The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

August 29, 2019 – August 9, 2022 R45897

The U.S. Land-Grant University System:
August 9, 2022
Overview and Role in Agricultural Research
Genevieve K. Croft
With the passage of the first Morrill Act in 1862, the United States began a novel policy of
Specialist in Agricultural
providing federal support for post-secondary education, focused on agriculture and the
Policy
mechanical arts. The national system of land-grant colleges and universities that has developed

since then is recognized for its breadth, reach, and excellence in teaching, research, and
extension. Land-grant institutions are located in every U.S. state, the District of Columbia, and

the insular areas—including U.S. territories and freely associated states. These institutions
educate the next generation of farmers, ranchers, and citizens, and form the backbone of a national network of agricultural
extension and experiment stations.
The land-grant university system has continued to evolve through federal legislation. The federal government provides funds,
often with nonfederal matching requirements, to execute the system’s three-fold mission of agricultural teaching, research,
and extension. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) distributes
these funds to the states as capacity grants, on a formula basis as determined by statute, or to participating institutions on a
competitive basis. The Morrill Acts of 1862 (12 Stat. 503) and 1890 (26 Stat. 417), and the Equity in Educational Land-Grant
Status Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382, §§531-535) established the three institutional categories of the land-grant system, now
known as the 1862, 1890, and 1994 Institutions. The 1862 Institutions are the first land-grant institutions; 1890 Institutions
are historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs); and 1994 Institutions are tribal colleges and universities (TCUs).
Later legislation also recognized additional institutional categories, including non-land-grant colleges of agriculture
(NLGCAs) and Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities (HSACUs), for specific programs.
The Hatch Act of 1887 (24 Stat. 440), Evans-Allen Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-113, §1445), and provisions of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA, P.L. 105-185) provide the framework for funding
research at land-grant institutions. State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAESs) associated with 1862 Institutions receive
federal research capacity funds with a one-to-one nonfederal matching requirement. The 1890 Institutions also receive federal
research capacity funds with this matching requirement, yet USDA can waive up to 50% of the required match. The 1994
Institutions can receive federal research funds through competitive grants programs. They may also use interest distributions
from the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, allocated on a formula basis, at their discretion.
The land-grant university system operates the U.S. Cooperative Extension Service (CES) in partnership with federal, state,
and local governments. The CES provides nonformal education to agricultural producers and communities through its
network of offices located in most of the more than 3,000 U.S. counties and the insular areas. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914
(38 Stat. 372), National Agricultural Research, Education, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA, P.L. 95-113,
§§1444-1445), and AREERA extension provisions guide agricultural extension funding in the land-grant university system.
The 1862 and 1890 Institutions receive federal capacity funds, according to separate formulas with nonfederal matching
requirements. USDA may waive up to 50% of the matching requirement for 1890 Institutions. The 1994 Institutions may
receive federal extension funding through competitive grants.
Looking forward, public investment in agricultural research; disparities in state matching funds among the different classes of
land-grant institutions; and the funding of 1994 Institutions may invite congressional engagement.
Congressional Research Service

The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

Introduction
With the passage of the first Morrill Act (12 Stat. 503; 7 U.S.C. §301 et seq.) on July 2, 1862, the
United States began a then-novel policy of providing federal support for postsecondary education,
specifically for agriculture and the mechanical arts. The national system of land-grant colleges
and universities that has developed since then is recognized for its breadth, reach, and excellence
in teaching, research, and extension. Located in every state, the District of Columbia, and the
insular areas, these institutions educate the next generation of farmers, ranchers, and citizens, and
form the backbone of a national network of agricultural extension and experiment stations.1
Later federal legislation expanded the scope and reach of the 1862 Morrill Act. Beyond providing
initial resources to establish land-grant institutions, the federal government contributes funds
annually through a variety of capacity and competitive grants administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Capacity
grants, also known as formula funds, are allocated to states based on statutory formulas.
Competitive grants are awarded to specific projects selected through a USDA peer-review
process. In many cases, states and governments of the insular areas complement federal
appropriations with matching funds. Federal legislation has also expanded the land-grant
university system to include historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and tribal
colleges and universities (TCUs). Additional institutional categories are recognized for specific
programs. These categories include non-land-grant colleges of agriculture (NLGCAs), Hispanic-
serving agricultural colleges and universities (HSACUs), and cooperating forestry schools.
Looking forward, public investment in agricultural research; disparities in state matching funds
among the different classes of land-grant institutions; and the funding of 1994 Institutions may
invite congressional engagement.
While state and local governments have roles in the U.S. land-grant university system, this report
focuses on federal laws, appropriations, and other matters.
Overview: History, Institutions, and Mission
History
Postsecondary education in the American colonies was available to a limited segment of society
and focused on a few subject areas. Colonial colleges established in association with Christian
denominations enrolled predominantly white men in classical and professional disciplines.2 New
colleges created following independence of the United States from Great Britain broadened
enrollment and fields of study. However, lack of reliable funding meant that many closed.
In the early- to mid-19th century, demand grew for postsecondary education in agricultural and
technical disciplines, as did interest in educating the populace more broadly. Johnathan Baldwin
Turner, a professor at Illinois College, championed a more accessible “industrial education.” His

1 Insular area is defined at 7 U.S.C. §3103(12) to include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
2 For further information, see John R. Thelin, Jason R. Edwards, and Eric Moyen, et al., “Higher Education in the
United States,” StateUniversity.com Education Encyclopedia, https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2044/Higher-
Education-in-United-States.html.
Congressional Research Service

1

The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

“Plan for a State University for the Industrial Classes,” presented at an academic conference in
1850, contained many elements of the yet-to-be established land-grant university system.3
In 1857, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont introduced a bill to establish colleges of
agriculture through grants of land to the states.4 The bill proposed giving federal land, or rights to
such land, to the states for the purpose of establishing these colleges. The federal government was
already giving land to states to encourage the development of railroads, for example through the
Land Grant Act of 1850 (9 Stat. 466). However, granting land to states to establish institutions of
higher education was a novel prospect. Congress passed Morrill’s bill in 1859 by a slim margin,
largely along a North-South divide, and it could not overcome a veto by President James
Buchanan. Morrill, who had never attended college himself, presented the bill once again in 1862.
The political landscape had changed by then, with the onset of the Civil War and accompanying
absence of Members of Congress from the southern states. Further, the second introduction of the
bill expanded proposed areas of study at the colleges to include military strategy in addition to
agricultural and mechanical arts. This bill passed overwhelmingly, and President Abraham
Lincoln signed it on July 2, 1862. This first Morrill Act, described in greater detail below, marked
the beginning of the U.S. land-grant university system. Notably, Lincoln signed the Morrill Act
just seven weeks after signing legislation to establish USDA (12 Stat. 387, enacted May 15,
1862).
Federal Lands Designated for Land-Grant Universities
In total, the Morril Act of 1862 resulted in the distribution of over 11 mil ion acres of federal lands to benefit
land-grant universities. Total acreage was determined by the size of each state’s congressional delegation. As such,
less-populous states in the West received rights to fewer acres than more-populous states in the East. States in
the West generally received public lands within their borders, while states in the East—where limited public lands
existed—received land scrip, or a certificate of the right to acquire public lands located in the West. For example,
Idaho received 90,000 acres of land within Idaho, and New York received 990,000 acres of land scrip. Idaho used a
portion of its allotment as the location of the University of Idaho, and it sold some of the land to fund
construction, operation, and endowment of that university. New York sold its land scrip to fund the
establishment, maintenance, and endowment of Cornell University.
Where did these mil ions of acres of public lands come from? Recent scholarship has explored the relationship
between the public lands provided for the land-grant university system and the forced removal of Native people
from their lands. Several land-grant universities have recognized this history in land acknowledgement statements
that acknowledge displaced tribes as traditional stewards of the land.
For more information, see Margaret A. Nash, “Entangled Pasts: Land-Grant Col eges and American Indian
Dispossession,” History of Education Quarterly, vol. 59, no. 4, November 2019; and Kalen Goodluck, Tristan Ahtone,
and Robert Lee, “The Land-Grant Universities Stil Profiting off Indigenous Homelands,” High Country News, August
18, 2020.
Between 1872 and 1890, then-Senator Morrill introduced 12 bills focused on strengthening the
early land-grant university system. Congress passed the last of those bills, and President
Benjamin Harrison signed into law the Morrill Act of 1890 (26 Stat. 417). This second Morrill
Act provided funding for the land-grant university system and prohibited racial discrimination in
admissions policies. It led to the establishment of a group of HBCUs known as the 1890
Institutions.

3 For further information on Turner’s role in development of the land-grant university concept, see Allan Nevins,
“Chapter 1: Turner and the Founding of the University,” in American College and University Series: Illinois, ed.
George Phillip Krapp (New York [etc.]: Oxford University Press, 1917).
4 For more of the political history of the bill, see John Y. Simon, “The Politics of the Morrill Act,” Agricultural
History, vol. 37, no. 2 (1963), pp. 103-111.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 5 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

The land-grant university system further expanded in 1994 with the addition of a group of TCUs
known as the 1994 Institutions. Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico introduced the Equity in
Educational Land-Grant Status Act in 1993. This act became Sections 531-335 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act reauthorization (P.L. 103-382), which President William J. Clinton
signed into law on October 20, 1994.
What Is a Land-Grant College or University?
Land-grant institutions are colleges and universities designated to receive benefits of the Morrill
Acts of 1862 and 1890.5 These acts promoted establishment of institutions of higher learning
focused on the agricultural and mechanical arts, without excluding other scientific and classical
studies. Land-grant institutions now address many academic fields in addition to those of their
foundational colleges of agriculture. There is at least one land-grant institution in each U.S. state,
the District of Columbia, and the insular areas (see Figure 1 for a map).6 In 2020, 2.0 million
students were enrolled across 111 land-grant colleges and universities, with a portion of those
enrolled in those institutions’ colleges of agriculture.7 The federal government provides annual
appropriations to U.S. states and the insular areas, often with matching requirements, for use in
the land-grant university system.
Types of Land-Grant Institutions
There are three categories of land-grant institution, named for the year in which legislation
established them: 1862, 1890, and 1994. The “Foundational Legislation” section of this report
discusses relevant establishment legislation for these institutions in detail. Most generally, 1862
Institutions are the original land-grant colleges and universities established through the Morrill
Act of 1862, as amended. There are fifty-seven 1862 Institutions, located in each state, the
District of Columbia, and the insular areas.8 The 1890 Institutions are HBCUs established as
land-grant institutions as a result of the Morrill Act of 1890, as amended. There are nineteen 1890
Institutions, primarily in the southeastern states.9 The 1994 Institutions are TCUs recognized
through the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994, as amended.10 Congress has
defined thirty-six 1994 Institutions in statute.11

5 The 1994 Institutions were established in accordance with the provisions of the Morrill Act of 1862.
6 See footnote 1.
7 The 2.0 million students include full- and part-time students enrolled in all programs at all levels of post-secondary
education in all 111 land-grant colleges and universities in the fall semester of 2020. The 111 institutions include the
1862 Institutions, 1890 Institutions (including Tuskegee University and Central State University), and 1994 Institutions
(excluding D-Q University), as described in the next report section. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), custom report, https://nces.ed.gov/
ipeds/datacenter.
8 A 58th institution, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), is an 1862 land-grant university but is not included in
this count. While USDA has confirmed that MIT, which focuses on the mechanical arts, is eligible to apply for grants
that are available only to land-grant institutions, the State of Massachusetts chooses to allocate its federal capacity
appropriations to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which focuses on the agricultural arts. See 2016 letter from
USDA to MIT, at https://ras.mit.edu/document/land-grant-institution-confirmation-status-letter-april-2016.
9 For more information on 1890 Institutions, see CRS In Focus IF11847, 1890 Land-Grant Universities: Background
and Selected Issues.
10 For more information on 1994 Institutions, see CRS In Focus IF12009, 1994 Land-Grant Universities: Background
and Selected Issues.
11 One of these institutions, D-Q University, lost its accreditation in 2005 and is no longer considered a 1994
Institution.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 30

Figure 1. Map of U.S. Land-Grant Institutions

Source: CRS from data available at USDA, NIFA, “Col ege Partners Directory,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/land-grant-col eges-and-universities-partner-website-directory.
Notes: See the Appendix for a list of land-grant institutions by state. While identified in statute as a 1994 Institution (7 U.S.C. §301 note), D-Q University (CA) is not
accredited at present.
CRS-4

link to page 13 link to page 16 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

The federal government recognizes additional categories of institutions that are not land-grant
institutions, and yet support the mission of the land-grant university system (as discussed below).
Cooperating forestry schools, HSACUs, and NLGCAs are eligible for federal funding through
specific programs.
Three Pillars: Teaching, Research, and Extension
Federal legislation has given rise to the three functional pillars of land-grant institutions. First
among them is the teaching function established through the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. Later
legislation added research and extension, establishing the roles of land-grant institutions in
producing original agricultural research and in bringing that research to the nonuniversity public
through agricultural extension.
Foundational Legislation
The U.S. land-grant university system has evolved in the more than 150 years since its
establishment. Multiple pieces of legislation have added to its original mission, expanded its
reach, and adjusted its funding structure. This section identifies enacted laws that are among the
most significant for land-grant universities (see Table 1 for a summary of select statutes). Details
regarding federal funding and state matching requirements are discussed in the section following
this legislative overview (“Funding”). Funding discussed in this report is discretionary unless
stated otherwise.
Teaching
The Morrill Act of 1862 was officially titled, “An Act Donating Public Lands to the Several
States and Territories which may provide Colleges for the Benefit of Agriculture and the
Mechanic Arts” (see legislative excerpt in the text box below). It designated that each state would
receive 30,000 acres of federal land for each Member of the Senate and House of Representatives
it had in Congress at the time.12 In cases in which insufficient public land was available, states
would instead receive land scrip, or certificates of entitlement to such public lands. Money from
the sale of this land or land scrip was to be used to support at least one college with the primary
purpose of teaching agriculture and the mechanical arts, to “promote the liberal and practical
education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.” The act
prohibited states from using the funds for constructing or maintaining buildings.
Excerpt from the Morrill Act of 1862 (12 Stat. 503)
SECTION 4: “And be it further enacted, That all moneys derived from the sale of the lands aforesaid by the States
to which the lands are apportioned, and from the sales of land scrip hereinbefore provided for, shall be invested in
stocks of the United States, or of the States, or some other safe stocks, yielding not less than five per centum
upon the par value of said stocks; and that the moneys so invested shall constitute a perpetual fund, the capital of
which shall remain forever undiminished, (except so far as may be provided in section fifth of this act,) and the
interest of which shall be inviolably appropriated, by each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to
the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one col ege where the leading object shall be, without
excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as
are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively
prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits
and professions in life.”

12 For example, New York received 990,000 acres of land scrip, as it had 33 Members of Congress at the time of
apportionment.
Congressional Research Service

5

The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

The Morrill Act of 1890 (26 Stat. 417; 7 U.S.C. §321 et seq.) responded to the need to finance
the institutions established through the first Morrill Act. Today, the second Morrill Act is most
recognized for its role in the establishment of HBCU land-grant institutions. It provided each
state and territory with annual appropriations for the endowment and maintenance of the land-
grant colleges.13 This money was to be used for instruction in specific academic disciplines, and
for facilities for such instruction. The second Morrill Act prohibited racial discrimination in
admission policies of institutions receiving these funds (7 U.S.C. §323). However, it permitted
states and territories to meet this requirement by establishing separate institutions “of like
character” for white and nonwhite students. In such cases, annual appropriations would be
divided “equitably” between the two institutions in a manner proposed by the state or territory
and reported to the Secretary of Agriculture. This condition ultimately resulted in the
establishment of nineteen 1890 Institutions, primarily in the southeastern states.14
Just over 100 years after the Morrill Act of 1890 facilitated the addition of HBCUs, the Equity in
Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382, §§531-535; 7 U.S.C. §301 note)
added TCUs to the land-grant university system.15 This act originally designated twenty-nine
1994 Institutions, considered to be land-grant institutions established in accordance with the
Morrill Act of 1862 except for the manner in which they would be funded. This number has
increased to 36, although one is no longer recognized as a 1994 Institution.16 In lieu of land or
land scrip, P.L. 103-382 provided for annual appropriations to endow and maintain these
institutions. Section 533 established the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund in the
U.S. Treasury, with endowment interest payments to be distributed annually on a formula basis.
Institutions may use these endowment payments at their discretion. In addition, Section 534
authorized annual appropriations to support education capacity at 1994 Institutions, to be
distributed equally among the institutions. NIFA administers the Tribal College Endowment
Program and the Tribal Equity Grants Program.17
Research
Agricultural research in the land-grant university system impacts daily life. Among diverse areas
of investigation, researchers at land-grant institutions explore best practices for livestock, fish,
and plant breeding; analyze agricultural value chains; examine interactions among soil health,
agricultural productivity, and water quality; and look for new and safer pesticides to protect crop
production, human health, and the environment. Discoveries achieved through this research at
land-grant institutions have improved the lives of producers and consumers in diverse ways.

13 Appropriations under the second Morrill Act are no longer in effect. Section 724 of the FY1995 Agriculture
Appropriations Act (P.L. 103-330) ended these appropriations.
14 Alabama has two 1890 Institutions, Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University—a public institution—and
Tuskegee University—a private institution. For funding purposes, relevant legislation treats the two as though they
were in separate states (i.e., both have funding opportunities equal to those of the other 1890 Institutions).
15 The Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 is Part C of Title V of the Improving America’s Schools
Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382).
16 D-Q University lost its accreditation in 2005.
17 By interagency agreement, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated the authority to “compute and distribute” the
interest to the 1994 Institutions to NIFA. See NIFA, 1994 Institutions Endowment Fund - 2020 Interest Distribution,
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/program/2021%20Tribal%20Endowment%20Distribution%20letter2.pdf.
For more details, see NIFA, “Tribal College Endowment Program,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/tribal-
college-endowment-program; and NIFA, “Tribal Equity Grants Program,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/
tribal-equity-grants-program.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 28 link to page 5 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

The Hatch Act of 1887 (24 Stat. 440; 7 U.S.C. §361a et seq.) instituted the research function of
land-grant universities. It provided for establishment of “a department to be known and
designated as an ‘agricultural experiment station….’” under the direction of each land-grant
institution established under the first Morrill Act. They would aid “in acquiring and diffusing
among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects connected
with agriculture and to promote scientific investigation and experiment respecting the principles
and applications of agricultural science….” The Hatch Act provided for appropriations to support
original agricultural research at these stations, distributed to the states based on a formula in the
law.18 Federal funds distributed in this manner are referred to as capacity grants or formula funds.
The Hatch Act ultimately led to development of State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES) in
each U.S. state, the District of Columbia, and the insular areas.19 In the modern day, not all of
these stations are physical places, and may be represented instead through individual or groups of
researchers at 1862 Institutions, or at associated agricultural or research sites within the state.20
The 1890 Institutions are not eligible for Hatch Act appropriations. In 1977, the Evans-Allen Act
(P.L. 95-113, §1445; 7 U.S.C. §3222) gave 1890 Institutions access to agricultural research
capacity grants. The Evans-Allen Act is Section 1445 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA; P.L. 95-113, §§1440-1445).21 Evans-
Allen funds are appropriated and then distributed according to a statutory formula, in a manner
similar to Hatch Act appropriations.
The 1994 Institutions are not eligible for research capacity grants under the Hatch or Evans-Allen
Acts. However, Section 251 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform
Act of 1998 (AREERA; P.L. 105-185) gave these institutions access to separate competitive
agricultural research funding. AREERA amended the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status
Act of 1994 to authorize USDA to award research grants to 1994 Institutions on a competitive
basis. This provision requires that the 1994 Institution applying for these funds certify that the
proposed research will be conducted in partnership with the USDA Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), an 1862 or 1890 Institution, or a cooperating forestry school. Congress has provided
appropriations for this competitive grants program. However, lack of predictable annual research
funding on a formula basis has raised concerns that 1994 Institutions cannot build their
institutional capabilities for agricultural research, as 1862 and 1890 Institutions have done. For
further discussion, see “Funding of 1994 Institutions.”
By the mid-20th century, forestry science capacity was increasingly seen as falling behind national
needs.22 The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-788; 16 U.S.C.
§582a-1 et seq.) authorized forestry research capacity grants. This act encourages coordination of
forestry research efforts among state colleges and universities and the federal government. These

18 Later legislation strengthened the Hatch Act research mission. The Adams Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 63), Purnell Act of
1925 (43 Stat. 970), and Bankhead Jones Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 436) authorized additional appropriations for research at
1862 Institutions and related research facilities. The Purnell Act expanded research to include the social sciences,
paving the way for studies of agricultural economics and sociology.
19 State agricultural experiment station is defined at 7 U.S.C. §3103(17). See footnote 1 for insular area definition.
20 For an introduction to agricultural research and the land-grant university system, see Donald A. Holt, “Agricultural
Research Management in US Land-Grant Universities,” in Agricultural Research Management, ed. G. Loebenstein and
G. Thottappilly (Dordrecth, The Netherlands: Springer, 2007), pp. 231-258.
21 NARETPA is itself Title XIV of the 1977 farm bill (P.L. 95-113; Food and Agriculture Act of 1977).
22 For additional background on the McIntire-Stennis Act, see Steven H. Bullard, Perry J. Brown, and Catalino A.
Blanche, et al., “A “Driving Force” in Developing the Nation’s Forests: The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry
Research Program,” Journal of Forestry, April/May 2011, pp. 141-148.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 16 link to page 15 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

funds are apportioned to the states in amounts determined by the Secretary of Agriculture in
consultation with an advisory council. These apportionments were originally available only to
1862 Institutions, their affiliated SAESs, and public colleges or universities offering graduate
training in forestry. The 1890 Institutions were made eligible in Section 7412 of the 2008 farm
bill (P.L. 110-246; Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008). The 1994 Institutions were
made eligible in Section 7604 of the 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334; Agriculture Improvement Act
of 2018).23
Additional federal legislation has authorized a variety of competitive research grants, and is
addressed in “Funding.”
Extension
Agricultural extension brings agricultural research findings to the people who can put them into
practice. Since passage of the Smith-Lever Act in 1914 (38 Stat. 372; 7 U.S.C. §341 et seq.), the
United States has developed an expansive Cooperative Extension System operated through the
land-grant university system in partnership with federal, state, and local governments.24 Partners
include NIFA, state cooperative extension services at land-grant colleges and universities, and
cooperative extension service offices located in nearly each of the country’s approximately 3,000
counties and the insular areas. Extension agents based at field offices and land-grant institutions
work with local agricultural producers and community members to demonstrate or put into
practice knowledge gained through agricultural research. Agriculture faculty at land-grant
institutions may have appointments that are fully teaching, research, or extension, or some
combination of the three. The extension function adds nonformal education to the land-grant
university mission. In statute, extension includes sharing knowledge about agriculture, home
economics, rural energy, and “subjects relating thereto” (7 U.S.C. §342). In recent decades,
extension has addressed not only the core topics identified in statute but also such topics as youth
development, business skills, and health education.25
The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 responded to interest in ensuring that agricultural research findings
would make their way to producers and improve agricultural practices. This act provided for
capacity funds—annual appropriations, distributed to the states on a formula basis—for
cooperative extension. It led to establishment of the cooperative extension service associated with
1862 Institutions. The Smith-Lever Act, as amended, also contains competitive funding
provisions.
Smith-Lever capacity funds are not available to 1890 Institutions. The 1890 Institutions gained
access to extension appropriations, distributed on a formula basis, in 1977 through the Section
1444 of NARETPA (7 U.S.C. §3221). Thus NARETPA provided 1890 Institutions access to
appropriations for both agricultural research (via Section 1445, or the Evans-Allen Act) and
extension (via Section 1444).
The 1994 Institutions gained access to federal extension funding in 1998. Section 201 of
AREERA (7 U.S.C. §343(b)(3)) amended the Smith-Lever Act to authorize appropriations for
USDA to distribute to 1994 Institutions on a competitive basis, with such funds to be

23 See “Cooperating Forestry Schools” for more detail on eligible institutions.
24 For additional information, see NIFA, “Cooperative Extension System,” https://nifa.usda.gov/cooperative-extension-
system.
25 For more information, see Government Accountability Office (GAO), Cooperative Extension Service’s Mission and
Federal Role Need Congressional Clarification, CED-81-119, August 21, 1981; and Marsha Mercer, “Cooperative
Extension Reinvents Itself for the 21st Century,” Stateline, September 9, 2014.
Congressional Research Service

8

The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

administered in cooperation with an 1862 or 1890 Institution. Thus, AREERA provided 1994
Institutions access to both competitive research (Section 251) and extension (Section 201)
appropriations.
Table 1. Selected Statutes Concerning Capacity Grants for Land-Grant Institutions
Eligible
Key Elements and Results
Legislation
U.S. Code
Institution(s)
Hatch Act of 1887
7 U.S.C. §361a et
1862
Research. Authorized annual
(24 Stat. 440)
seq.
agricultural research appropriations.
Led to establishment of system of State
Agricultural Experiment Stations
(SAESs) associated with 1862
Institutions.
Smith-Lever Act of 1914
7 U.S.C. §341
1862
Extension. Authorized annual
(38 Stat. 372)
cooperative extension appropriations.
Led to establishment of cooperative
extension services associated with 1862
Institutions.
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative 16 U.S.C. §582a-1
1862, 1890,
Research. Authorized annual forestry
Forestry Act of 1962
et seq.
1994,
research appropriations.
(P.L. 87-788)
cooperating
forestry schools
Evans-Allen Act of 1977
7 U.S.C. §3222
1890
Research. Authorized annual
(P.L. 95-113, §1445)
appropriations for agricultural research
at 1890 Institutions in a manner similar
to Hatch Act appropriations for 1862
Institutions.
Section 1444 of the National
7 U.S.C. §3221
1890
Extension. Authorized annual
Agricultural Research,
appropriations for agricultural
Extension, and Teaching
extension at 1890 Institutions in a
Policy Act of 1977
manner similar to Smith-Lever
(NARETPA; P.L. 95-113,
appropriations for 1862 Institutions.
§1444)
Educational Equity in Land-
7 U.S.C. §301 note
1994
Teaching, research, or extension.
Grant Status of 1994
Recognized new class of 1994 land-
(P.L. 103-382, §§531-535)
grant institutions; created and funded
endowment in the U.S. Treasury; and
authorized annual payments to be used
at the discretion of the recipient
institution.
Source: Compiled by CRS.
Notes: The Morril Act of 1890 originally provided funding for teaching and facilities maintenance at land-grant
institutions. However, its funding provisions were discontinued beginning in FY1995.
Land-Grant Institutions in the District of Columbia and Insular
Areas
In addition to expanding the mission of the land-grant system, legislation also increased its
geographical expanse. Beginning in 1908, modern U.S. territories began to participate in the land-
Congressional Research Service

9

The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

grant system.26 Today, land-grant institutions are located in the District of Columbia and the
insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Whereas at the time of the Morrill Act in 1862, the United States had vast tracts of federal lands
available for sale to endow new colleges and universities (see also text box, “Federal Lands
Designated for Land-Grant Universities,” p. 2), this was not the case in the 20th century. Land-
grant institutions newly recognized in this time period were appropriated funds for their
endowment and maintenance, in lieu of land or land scrip. Although classified as 1862
Institutions, their funding details vary according to specific legislation.
The University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez was established as a land-grant institution in 1908 after
the benefits of the first and second Morrill Acts were extended to Puerto Rico. The University of
the District of Columbia, at the time known as Federal City College, received land-grant status in
1968 through amendment (P.L. 90-354) of Title I of the District of Columbia Public Education
Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-791). Colleges in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam became land-grant
institutions through Section 506 of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-318).
Institutions in American Samoa and what are now the Federated States of Micronesia received
similar recognition through the Educational Amendments of 1980 (P.L. 96-374, §1361). A college
in the Northern Mariana Islands was added in 1986 (P.L. 99-396, §9).
Designation of New Land-Grant Institutions
Section 7111 of the 2018 farm bill prohibits designation of any new land-grant institution that
would be eligible to receive capacity grants for agricultural research, extension, and related
programs (e.g., Hatch Act, Smith-Lever Act, and McIntire-Stennis Act). This change does not
affect the eligibility of 1994 Institutions certified in the future to receive McIntire-Stennis funds.
Congress made this change with the primary intention of avoiding the duplication of
administrative costs that would accompany any division of an existing land-grant institution into
more than one entity.27
Other Institutions
Certain public colleges and universities that are not 1862, 1890, or 1994 Institutions can
participate in elements of the land-grant university system through specific grant programs
administered by USDA.
Non-Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture
The classification of non-land-grant college of agriculture (NLGCA) was defined in the 2008
farm bill (7 U.S.C. §3103(14)), and this definition was revised in Section 7102 of the 2018 farm
bill. Public colleges and universities are eligible to apply to USDA for NLGCA certification if
they are not 1862, 1890, or 1994 Institutions and if they offer bachelors, masters, or doctoral
degrees in food, agriculture, or natural resources in specified academic disciplines relevant to
agriculture. As of this writing, more than 75 certified NLGCAs are located in 28 states.28 The

26 In this sense, territories refer to the District of Columbia and the insular areas, not those early U.S. territories that
later became states.
27 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, conference report to accompany H.R.
2, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 115-1072 (Washington, DC: GPO: 2018), pp. 300-301.
28 For a list of certified NLGCAs, see NIFA, “NIFA-21-003 Non-Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture (NLGCA) List,”
https://nifa.usda.gov/resource/nlgca-list.
Congressional Research Service

10

The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

NLGCAs meet eligibility requirements for the Capacity Building Grants for Non-Land-Grant
Colleges of Agriculture program administered by NIFA. This competitively funded program for
NLGCAs was first authorized by the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79; Agricultural Act of 2014) and
was reauthorized in the 2018 farm bill. Private colleges and universities remain ineligible.
Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities
Section 7101 of the 2008 farm bill (7 U.S.C. §3103(10)) defined a group of Hispanic-serving
agricultural colleges and universities (HSACUs) which could benefit from integrated research,
education, and extension competitive grants offered through USDA. Certified HSACU
institutions must demonstrate that 25% of full-time enrollment is Hispanic, that the institution
offers accredited agriculture-related degree programs, and that Hispanic students received at least
15% of degrees awarded in agricultural programs over the most recent two-year period. The
definition further clarifies that an HSACU cannot also be an 1862 Institution. Originally, an
institution could not be certified as both an HSACU and an NLGCA. Section 7102 of the 2018
farm bill removed this restriction. As of FY2021, USDA had certified 238 HSACUs.29
Section 7129 of the 2008 farm bill called for establishment of an HSACUs Fund in the U.S.
Treasury (7 U.S.C. §3243(b)). It authorized annual appropriations for FY2008 and each fiscal
year thereafter, and distribution of income from the fund to HSACUs on a formula basis. As of
this writing, Congress has not appropriated funds for the HSACUs Fund since its establishment,
thus distributions have not been made. Section 7129 also authorized appropriations for annual
payments to HSACU institutions (7 U.S.C. §3243(c) as distinct from appropriations for the
HSACUs Fund); competitively distributed institutional capacity-building grants (7 U.S.C.
§3243(d)); and competitive research and extension grants programs (7 U.S.C. §3243(e)) specific
to HSACUs. Congress has not provided appropriations for these programs.
Cooperating Forestry Schools
Cooperating forestry schools (defined at 7 U.S.C. §3103(5)) are those institutions that are eligible
to receive funds under the McIntire-Stennis Act.30 These include 1862, 1890, and 1994
Institutions in addition to non-land-grant “State-supported colleges and universities offering
graduate training in the sciences basic to forestry and having a forestry school.”31 States must
certify the institutions that are eligible for assistance, and determine the proportionate amounts of
assistance to be extended to them if there is more than one cooperating forestry school within a
state. As of this writing, more than 80 forestry schools are eligible for McIntire-Stennis capacity
funding. Originally, an institution could not be certified as both a cooperating forestry school and
an NLGCA. Section 7102 of the 2018 farm bill removed this restriction.

29 USDA, “Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities (HSACU) Certification Process,” 87 Federal
Register 18605, March 31, 2022. Updated information may become available at NIFA, “NIFA-5-7a Official List of
Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities,” https://nifa.usda.gov/resource/official-list-hispanic-serving-
agricultural-colleges-and-universities-hsacu.
30 For a list of eligible institutions that year, see NIFA, McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program:
Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Request for Applications, https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/FY2022-
McIntire-Stennis-Cooperative%20Forestry-Research-RFA-508.pdf.
31 16 U.S.C. §582a-1.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 23 link to page 13 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

Funding
USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) administers federal capacity and
competitive grants to partner institutions for research, education, and extension activities (see
Table 2 for NIFA discretionary appropriation details).32
 Capacity grants are recurring federal appropriations allocated to states based on
legislative formulas. States are generally required to contribute matching funds.
Specific project decisions are made locally.
 Competitive grants are awarded to specific projects selected through peer-
review processes, without consideration of the state of the sponsoring institution.
Researchers and institutions must apply for these funds. Competitive grant
decisions are made by review panels coordinated by NIFA.
Capacity Grants, Also Known as Formula Funds
Federal legislation, as discussed earlier, provides capacity grants to land-grant institutions for
research, education, and extension (see Table 1). NIFA administers these grants in collaboration
with states, colleges, and universities. Land-grant colleges, universities, and associated state
institutions use these funds to conduct research and extension in support of state agriculture, food,
and forestry systems, as well as issues of socioeconomic welfare in communities and families in
rural and urban areas.33 The Hatch Act, Smith-Lever Act, Evans-Allen Act, and McIntire-Stennis
Act are the largest sources of capacity funds.
Hatch Act: Research Funding for 1862 Institutions
Funding for agricultural research under the Hatch Act of 1887 as amended is allocated to the
SAEs and associated agriculture colleges of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the
insular areas. Eligible state institutions must submit a Plan of Work to NIFA for approval before
these funds are distributed. The Hatch Act identifies the distribution of federal payments to states
for FY1955 as a fixed base, and any sums appropriated in excess of the 1955 level are to be
distributed in the following manner:
 3% to USDA for administration of the Hatch Act;
 20% equally to each state;
 26% to each state in amounts proportionate to the relative rural population of
each state to the total rural population of all states;
 26% to each state in amounts proportionate to the relative farm population of
each state to the total farm population of all states; and
 25% to the Hatch Multistate Research Fund for multidisciplinary, multi-
institutional research activities to solve problems concerning more than one state.
Federal funds provided under the Hatch Act to state institutions must be matched with nonfederal
funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Section 7213 of the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171; Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002) and Section 7404 of the 2008 farm bill amended the

32 While teaching in the post-secondary classroom is the first pillar of the land-grant university system, as established
through the first Morrill Act, education more broadly may include conveying knowledge through teaching or other
activities, such as research.
33 Associated state institutions include SAESs and cooperative extension service units.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 23 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

Hatch Act such that the insular areas and the District of Columbia, respectively, are required to
provide matching funds of an amount equal to not less than 50% of the Hatch Act funds they
receive. These amendments also provided that the Secretary of Agriculture may waive the
matching requirement of an insular area or the District of Columbia for any fiscal year if the
Secretary determines that its government is unlikely to meet the matching requirement for that
fiscal year.
Other provisions of interest within the Hatch Act include
 Multistate research. In accordance with provisions of AREERA, and as
indicated in the Hatch Act distribution formula, at least 25% of available Hatch
Act funds must be used to support multistate research.
 Integrated activities. States must also expend 25% or twice the level spent in
FY1997 (whichever is less) on activities that integrate cooperative research and
extension.34
 Carryover. Section 7(c) permits SAESs to carry over unexpended funds for use
during the following fiscal year. If those funds that have been carried over are not
spent by the end of the second year, they are deducted from the following year’s
allotment.
Evans-Allen Act: Research Funding for 1890 Institutions
The Evans-Allen Act, as amended, provides capacity funding for food and agricultural research at
1890 Institutions in a manner similar to the distribution of Hatch Act funds to 1862 Institutions.
As with Hatch Act fund recipients, Evans-Allen recipients are required to submit a Plan of Work
to NIFA for approval before the funds are distributed. Section 1445(a)(2) of NARETPA (7 U.S.C.
§3222(a)(2)), as amended by Section 7122 of the 2008 farm bill, requires that Evans-Allen
appropriations shall not be less than 30% of the annual Hatch Act appropriations. Evans-Allen
Act appropriations met and exceeded this threshold for the first time in FY2022 (see Table 2).
Three percent of Evans-Allen funds are reserved for NIFA administrative, technical, and other
services. The balance of the funds is distributed as follows:
 20% equally to each state;35
 40% in an amount proportionate to the rural population of the state in which the
eligible institution is located to the total rural population of all states in which
eligible institutions are located;
 40% in an amount proportionate to the farm population of the state in which the
eligible institution is located to the total farm population of all the states in which
eligible institutions are located.
Section 1449(c) of NARETPA as amended (7 U.S.C. §3222d) requires that federal funds for
research and for extension at 1890 Institutions be matched by the state from nonfederal sources
on a dollar-for-dollar basis.36 The Secretary may waive the matching funds requirement above the
50% level for an eligible institution if the Secretary determines that the state will be unlikely to
satisfy the matching requirement for a given fiscal year. This waiver, while allowing institutions

34 A complementary provision in the Smith-Lever Act, which as discussed later funds cooperative extension work,
requires that 25% of those funds also are spent on integrated research and extension activities.
35 Allotments to Tuskegee College and Alabama A&M are determined as if each institution were in a separate state.
36 Congress amended NARETPA in 1998 through AREERA, adding §1449, which instituted a matching requirement.
This matching requirement increased from 30% in FY2000 to 100% from FY2007 onward.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 26 link to page 21 link to page 21 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

to receive their full allocation of federal funding, has raised questions about overall funding
equities. For additional details see “State Matching Funds.”
McIntire-Stennis Act: Forestry Research Funding
The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act of 1962 as amended authorizes research
appropriations for certified cooperating forestry schools, including 1862 Institutions. The 1890
Institutions became eligible for McIntire-Stennis funding through Section 7412 of the 2008 farm
bill. The 1994 Institutions that offer associate or baccalaureate degrees in forestry became eligible
in Section 7604 of the 2018 farm bill.
Unlike the statutorily designated formulas under the Hatch Act and Smith-Lever Act, funding
apportionments under the McIntire-Stennis Act are made by USDA in consultation with a 16-
member council (fulfilled through the Forestry Research Advisory Council of the USDA Forest
Service), which includes representatives of relevant forestry research institutions. Three
statutorily defined factors are considered in making apportionments (16 U.S.C. §582a-4):
1. total nonfederal expenditures for forestry research by state-certified institutions;
2. total state acreage in nonfederal commercial forest land; and
3. volume of timber from growing stock cut annually in the state.
The federal apportionment also requires a dollar-for-dollar match of nonfederal funds that, unlike
Hatch Act and Evans-Allen Act matching funds, cannot be waived.37
Smith-Lever Act 3(b) and 3(c): Extension Funding for 1862 Institutions
The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (38 Stat. 372) as amended authorizes the Cooperative Extension
System and provides capacity grants to 1862 Institutions for their agricultural extension activities.
Capacity grants are distributed according to Smith-Lever Act Sections 3(b) and 3(c) (7 U.S.C.
§343(b) and 7 U.S.C. §343(c)). Smith-Lever Act 3(b) and 3(c) capacity grants provide about 58%
of total federal funding for extension activities. Competitive funding provisions within the Smith-
Lever Act, including Section 3(d) (7 U.S.C. §343(d)) and specific provisions within Section 3(b),
are addressed in the “Competitive Smith-Lever Provisions for Extension at 1862, 1890, and 1994
Institutions” section of this report.38
States can use Smith-Lever 3(b) and 3(c) capacity grants for locally determined projects as well
as for high-priority regional and national concerns. Eligible state institutions must submit a Plan
of Work to NIFA for approval before these funds are distributed. Smith-Lever 3(b) capacity funds
are distributed based on the FY1962 distribution of cooperative extension funds. For Smith-Lever
3(c) funds, 4% are reserved for NIFA administrative, technical, and other services, and the
balance is distributed to the states in the following proportions:
 20% equally to each state;
 40% in amounts proportionate to the relative rural population of each state to the
total rural population of all states; and
 40% in amounts proportionate to the relative farm population of each state to the
total farm population of all states.

37 The U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam are exempted from the matching requirement.
38 Section 3(d) funds were originally distributed via formula. This changed through §7403 of the 2008 farm bill.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 23 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

Federal funds provided under the Smith-Lever Act to state institutions must be matched with
nonfederal funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Matching requirements for the District of Columbia
and the insular areas are subject to matching requirements of at least 50% of the Smith-Lever Act
funds they receive. Further, the Secretary of Agriculture may waive the matching requirement for
the District of Columbia or an insular area for any fiscal year if the Secretary determines that it is
unlikely to meet the matching requirement for that fiscal year.
The Smith-Lever Act requires states to expend 25% of federal Smith-Lever 3(b) and 3(c) capacity
grants, or twice the level spent in FY1997 (whichever is less), on cooperative extension activities
in which two or more states cooperate to address issues facing more than one state. They must
expend the same percentage or amount on activities that integrate cooperative research and
extension. Institutions receiving Smith-Lever capacity grants can carry over unexpended funds
from one fiscal year to the next.
Smith-Lever Act 3(d): Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program
Section 1425 of NARETPA established the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program
(EFNEP, 7 U.S.C. §3175) as an extension capacity grant program under Section 3(d) of the
Smith-Lever Act.39 1862 and 1890 Institutions receive EFNEP capacity grants to provide nutrition
education to low-income individuals and families.40 Funds are distributed in the following
proportions:
 4% to USDA for administrative expenses;
 a base amount to 1862 Institutions, equal to their FY1981 allocation;
 $100,000 to each 1862 and 1890 Institution;
 15% of those funds appropriated in excess of FY2007 appropriations to the 1890
Institutions distributed among them according to the ratio of the population living
at or below 125% of the federal income poverty guidelines (the “poverty
threshold population”) in the state in which the 1890 Institution is located to the
total poverty threshold population in all states in which 1890 Institutions are
located; and
 the remainder to each state, distributed among them according to the ratio of the
poverty threshold population in that state to the total poverty threshold
population in all states.
NARETPA Section 1444: Extension Funding for 1890 Institutions
Section 1444 of NARETPA (7 U.S.C. §§321-329) provides capacity grants for extension
education programs at 1890 Institutions in a manner similar to Smith-Lever Act funding for 1862
Institutions. Section 7121 of the 2008 farm bill amended Section 1444(a)(2) of NARETPA so that
an amount equal to at least 20% of the total annual appropriation under the Smith-Lever Act
Sections 3(b) and 3(c) shall be allocated to 1890 Institutions for their extension activities. In
FY2022, 1890 Institution extension appropriations met and exceeded this threshold for the first
time (see Table 2).

39 The other Smith-Lever Act 3(d) programs are competitively awarded. For more information, see “Competitive
Smith-Lever Provisions for Extension at 1862, 1890, and 1994 Institutions”.
40 For more information on the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP), see USDA, NIFA, “About
EFNEP,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/about-efnep.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 26 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

Funds are distributed according to the same formula used for Evans-Allen 1890 Institution
research funds, except that 4%, rather than 3%, of total funds are reserved to NIFA for
administrative, technical, and other services. State matching requirements for 1890 Institution
extension funds are the same as described for 1890 Institution research funds (see “Evans-Allen
Act: Research Funding for 1890 Institutions” and “State Matching Funds” for additional details).
Before the 2018 farm bill, 1890 Institutions could carry over no more than 20% of their extension
appropriations from one fiscal year into the next. The 1862 Institutions have no such limitation.
Section 7114 of the 2018 farm bill (7 U.S.C. §3221(a)) allows 1890 Institutions to carry over up
to 100% of their extension appropriations. This change may allow 1890 Institutions greater
flexibility to plan long-term projects.
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund and Tribal College
Educational Equity Grants: Capacity Funding for 1994 Institutions
Section 533(c) of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. §301 note)
requires annual distributions of interest on the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.
The 1994 Institutions receive payments, based on formula established in statute, from the interest
earned on the endowment corpus. No withdrawals are made from the corpus. There is no
matching requirement, and endowment funds do not expire. The institutional recipients may use
funds at their discretion, for the support and maintenance of the colleges for the benefit of the
agricultural and mechanical arts. In FY2020, the endowment fund produced about $5.0 million in
interest.41
Four percent of the available funds are reserved to NIFA for administrative services. The balance
of the interest income is distributed to the 1994 Institutions according to the following formula:
 40% in equal shares to the 1994 Institutions; and
 60% to be distributed among the 1994 institutions based on the Indian student
count for each institution for the fiscal year.42
Section 534 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act authorizes annual appropriations
to the Department of the Treasury to support education capacity at 1994 Institutions. These
appropriations are distributed equally among the 1994 Institutions. NIFA administers this Tribal
College Educational Equity Grant Program.43
Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities Fund: Research,
Education, and Extension Funding for HSACUs
Section 1455 of NARETPA as amended requires annual distributions of interest on the HSACU
Fund. No interest has accrued to date, as Congress has not provided appropriations for the
HSACU Fund. Four percent of available funds are to be reserved to NIFA for administrative
services. The balance of the interest income is to be distributed to the HSACUs according to the
following formula (7 U.S.C. §3243(b)(5)):

41 See NIFA, “1994 Institutions Endowment Fund - 2020 Interest Distribution,” at https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/program/2021%20Tribal%20Endowment%20Distribution%20letter2.pdf.
42 25 U.S.C. §1801(a)(8) defines the Indian student count as “a number equal to the total number of Indian students
enrolled in each tribally controlled college or university, determined in a manner consistent with subsection (b) of this
section on the basis of the quotient of the sum of the credit hours of all Indian students so enrolled, divided by 12.”
43 For more details, see NIFA, “Tribal Colleges Education Equity Grants Program,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/
funding-opportunities/tribal-colleges-education-equity-grants-tceg-program.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 23 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

 40% in equal shares to the HSACUs; and
 60% to be distributed among the HSACUs on a pro rata basis based on the
Hispanic enrollment count of each institution.
Competitive Grants
Many provisions in various laws authorize competitive grants for agriculture and forestry
research, education, and extension. The following highlights some major provisions relevant to
the land-grant university system, as well as two new programs authorized in the 2018 farm bill.
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI, 7 U.S.C. §3157) is USDA’s largest
competitive grants program for agricultural science research. The 2008 farm bill established
AFRI, and subsequent farm bills reauthorized it. AFRI is authorized to be appropriated $700
million annually, from FY2008 to FY2023. Its appropriation has grown from $202 million in
FY2009 (P.L. 111-8) to $445 million for FY2022 (P.L. 117-103). See Table 2 for appropriations
in recent years.
AFRI funds are not reserved specifically for land-grant institutions. Eligible recipients of AFRI
awards include SAESs; colleges and universities; university research foundations; other research
institutions and organizations; federal agencies; national laboratories; private organizations or
corporations; individuals; or any combination of the aforementioned entities.
AFRI grants support research, education, and extension activities in six priority areas identified in
the statute:
 plant health and production and plant products (20% of the Administration’s
requested FY2023 AFRI funds);
 animal health and production and animal products (20%);
 food safety, nutrition, and health (15%);
 bioenergy, natural resources, and environment (18%);
 agriculture systems and technology (16%); and
 agriculture economics and rural communities (11%).44
Competitive Smith-Lever Provisions for Extension at 1862, 1890, and 1994
Institutions
Section 201 of AREERA amended the Smith-Lever Act to authorize agricultural extension
appropriations for 1994 Institutions, awarded on a competitive basis. This is included as a
separate competitive funding provision within Smith-Lever Section 3(b) (7 U.S.C. §343(c)). A
1994 Institution may administer such funds in cooperation with an 1862 or 1890 Institution. NIFA
awards these funds through the Tribal Colleges Extension Program.45

44 USDA, 2023 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations – National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, 2022, p. 79. Percentage allocation amounts are consistent with allocations among the priority areas in prior
years.
45 For more information, see NIFA, “Tribal Extension Grant Program,” https://nifa.usda.gov/program/tribal-extension-
grant-program.
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 19 link to page 19 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

In addition, Smith-Lever 3(d) funds, originally distributed via formula and reserved for 1862
Institutions, address special programs or concerns of regional or national importance.
Competitively awarded Smith-Lever 3(d) funds support the (1) Farm Safety and Youth Safety
Education Program, (2) Children, Youth, and Families at Risk, (3) Federally-Recognized Tribes
Extension Program, and (4) New Technology for Agricultural Extension Program. Section 7403
of the 2008 farm bill expanded eligibility for Smith-Lever 3(d) funds to 1890 Institutions and
required that all 3(d) funding be awarded on a competitive basis except for EFNEP, which is
awarded on a formula basis (see “Smith-Lever Act 3(d): Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
Program”). Section 7609 of the 2018 farm bill authorized 1994 Institutions to compete for and
receive funds for two of the four competitive 3(d) programs: Children, Youth, and Families at
Risk, and the Federally-Recognized Tribes Extension Program.
Competitive Research and Education Grants for 1994 Institutions
In 1998 Congress, through passage of AREERA, amended the Equity in Educational Land-Grant
Status Act of 1994 to authorize a competitive research grants program for 1994 Institutions, and
to authorize appropriations for the program. Later farm bills amended some of the original
provisions. As amended, the program allows scientists at 1994 Institutions to participate in
agricultural research activities that address tribal, national, and multistate priorities. The 1994
Institutions may conduct this work in cooperation with the Agricultural Research Service, an
1862 or 1890 Institution, an NLGCA, or a cooperating forestry school. NIFA administers the
Tribal Colleges Research Grants Program.46
Competitive Grants for 1890 Institutions Established in the 2018 Farm Bill
Section 7117 of the 2018 farm bill authorized education grants for students enrolled in 1890
Institutions who intend to pursue careers in the food and agricultural sciences (7 U.S.C. §3222a).
It made $40 million of mandatory funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation available
until expended. In addition, it authorized $10 million in annual discretionary funding from
FY2020 through FY2023. Congress provided $5 million in discretionary appropriations in
FY2020 and $10 million in FY2021 and FY2022.
Section 7213 called for USDA to recognize at least three centers of excellence for research,
extension, and education activities at 1890 Institutions (7 U.S.C. §5926d). Each center of
excellence should focus on at least one of six specified areas: student success and workforce
development; nutrition, health, wellness, and quality of life; farming systems, rural prosperity,
and economic sustainability; global food security and defense; natural resources, energy and the
environment; and emerging technologies. It authorized annual appropriations of $10 million from
FY2019 through FY2023. Congress provided $5 million in discretionary appropriations for
FY2019, $6 million for FY2020, and $10 million for FY2021 and for FY2022.47

46 For more details, see NIFA, “Tribal Colleges Research Grants Program,” https://nifa.usda.gov/funding-opportunity/
tribal-colleges-research-grants-program-tcrgp.
47 Funding for the Centers of Excellence at 1890 Institutions has been included in the General Provisions of recent
agriculture appropriations acts.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 23 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

Table 2. NIFA Discretionary Appropriations
(in $millions)
Program
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
Research and Education

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)✝
400.0
415.0
425.0
435.0
445.0
Hatch Act*
243.7
259.0
259.0
259.0
260.0
Evans-Allen Act*
54.2
58.0
67.0
73.0
80.0
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act*
34.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
36.0
Payments to the 1994 Institutions✝ a
3.4
3.4
4.0
4.5
5.5
Research Grants for 1994 Institutions✝
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.0
4.5
Other Research and Educationb
148.1
152.4
168.1
181.1
215.2
Total Research and Education
887.2
927.6
962.9
992.6
1,046.2
Extension

Smith-Lever Section 3(b) and 3(c)*
300.0
315.0
315.0
315.0
320.0
Smith-Lever Section 3(d)✝
85.6
86.6
87.8
90.1
90.4
Extension Services at 1890 Institutions*
45.6
48.6
57.0
62.0
65.0
Extension Services at 1994 Institutions✝
6.4
6.4
8.0
8.5
9.5
Other extensionc
46.0
49.1
58.8
62.8
65.7
Total Extension
483.6
505.7
526.6
538.4
550.6
Integrated Activitiesd

Total Integrated Activities
37.0
38.0
38.0
39.0
40.0
Total NIFA Appropriations
1,407.8
1,471.3
1,527.4
1,570.0
1,636.8
Source: Compiled by CRS, using appropriations acts and conference reports.
Note: Named capacity (formula) programs are marked with an asterisk (*), and competitive programs are
marked with a cross (✝).
a. Annual appropriations for “Payments to the 1994 Institutions” fund the tribal col ege educational equity
grants authorized in Section 534 of P.L. 103-182. Not presented in this table, Congress also provides annual
appropriations for the Tribal Col ege Endowment Fund authorized in Section 533 ($11.9 mil ion annually in
FY2018-FY2022). 1994 Institutions receive annual interest distributions from the endowment fund.
b. Example programs include Scholarships for Students at 1890 Institutions, Education Grants for Hispanic-
Serving Institutions, and Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education. A complete listing of research and
education appropriations (FY2022) is available in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103),
FY2022 Explanatory Statement, Division A, pp. 9-10.
c. Example programs include Facility Improvements at 1890 Institutions, Rural Health and Safety Education
Programs, and Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network. A complete listing of extension appropriations
(FY2022) is available in P.L. 117-103, FY2022 Explanatory Statement, Division A, pp. 10-11.
d. Integrated activities are those grant programs that combine research, extension, and education.
Issues for Congress
Since establishing the land-grant university system in 1862, Congress has continued to shape and
support the central role of land-grant institutions in U.S. agricultural research, extension, and
Congressional Research Service

19

The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

education. As Congress considers future oversight, amendments, or appropriations, the following
potential issues may be of interest.
Declining Public Research Funding
In recent years, public financial support (federal and state appropriations) for agricultural research
and development (R&D) has declined in terms of both the proportion of all agricultural R&D
funding that it represents and total inflation-adjusted public dollars spent.
Figure 2. Total Public Agricultural Research & Development Funding (1970-2019)
(2019 inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars in millions)

Source: CRS from Keith Fuglie and Kelly P. Nelson, “Agricultural and Food Research and Development
Expenditures in the United States,” ERS (updated May 17, 2022), https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/
agricultural-and-food-research-and-development-expenditures-in-the-united-states.
Note: Data are adjusted for inflation using the Biomedical Research and Development Price Index from the
National Institutes of Health.
Considering all public and private agricultural R&D funding, the public funding share decreased
from about 50% from 1970 to 2008 to less than 30% in 2014.48 Factors influencing this change
include declining state appropriations for agricultural research since the 1990s; laws and legal
decisions since the 1970s that paved the way for intellectual property rights for biological
innovations and commercial products spurring private investment; technical advances in

48 Data on private sector agricultural research and development funding are available from ERS through 2014. For
details, see Matthew Clancy, Keith Fuglie, and Paul Heisey, “U.S. Agricultural R&D in an Era of Falling Public
Funding,” Amber Waves, November 10, 2016, https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/november/u-s-agricultural-
r-d-in-an-era-of-falling-public-funding (hereinafter Clancy, Fuglie, and Heisey, 2016). See also Keith O. Fuglie and
Andrew A. Toole, “The Evolving Institutional Structure of Public and Private Agricultural Research,” American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 96, no. 3 (2014), pp. 862-883. Also, Philip G. Pardey, Julian M. Alston, and
Connie Chan-Kang, Public Food and Agricultural Research in the United States: The Rise and Decline of Public
Investments, and Policies for Renewal, AGree, 2013.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 24

The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

biotechnology that have increased the potential profitability of agricultural research to private
enterprise; and the expansion of markets and increasing globalization of trade.49
With respect to public funding, total federal and state agricultural research appropriations have
declined in inflation-adjusted dollars in recent years, following decades of increases. USDA
Economic Research Service (ERS) analyses show that public funding peaked in 2002, at $7.6
billion (2019 constant dollars), and declined to $5.2 billion in 2019—about equivalent to the
amount provided in 1970 (Figure 2).50
Figure 3. Funders and Performers of U.S. Public Agricultural Research (2019)
(U.S. dollars in millions)

Source: Kelly P. Nelson and Keith Fuglie, “Investment in U.S. Public Agricultural Research and Development
Has Fallen by a Third Over Past Two Decades, Lags Major Trade Competitors,” Amber Waves, June 6, 2022.
Notes: Total funds allocated to agricultural research and development (R&D) in 2019 were $5.04 bil ion, while
total reported expenditures by R&D performing institutions that year was $5.16 bil ion because of differences in
budget procedures and timing of expenditures.

49 For information on state funding, see Clancy, Fuglie, and Heisey, 2016. Legislation relating to intellectual property
rights includes the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-577); Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-517); Federal
Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-502); and National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(P.L. 104-113). Legal decisions relating to intellectual property rights include Diamond v. Chakrabarty (447 U.S. 303)
in 1980 and J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc v. Pioneer Hi-Bred, Inc. (534 U.S. 124) in 2001. For information on agricultural
biotechnology and new gene editing technologies, see CRS Report R46737, Agricultural Biotechnology: Overview,
Regulation, and Selected Policy Issues.
50 Kelly P. Nelson and Keith Fuglie, “Investment in U.S. Public Agricultural Research and Development Has Fallen by
a Third Over Past Two Decades, Lags Major Trade Competitors,” Amber Waves, June 6, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 25 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

Within public agricultural R&D (i.e., any agricultural R&D activity conducted at universities or
federal laboratories regardless of funding source), about two-thirds of the funding (64%) comes
from federal appropriations, and more than two-thirds of the research (about 70%) is carried out
by academic and other nonfederal institutions (Figure 3).
Various stakeholder groups have called for increases in public agricultural R&D funding. The
Supporters of Agricultural Research Foundation (SoAR) is a nonprofit organization established in
2014 with the goal of increasing public research funding for agriculture.51 SoAR leads a coalition
of partners representing the farming, scientific, and academic interests. SoAR argues that
increased agricultural research funding will strengthen the U.S. economy, protect public health,
and improve environmental quality. Two SoAR partner organizations, the Association of Public
and Land-Grant Universities and the Charles Valentine Riley Memorial Foundation, called for
increased public funding of agricultural research in 2019, in part to ensure that the United States
remains globally competitive in agricultural technology and productivity.52 The Farm Journal
Foundation and the American Farm Bureau Federation commissioned a report, released in 2021,
which called for increased public investment in agricultural research and focused on six priority
areas that the report suggests private investments may not address adequately.53
Many of these stakeholder groups argue that public funding for agricultural research is necessary
to address issues of importance to agricultural producers and consumers that private enterprise
may not pursue. Whereas public funding pursues public goods, with the exception of some
private foundations, private funding is typically oriented to generating profit. Thus the shift from
predominantly public funding of agricultural research to more private funding has the potential to
shape agricultural research toward crops, livestock, and technologies with the greatest profit
potential and away from smaller crops or less profitable technologies. Increasing federal
appropriations for agricultural research or requiring increases in state matching funds may bolster
research and development of agricultural products and activities that are important to some
agricultural constituencies, yet currently have limited economic incentives.
State Matching Funds for 1890 Institutions
Federal research and extension capacity grants to the land-grant university system generally
require one-to-one nonfederal matching funds. All states meet the matching requirements for their
1862 Institutions. In contrast, in FY2020, 53% (10 of 19) 1890 Institutions received full
nonfederal matching funds for both research and extension capacity grants. Those 1890
Institutions that do not meet the 100% matching funds requirement must either apply to USDA
and receive a waiver for up to 50% of the nonfederal matching funds requirement or forfeit their
federal capacity funding.54

51 Supporters of Agricultural Research Foundation, “About SoAR,” https://supportagresearch.org/about/about-soar.
52 Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and Charles Valentine Riley Foundation, Joint Position Statement,
May 2019, https://www.aplu.org/members/commissions/food-environment-and-renewable-resources/board-on-
agriculture-assembly/baa_rmf_position_statement_may_2019.pdf.
53 IJS Markit, Benefits of Increased U.S. Public Investment in Agricultural Research, 2021, commissioned by the Farm
Journal Foundation and the American Farm Bureau Federation.
54 Matching funds must derive from a nonfederal source. This source is typically appropriations from the state
legislature but may include other sources. In one example, from 2000 to 2017, Lincoln University in Missouri used
more than $43 million in university resources to fully fund or supplement state matching funds in order to meet the
50% waiver requirement to receive federal funds. The university ceased providing these funds in 2018 due to
competing priorities. In 2022, for the first time since Congress required nonfederal matching funds for 1890 capacity
grants, the state legislature provided the full match. Rebecca Rivas, “Lincoln University Poised to Receive Full State
Match for Land-Grant Funding,” Missouri Independent, May 6, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

22

The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

Figure 4. Total Annual Nonfederal Matching Fund Waivers: 1890 Institution Research
and Extension Capacity Grants (FY2011-FY2020)
(U.S. dollars in millions)

Source: CRS from data provided by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Notes: Waiver requests (required nonfederal; for example, state matching funds that were not provided) above
the 50% nonfederal matching level include all nineteen 1890 Institutions for federal agricultural research (Evans-
Allen Act) and extension (NARETPA §1444) capacity grants.
While receiving a waiver allows an 1890 Institution to receive its full allocation of federal
funding, such a waiver reduces the total public support for the institution (combined federal and
state funding) compared with what it would receive if a complete match was provided. This opens
a disparity between 1890 and 1862 Institutions.
If states had contributed 100% matching funds, overall state contributions for research and
extension capacity grants at 1890 Institutions would have been $15.5 million higher in FY2019
and $21.5 million higher in FY2020 than actual matching contributions.55
In 1977, when Congress, through NARETPA, originally created the Evans-Allen Act research and
NARETPA Section 1445 extension capacity funding for 1890 Institutions, it did not require state
matching funds. Through AREERA in 1998, Congress instituted an initial 30% state matching
requirement for FY2000 that increased to 50% by FY2002. At that time, Congress gave USDA
the ability to waive the state matching requirement for FY2000, but not thereafter. The 2002 farm
bill increased the matching requirement over time until it reached 100% in FY2007. The 2002
farm bill reintroduced the ability for USDA to issue waivers, above the 50% level, if a state was
unlikely to meet the matching requirement.
Eliminating the opportunity to apply for a waiver may result in some states increasing their
matching funds to ensure that their 1890 Institutions qualify for these federal funding programs.
However, this change may result in other institutions becoming ineligible to receive any federal

55 For further exploration of this topic, see CRS In Focus IF11847, 1890 Land-Grant Universities: Background and
Selected Issues; and Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Land-Grant But Unequal, policy brief,
September 2013, at https://www.aplu.org/library/land-grant-but-unequal-state-one-to-one-match-funding-for-1890-
land-grant-universities/file.
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 27 link to page 29 link to page 29 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

funds if their states do not increase their matching contributions. Another option that may
incentivize increased nonfederal matching is to increase the waiver threshold above 50%.
Section 7116 of the 2018 farm bill (7 U.S.C. §3221(a)) addressed this issue through a
transparency requirement. It requires USDA to report annually “the allocations made to, and
matching funds received by, 1890 Institutions and 1862 Institutions … for each of the agricultural
research, extension, education, and related programs….” under the relevant statutes (e.g., Smith-
Lever Act 3(b) and 3(c), Hatch Act, and §§1444 and 1445 of NARETPA). NIFA posts these
“allocation and matching” data to its website.56 Supporters of the 1890 Institutions voiced hope
that the new transparency requirement would encourage states to provide 100% matching funding
for those institutions. However, data from the first two years after this requirement was enacted
show the opposite: an increase in the total funds waived (Figure 4).
Funding of 1994 Institutions
The 1994 Institutions make up the newest class of land-grant institution. Significant institutional
differences among the 1862, 1890, and 1994 Institutions, in terms of numbers of students served,
types of degrees awarded, and focal missions, may factor into federal funding allocations. While
land-grant designation gave 1994 Institutions new access to federal funding, this access is more
limited than that of 1862 and 1890 Institutions. 1994 Institutions receive fewer federal funds
administered by NIFA than 1862 and 1890 Institutions, and they are ineligible for certain grant
types available to 1862 and 1890 Institutions. Whereas the 1862 and 1890 Institutions receive
federal capacity funds specific to agricultural research and extension, 1994 Institutions do not.
Although 1994 Institutions have more limited enrollment and offer fewer postsecondary degrees
than 1862 and 1890 Institutions, some argue that funding for agricultural research and extension
at the 1994 Institutions is insufficient and should be increased.
Table 3 illustrates some differences in federal research funding among land-grant institution
types. In FY2022, agricultural research appropriations for 1994 Institutions (Tribal College
Research Grants Program, $4.5 million) equaled less than 2% of research capacity funds provided
to 1862 Institutions (Hatch Act, $260 million). They received the equivalent of 3% of the
extension appropriations (Tribal Colleges Extension Program, $9.5 million) provided for
extension capacity grants to 1862 Institutions (Smith-Lever Act, $320 million). There are fewer
1994 Institutions than 1862 Institutions (61% as many), and the 1994 Institutions enroll fewer
students (Table 3). The American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), a nonprofit
group representing TCUs, has consistently requested increased appropriations for 1994
Institutions, characterizing the difference in funding between 1994 and 1862 Institutions as an
inequity.57 Across all academic disciplines, in academic year 2019-2020, 1862 Institutions
enrolled about 1.5 million undergraduate students, and 1994 Institutions enrolled about 23,500, or
1.6% of the enrollment in 1862 institutions.58 Others might argue that funding differences are
appropriate to the different academic structures, institutional missions, and number of students
served at 1994 and 1862 Institutions.

56 See search results for “allocation” filtered by “Reports” at NIFA, “Resources: Search for Documents,”
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/document?search_api_fulltext=allocation.
57 American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), Fiscal Year 2023 Agriculture Appropriations Requests:
Tribal Colleges and Universities, http://www.aihec.org/what-we-do/docs/FY23/
FY2023_TCUs_Land%20Grant_3.9.22.Final.pdf.
58 Based on data from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System, available at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter.
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 29 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

Table 3. FY2022 Selected Federal Research Funding by Institution Type

Institution Type
1862
1890
1994
Funding Program
Hatch Act
Evans-Allen Act Tribal Col eges Research Grants Program
Total Appropriation
$260.0 mil ion
$80.0 mil ion
$4.5 mil ion
Total Number of Institutions
57
19
35
Average Appropriations Per
$4.6 mil ion
$4.2 mil ion
$0.1 mil ion
Institution
Total Number of Studentsa
1,853,496
92,004
15,485
Source: Appropriations data compiled by CRS using appropriations acts and conference reports. Number of
students are 12-month (2021-2022) enrol ment data from National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System.
Notes:
a. Number of students includes both undergraduate and graduate students enrol ed in the institution across all
academic disciplines. These student totals do not reveal the subset of students who are engaged in
agricultural disciplines, making it challenging to compare overall support levels for these students.
Section 7120 of the 2018 farm bill included 1994 Institutions in one new avenue for competitive
funding. This section, titled “New Beginning for Tribal Students,” authorizes USDA to make
competitive grants, with a one-to-one matching funds requirement, to land-grant institutions—
including 1862, 1890, and 1994 Institutions—targeting support for tribal students. Institutions
may use such funds to support tribal students through recruiting, tuition and related fees,
experiential learning, and student services. No state may receive more than $500,000 per year
through this program. Of all projects funded (FY2020 and FY2021), 12% (4 of 33 projects) were
proposed by 1994 Institutions. Of new projects funded in FY2021, 15% of awarded funds went to
a 1994 Institution.59

59 CRS analysis of funding data for the New Beginning for Tribal Students program, in NIFA, Current Research
Information System, https://cris.nifa.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.txt&id=anon&pass=&search=
(GC=nbts)&format=WEBTITLESGIY. The 1994 funds reflect a single multi-year award of $572,331 to Lac Courte
Oreilles Ojibwa Community College.
Congressional Research Service

25

link to page 32 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

Appendix. Land-Grant Institutions by State
Table A-1. List of Land-Grant Institutions by State
ALABAMA
Alabama A&M University, Normal†
Auburn University, Auburnº
Tuskegee University, Tuskegee†
ALASKA
Ilisagvik Col ege, Barrow‡
University of Alaska, Fairbanksº
AMERICAN SAMOA
American Samoa Community College, Pago Pagoº
ARIZONA
Diné Col ege, Tsaile‡
University of Arizona, Tucsonº
Tohono O’odham Community College, Sells‡
ARKANSAS
University of Arkansas, Fayettevilleº
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Pine Bluff†
CALIFORNIA
D-Q University, (Davis vicinity)a
University of California System-Oakland as Headquarters, Oaklandº
COLORADO
Colorado State University, Fort Col insº
CONNECTICUT
University of Connecticut, Storrsº
DELAWARE
Delaware State University, Dover†
University of Delaware, Newarkº
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA University of the District of Columbia, Washingtonº
FLORIDA
Florida A&M University, Tallahassee†
University of Florida, Gainesvil eº
GEORGIA
Fort Valley State University, Fort Valley†
University of Georgia, Athensº
GUAM
University of Guam, Mangilaoº
HAWAII
University of Hawaii, Honoluluº
IDAHO
University of Idaho, Moscowº
ILLINOIS
University of Il inois, Urbanaº
INDIANA
Purdue University, West Lafayetteº
IOWA
Iowa State University, Amesº
KANSAS
Haskel Indian Nations University, Lawrence‡
Kansas State University, Manhattanº
KENTUCKY
Kentucky State University, Frankfort†
University of Kentucky, Lexingtonº
LOUISIANA
Louisiana State University, Baton Rougeº
Southern University and A&M Col ege, Baton Rouge†
MAINE
University of Maine, Oronoº
MARYLAND
University of Maryland, Col ege Parkº
University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne†
MASSACHUSETTS
University of Massachusetts, Amherstº
Congressional Research Service

26

The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

MICHIGAN
Bay Mil s Community Col ege, Brimely‡
Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College, Baraga‡
Michigan State University, East Lansingº
Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College, Mount Pleasant‡
MICRONESIA
College of Micronesia, Kolonia, Pohnpeiº
MINNESOTA
Fond du Lac Tribal & Community College, Cloquet‡
Leech Lake Tribal College, Cass Lake‡
Red Lake Nation College, Red Lake‡
University of Minnesota, St. Paulº
White Earth Tribal and Community Col ege, Mahnomen‡
MISSISSIPPI
Alcorn State University, Lorman†
Mississippi State University, Starkvil eº
MISSOURI
Lincoln University, Jefferson City†
University of Missouri, Columbiaº
MONTANA
Aaniiih Nakoda College, Harlem‡
Blackfeet Community Col ege, Browning‡
Chief Dull Knife College, Lame Deer‡
Fort Peck Community College, Poplar‡
Little Big Horn College, Crow Agency‡
Montana State University, Bozemanº
Salish Kootenai College, Pablo Stone Child College, Box Elder‡
NEBRASKA
Little Priest Tribal Col ege, Winnebago‡
Nebraska Indian Community College, Winnebago‡
University of Nebraska, Lincolnº
NEVADA
University of Nevada, Renoº
NEW HAMPSHIRE
University of New Hampshire, Durhamº
NEW JERSEY
Rutgers University, New Brunswickº
NEW MEXICO
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development,
Santa Fe‡
Navajo Technical Col ege, Crownpoint‡
New Mexico State University, Las Crucesº
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, Albuquerque‡
NEW YORK
Cornell University, Ithacaº
NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro†
North Carolina State University, Raleighº
NORTH DAKOTA
Cankdeska Cikana Community College, Fort Totten‡
Fort Berthold Community College, New Town‡
North Dakota State University, Fargoº
Sitting Bull College, Fort Yates‡
Turtle Mountain Community College, Belcourt‡
United Tribes Technical College, Bismarck‡
NORTHERN MARIANAS
Northern Marianas Col ege, Saipan, CMº
OHIO
Central State University, Wilberforce†
Ohio State University, Columbusº
OKLAHOMA
College of the Muscogee Nation, Okmulgee‡
Langston University, Langston†
Oklahoma State University, Stil waterº
OREGON
Oregon State University, Corvallisº
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania State University, University Parkº
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 8 The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

PUERTO RICO
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguezº
RHODE ISLAND
University of Rhode Island, Kingstonº
SOUTH CAROLINA
Clemson University, Clemsonº
South Carolina State University, Orangeburg†
SOUTH DAKOTA
Oglala Lakota College, Kyle‡
Sinte Gleska University, Rosebud‡
Sisseton Wahpeton College, Sisseton‡
South Dakota State University, Brookingsº
TENNESSEE
Tennessee State University, Nashvil e†
University of Tennessee, Knoxvil eº
TEXAS
Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View†
Texas A&M University, Col ege Stationº
UTAH
Utah State University, Loganº
VERMONT
University of Vermont, Burlingtonº
VIRGIN ISLANDS
University of the Virgin Islands, St. Croixº
VIRGINIA
Virginia State University, Petersburg†
Virginia Tech, Blacksburgº
WASHINGTON
Northwest Indian College, Bellingham‡
Washington State University, Pul manº
WEST VIRGINIA
West Virginia State University, Institute†
West Virginia University, Morgantownº
WISCONSIN
College of Menominee Nation, Keshena‡
Lac Courte Oreil es Ojibwa Community Col ege, Hayward‡
University of Wisconsin, Madisonº
WYOMING
University of Wyoming, Laramieº
Source: CRS from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Notes: See Figure 1 for a map of U.S. land-grant institutions. The three types of land-grant institution are
identified: 1862 Institutions (º); 1890 Institutions (†); and 1994 Institutions (‡).
a. Although D-Q University is named in statute as a 1994 Institution, it lost its accreditation in 2005.

Author Information

Genevieve K. Croft

Specialist in Agricultural Policy

Congressional Research Service

28

The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R45897 · VERSION 5 · UPDATED
29

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Aug. 9, 2022

HTML · PDF

67% changed

Aug. 29, 2019

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Economic Policy

Agricultural Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com

Raw Metadata: JSON