Testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee

On the Reauthorization of Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Programs.

March 11, 1997

Mr Chairman, my name is Margaret Perry and I am Chancellor of the University of Tennessee at Martin. I am here as Chancellor of a rural higher education institution that graduated nearly 100 students with agricultural degrees last year, and as Chair of the Rural Commission of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, or AASCU. AASCU is an association of over 400 state colleges and universities, many of which are located in rural areas across the country and do not have land grant status. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Reauthorization of Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Programs.

I would like to respond to three issues raised by the committee.

The first response centers around the extension issue, specifically, "should extension service's research base be broadened to include the entire university as well as non-land-grant research sources and focus public extension on problems that lack the incentive for private investment and whose resolution produces public goods?"

The answer is yes. However, I respectfully suggest that an even more basic question needs to be asked, "Should extension initiatives be available to non-land grant as well as land-grant institutions?"

This is the final recommendation by the National Research Council in their 1996 report, Colleges of Agriculture at the Land-Grant Universities: "All national extension initiatives should be available on a competitive basis to land grant and nonland grant institutions." The distinctive resources of smaller rural schools can be effectively utilized in areas where extension cannot reach the community in a way sufficient to meet its needs. Rural institutions have a history of community involvement and development, and as such, we believe extension funding should be more broadly based for these institutions. We recommend that Congress take note of the entry into this vital area of service by new institutions. We urge that existing work not be disrupted to achieve equity but that additional funding be made available of a sufficient amount to support the productive efforts of these new institutions in addressing rural community problems.

There are instances of cooperation in extension efforts from which to expand or model. For example, Indiana University East, located in Richmond, Indiana, has started a program to provide needed educational experiences to rural populations. This project was undertaken with county extension agents in the area served by Indiana University East. The classes were selected through a mailed needs assessment process which the agents helped administer. These classes (in horticulture, computers in agriculture and other farm bill related issues) were recently offered for the first time. This cooperative effort assisted the extension agents in performing their mission by bringing expertise from the local campus and utilizing the campus administrative infrastructure in organizing the courses which helped keep costs down. The program has the potential to significantly expand the capacity and effectiveness of current extension resources.

Next, I would like to address the question of setting priorities for the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Board. This board, which was created by the 1996 Farm Bill, replaces three previous boards: the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences, the National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board, and the Agricultural Science and Technology Review Board. The newly created board is charged with "advising the USDA and its land-grant university partners on research, extension, education and economic policies, priorities and issues, to provide customer input in forming the Research, Education and Economics mission area's Strategic Plan and to provide consultations on other FAIR Act legislation, including the implementation of the Fund for Rural America competitive grants program".

With the current membership structure on the advisory board, no non-land-grant has had an opportunity to be heard on a regular basis. This omission excludes a unique resource.

Non-land-grant institutions had representation on the board's predecessor, the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences. With such a broad charge to the Advisory Board as listed above, and with AASCU institutions graduating nearly 30% of undergraduates in agriculture and 14% of graduate students, it is vital that non-land-grants be able to provide their perspective. I would request that the board's composition be altered to reflect membership from smaller, public institutions.

Last, I would like to address the question of how smaller institutions fare in the competitive grant process compared to larger ones, and whether it is appropriate for the federal government to dedicate some portion of grant funds for the smaller institutions like those that AASCU represents.

AASCU institutions have a record of active participation in the Challenge Grant program, which is dedicated to teaching and is separate from other research and extension programs. Last year six AASCU institutions were chosen as lead institutions and several more partnered with their state land-grants in additional studies that looked at cooperative and multidisciplinary efforts of agricultural instruction. In other programs they do not fare as well.

If funds are dedicated to smaller institutions it will provide them with an unique opportunity to address and research issues particular to their area. As America moves into the 21th century, it is imperative that all institutions be included in the process of problem solving. "Capacity building" is a concept that has received broad support and has assisted several categories of institutions in strengthening themselves. There is legislative precedent for dedicated funding to meet special needs: the Fund for Rural America, a provision of the 1996 Farm Bill, allocates funds for smaller institutions.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we believe that our rural institutions are well poised to address the needs of rural development. We, in fact, believe that they are uniquely situated to address rural needs. Many of these institutions operate rural affairs institutes with public service activities focused on a range of public and community problems and local issues. Further, students at these institutions are typically from the surrounding areas, attend schools near their homes, and remain in these areas after formal education is completed. This pattern provides a pipeline for substantial future leadership in rural communities. In 1994, these rural institutions graduated over 800,000 students with Bachelor's and Master's degrees as well as Ph.Ds.

I welcome any questions from the committee. Again, thank you for inviting me and allowing me to speak on these important issues.