Dr. R. Rodney Foil
Vice-President for Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Medicine
Mississippi State University

    on behalf of:

The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Board
   on Agriculture, Title VIII Coordinating Committee

March 11, 1997

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear this morning on behalf of the land-grant universities. In preparation to discuss the issues under consideration here today, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Board on Agriculture formed an ad hoc committee known as the Title VIII Coordinating Committee.

Dr. Irv Omtvedt of the University of Nebraska, chairman of the committee, coordinated an effort to develop positions consistent with the various components of the land-grant university system. Discussions included Deans and Administrators of the Agricultural Colleges; Directors of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations; Directors of the State Extension Services; Directors of Academic Programs; Directors of International Programs; representatives of the Administrators of the Human Science Programs, natural resource programs and veterinary medicine; and special representation from the 1890 institutions. I should point out the involvement of the Council for Agriculture Research Extension and Teaching (CARET). CARET is an organization made up of farmers, ranchers and other stakeholders.

As you can see, our discussions have been comprehensive. We have taken into account the diverse views within our system. We have considered the views of small and large institutions. We have considered the views of each of the regions in the country. We have maintained an ongoing dialogue with our stakeholders as we worked through many challenging discussions.

Preface

The USDA / land-grant university partnership has demonstrated its lasting value to the agricultural system. Well targeted and implemented research, extension, and education programs have been and will continue to be absolutely critical for agricultural producers, processors, and marketers of food and fiber. Strong research and extension programs are essential for science-based, economically viable solutions to environmental, consumer and rural community problems. The agricultural research, extension, and education system provides a major strategic competitive advantage for U. S. agriculture. As recognized by this Senate committee during the recent Farm Bill debate, the basic authorizations supporting our system are sound. However, to maintain required strength and viability in the current climate of globalization, deregulation, high technology and escalating expectations, we are anxious to work with you on improvements to the Research, Extension and Education Title.

Today, I'd like to touch on three main topics: First, the need to address the priority setting process, program development and accountability within the system; secondly, how the system can enhance both coordination and collaboration at the local, state, and federal level; and thirdly, to discuss different funding mechanisms without which, the system would cease to exist.

Priority Setting, Program Development and Accountability

Priority Setting

The land-grant university system was built on the concept of listening to our stakeholders. Whether it is production issues for farmers or solving community problems at the local level, the land-grant system has always responded. The extension and research components of each land-grant university have developed extensive processes for soliciting advice and guidance from stakeholders. This input is critical at the local, state and especially, the national level, and we must strengthen the solicitation process so that the linkages between stakeholder input and the products developed by the system are more visible.

National and multi-state issues

The system is held together with federal funds and with these resources comes the responsibility to address problems which are national in scope. The challenge is to enhance a system that adequately represents the local level while maintaining the national agenda. Meanwhile, we must allow flexibility in responding to quickly emerging issues. Often, critical national issues are first noted as they develop in the states.

Complicating matters is the fact that states collectively spend more on research issues of national priority than does the federal government. The federal investment creates an opportunity for collaboration and cooperation among the states. This investment gives the federal partner a considerable amount of scientific investment that would not otherwise be available to the federal agencies. As the majority investor in the state-federal partnership, the states should have a role in helping identify emerging national issues. It may be worth noting that all competitively awarded special grants and National Research Initiative grants are currently directed to national priority issues.

One of the real strengths is the state and local decision components in the system. However, as mentioned above, there is a need to enhance the opportunities for input in priority setting and program development at the local and state level. At the same time, improvements at this level must be effectively aggregated to the national level so that coordination can take place.

Site-specific solutions to local issues

There is no better example of solving site-specific problems than the approach offered by the Cooperative Extension Service. With a federal presence at the county level, extension has a very unique mission which varies from state to state. Extension works for farmers and ranchers in developing profitable and competitive farming systems. Serving both rural and urban communities, the extension service assists in developing healthy, well nourished populations, promoting citizenship, and helping our youth become productive members of society. Additionally, local producers are recognizing the real need for extension to address social problems which distract from the rural communities' ability to support the agricultural sector.

Program Development

As we evolve into better input mechanisms and more accountability, it's important to make sure that the increased input is not just at the beginning or at the end of a process. Rather, our stakeholders must be able to follow a transparent process and recognize that they are a part of the system. There should be ways to measure and monitor the process throughout. All should be able to follow the workings from start to finish.

Define expected outcomes, goals and objectives

Perhaps the best way to accomplish many of the changes we are proposing is to help establish a clear "road map." The process should begin with Congress establishing clear purposes in legislation. The stakeholders, the Land-Grants, and the Administration should be charged to develop the appropriate outcome areas that will be used to respond to Congressional purposes. Within the outcome areas, the same groups should be charged to establish clear goals and measurable objectives that will be used to meet the Congressional purposes.

Accountability

As the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) is implemented, there is a real opportunity to strengthen our ability to show how federal funds have been used. The Congress and the public want to see "products." They want to see results for their investments in research, extension and education. The Secretary should be directed to develop program coordination mechanisms within each of the above stated outcome areas. We, along with relevant USDA agencies, should be included in the development of program activities to achieve stated goals and objectives. The recent "National Futuring and Synthesis" process engaged in by our land-grant system could serve as an important model. We believe that these outcome areas, goals and objectives can provide the outcome-based programming and accountability desired by Congress. To this end, the land-grant universities have been working closely with USDA on the difficult task of developing GPRA. Although we're not quite there, this is certainly the perfect opportunity for all interested parties to ensure we're headed in the right direction.

Coordination and Collaboration: Creating "Networks of Excellence"

The land-grant universities are finding it necessary and desirable to greatly increase coordination and collaboration at all levels. By continuing the creation of "networks of excellence"--where expertise crosses institutional boundaries--the system is in a much better position to use the best science to solve the "real world" problems. With continued advances in information and communication technology, there will be fewer barriers to such coordination and collaboration. One can imagine arrangements where a multitude of experts in research, extension and education work together on emerging problems facing the American public.

Strengthen regional and multi-state collaboration

An examination of present situations will show that while some projects do fit into a "regional" category, more and more problems require a "multi-state" solution. Problems do arise in single geographic regions, but for the agriculture community, a more precise terminology would be "ecogeographic." For example, a rice problem may arise where the appropriate mix of system involvement is California, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Or, wheat complications might be better solved by a mix including Washington state, North Dakota, and New York. The bottom line is, the experts--no matter where they sit--should be working to solve the challenges facing the American public. This is not only a matter for the research side of our community, but also for extension and education. After all, there are similar social issues affecting different regions of the country where extension could collaborate on solutions.

One way to enhance multi-state cooperation is to require a portion of each state's federal funds, for both research and extension, be used on multi-state projects. The design of such requirements should be carefully considered so as to not erect unnecessary and undue administrative burdens that might discourage further coordination. We support additional steps in legislation to increase multi-state collaboration, such as the development of new funding mechanisms to help spark an increase in collaborative projects.

Foster new private and public-sector partnerships

This increased coordination and collaboration should not just be between and among the public sector. The private sector can, and should, play a bigger role in working with the system to solve problems. The most obvious mechanism to foster these type of relationships is joint funding, such as through commodity check-off programs. Although much of this occurs, it would be helpful to assess this approach and determine if changes are needed with respect to the development, approval, and implementation of such programs.

In recent years, a number of universities have developed "research parks" which serve as a mechanism for enhancing private-public sector cooperation and joint investments in research activities. Data is not readily available to assess the success of these; but this type of model may have merit, particularly to address research that is of higher risk and having a longer term horizon. Another mechanism would be to provide industry with tax incentives to invest in research, particularly as it relates to basic and applied research in areas industry has not typically invested. One cautionary note is to recognize the unique difficulties for smaller universities in attracting private dollars.

Improve federal and state partnerships

Additionally, the land-grant universities should improve the relationship with its federal partner. We must recognize each unique role and foster better integration. One cannot evaluate land-grant university "Program Development" without considering the importance of consistently working with USDA's intramural research and education partners.

At operational levels, there are countless examples of achievements by university and federal scientists and educators collaborating. Regional projects, graduate student committees, collocated professionals, adjunct appointments and joint planning sessions on literally hundreds of common interests attest to effective, systematic, pervasive integration of state and federal interests. Similarly, the land-grant universities have made significant contributions to solving national and international problems by working with the Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, and other USDA agencies. In this process, and at all levels, neither partner should dictate nor abdicate, but rather both should work together in solving the public's problems. To this end, the land-grant universities are committed to expanding, enhancing and improving these strategic alliances.

Strengthen linkages between research, extension and teaching

Coordination can also improve within our own system. Perhaps new incentives for those projects which better integrate between the functions could be considered. The challenge is to address the outcome and not the process. We do not support merging the funding lines between the groups as some have suggested. If the agricultural knowledge system organizes programs around desired outcomes which is the intent of GPRA, the result will be the integration of research, extension and education where it is critically needed. The exact nature of these relationships will be different in virtually every project and state because not all projects and programs will require each of the functions at a given point in time. It is important to achieve the integration at the time and place needed. We should not expect that all components will be involved at all times, but rather have involvement at varied times and at varied levels. These should be on a project basis.

Strengthen Funding Mechanisms

I cannot overstate the importance of a balanced portfolio of funding mechanisms to address the multitude of issues facing the land-grant university system. This portfolio, with its "base" funding and "targeted" funding, is vital to the success of serving the stakeholders. Base funding represents the national investment in the infrastructure of the research, extension and education system and is provided on a "formula basis" to each state. For every dollar invested by the federal partner, the states are required, as a minimum, to invest one matching dollar. In fact, at the present time, every federal dollar invested leverages more than five dollars. Targeted funding, consisting primarily of competitive grants and directed grants, seeks to address specific issue areas or specific problems. Each of these funding mechanisms has unique strengths. The balanced portfolio of base and targeted funding has proven to be an effective, efficient, responsive, and productive system.

Enhance quality control and link funding mechanisms to expected outcomes

There are two challenges involved in the review of research projects. One is the need to protect the quality of the scientific process and program development. The other is the need to insure that research programs are "relevant" to addressing the needs of our stakeholders. In the case of competitively awarded grants, "quality control" is provided through the "peer review" process, where panels of scientists review the merit of grant proposals. Concerns are sometimes raised about the "relevance" of these programs. In some fashion, the competitive grants programs need to be integrated into the outcome areas, goals, and objectives that I've discussed. There should be a clear linkage between our competitive grants programs and the priority setting and program development process. In the case of formula funds and competitive grants, quality control and relevancy concerns are addressed through "merit review" processes that include scientists, but may also include other appropriate parties. We support enhancing and strengthening the merit review process. And again, we support linking all of the funding mechanisms to the outcome areas, goals, and objectives discussed previously. Develop new funding mechanisms

Study after study has shown a high rate of return for public investments in agricultural research, extension and education. Yet, through the years, there has been a steady erosion of funding for these programs in relation to other areas of science and education in the U.S. The recent Farm Bill has moved agricultural production into a more market-oriented system. In order for our nation's farmers, ranchers, and producers to remain competitive in global markets, a greater investment in agricultural research, extension, and education is critical. Moreover, the natural resource and human resource challenges facing our communities require science-based solutions. As our country reduces expenditure in divers social programs, it is imperative that we increase the investment in science and education to develop new solutions to the challenges ahead.

Traditional funding will continually get tighter, even as the system becomes more efficient. Either by looking at other agencies within USDA or other departments of the federal government, there will be a need to seek other funding mechanisms.

Concluding Remarks

The land-grant university system has a tremendous history of meeting needs and responding to problems. Hopefully, I have been able to convey the message that the land-grant university system is ready, willing, and able to improve on its success, and change where needed to serve the American public to the best of our ability. At the same time, we don't believe in change, just for the sake of change, but rather respond to better ways to serve the American public. As we engage in this important discussion, we must keep in mind that improvements in the system will not matter if adequate resources are not available to keep the system intact and functioning.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am happy to respond to any questions.