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: