|
“A unique partnership arrangement exists in
food and agricultural research, extension, and teaching between
the federal government and the governments of the several states
whereby the states have accepted and supported, through
legislation and appropriations [a broad range of federally
authorized research, extension, teaching, and international
agriculture programs. This partnership] has played a major role in
the outstanding successes achieved in meeting the varied,
dispersed, and in many cases, site-specific needs of American
agriculture…[and] must be preserved and enhanced.” |
|
National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977 (as amended). |
This
partnership has two key features:
(1) federal funds to land-grant universities leverage state and local
matching funds; (2) research—especially applied research—from these
land-grant universities is broadly and rapidly disseminated through
the Cooperative Extension System to those who can most directly
benefit from it. Together, these two attributes have helped to shape
an integrated research,
extension, and
education
system, which is the envy of the world. The partnership is not
operating at optimal effectiveness due to a slow, steady decline in
federal funding and a lack of integration and focus. As shown in
Figure 1, USDA funding for food, agriculture, and natural resources
has fallen steadily over the last three decades.
Compounding this situation is the fact that
food, agricultural, and
natural resources research programs are currently divided among three
USDA agencies: (1) the Agriculture Research Service (ARS); (2) the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES);
and (3) Forest Service R&D (USFS R&D). As a result, there is frequent
duplication among the agencies, no clearly identified “lead-agency” to
address critical national issues (such as the relationship of food and
nutrition to obesity), and a lack of integration across agencies.
To appreciate the critical need to consolidate the research,
extension, and teaching functions dispersed throughout the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, it is important to understand how the three
key agencies—ARS, CSREES, and USFS R&D—currently operate:
-
ARS is primarily a research agency that
maintains a network of laboratories and offices staffed by federal
employees. ARS has a total budget of ≈$1.123 billion, nearly
all of
which is spent internally. Since it is a scientific research agency,
there are few requirements for ARS employees to assume extension
(technology transfer) or higher education responsibilities.
-
CSREES is the agency that manages the
Federal-State and Federal-Tribal Partnerships in food and
agricultural research, extension, and teaching. CSREES has a total
budget of ≈$1.199 billion, very little of which is spent internally.
Many CSREES programs integrate research with extension and higher
education and land-grant employees supported through the
Federal-State Partnership often hold joint research, extension,
and/or academic appointments.
-
USFS R&D is one of three principal
divisions of the U.S. Forest Service. Like the ARS, USFS R&D
maintains a network of labs and offices staffed with federal
employees. USFS R&D has an annual budget of ≈$277 million, of which
≥ 90 percent is spent internally. Extension and higher education
requirements are also minimal for USFS R&D employees.
The CREATE-21 proposal envisions
consolidation of agencies, programs, and activities currently within
the USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics mission area (most
notably ARS and CSREES) and USFS R&D in the National Institute of
__________________. Although the
Institute will be a new independent
agency reporting directly to the Secretary of Agriculture, it will
incorporate the best features and areas of focus from the existing
organizations:
-
The Institute will manage a broad and
integrated portfolio of programs to be organized by problem/solution
areas and funding mechanisms. "Capacity" programs will maintain and
expand the intramural research capability within USDA (e.g. ARS) and
the research, extension, education, and international capability of
the Federal-State and Federal-Tribal Partnerships. "Competitive"
programs will build upon the Institute’s capabilities—both within
USDA and the Partnerships—and focus on problems of pressing
multistate, national, or international significance.
-
By continuing appropriate state
matching requirements in such key federal statutes as the Hatch Act
of 1887, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, the McIntire-Stennis Act of
1962, the Evans-Allen Act, and 1890s Extension, scarce federal
resources will leverage other funds. And, by reducing program
duplication, limited federal resources will be stretched further
still.
-
The Institute will be guided by a
diverse National Stakeholder Advisory Committee and there will also
be new mechanisms for input from local, state, tribal, and regional
stakeholder groups as to the immediate, emerging, and future needs
for research, extension, education, and international programs. Also, the Institute
will build upon one of the great strengths of the Federal-State and
Federal-Tribal Partnerships, namely the tight integration of
research with extension and teaching.
While the CREATE-21 proposal is no
panacea, it will help to "Create Research, Extension, and Teaching
Excellence for the 21st Century."
>> Next: Authorization |
