6,043 Northern Marianas College 661 874 1,535
Ohio State University d 6,107 11,533 17,640 Oklahoma State University
3,456 6,261 9,717 Oregon State University c, e 3,549 4,353 7,902
Pennsylvania State University 6,451 11,754 18,205 Purdue University 5,225
9,672 14,897 Rutgers University 2,915 3,751 6,666 South Dakota State
University 2,558 3,783 6,341 Texas A& M University 6,861 16,296 23,157
University of Alaska 1,395 1,281 2,676 University of Arizona 2,062 2,587
4,649 University of Arkansas 3,967 6,998 10,965 University of California
5,851 10,111 15,962 University of Connecticut f 2,001 2,479 4,480
University of Delaware 1,335 1,474 2,809
Appendix II: USDA*s Formula Funds for Land Grant Institutions, Fiscal Year
2001
Page 23 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Dollars in thousands
Institution Formula funds for research Formula funds for
extension Total formula funds
University of Florida c 3,471 6,684 10,155 University of Georgia 5,497
9,852 15,349 University of Guam 859 946 1,805 University of Hawaii 1,431
1,564 2,995 University of Idaho 2,540 3,032 5,572 University of Illinois
5,693 11,061 16,754 University of Kentucky 5,276 10,119 15,395 University
of Maine 2,337 2,555 4,892 University of Maryland 2,621 5,009 7,630
University of Massachusetts 2,395 3,490 5,885 University of Minnesota c, f
5,420 10,548 15,968 University of Missouri c 5,132 9,499 14,631 University
of Nebraska 3,494 5,363 8,857 University of Nevada 1,264 1,389 2,653
University of New Hampshire 1,720 1,828 3,548 University of Puerto Rico
3,997 7,623 11,620 University of Rhode Island 1,260 1,355 2,615 University
of Tennessee 5,117 10,853 15,970 University of the District of Columbia
659 998 1,657 University of the Virgin Islands 853 917 1,770 University of
Vermont 1,711 2,038 3,749 University of Wisconsin 5,489 9,063 14,552
University of Wyoming 1,726 1,699 3,425 Utah State University 1,943 2,114
4,057 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 4,630 8,638
13,268 Washington State University c 3,957 4,754 8,711 West Virginia
University 2,953 4,822 7,775 Subtotal $192,731 $328,748 $521,478
Total $224,684 $353,846 $578,530
Source: USDA. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. a White Earth
Tribal and Community College became a Native American land grant
institution in fiscal
year 2002. b Native American land grant institutions are not eligible to
receive formula funds for extension
activities. c Includes formula funds for the Veterinary School.
d Includes formula funds for the Research Foundation and the Research and
Development Center. e Includes formula funds for the College of Forestry.
f Includes formula funds for the Experimental Station
Appendix III: USDA*s 23 Competitive Grant Programs for Its Research,
Education, and Extension Missions
Page 24 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Dollars in millions Program
Purpose Eligibility Fiscal year 2001 awards
National Research Initiative Conduct fundamental and mission- linked
scientific research that is of benefit to agriculture Any state
agricultural experiment
station, college, university, other research institution or organization,
federal agency, private organization, corporation, or individual
$95.8 Integrated research, education, and extension competitive grants
Provide grants for research, education, or extension in the agriculture-
related fields of (1) water quality, (2) food safety, (3) pesticide impact
assessment, (4) crops at risk from Food
Quality Protection Act implementation, (5) Food Quality Protection Act
risk mitigation program for major food crop systems, (6) methyl bromide
transitions program, and (7) organic transition program
Any college or university $40.0 Small Business Innovation Research Program
Support the research of businesses with fewer than 500 employees for
developing agriculturally related products or services
Any small business as defined in the program description $14.5
1890 institution capacity building grants program Build teaching and
research capacity Any historically black land grant
institution $8.9 Children, youth, and families at risk initiative Develop
and deliver educational programs that
equip (1) limited resource families and (2) youth who are at risk for not
meeting basic human needs to lead positive, productive, and contributing
lives
Any Cooperative Extension Service at a major (1862) land grant institution
$7.8 Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000: education and risk
management assistance competitive grants
Provide education to agricultural producers about the full range of risk
management activities, including futures, agricultural trade options, crop
insurance, cash forward contracting, debt reduction, production
diversification, and farm resources risk reduction
Any public or private entity, including land grant colleges, cooperative
extension services, and colleges and universities
$4.8 Higher education challenge grants program Strengthen college and
university teaching programs in the food and agricultural sciences Any
land grant or other U. S. college
or university offering a baccalaureate or first professional degree in at
least one discipline or area of the food and agricultural sciences
$4.1 Sustainable agriculture research and education program
Support research and extension that explore and apply economically
profitable, environmentally sound, and socially supporting farming systems
Any land grant university (with some opportunities for partnerships with
producers)
$8.4 Hispanic- serving institutions education grants program Promote and
strengthen the ability of Hispanicserving institutions to carry out
educational
programs to attract, retain, and graduate outstanding students in the food
and agricultural sciences
Any Hispanic- serving institution $3.3
Appendix III: USDA*s 23 Competitive Grant Programs for Its Research,
Education, and Extension Missions
Appendix III: USDA*s 23 Competitive Grant Programs for Its Research,
Education, and Extension Missions
Page 25 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Dollars in millions Program
Purpose Eligibility Fiscal year 2001 awards
Tribal colleges extension program Fund new innovative extension programs
for
Native American communities and tribal colleges
Any Native American (1994) land grant institution $3.1
Food and agricultural sciences national needs graduate fellowship grants
program Encourage outstanding students to pursue and
complete graduate degrees in the areas of food and agricultural science
Any land grant institution or a college or university with a demonstrated
capacity to carry out the teaching of food and agricultural sciences. The
institution must confer a graduate degree in at least one area targeted
for fellowships.
$2.9 AgrAbility projects Provide training and technical assistance to
disabled farmers, ranchers, farm workers, and their families
Cooperative programs between Cooperative Extension Services at the major
(1862) land grant institutions and private, nonprofit disability
organizations
$2.7 Community food projects competitive grants program
Support the development of community food projects designed to meet the
food needs of low income people; increase the self reliance of communities
in providing for their own food needs; and promote comprehensive- to-
local food, farm, and nutrition issues Any private, nonprofit entity (may
partner with public, private nonprofit, and private for- profit entities)
$2.5 Regional integrated pest management grants program
Support the continuum of research and extension needed to increase the (1)
implementation of integrated pest management methods from development of
individual pest control tactics and (2) integration of tactics into an
individual pest control system
Any large (1862) land grant university $2.5
Extension Indian reservation program Fund reservation agent positions Any
Cooperative Extension Service
at a major (1862) land grant institution
$1.9 Biotechnology risk assessment research grants program Address the
inherent risks of introducing
genetically modified organisms into the environment
Any U. S. public or private research or educational institution $1.7
Pest management alternatives special research grants program
Address the need for developing pest management alternatives, including
specific needs that result from the implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act
Any state agricultural experiment station, college, university, other
research institution or organization, federal agency, private
organization, corporation, or individual
$1.5 Tribal colleges education equity grants program Strengthen the
teaching programs of the Native
American land grant institutions in the food and agricultural sciences
Any Native American (1994) land grant institution $1.5
Potato research special grants program Support potato research that
focuses on varietal
development and testing Any state agricultural experiment station; land
grant college or
university; research foundation established by a land grant college or
university; a college or university
receiving funds under the Act of October 10, 1862, as amended; or an
accredited school or college of veterinary medicine
$1.4
Appendix III: USDA*s 23 Competitive Grant Programs for Its Research,
Education, and Extension Missions
Page 26 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Dollars in millions Program
Purpose Eligibility Fiscal year 2001 awards
Higher education multicultural scholars program
Provides scholarships for minority students to train in food and
agricultural sciences Any U. S. college or university offering a (1)
baccalaureate or first
professional degree in at least one discipline of the food and
agricultural sciences or (2) Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree
$0.9 1994 institution research program Assist the Native American
institutions in
conducting agricultural research that addresses high priority concerns of
tribal, national, or multistate significance
Any Native American (1994) land grant institution $0.9
Secondary agriculture education challenge grants program Support and
strengthen secondary education in
agrisciences and agribusiness and increase the number and/ or diversity of
young Americans pursuing baccalaureate or higher degrees in food and
agricultural sciences Any public secondary school $0.8
Citrus Tristeza special research grants program Support research that
focuses on the problems
caused by Citrus Tristeza virus Any state agricultural experiment station,
college, university, other
research institution or organization, federal agency, private
organization, corporation, or individual
$0.7 Source: USDA.
Appendix IV: NRI Proposals and Grant Awards for Minority- Serving
Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 Page 27 GAO- 03- 541
Agricultural Research 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Institution Proposal Award Proposal Award Proposal Award Proposal Award
Proposal Award
New Mexico State University a 12 2 4 1 6 2 11 3 15 7 Tuskegee University
10 0 7 1 3 0 4 1 3 1 Alabama A& M University 11 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Florida
A& M University 3 0 7 0 4 0 2 0 3 0 Tennessee State University 1 0 3 0 2 2
3 0 4 0 California State University at Fresno 2 0 5 1 3 0 2 1 0 0 Texas A&
M University at Kingsville 3 1 3 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 North Carolina A& T State
University 3 1 1 0 3 0 2 0 2 1 University of Puerto Rico at Mayagueza 8 1
2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Virginia State University 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 University
of Miami 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 4 1 Prairie View A& M University 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
2 1 Langston University 2 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 Florida International
University 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 City University of New York, Lehman College
0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 City University of New York, City College 0 0 1 0 1 1
1 0 1 1 University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Southern
University and A& M College 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 University of Maryland*
Eastern Shore 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Appendix IV: NRI Proposals and Grant Awards for Minority- Serving
Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001
Appendix IV: NRI Proposals and Grant Awards for Minority- Serving
Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 Page 28 GAO- 03- 541
Agricultural Research 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Institution Proposal Award Proposal Award Proposal Award Proposal Award
Proposal Award
University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
California State University at Northridge 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 California
State University at San Bernardino 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fort Valley State
University 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 University of New Mexico 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
0 University of Texas at El Paso 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 California State
University at Bakersfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 California State University
at Fullerton 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 University of Texas* Pan American 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 Universidad Metropolitana 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 California State
University at Dominguez Hills 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fond du Lac Tribal and
Community College 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Haskell Indian Nation University 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Kentucky State University 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lac Courte
Orilles Ojibwa Community College 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 South Carolina State
University 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Turtle Mountain Community College 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Appendix IV: NRI Proposals and Grant Awards for Minority- Serving
Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 Page 29 GAO- 03- 541
Agricultural Research 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Institution Proposal Award Proposal Award Proposal Award Proposal Award
Proposal Award
University of Texas at Brownsville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Total 81 6 47 6 49 6 46 6 46 14
Source: USDA. a Also a major land grant university established through
federal grants of land to the states authorized by the First Morrill Act
in 1862.
Appendix V: NRI Results of Certain MinorityServing Institutions and Three
Comparably Sized Universities, Fiscal Years 2000- 01
Page 30 GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Dollars in thousands
2000 2001 Institution Proposals
submitted Proposals awarded Funding awarded Proposals
submitted Proposals awarded Funding awarded
Minority- serving institutions with doctoral program Alabama A& M
University a 0 0 0 0 0 0
California State University at Fresno a 2 1 $130 0 0 0 Florida A& M
University a 2 0 0 3 0 0 Florida International University b 3 0 0 1 1 $305
New Mexico State University a 11 3 260 15 7 592 North Carolina A& T State
University a 2 0 0 2 1 150 Prairie View A& M University a 0 0 0 2 1 108
South Carolina State University c 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southern University and A& M
College a 1 0 0 0 0 0
Tennessee State University a 3 0 0 4 0 0 Texas A& M University at
Kingsville a 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tuskegee University a 4 1 75 3 1 25 University of
Maryland - Eastern Shore a 1 0 0 1 0 0 University of Miami b 1 0 0 4 1 310
University of New Mexico b 1 0 0 0 0 0 University of Puerto Rico at
Mayaguez a 0 0 0 0 0 0 University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus
b 1 0 0 0 0 0 University of Texas at El Paso b 1 0 0 2 0 0 University of
Texas * Pan American b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 34 5 $465 37 12 $1,490 Major land grant universities of comparable
size Montana State University at
Bozeman 48 18 $1,636 43 14 $1,520 University of Maine 15 6 929 19 4 440
University of Vermont 12 5 649 8 0 0
Total 75 29 $3,214 70 18 $1,960
Source: USDA. a Minority- serving university with a school of agriculture.
b Hispanic- serving institution that does not have a school of
agriculture. c Historically black land grant university that does not have
a school of agriculture.
Appendix V: NRI Results of Certain MinorityServing Institutions and Three
Comparably Sized Universities, Fiscal Years 2000- 01
Appendix VI: Comments from the U. S. Department of Agriculture Page 31
GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research Appendix VI: Comments from the U. S.
Department of Agriculture
Note: GAO*s comments appear at the end of this appendix.
See comment 1.
Appendix VI: Comments from the U. S. Department of Agriculture Page 32
GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research
Appendix VI: Comments from the U. S. Department of Agriculture Page 33
GAO- 03- 541 Agricultural Research The following is GAO*s comment on the
U. S. Department of Agriculture*s letter dated April 29, 2003.
1. To address USDA*s concerns, we have revised the recommendation in our
draft report by linking it to an existing USDA outreach program that
provides on- site reviews of research facilities for any land grant
institution and by focusing on the need to enhance communication by
fostering direct contact between USDA and universities. GAO Comment
(360262)
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail
this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
GAO Reports heading.
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000
TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800
U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***