Advocacy Center

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

About the USDA-REE Reorganization Portion of The Proposal

About the "New Funds" Portion of The Proposal

About the "Capacity Funds" Category

About the "Competitive Funds" Category

General Questions

U.S. food, agricultural, and natural resources research programs are currently divided among four USDA agencies: (1) the Agriculture Research Service (ARS); (2) the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES); (3) the Economic Research Service (ERS); and (4) 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.

The United States is not keeping pace with other nations (most notably China and India) when it comes to public expenditures on food, agriculture, and natural resources discovery, enlightenment, and outreach. Statistics released by the FAO’s Science Council in December 2005, show that India and China increased public agricultural R&D spending from 1981 to 2000 by 248 percent and 200 percent (respectively), while spending in the United States grew by only 51 percent.

The Federal-State Partnership is not operating at optimal effectiveness due to a slow, steady decline in federal funding and a lack of integration and focus. The CREATE-21 proposal addresses both of those problems.

About the USDA-REE Reorganization Portion of the Proposal

The Institute will include three existing agencies: (1) Agriculture Research Service; (2) Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; and (3) Economic Research Service. The Institute will also include a portion of a third agency: U.S. Forest Service R&D.

The National Agricultural Library (NAL) is a part of ARS and will be incorporated within the Institute. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) will remain at USDA but outside the Institute.

No. Existing agencies (ARS, CSREES, and perhaps ERS) and Forest Service R&D will be consolidated into a single organization. However, the intramural capacity (offices, labs, facilities, personnel) currently in existence at ARS and Forest Service R&D would continue.

Presently, there is significant "overlap" between program areas within ARS, CSREES, and Forest Service R&D. (See: Program Overlap Analysis) The Institute will eliminate much of that overlap and thus increase organizational productivity, budgetary efficiency, and stakeholder service.

There may be elimination of some positions at the top echelons of current agencies as programmatic overlap is reduced. However, the CREATE-21 proposal envisions growth in intramural capacity within USDA to address many urgent problems that are best addressed by government-run laboratories or facilities.

The Institute will assume all of the land-grant support functions currently managed by CSREES, including administration of the formula funds and competitive programs. The Institute will also work to ensure that the 1890 Institutions, 1994 Institutions, and other minority-serving institutions receive priority attention.

About the "New Funds" Portion of the Proposal

The Institute would be authorized to receive two categories of funds: (1) capacity funds; and (2) competitive funds.

	Capacity funds would provide basic support for the labs and facilities run by USDA (intramural) and the research, teaching, extension, and international programs run by USDA's land-grant and related university partners.
	Competitive funds would be distributed through peer-reviewed competitions. Competitive programs would be open to all eligible institutions (not just land-grant and related universities), but 20% of new competitive funds would be reserved for minority-serving land-grant institutions (1890s, 1994s, Insulars) and "Small 1862" land-grant institutions (those receiving less than 1% of the annual CSREES budget).

Yes, "mandatory" funding mechanisms were considered and continue to be considered for inclusion within the final legislative package.

Without new funds, the Partnership cannot operate at peak efficiency. However, the CREATE-21 proposal will keep the existing formula funding mechanisms and funding levels in place. Thus the proposal is no worse than the status quo. (But, remember, we believe that the status quo is unacceptable. With very rare exceptions, the formula funds have been "level-funded" for the last 20 years. This slow and steady decline must be reversed.)

About the "Capacity Funds" Category

As used in the CREATE-21 proposal, "capacity" means "the physical infrastructure, personnel, and equipment necessary to: (1) sustain the intramural capability of the Institute, the Federal-State Partnership, and the unique legal relationship of the United States to the chartering tribes of the 1994 Institutions; and (2) address pressing problems, provide solutions, assist stakeholders, and educate the public." The use of the word "capacity" in this proposal should be viewed in this broad sense and is in no way meant to alter the meaning or lessen the importance of the 1890 Institution's "Capacity Building" program.

Yes, the formula funds and their statutory authorities are preserved.

(1) These funds are the "glue" that holds the Federal-State Partnership together.
(2) Several studies have documented an outstanding "return on investment" arising from the formula funds [See: "Formula for Success" (a large .pdf file)]. (3) Congress has — for two years in a row — rejected proposals contained in the Presidential Budget Request to eliminate and/or drastically change some of the formula fund programs administered by CSREES.

Appropriate matching requirements will continue to be required for the formula fund programs. Since existing statutory authorities for various land-grant programs distributed by formulae (Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, Animal Health and Disease, Smith-Lever 3(b) and 3(c), Evans-Allen, and 1890s Extension) will not be altered, current matching requirements will continue in force.

Yes, 4-H is considered a "capacity" program. However, 4-H is such a strong priority for the Cooperative Extension System that funding for 4-H programs has in the past come from a number of Extension's CSREES line items (along, of course, from a variety of state and local sources). The CREATE-21 committee expects future funding for 4-H to be a strong and essential component within the capacity funding category.

Yes, eXtension is considered a "capacity" program. However, the CREATE-21 committee is mindful that eXtension when fully deployed is likely to touch literally hundreds of programs, projects, and activities sponsored by the land-grant system with funding provided both from the new Institute's capacity funding and from the "integrated" portion of the new competitive funding category. (See the answer to question No. 27, below.) We expect many (if not most) of the proposals submitted to the Institute for the 45% "integrative" (IFAFS-like) funds to include eXtension as a central element.

About the "Competitive Funds" Category

With the exception of the 20% "reserved pool" programs (see below), these competitive funds will be available to all eligible institutions, including: state agricultural experiment stations, all colleges and universities, other research institutions and organizations, federal agencies, national laboratories, private organizations or corporations, and individuals.

The National Research Initiative, currently administered by CSREES, includes a requirement that 30% of the funds in the program be used for purposes where research is "integrated" with extension and/or education. The C-21 proposal would expand that requirement to 45% and apply it to all of the new competitive portfolio.

International programs would be funded primarily through competitive programs. Such grant programs might include research and extension as well as graduate student programs and international education experiences for undergraduates.

About the "Reserved-Pool" Mechanisms within Competitive Funds Category

The CREATE-21 Committee was reminded of the report released by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) in May 2003 that documented the many problems which the 1890 Institutions and other minority-serving land-grants encounter in attempting to compete against major research institutions for National Research Initiative awards. To help remedy this situation, the proposal includes a provision requiring 20% of "new" competitive funding be "reserved" for minority-serving institutions and "Small 1862" land-grants.

One of the integral elements of the proposal is a doubling of funding for food, agriculture, and natural resources research, teaching, extension, and international activities over a period of seven years (with 75% of the new funds going to competitive programs). A reserve pool program growing in authorization from $0 to ≈$452 Million per year will provide tremendous opportunities for traditionally disadvantaged land-grants to increase their research and related programs. The 20% level was thought to be both fair and "do-able," but ultimately (and undoubtedly) the final percentage will be a decision made by Congress.

The reserve pool would apply only to "new" competitive monies (those appropriated beyond the F.Y. 2007 baseline).

The CREATE-21 Proposal envisions not a single program drawing from the 20% reserve pool, but rather several programs geared to the individual needs of the 1890 Institutions, 1994 Institutions, Insular Area Land-Grants, Small 1862s, and the Hispanic-Serving Institutions.

The CREATE-21 committee has defined a "Small 1862" land-grant institution as one receiving less than 1% annually of the total CSREES budget (in base funds and grants) over a rolling three-year period. Using data from fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, this definition would delineate 17 institutions as "Small 1862" land-grants, including: University of Alaska, University of Connecticut, University of the District of Columbia, University of Delaware, University of Hawaii. University of Idaho, University of Maine, Montana State University, North Dakota State University, University of New Hampshire, New Mexico State University, University of Nevada, University of Rhode Island, South Dakota State University, Utah State University, University of Vermont, and University of Wyoming. (Although the land-grant institutions in the U.S. Insular Areas are 1862 institutions, they would have their own reserve pool program.)

No. Matching funds will not be required of the 1890 Institutions, the 1994 Institutions, the Insular Area Land-Grants, the Hispanic-Serving Institutions, or the Small 1862s.