Agricultural Research
USDA's Outreach to Minority-Serving Institutions Could Improve Grant Competition Gao ID: GAO-03-541 May 14, 2003The 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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-541, Agricultural Research: USDA's Outreach to Minority-Serving Institutions Could Improve Grant Competition
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-541
entitled 'Agricultural Research: USDA's Outreach to Minority-Serving
Institutions Could Improve Grant Competition' which was released on May
21, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
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:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-541, a report to Congressional Requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
[See PDF for image]
[End of table]
What GAO Recommends:
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.
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Minority-Serving Institutions Have Improved their Success Rate in
Receiving NRI Grants, but They Have Submitted Few Proposals:
Many Minority-Serving Institutions Said They Need to Attract Top
Faculty to Perform Research:
Institutions Interested in Strengthening Research Said USDA‘s
Outreach Efforts Have Not Met Their Needs:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Scope and Methodology:
Appendix I: The 43 Minority-Serving Institutions We Contacted:
Appendix II: USDA‘s Formula Funds for Land Grant Institutions,
Fiscal Year 2001:
Appendix III: USDA‘s 23 Competitive Grant Programs for Its
Research, Education, and Extension Missions:
Appendix IV: NRI Proposals and Grant Awards for Minority-Serving
Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Appendix V: NRI Results of Certain Minority-Serving Institutions and
Three Comparably Sized Universities, Fiscal Years 2000-01:
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Tables:
Table 1: Highest Degree Offered by the Minority-Serving
Institutions Contacted:
Table 2: Funding Provided by USDA‘s Competitive Grant Programs
That Are Specifically Designated for Minority-Serving
Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Table 3: The Success of Minority-Serving Institutions (MSI) in
Competing for NRI Grants, Compared with All Institutions,
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Table 4: The Success of New Mexico State University (NMSU) in
Competing for NRI Grants, Compared with Other Minority-Serving
Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
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:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
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.
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 research-related
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.
Results in Brief:
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 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 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 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 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.
Background:
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,[Footnote 1] which gave the states public lands for
use in establishing 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,[Footnote 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,[Footnote 3] and subsequent amendments,[Footnote 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,[Footnote 5] and
three historically black 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: Associate[A]; Historically black land grant
institutions: 0; Hispanic-serving institutions: 0; Native American land
grant institutions: 3; Total: 3.
Highest degree offered: Baccalaureate; Historically black land grant
institutions: 1; Hispanic-serving institutions: 0; Native American land
grant institutions: 2; Total: 3.
Highest degree offered: Master's; Historically black land grant
institutions: 8; Hispanic-serving institutions: 10; Native American
land grant institutions: 0; Total: 18.
Highest degree offered: Doctorate; Historically black land grant
institutions: 9; Hispanic-serving institutions: 10; Native American
land grant institutions: 0; Total: 19.
Highest degree offered: Total; Historically black land grant
institutions: 18; Hispanic-serving institutions: 20; Native American
land grant institutions: 5; Total: 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.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 6] More recently, the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 extended formula
funding to the historically black land grant institutions,[Footnote 7]
and the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 authorized
formula funding for the Native American land grant
institutions.[Footnote 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
minority-serving 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:
millions.
1890 institution capacity building grants program; Eligibility: Any
historically black land grant institution; 1997 awards: $8.8; 1998
awards: $8.8; 1999 awards: $8.7; 2000 awards: $8.7; 2001 awards: $8.9.
Hispanic-serving institutions education grants program; Eligibility:
Any Hispanic-serving institution; 1997 awards: 1.4; 1998 awards: 2.4;
1999 awards: 2.7; 2000 awards: 2.7; 2001 awards: 3.3.
Tribal colleges extension program; Eligibility: Any Native American
(1994) land grant institution; 1997 awards: 0; 1998 awards: 0; 1999
awards: 0; 2000 awards: 2.9; 2001 awards: 3.1.
Tribal colleges education equity grants program; Eligibility: Any
Native American (1994) land grant institution; 1997 awards: 1.5; 1998
awards: 1.5; 1999 awards: 1.6; 2000 awards: 1.6; 2001 awards: 1.5.
1994 institution research program; Eligibility: Any Native American
(1994) land grant institution; 1997 awards: 0; 1998 awards: 0; 1999
awards: 0; 2000 awards: 0.5; 2001 awards: 0.9.
Total; Eligibility: 1997 awards: $11.7; 1998 awards: $12.6;
1999 awards: $13.0; 2000 awards: $16.5; 2001 awards: $17.9.
Source: USDA.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
[End of table]
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 fundamental research--the quest for new knowledge
about agriculturally important organisms, processes, systems, or
products--and mission-linked 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
mid-sized institutions with limited institutional success in winning
NRI awards or in states included in USDA's Experimental Program for
Stimulating Competitive Research.[Footnote 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.
Minority-Serving Institutions Have Improved their Success Rate in
Receiving NRI Grants, but They Have Submitted Few Proposals:
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 (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.
Proposals submitted;
1997: MSI: 81;
1997: Total: 2,837;
1998: MSI: 47;
1998: Total: 2,610;
1999: MSI: 49;
1999: Total: 2,724;
2000: MSI: 46;
2000: Total: 2,746;
2001: MSI: 46;
2001: Total: 2,579.
Percent of total proposals submitted;
1997: MSI: 2.9;
1997: Total: 100;
1998: MSI: 1.8;
1998: Total: 100;
1999: MSI: 1.8;
1999: Total: 100;
2000: MSI: 1.7;
2000: Total: 100;
2001: MSI: 1.8;
2001: Total: 100.
Proposals awarded;
1997: MSI: 6;
1997: Total: 736;
1998: MSI: 6;
1998: Total: 712;
1999: MSI: 6;
1999: Total: 703;
2000: MSI: 6;
2000: Total: 681;
2001: MSI: 14; 2001:
Total: 595.
Percent of proposals that were awarded;
1997: MSI: 7.4;
1997: Total: 25.9;
1998: MSI: 12.8;
1998: Total: 27.3;
1999: MSI: 12.2;
1999: Total: 25.8;
2000: MSI: 13.0;
2000: Total: 24.9;
2001: MSI: 30.4;
2001: Total: 23.1.
Percent of total awards;
1997: MSI: 0.8;
1997: Total: 100;
1998: MSI: 0.8;
1998: Total: 100;
1999: MSI: 0.9;
1999: Total: 100;
2000: MSI: 0.9;
2000: Total: 100;
2001: MSI: 2.4;
2001: Total: 100.
Funds awarded;
1997: MSI: $264;
1997: Total: $88,270;
1998: MSI: $491;
1998: Total: $89,089;
1999: MSI: $595;
1999: Total: $113,392;
2000: MSI: $529;
2000: Total: $109,927;
2001: MSI: $1,751;
2001: Total: $97,986.
Percent of total funds awarded; Dollars
in 1997: MSI: 0.3;
1997: Total: 100;
1998: MSI: 0.6;
1998: Total: 100;
1999: MSI: 0.5;
1999: Total: 100;
2000: MSI: 0.5;
2000: Total: 100;
2001: MSI: 1.8;
2001: Total: 100.
Average award;
1997: MSI: $44;
1997: Total: $120;
1998: MSI: $82;
1998: Total: $125;
1999: MSI: $99;
1999: Total: $161;
2000: MSI: $88;
2000: Total: $161;
2001: MSI: $125;
2001: Total: $165.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA data.
[End of table]
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 minority-serving 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.
Table 4: The Success of New Mexico State University (NMSU) in Competing
for NRI Grants, Compared with Other Minority-Serving Institutions,
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Dollars in thousands.
NRI grants:
Proposals submitted; 1997: NMSU: 12; 1997: Others: 69;
1998: NMSU: 4; 1998: Others: 43; 1999: NMSU: 6; 1999:
Others: 43; 2000: NMSU: 11; 2000: Others: 35; 2001:
NMSU: 15; 2001: Others: 31.
Percent of total proposals submitted; 1997: NMSU: 14.8; 1997:
Others: 85.2; 1998: NMSU: 8.5; 1998: Others: 91.5;
1999: NMSU: 12.2; 1999: Others: 87.8; 2000: NMSU: 23.9; 2000:
Others: 76.1; 2001: NMSU: 32.6; 2001: Others: 67.4.
Proposals awarded; 1997: NMSU: 2; 1997: Others: 4;
1998: NMSU: 1; 1998: Others: 5; 1999: NMSU: 2; 1999: Others:
4; 2000: NMSU: 3; 2000: Others: 3; 2001: NMSU: 7;
2001: Others: 7.
Percent of proposals that were awarded; 1997: NMSU: 16.7;
1997: Others: 5.8; 1998: NMSU: 25.0; 1998: Others: 11.6;
1999: NMSU: 33.3; 1999: Others: 9.3; 2000: NMSU:
27.3; 2000: Others: 8.6; 2001: NMSU: 46.7; 2001: Others: 22.6.
Percent of total awards; 1997: NMSU: 33.3; 1997: Others: 66.7;
1998: NMSU: 16.7; 1998: Others: 83.3; 1999: NMSU:
33.3; 1999: Others: 66.7; 2000: NMSU: 50; 2000: Others: 50;
2001: NMSU: 50; 2001: Others: 50.
Funds awarded; 1997: NMSU: $21; 1997: Others: $243;
1998: NMSU: $149; 1998: Others: $342; 1999: NMSU: $300; 1999:
Others: $295; 2000: NMSU: $260; 2000: Others: $269;
2001: NMSU: $592; 2001: Others: $1,159.
Percent of total funds awarded; 1997: NMSU: 8.0; 1997: Others:
92.0; 1998: NMSU: 30.3; 1998: Others: 69.7; 1999:
NMSU: 50.4; 1999: Others: 49.6; 2000: NMSU: 49.1; 2000:
Others: 50.9; 2001: NMSU: 33.8; 2001: Others: 66.2.
Average award; 1997: NMSU: $11; 1997: Others: $61;
1998: NMSU: $149; 1998: Others: $68; 1999: NMSU: $150; 1999:
Others: $74; 2000: NMSU: $87; 2000: Others: $90;
2001: NMSU: $85; 2001: Others: $166.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA data.
[End of table]
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.
Many Minority-Serving Institutions Said They Need to Attract Top
Faculty to Perform 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.
Many of the Minority-Serving Institutions That Offer Doctorates Need to
Upgrade Their Resources to Better Compete for NRI Grants:
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 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.[Footnote 10] Only California State University at
Bakersfield said that it faced no institutional barriers when competing
for USDA grants.
Three Universities Improved Their Success by Giving Priority to
Research:
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 (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.
Institutions Interested in Strengthening Research Said USDA's Outreach
Efforts Have Not Met Their Needs:
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;[Footnote 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.
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 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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
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.):
Scope and Methodology:
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.
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.[Footnote 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 Hispanic-serving
institutions.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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
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:
Signed by Robin M. Nazzaro
[End of section]
Appendix I: The 43 Minority-Serving Institutions We Contacted:
Historically black land grant institutions:
Institution: Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical (A&M) University[A];
Location: Normal, AL; Enrollment: 5,849; Highest degree
offered: Doctorate.
Institution: Alcorn State University; Location: Alcorn State, MS;
Enrollment: 3,096; Highest degree offered: Master's.
Institution: Delaware State University; Location: Dover, DE;
Enrollment: 3,343; Highest degree offered: Master's.
Institution: Florida A&M University[A]; Location: Tallahassee, FL;
Enrollment: 12,316; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: Fort Valley State University; Location: Fort Valley, GA;
Enrollment: 2,485; Highest degree offered: Master's.
Institution: Kentucky State University; Location: Frankfort, KY;
Enrollment: 2,313; Highest degree offered: Master's.
Institution: Langston University; Location: Langston, OK; Enrollment:
2,988; Highest degree offered: Master's.
Institution: Lincoln University; Location: Jefferson City, MO;
Enrollment: 3,332; Highest degree offered: Master's.
Institution: North Carolina Agricultural and Technical (A&T) State
University; Location: Greensboro, NC; Enrollment: 8,319;
Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: Prairie View A&M University; Location: Prairie View, TX;
Enrollment: 6,747; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: South Carolina State University; Location: Orangeburg, SC;
Enrollment: 4,467; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: Southern University and A&M College; Location: Baton
Rouge, LA; Enrollment: 8,719; Highest degree offered:
Doctorate.
Institution: Tennessee State University; Location: Nashville, TN;
Enrollment: 8,664; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: Tuskegee University[A]; Location: Tuskegee, AL;
Enrollment: 2,880; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff; Location: Pine
Bluff, AR; Enrollment: 3,144; Highest degree offered:
Master's.
Institution: University of Maryland - Eastern Shore; Location: Princess
Anne, MD; Enrollment: 3,426; Highest degree offered:
Doctorate.
Institution: Virginia State University; Location: Petersburg, VA;
Enrollment: 4,638; Highest degree offered: Master's.
Institution: West Virginia State College; Location: Institute, WV;
Enrollment: 4,835; Highest degree offered: Baccalaureate.
Hispanic-serving institutions:
Institution: California State University at Bakersfield; Location:
Bakersfield, CA; Enrollment: 7,050; Highest degree offered:
Master's.
Institution: California State University at Dominguez Hills; Location:
Carson, CA; Enrollment: 12,871; Highest degree offered:
Master's.
Institution: California State University at Fresno; Location: Fresno,
CA; Enrollment: 20,007; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: California State University at Fullerton; Location:
Fullerton, CA; Enrollment: 30,357; Highest degree offered:
Master's.
Institution: California State University at Northridge; Location:
Northridge, CA; Enrollment: 31,448; Highest degree offered:
Master's.
Institution: California State University at San Bernardino; Location:
San Bernardino, CA; Enrollment: 15,985; Highest degree
offered: Master's.
Institution: City University of New York, City College[A]; Location:
New York, NY; Enrollment: 10,378; Highest degree offered:
Master's.
Institution: City University of New York, Lehman College; Location:
Bronx, NY; Enrollment: 8,889; Highest degree offered:
Master's.
Institution: Florida International University[A]; Location: Miami, FL;
Enrollment: 31,727; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: New Mexico State University[A]; Location: Las Cruces, NM;
Enrollment: 15,224; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: Occidental College; Location: Los Angeles, CA; Enrollment:
1,796; Highest degree offered: Master's.
Institution: Texas A&M University at Kingsville; Location: Kingsville,
TX; Enrollment: 6,148; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: Universidad Metropolitana; Location: Cupey, PR;
Enrollment: 7,094; Highest degree offered: Master's.
Institution: University of Miami[A]; Location: Coral Gables, FL;
Enrollment: 14,436; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: University of New Mexico[A]; Location: Albuquerque, NM;
Enrollment: 23,753; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez[A]; Location:
Mayaguez, PR; Enrollment: 12,244; Highest degree offered:
Doctorate.
Institution: University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus[A];
Location: San Juan, PR; Enrollment: 2,708; Highest degree
offered: Doctorate.
Institution: University of Texas at Brownsville; Location: Brownsville,
TX; Enrollment: 9,373; Highest degree offered: Master's.
Institution: University of Texas at El Paso; Location: El Paso, TX;
Enrollment: 16,220; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Institution: University of Texas - Pan American; Location: Edinburg,
TX; Enrollment: 13,640; Highest degree offered: Doctorate.
Native American land grant institutions:
Institution: Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College; Location:
Cloquet, MN; Enrollment: 1,023; Highest degree offered:
Associate degree[B].
Institution: Haskell Indian Nation University; Location: Lawrence, KS;
Enrollment: 967; Highest degree offered: Baccalaureate.
Institution: Lac Courte Orilles Ojibwa Community College; Location:
Hayward, WI; Enrollment: 516; Highest degree offered:
Associate degree[B].
Institution: Salish Kootenai College; Location: Pablo, MT; Enrollment:
976; Highest degree offered: Baccalaureate.
Institution: Turtle Mountain Community College; Location: Belcourt, ND;
Enrollment: 684; Highest degree offered: 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.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: USDA's Formula Funds for Land Grant Institutions, Fiscal
Year 2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Historically black land grant institutions:
Alabama A&M University; Formula funds for research: $1,712; Formula
funds for extension: $1,394; Total
formula funds: $3,106.
Alcorn State University; Formula funds for research: 1,722; Formula
funds for extension: 1,371; Total
formula funds: 3,093.
Delaware State University; Formula funds for research: 577; Formula
funds for extension: 454; Total
formula funds: 1,031.
Florida A&M University; Formula funds for research: 1,297; Formula
funds for extension: 1,185; Total
formula funds: 2,482.
Fort Valley State University; Formula funds for research: 1,951;
Formula funds for extension: 1,687; Total
formula funds: 3,638.
Kentucky State University; Formula funds for research: 2,279; Formula
funds for extension: 2,134; Total
formula funds: 4,413.
Langston University; Formula funds for research: 1,427; Formula funds
for extension: 1,260; Total
formula funds: 2,687.
Lincoln University; Formula funds for research: 2,185; Formula funds
for extension: 2,114; Total
formula funds: 4,299.
North Carolina A&T State University; Formula funds for research: 2,782;
Formula funds for extension: 2,501; Total
formula funds: 5,283.
Prairie View A&M University; Formula funds for research: 2,869; Formula
funds for extension: 2,610; Total
formula funds: 5,479.
South Carolina State University; Formula funds for research: 1,492;
Formula funds for extension: 1,223; Total
formula funds: 2,715.
Southern University and A&M College; Formula funds for research: 1,371;
Formula funds for extension: 0; Total
formula funds: 1,371.
Tennessee State University; Formula funds for research: 2,121; Formula
funds for extension: 1,892; Total
formula funds: 4,013.
Tuskegee University; Formula funds for research: 1,701; Formula funds
for extension: 1,419; Total
formula funds: 3,120.
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff; Formula funds for research:
1,503; Formula funds for extension: 1,257; Total
formula funds: 2,760.
University of Maryland-Eastern Shore; Formula funds for research:
1,019; Formula funds for extension: 0; Total
formula funds: 1,019.
Virginia State University; Formula funds for research: 1,827; Formula
funds for extension: 1,600; Total
formula funds: 3,427.
West Virginia State College; Formula funds for research: 973; Formula
funds for extension: 998; Total
formula funds: 1,971.
Subtotal; Formula funds for research: $30,809; Formula funds for
extension: $25,098; Total
formula funds: $55,907.
Native American land grant institutions[A]:
Bay Mills Community College; Formula funds for research: 26; Formula
funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 26.
Blackfeet Community College; Formula funds for research: 36; Formula
funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 36.
Cankdeska Cikana Community College; Formula funds for research: 24;
Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 24.
College of the Menominee Nation; Formula funds for research: 25;
Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 25.
Crownpoint Institution of Technology; Formula funds for research: 31;
Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 31.
D-Q University; Formula funds for research: 20; Formula funds for
extension: b; Total
formula funds: 20.
Dine College; Formula funds for research: 107; Formula funds for
extension: b; Total
formula funds: 107.
Dull Knife Memorial College; Formula funds for research: 25; Formula
funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 25.
Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College; Formula funds for research:
24; Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 24.
Fort Belknap College; Formula funds for research: 25; Formula funds for
extension: b; Total
formula funds: 25.
Fort Berthold Community College; Formula funds for research: 31;
Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 31.
Fort Peck Community College; Formula funds for research: 36; Formula
funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 36.
Haskell Indian Nations University; Formula funds for research: 79;
Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 79.
Institute of American Indian Arts; Formula funds for research: 23;
Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 23.
Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College; Formula funds for
research: 35; Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 35.
Leech Lake Tribal College; Formula funds for research: 26; Formula
funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 26.
Little Big Horn College; Formula funds for research: 29; Formula funds
for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 29.
Little Priest Tribal College; Formula funds for research: 20; Formula
funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 20.
Nebraska Indian Community College; Formula funds for research: 23;
Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 23.
Northwest Indian College; Formula funds for research: 49; Formula funds
for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 49.
Oglala Lakota College; Formula funds for research: 72; Formula funds
for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 72.
Salish Kootenai College; Formula funds for research: 68; Formula funds
for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 68.
Sinte Gleska University; Formula funds for research: 58; Formula funds
for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 58.
Si Tanka College; Formula funds for research: 30; Formula funds for
extension: b; Total
formula funds: 30.
Sisseton Wahpeton Community College; Formula funds for research: 23;
Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 23.
Sitting Bull College; Formula funds for research: 26; Formula funds for
extension: b; Total
formula funds: 26.
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute; Formula funds for research:
68; Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 68.
Stone Child College; Formula funds for research: 30; Formula funds for
extension: b; Total
formula funds: 30.
Turtle Mountain Community College; Formula funds for research: 52;
Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 52.
United Tribes Technical College; Formula funds for research: 27;
Formula funds for extension: b; Total
formula funds: 27.
Subtotal; Formula funds for research: $1,144; Formula funds for
extension: b; Total
formula funds: $1,144.
Major land grant institutions:
American Samoa Community College; Formula funds for research: 507;
Formula funds for extension: 645; Total
formula funds: 1,152.
Auburn University; Formula funds for research: 4,568; Formula funds for
extension: 8,722; Total
formula funds: 13,290.
Clemson University; Formula funds for research: 3,806; Formula funds
for extension: 7,331; Total
formula funds: 11,137.
Colorado State University; Formula funds for research: 3,030; Formula
funds for extension: 3,448; Total
formula funds: 6,478.
College of Micronesia; Formula funds for research: 713; Formula funds
for extension: 968; Total
formula funds: 1,681.
Cornell University[D]; Formula funds for research: 5,615; Formula funds
for extension: 12,122; Total
formula funds: 17,737.
Iowa State University[C]; Formula funds for research: 6,376; Formula
funds for extension: 9,913; Total
formula funds: 16,289.
Kansas State University; Formula funds for research: 3,551; Formula
funds for extension: 6,183; Total
formula funds: 9,734.
Louisiana State University[C]; Formula funds for research: 3,542;
Formula funds for extension: 7,068; Total
formula funds: 10,610.
Michigan State University; Formula funds for research: 5,162; Formula
funds for extension: 9,978; Total
formula funds: 15,140.
Mississippi State University; Formula funds for research: 4,610;
Formula funds for extension: 8,576; Total
formula funds: 13,186.
Montana State University; Formula funds for research: 2,065; Formula
funds for extension: 2,747; Total
formula funds: 4,812.
New Mexico State University; Formula funds for research: 1,837; Formula
funds for extension: 2,610; Total
formula funds: 4,447.
North Carolina State University; Formula funds for research: 7,075;
Formula funds for extension: 13,807; Total
formula funds: 20,882.
North Dakota State University; Formula funds for research: 2,435;
Formula funds for extension: 3,608; Total
formula funds: 6,043.
Northern Marianas College; Formula funds for research: 661; Formula
funds for extension: 874; Total
formula funds: 1,535.
Ohio State University[D]; Formula funds for research: 6,107; Formula
funds for extension: 11,533; Total
formula funds: 17,640.
Oklahoma State University; Formula funds for research: 3,456; Formula
funds for extension: 6,261; Total
formula funds: 9,717.
Oregon State University[C,E]; Formula funds for research: 3,549;
Formula funds for extension: 4,353; Total
formula funds: 7,902.
Pennsylvania State University; Formula funds for research: 6,451;
Formula funds for extension: 11,754; Total
formula funds: 18,205.
Purdue University; Formula funds for research: 5,225; Formula funds for
extension: 9,672; Total
formula funds: 14,897.
Rutgers University; Formula funds for research: 2,915; Formula funds
for extension: 3,751; Total
formula funds: 6,666.
South Dakota State University; Formula funds for research: 2,558;
Formula funds for extension: 3,783; Total
formula funds: 6,341.
Texas A&M University; Formula funds for research: 6,861; Formula funds
for extension: 16,296; Total
formula funds: 23,157.
University of Alaska; Formula funds for research: 1,395; Formula funds
for extension: 1,281; Total
formula funds: 2,676.
University of Arizona; Formula funds for research: 2,062; Formula funds
for extension: 2,587; Total
formula funds: 4,649.
University of Arkansas; Formula funds for research: 3,967; Formula
funds for extension: 6,998; Total
formula funds: 10,965.
University of California; Formula funds for research: 5,851; Formula
funds for extension: 10,111; Total
formula funds: 15,962.
University of Connecticut[F]; Formula funds for research: 2,001;
Formula funds for extension: 2,479; Total
formula funds: 4,480.
University of Delaware; Formula funds for research: 1,335; Formula
funds for extension: 1,474; Total
formula funds: 2,809.
University of Florida[C]; Formula funds for research: 3,471; Formula
funds for extension: 6,684; Total
formula funds: 10,155.
University of Georgia; Formula funds for research: 5,497; Formula funds
for extension: 9,852; Total
formula funds: 15,349.
University of Guam; Formula funds for research: 859; Formula funds for
extension: 946; Total
formula funds: 1,805.
University of Hawaii; Formula funds for research: 1,431; Formula funds
for extension: 1,564; Total
formula funds: 2,995.
University of Idaho; Formula funds for research: 2,540; Formula funds
for extension: 3,032; Total
formula funds: 5,572.
University of Illinois; Formula funds for research: 5,693; Formula
funds for extension: 11,061; Total
formula funds: 16,754.
University of Kentucky; Formula funds for research: 5,276; Formula
funds for extension: 10,119; Total
formula funds: 15,395.
University of Maine; Formula funds for research: 2,337; Formula funds
for extension: 2,555; Total
formula funds: 4,892.
University of Maryland; Formula funds for research: 2,621; Formula
funds for extension: 5,009; Total
formula funds: 7,630.
University of Massachusetts; Formula funds for research: 2,395; Formula
funds for extension: 3,490; Total
formula funds: 5,885.
University of Minnesota[C,F]; Formula funds for research: 5,420;
Formula funds for extension: 10,548; Total
formula funds: 15,968.
University of Missouri[C]; Formula funds for research: 5,132; Formula
funds for extension: 9,499; Total
formula funds: 14,631.
University of Nebraska; Formula funds for research: 3,494; Formula
funds for extension: 5,363; Total
formula funds: 8,857.
University of Nevada; Formula funds for research: 1,264; Formula funds
for extension: 1,389; Total
formula funds: 2,653.
University of New Hampshire; Formula funds for research: 1,720; Formula
funds for extension: 1,828; Total
formula funds: 3,548.
University of Puerto Rico; Formula funds for research: 3,997; Formula
funds for extension: 7,623; Total
formula funds: 11,620.
University of Rhode Island; Formula funds for research: 1,260; Formula
funds for extension: 1,355; Total
formula funds: 2,615.
University of Tennessee; Formula funds for research: 5,117; Formula
funds for extension: 10,853; Total
formula funds: 15,970.
University of the District of Columbia; Formula funds for research:
659; Formula funds for extension: 998; Total
formula funds: 1,657.
University of the Virgin Islands; Formula funds for research: 853;
Formula funds for extension: 917; Total
formula funds: 1,770.
University of Vermont; Formula funds for research: 1,711; Formula funds
for extension: 2,038; Total
formula funds: 3,749.
University of Wisconsin; Formula funds for research: 5,489; Formula
funds for extension: 9,063; Total
formula funds: 14,552.
University of Wyoming; Formula funds for research: 1,726; Formula funds
for extension: 1,699; Total
formula funds: 3,425.
Utah State University; Formula funds for research: 1,943; Formula funds
for extension: 2,114; Total
formula funds: 4,057.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Formula funds for
research: 4,630; Formula funds for extension: 8,638; Total
formula funds: 13,268.
Washington State University[C]; Formula funds for research: 3,957;
Formula funds for extension: 4,754; Total
formula funds: 8,711.
West Virginia University; Formula funds for research: 2,953; Formula
funds for extension: 4,822; Total
formula funds: 7,775.
Subtotal; Formula funds for research: $192,731; Formula funds for
extension: $328,748; Total
formula funds: $521,478.
Total; Formula funds for research: $224,684; Formula funds for
extension: $353,846; Total
formula funds: $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:
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: USDA's 23 Competitive Grant Programs for Its
Research, Education, and Extension Missions:
Dollars in millions.
National Research Initiative; Purpose: Conduct fundamental and mission-
linked scientific research that is of benefit to agriculture;
Eligibility: Any state agricultural experiment station, college,
university, other research institution or organization, federal agency,
private organization, corporation, or individual; Fiscal year 2001
awards: $95.8.
Integrated research, education, and extension competitive grants;
Purpose: 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; Eligibility: Any college or university; Fiscal year
2001 awards: $40.0.
Small Business Innovation Research Program; Purpose: Support the
research of businesses with fewer than 500 employees for developing
agriculturally related products or services; Eligibility: Any small
business as defined in the program description; Fiscal year 2001
awards: $14.5.
1890 institution capacity building grants program; Purpose: Build
teaching and research capacity; Eligibility: Any historically black
land grant institution; Fiscal year 2001 awards: $8.9.
Children, youth, and families at risk initiative; Purpose: 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; Eligibility: Any
Cooperative Extension Service at a major (1862) land grant institution;
Fiscal year 2001 awards: $7.8.
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000: education and risk management
assistance competitive grants; Purpose: 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; Eligibility: Any
public or private entity, including land grant colleges, cooperative
extension services, and colleges and universities; Fiscal year 2001
awards: $4.8.
Higher education challenge grants program; Purpose: Strengthen college
and university teaching programs in the food and agricultural sciences;
Eligibility: 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; Fiscal year
2001 awards: $4.1.
Sustainable agriculture research and education program; Purpose:
Support research and extension that explore and apply economically
profitable, environmentally sound, and socially supporting farming
systems; Eligibility: Any land grant university (with some
opportunities for partnerships with producers); Fiscal year 2001
awards: $8.4.
Hispanic-serving institutions education grants program; Purpose:
Promote and strengthen the ability of Hispanic-serving institutions to
carry out educational programs to attract, retain, and graduate
outstanding students in the food and agricultural sciences;
Eligibility: Any Hispanic-serving institution; Fiscal year 2001 awards:
$3.3.
Tribal colleges extension program; Purpose: Fund new innovative
extension programs for Native American communities and tribal colleges;
Eligibility: Any Native American (1994) land grant institution; Fiscal
year 2001 awards: $3.1.
Food and agricultural sciences national needs graduate fellowship
grants program; Purpose: Encourage outstanding students to pursue and
complete graduate degrees in the areas of food and agricultural
science; Eligibility: 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.; Fiscal year 2001
awards: $2.9.
AgrAbility projects; Purpose: Provide training and technical assistance
to disabled farmers, ranchers, farm workers, and their families;
Eligibility: Cooperative programs between Cooperative Extension
Services at the major (1862) land grant institutions and private,
nonprofit disability organizations; Fiscal year 2001 awards: $2.7.
Community food projects competitive grants program; Purpose: 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; Eligibility: Any private,
nonprofit entity (may partner with public, private nonprofit, and
private for-profit entities); Fiscal year 2001 awards: $2.5.
Regional integrated pest management grants program; Purpose: 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; Eligibility: Any large (1862) land
grant university; Fiscal year 2001 awards: $2.5.
Extension Indian reservation program; Purpose: Fund reservation agent
positions; Eligibility: Any Cooperative Extension Service at a major
(1862) land grant institution; Fiscal year 2001 awards: $1.9.
Biotechnology risk assessment research grants program; Purpose: Address
the inherent risks of introducing genetically modified organisms into
the environment; Eligibility: Any U.S. public or private research or
educational institution; Fiscal year 2001 awards: $1.7.
Pest management alternatives special research grants program; Purpose:
Address the need for developing pest management alternatives, including
specific needs that result from the implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act; Eligibility: Any state agricultural experiment station,
college, university, other research institution or organization,
federal agency, private organization, corporation, or individual;
Fiscal year 2001 awards: $1.5.
Tribal colleges education equity grants program; Purpose: Strengthen
the teaching programs of the Native American land grant institutions in
the food and agricultural sciences; Eligibility: Any Native American
(1994) land grant institution; Fiscal year 2001 awards: $1.5.
Potato research special grants program; Purpose: Support potato
research that focuses on varietal development and testing; Eligibility:
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; Fiscal year 2001 awards: $1.4.
Higher education multicultural scholars program; Purpose: Provides
scholarships for minority students to train in food and agricultural
sciences; Eligibility: 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; Fiscal year 2001 awards: $0.9.
1994 institution research program; Purpose: Assist the Native American
institutions in conducting agricultural research that addresses high
priority concerns of tribal, national, or multistate significance;
Eligibility: Any Native American (1994) land grant institution; Fiscal
year 2001 awards: $0.9.
Secondary agriculture education challenge grants program; Purpose:
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; Eligibility: Any public secondary school; Fiscal
year 2001 awards: $0.8.
Citrus Tristeza special research grants program; Purpose: Support
research that focuses on the problems caused by Citrus Tristeza virus;
Eligibility: Any state agricultural experiment station, college,
university, other research institution or organization, federal agency,
private organization, corporation, or individual; Fiscal year 2001
awards: $0.7.
Source: USDA.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: NRI Proposals and Grant Awards for Minority-
Serving Institutions, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Institution: New Mexico State University[A]; 1997: Proposal:
12; 1997: Award: 2; 1998: Proposal: 4; 1998: Award: 1;
1999: Proposal: 6; 1999: Award: 2; 2000: Proposal:
11; 2000: Award: 3; 2001: Proposal: 15; 2001: Award: 7.
Institution: Tuskegee University; 1997: Proposal: 10; 1997:
Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 7; 1998: Award: 1; 1999:
Proposal: 3; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 4; 2000: Award:
1; 2001: Proposal: 3; 2001: Award: 1.
Institution: Alabama A&M University; 1997: Proposal: 11; 1997:
Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 4; 1998: Award: 0; 1999:
Proposal: 3; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 0; 2000: Award:
0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: Florida A&M University; 1997: Proposal: 3; 1997:
Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 7; 1998: Award: 0; 1999:
Proposal: 4; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 2; 2000: Award:
0; 2001: Proposal: 3; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: Tennessee State University; 1997: Proposal: 1;
1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 3; 1998: Award: 0;
1999: Proposal: 2; 1999: Award: 2; 2000: Proposal: 3; 2000:
Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 4; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: California State University at Fresno; 1997:
Proposal: 2; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 5; 1998: Award:
1; 1999: Proposal: 3; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
2; 2000: Award: 1; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: Texas A&M University at Kingsville; 1997:
Proposal: 3; 1997: Award: 1; 1998: Proposal: 3; 1998: Award:
0; 1999: Proposal: 5; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
1; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: North Carolina A&T State University; 1997:
Proposal: 3; 1997: Award: 1; 1998: Proposal: 1; 1998: Award:
0; 1999: Proposal: 3; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
2; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 2; 2001: Award: 1.
Institution: University of Puerto Rico at Mayagueza; 1997:
Proposal: 8; 1997: Award: 1; 1998: Proposal: 2; 1998: Award:
1; 1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
0; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: Virginia State University; 1997: Proposal: 12;
1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award: 0;
1999: Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 0; 2000:
Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 1; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: University of Miami; 1997: Proposal: 3; 1997:
Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 2; 1998: Award: 1; 1999:
Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 1; 2000: Award:
0; 2001: Proposal: 4; 2001: Award: 1.
Institution: Prairie View A&M University; 1997: Proposal: 1;
1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 2; 1998: Award: 0;
1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 0; 2000:
Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 2; 2001: Award: 1.
Institution: Langston University; 1997: Proposal: 2; 1997:
Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award: 0; 1999:
Proposal: 3; 1999: Award: 1; 2000: Proposal: 1; 2000: Award:
0; 2001: Proposal: 1; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: Florida International University; 1997:
Proposal: 1; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award:
0; 1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
3; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 1; 2001: Award: 1.
Institution: City University of New York, Lehman College;
1997: Proposal: 0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998:
Award: 0; 1999: Proposal: 2; 1999: Award: 0; 2000:
Proposal: 2; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 1; 2001: Award:
0.
Institution: City University of New York, City College; 1997:
Proposal: 0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 1; 1998: Award:
0; 1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 1; 2000: Proposal:
1; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 1; 2001: Award: 1.
Institution: University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff; 1997:
Proposal: 1; 1997: Award: 1; 1998: Proposal: 1; 1998: Award:
1; 1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
1; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: Southern University and A&M College; 1997:
Proposal: 1; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 1; 1998: Award:
0; 1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
1; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: University of Maryland-Eastern Shore; 1997:
Proposal: 0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 1; 1998: Award:
0; 1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
1; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 1; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus;
1997: Proposal: 2; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0;
1998: Award: 0; 1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 0;
2000: Proposal: 1; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001:
Award: 0.
Institution: California State University at Northridge; 1997:
Proposal: 1; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award:
0; 1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
1; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: California State University at San Bernardino;
1997: Proposal: 2; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 1; 1998:
Award: 0; 1999: Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000:
Proposal: 0; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award:
0.
Institution: Fort Valley State University; 1997: Proposal: 0;
1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award: 0;
1999: Proposal: 2; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 0; 2000:
Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 1; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: University of New Mexico; 1997: Proposal: 1;
1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award: 0;
1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 1; 2000:
Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: University of Texas at El Paso; 1997: Proposal:
0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award: 0;
1999: Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 1; 2000:
Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 2; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: California State University at Bakersfield; 1997:
Proposal: 0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award:
0; 1999: Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
0; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 2; 2001: Award: 1.
Institution: California State University at Fullerton; 1997:
Proposal: 0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award:
0; 1999: Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
1; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 1; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: University of Texas-Pan American; 1997: Proposal:
0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 1; 1998: Award: 0;
1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 0; 2000:
Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: Universidad Metropolitana; 1997: Proposal: 0;
1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award: 0;
1999: Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 1; 2000:
Award: 1; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: California State University at Dominguez Hills;
1997: Proposal: 1; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998:
Award: 0; 1999: Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000:
Proposal: 0; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award:
0.
Institution: Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College; 1997:
Proposal: 0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 1; 1998: Award:
0; 1999: Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
0; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: Haskell Indian Nation University; 1997: Proposal:
0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award: 0;
1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 0; 2000:
Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: Kentucky State University; 1997: Proposal: 0;
1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award: 0;
1999: Proposal: 1; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 1; 2000:
Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: Lac Courte Orilles Ojibwa Community College;
1997: Proposal: 0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998:
Award: 0; 1999: Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000:
Proposal: 1; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award:
0.
Institution: South Carolina State University; 1997: Proposal:
0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award: 0;
1999: Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal: 1; 2000:
Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: Turtle Mountain Community College; 1997:
Proposal: 0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award:
0; 1999: Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
1; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 0; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: University of Texas at Brownsville; 1997:
Proposal: 0; 1997: Award: 0; 1998: Proposal: 0; 1998: Award:
0; 1999: Proposal: 0; 1999: Award: 0; 2000: Proposal:
0; 2000: Award: 0; 2001: Proposal: 1; 2001: Award: 0.
Institution: Total; 1997: Proposal: 81; 1997: Award: 6;
1998: Proposal: 47; 1998: Award: 6; 1999: Proposal:
49; 1999: Award: 6; 2000: Proposal: 46; 2000: Award: 6;
2001: Proposal: 46; 2001: Award: 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.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: NRI Results of Certain Minority-Serving
Institutions and Three Comparably Sized
Universities, Fiscal Years 2000-01:
Dollars in thousands.
Minority-serving institutions with doctoral program:
Alabama A&M University[A];
2000: Proposals submitted: 0; 2000:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2000: Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals
submitted: 0; 2001: Proposals awarded: 0; Dollars
in 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
California State University at Fresno[A];
2000: Proposals submitted: 2;
2000: Proposals awarded: 1; 2000:
Funding awarded: $130;
2001: Proposals submitted: 0; 2001:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
Florida A&M University[A];
2000: Proposals submitted: 2; 2000:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2000: Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals
submitted: 3; 2001: Proposals awarded: 0; Dollars
in 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
Florida International University[B];
2000: Proposals submitted: 3;
2000: Proposals awarded: 0; 2000:
Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals submitted: 1; 2001:
Proposals awarded: 1; 2001: Funding awarded:
$305.
New Mexico State University[A]; Dollars
in 2000: Proposals submitted: 11;
2000: Proposals awarded: 3; 2000: Funding
awarded: 260;
2001: Proposals submitted: 15; 2001: Proposals
awarded: 7; 2001: Funding awarded: 592.
North Carolina A&T State University[A];
2000: Proposals submitted: 2;
2000: Proposals awarded: 0; 2000:
Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals submitted: 2; 2001:
Proposals awarded: 1; 2001: Funding awarded: 150.
Prairie View A&M University[A]; Dollars
in 2000: Proposals submitted: 0; 2000:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2000: Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals
submitted: 2; 2001: Proposals awarded: 1; Dollars
in 2001: Funding awarded: 108.
South Carolina State University[C];
2000: Proposals submitted: 0;
2000: Proposals awarded: 0; 2000:
Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals submitted: 0; 2001:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
Southern University and A&M College[A];
2000: Proposals submitted: 1;
2000: Proposals awarded: 0; 2000:
Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals submitted: 0; 2001:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
Tennessee State University[A]; Dollars
in 2000: Proposals submitted: 3; 2000:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2000: Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals
submitted: 4; 2001: Proposals awarded: 0; Dollars
in 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
Texas A&M University at Kingsville[A];
2000: Proposals submitted: 1;
2000: Proposals awarded: 0; 2000:
Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals submitted: 0; 2001:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
Tuskegee University[A];
2000: Proposals submitted: 4; 2000:
Proposals awarded: 1; 2000: Funding awarded: 75;
2001: Proposals
submitted: 3; 2001: Proposals awarded: 1; Dollars
in 2001: Funding awarded: 25.
University of Maryland - Eastern Shore[A];
2000: Proposals submitted: 1;
2000: Proposals awarded: 0; 2000:
Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals submitted: 1; 2001:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
University of Miami[B];
2000: Proposals submitted: 1; 2000:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2000: Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals
submitted: 4; 2001: Proposals awarded: 1; Dollars
in 2001: Funding awarded: 310.
University of New Mexico[B];
2000: Proposals submitted: 1; 2000:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2000: Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals
submitted: 0; 2001: Proposals awarded: 0; Dollars
in 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez[A];
2000: Proposals submitted: 0;
2000: Proposals awarded: 0; 2000:
Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals submitted: 0; 2001:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus[B];
2000: Proposals submitted: 1;
2000: Proposals awarded: 0;
2000: Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals submitted: 0; 2001:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
University of Texas at El Paso[B];
2000: Proposals submitted: 1;
2000: Proposals awarded: 0; 2000:
Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals submitted: 2; 2001:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
University of Texas - Pan American[B];
2000: Proposals submitted: 0;
2000: Proposals awarded: 0; 2000:
Funding awarded: 0;
2001: Proposals submitted: 0; 2001:
Proposals awarded: 0; 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
Subtotal; 2000:
Proposals submitted: 34; 2000: Proposals awarded:
5; 2000: Funding awarded: $465;
2001: Proposals submitted:
37; 2001: Proposals awarded: 12;
2001: Funding awarded: $1,490.
Major land grant universities of comparable size:
Montana State University at Bozeman;
2000: Proposals submitted: 48;
2000: Proposals awarded: 18; 2000:
Funding awarded: $1,636;
2001: Proposals submitted: 43; 2001:
Proposals awarded: 14; 2001: Funding awarded:
$1,520.
University of Maine;
2000: Proposals submitted: 15; 2000:
Proposals awarded: 6; 2000: Funding awarded: 929;
2001: Proposals
submitted: 19; 2001: Proposals awarded: 4;
2001: Funding awarded: 440.
University of Vermont;
2000: Proposals submitted: 12; 2000:
Proposals awarded: 5; 2000: Funding awarded: 649;
2001: Proposals
submitted: 8; 2001: Proposals awarded: 0; Dollars
in 2001: Funding awarded: 0.
Subtotal; 2000:
Proposals submitted: 75; 2000: Proposals awarded:
29; 2000: Funding awarded: $3,214;
2001: Proposals submitted:
70; 2001: Proposals awarded: 18;
2001: Funding awarded: $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.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Note: GAO's comments appear at the end of this appendix.
USDA:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
Washington, DC 20250-2200
April 29, 2003:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro Director:
Natural Resources and Environment United States General Accounting
Office 441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the draft report
prepared by the General Accounting Office (GAO) concerning the
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) outreach to minority-serving
institutions (GAO-03-541). This report focuses on improving the ability
of these institutions to compete for grants through the National
Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grants Program administered by
the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES).
In general, the GAO report is technically accurate and reasonably
balanced. For the most part, the information is presented in an
appropriate and unbiased manner. However, it should be noted that
because the NRI does not receive a large number of proposals from
minority-serving institutions, a large number of awards cannot be made
to such institutions.
After considerable review and discussion of the draft GAO report within
the agency, we disagree with the recommendation for executive action
stated in the draft report. We feel it would be inappropriate for USDA-
CSREES to select certain initiatives at individual minority-serving
institutions and then work directly with the institutions to develop a
cost-effective approach for building their research programs so that
they may generate and submit more proposals to the NRI. This service
would represent a conflict-of-interest situation-CSREES cannot work
closely with an institution to develop its research programs and then
review and fund proposals from that same institution. To be entirely
fair and equitable, the Agency would have to provide this service to
every minority-serving and land-grant institution in the United States.
CSREES does not have sufficient staff and resources to provide this
service. The responsibility for developing research programs at
minority-serving institutions must reside with the administrators and
faculty at the minority-serving institutions.
Instead, CSREES has elected to work with the institutions on a
collective basis rather than
on a one-on-one basis. We do this by managing a number of capacity
building programs which specifically target the minority-serving
institutions. We supplement these efforts by providing multi-
institutional guidance about other CSREES programs through workshops
and seminars. In response to the recommendation contained in the
report, we believe a more appropriate action by CSREES would be to
provide opportunities for interactions and potential collaborations
between
administrators and faculty from major land-grant institutions and
administrators and faculty from minority-serving institutions that have
made a commitment to develop research programs. For instance, Montana
State University, the University of Maine, and the University of
Vermont are of similar size to many minority-serving institutions and
have successfully made the transition from receiving few NRI grants to
now being fairly successful in obtaining NRI grants. CSREES could
facilitate workshops and/or teleconferences for these groups to
exchange information and build on lessons learned from previous
experiences.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft GAO report.
I hope that you will consider our suggestions. Please feel free to
contact me if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Colien Hefferan
Administrator:
Signed by Colien Hefferan:
See comment 1.
GAO Comment:
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Act of July 2, 1862, ch. CXXX.
[2] Act of Aug. 30, 1890, ch. 841.
[3] Pub. L. No. 103-382, Title V, Part C, §§ 532, 533.
[4] Pub. L. No. 105-185, § 251(a) (1998); P.L. No. 107-171, § 7201(d)
(2002).
[5] These are the University of Miami and the University of New Mexico.
[6] Act of Mar. 2, 1887, ch. 314.
[7] Pub. L. No. 95-113, § 1445.
[8] Pub. L. No. 103-382, Title V, Part C, §§ 532, 533.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
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 full-text 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.
Order by Mail or Phone:
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:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
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:
