The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

The Agricultural Cooperative Extension
May 20, 2024
System: An Overview
Eleni G. Bickell
The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (7 U.S.C. §§341 et. seq.) established the Agricultural Cooperative
Analyst in Agricultural
Extension System (CES), or simply extension, which delivers research-based knowledge to
Policy
farmers, ranchers, and the nonuniversity public nationwide. Extension operates through a three-

tiered system—federal oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), state-level
activities led by land-grant institutions (LGIs), and local implementation by extension agents—

and includes over 100 programs affiliated with LGIs.
The federal government provides annual appropriations to LGIs, often with matching nonfederal requirements. Extension
programs are funded through capacity and competitive grants. Capacity grants provide federal funding to LGIs for the
activities of all three pillars of the land-grant university system (teaching, research, and extension), and funding is distributed
according to formulas established by legislation, including the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (38 Stat. 372) and the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-113, §§1444-1445). Competitive grants are
awarded through a peer-review process to specific extension projects proposed by eligible applicants.
Between FY2017 and FY2024, federal appropriations for extension activities increased, in current-year dollars, from $477.4
million to $561.7 million. Adjusted for inflation, however, the total decreased from $582.8 million to $561.7 million over the
same period. Inflation-adjusted appropriations for capacity grants decreased from $509.8 million in FY2017 to $471 million
in FY2024, while competitive grants increased, from $62.7 million to $83.1 million.
Since the establishment of the land-grant university system in 1862, Congress has continued to shape and support the central
role of extension at LGIs. Potential congressional concerns include the allocation of capacity federal funding for extension
activities, compared with competitive federal funding, which may affect who delivers agricultural research outreach and
training. Another issue of interest may be the differences in extension funding among LGIs, which may affect agricultural
knowledge dissemination, extension focus, audience targeting, and staff salaries, and may disadvantage minority applicants.
In the 2018 farm bill, Congress considered the use of matching fund requirement waivers and required USDA to annually
report allocations and matching funds in agricultural extension and research programs. Members of Congress may continue
to be interested in monitoring how waivers of state matching funds, or the lack of such waivers, is affecting federal fund
allocations toward LGIs, and whether the funding allocations are different from those for the LGIs that are not eligible to
receive waivers. In May 2024, the House and Senate released proposals for the 2024 farm bill, which include funding
reauthorizations for various extension programs and provisions related to both capacity and competitive funding and other
provisions, including increased funding for extension at LGIs.
Federal funding supports all three pillars of the agricultural knowledge system at LGIs. Some studies suggest that public
returns on federal investments in research and extension are higher than the costs of the investments. In considering future
funding levels, Congress may wish to examine additional authorities or requirements on the use of funding within the broader
mission of the land-grant university system.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 22 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 17 The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Structure of Extension ............................................................................................................... 3
Topics of Coverage.................................................................................................................... 4
Extension Programs at LGIs by Type of Funding ........................................................................... 4
Extension Programs Funded Through Capacity Grants ............................................................ 4
Extension Funding for 1862 Institutions ............................................................................. 5
Extension Funding for 1890 Institutions ............................................................................. 5
The Food and Nutrition Education or Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
Program ............................................................................................................................ 5
The Renewable Resources Extension Act ........................................................................... 6
Extension Programs Funded Through Competitive Grants ....................................................... 6
Tribal Colleges Extension Program Capacity Applications or Extension Services
at 1994 Institutions .......................................................................................................... 7
The Facilities Improvements at 1890 Institutions ............................................................... 7
The Rural Health and Safety Education Program or Rural Health and Safety
Education Competitive Grants Program .......................................................................... 7
The Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database ................................................................. 7
The Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Fields Program ........................................................................................... 8
The Food Safety Outreach Program or National Food Safety Outreach Program .............. 8
The Food and Agriculture Service Learning Program ........................................................ 8
The Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network ................................................................ 8
The Farm Safety and Youth Farm Safety Education Programs or Youth Farm
Safety Education and Certification Program ................................................................... 8
The New Technologies for Agricultural Extension Program .............................................. 9
The Children, Youth, and Families at Risk Program .......................................................... 9
The Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program ........................................................ 9
Extension Funding ........................................................................................................................... 9
Capacity Versus Competitive Funding for Extension Activities ............................................... 1
Considerations for Congress............................................................................................................ 1
Balance Between Capacity and Competitive Funding .............................................................. 1
Differences in Funding Between LGI Types ............................................................................. 2
Matching Fund Waivers ............................................................................................................ 3
Optimizing Federal Funding for Agricultural Teaching, Research, and Extension ................... 6

Figures
Figure 1. Map of U.S. Extension Programs Located at Land-Grant Institutions ............................ 2
Figure 2. Three-Tiered System of Service Delivery ........................................................................ 3
Figure 3. Federal Funding for Extension Activities by Type and Year ............................................ 1

Congressional Research Service

link to page 15 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 22 The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

Tables
Table 1. Federal Appropriations for Extension Activities, FY2017-FY2024 ................................. 11
Table 2. FY2024 Federal Extension Capacity Grant Appropriations by Institution Type ............... 3
Table 3. 1890 Land-Grant Universities Extension Funding ............................................................ 4

Contacts
Author Information .......................................................................................................................... 6

Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

Introduction
The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (7 U.S.C. §§341 et. seq.) created the Agricultural Cooperative
Extension System (CES) associated with each land-grant institution (LGI).1 As amended, this act
directs LGIs “to aid in diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical
information on subjects relating to agriculture, uses of solar energy with respect to agriculture,
home economics, and rural energy, and to encourage the application of the same … in
cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture [USDA].”2 The CES, known
simply as extension, is now a nationwide, noncredit educational network with programs in every
state and U.S. territory.3 Extension is a cooperative venture between USDA’s National Institute of
Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and LGIs. Its objective is to deliver practical education in
agriculture, science, and engineering to individuals and communities across the United States
through research-based knowledge.
This report describes the structure, service delivery, and funding mechanisms of extension. It
analyzes funding trends from FY2017 to FY2024. It closes with a discussion of issues of
potential congressional interest.
Background
The foundations of extension date back to the early 1800s with the emergence of agricultural
clubs and societies. By 1819, periodicals such as American Farmer were fostering a culture of
knowledge sharing among farmers, promoting new techniques and best practices.4 The Morrill
Act of 1862 (12 Stat. 503) eventually led to the establishment of 56 LGIs in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and territories. One of the missions of these new universities was the
teaching of agricultural and mechanical arts.5 The subsequent Morrill Act of 1890 (26 Stat. 417)
led to the establishment of 18 historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) that belong to
the U.S. land-grant university system.6 The Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994
(P.L. 103-382, §§531-535) added specified tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) to the land-
grant system.7
Extension offices operate within the main and satellite campuses of LGIs and in field offices in
every U.S. jurisdiction. They are in all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands (see Figure 1

1 A land-grant institution (LGI) is a college or university that receives funds from the federal government or state
legislature under the Morrill Acts of 1862, or 1890, or under the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994.
See CRS Report R45897, The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research.
2 7 U.S.C. §341.
3 The term “extension” will be used throughout this report to represent the Cooperative Extension System (CES).
4 Rose M. Hayden-Smith, “UC’s Land-Grant Mission Fuels Nation’s Growth, Prosperity,” California Agriculture, vol.
66, no. 2 (April 2012), pp. 42-45, https://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.v066n02p42&sharebar.
5 CRS Report R45897, The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural Research, and
Audrey E. H. King and M. Craig Edwards, “The Ever-Evolving Brand of the Land-Grant Institution: A Historical
Overview,” Journal of Applied Communications, vol. 105, no. 4 (2021), article 7, https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=2417&context=jac.
6 For more information on 1890 Institutions, see CRS In Focus IF11847, 1890 Land-Grant Universities: Background
and Selected Issues.
7 For more information on 1994 Institutions, see CRS In Focus IF12009, 1994 Land-Grant Universities: Background
and Selected Issues, and Gary A. Halvorson, “The Role of a 1994 Land Grant College,” Rangelands, vol. 38, no. 1
(February 2016), pp. 14-15, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190052815001376.
Congressional Research Service

1

The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

for a map). There are over 100 extension programs affiliated with LGIs. As of FY2024, there
were 56 extension programs affiliated with 1862 Institutions,8 19 affiliated with 1890
Institutions,9 and 35 affiliated with 1994 Institutions.10
Figure 1. Map of U.S. Extension Programs Located at Land-Grant Institutions

Source: CRS from data available at U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), “College Partners Directory,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/land-grant-colleges-and-universities-
partner-website-directory.
Note: Colors of dots indicate years in which statutes establishing given land-grant institutions were enacted.

8 The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is an 1862 LGI. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
has confirmed that MIT is eligible to apply for grants that are available only to LGIs, the State of Massachusetts
chooses to allocate its federal capacity grants to the University of Massachusetts Amherst, which focuses on the
agricultural arts. See letter from Sonny Ramaswamy, Director of USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA), to Laureen Horton, Manager, Grants and Contracts, MIT, April 14, 2016, https://ras.mit.edu/document/land-
grant-institution-confirmation-status-letter-april-2016.
9 The Alabama CES is the primary outreach and engagement organization for the land-grant mission of Alabama A&M
University and Auburn University in cooperation with Tuskegee University. See more at Alabama CES, “About Us,”
2024, https://www.aces.edu/blog/category/about-us/. Additionally, the NC Cooperative Extension is the primary
extension organization for the land-grant mission of NC State and North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State
universities. See more at NC State University, “Extension History and Milestones,”
https://www.ces.ncsu.edu/extension-history-and-milestones/.
10 NIFA, “Land-Grant Colleges and Universities,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/how-we-
work/partnerships/land-grant-colleges-universities.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7
The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

Structure of Extension
As illustrated in Figure 2, practical, research-based knowledge is delivered through a three-tiered
system of service delivery at the federal, state, and local levels.
Figure 2. Three-Tiered System of Service Delivery

Source: USDA, NIFA, “Cooperative Extension System,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/how-we-work/
extension/cooperative-extension-system.
At the federal level, NIFA distributes funding for extension’s work. At the state level, LGIs (1862,
1890, and 1994 Institutions) serve as the primary centers for extension activities. These LGIs
receive federal funds, often matched by state funds, to support educational services and initiatives
and to pay the salaries of extension workers. Extension agents from LGIs and regional and county
offices (sometimes called field offices) collaborate with local agricultural producers and
community members to implement knowledge from agricultural research. Educational
workshops, programs, and consultations are organized to adapt to the specific needs of local
communities. Extension educators and specialists from LGIs and field offices provide expertise in
areas such as agriculture, family and consumer sciences, food safety, nutrition, youth
development (e.g., the 4-H organization), and community development.11 In this partnership,
USDA, through NIFA, provides the comprehensive financial support and direction; LGIs and
associated entities, such as the academic departments and state Agricultural Experiment Stations
(AESs),12 supply research, content, and teaching; and field offices help extension workers from
LGIs to disseminate knowledge to the public.

11 NIFA, “Cooperative Extension System,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/how-we-work/extension/cooperative-
extension-system.
12 State Agricultural Experiment Stations (AESs) are scientific research centers that study issues and potential
improvements to food production and agribusiness and are located at LGIs or affiliated with one in each state. For more
information, see NIFA, “State Agricultural Experiment Stations,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/capacity-
grants/state-agricultural-experiment-stations.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 15 The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

Topics of Coverage
Extension programs primarily focus on informal education, including traditional extension
initiatives such as teaching in campus and field classrooms, public schools, and online platforms.
Additionally, they integrate extension with research projects to conduct applied or participatory
research. Teaching content covers various subjects, including modern agricultural science,
technology adoption, business operations, and financial literacy. Extension efforts also include
youth education in agriculture and natural resources, often with hands-on learning experiences
such as 4-H. According to NIFA, extension services aim to translate scientific findings into
practical applications, identify emerging research questions, and promote the application of
science and technology to improve U.S. rural and urban agriculture.13 The methods that extension
programs use to disseminate information or instruction vary according to the intended purpose,
topic, and audience, and include personalized visits, office calls, telephone consultations, tailored
letters, demonstrations, conferences, discussions, immersive field trips, bulletins, leaflets,
circulars, and other training meetings.14
Extension Programs at LGIs by Type of Funding
There are two types of funding streams for extension programs: capacity grants and competitive
grants. FY2024 enacted appropriations (P.L. 118-42, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024
provide a total of $561.7 million for extension activities (see Table 1).15 USDA allocates capacity
grants on a noncompetitive basis using predetermined formulas, criteria, and other metrics. In
contrast, competitive grants involve a selection process where individuals, LGIs, organizations,
and other eligible entities apply for funding by submitting proposals or applications. USDA
awards grants after peer review, on the basis of the quality of proposals or the potential impact or
alignment with funding priorities of the particular grant program. Some capacity and competitive
programs have no requirement to match federal with nonfederal (e.g., state and local) funds,
while others have a 100% match requirement.16
Extension Programs Funded Through Capacity Grants
Capacity grants are federal funds provided to specific LGIs, forestry schools, and veterinary
schools for research, teaching, and extension. The grants use a statutory formula considering
factors such as rural and farm population, number of small farms, total population, and other
metrics (see below for each formula). These grants often require nonfederal matching funds,
although this requirement may be waived in some circumstances.17 In FY2024, capacity grant

13 NIFA, “Extension,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/how-we-work/extension, accessed May 9, 2024.
14 Jeremy Elliot-Engel, Courtney Crist, and Gordon Jones, “The Power of Extension: Research, Teaching, and Outreach
for Broader Impacts,” in Teaching in the University: Learning from Graduate Students and Early-Career Faculty, ed.
Donna Westfall-Rudd, Courtney Vengrin, and Jeremy Elliot-Engel (Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech Publishing, 2022),
https://pressbooks.lib.vt.edu/universityteaching/chapter/the-power-of-extension-research-teaching-and-outreach-for-
broader-impacts/.
15 The appropriation for FY2024 is Division B of a six-bill minibus (P.L. 118-42) and was enacted on March 9, 2024,
following four continuing resolutions. For more information, see CRS Insight IN12158, Agriculture and Related
Agencies: FY2024 Appropriations.
16 NIFA, “Matching Requirement,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/matching-requirement. Matching funds must derive
from a nonfederal source. This source is typically appropriations from the state legislature but may include others.
17 Section 7404 of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) amended the matching requirements, such that the insular areas
and the District of Columbia, respectively, are required to provide matching funds of an amount equal to 50% or more
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 15 The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

programs for extension activities received $471 million in federal funding. For recent annual
appropriations of all capacity and competitive programs for extension activities, see Table 1.
Extension Funding for 1862 Institutions
The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (38 Stat. 372), as amended, provides capacity grants to 1862
Institutions for extension activities. Smith-Lever Act Section 3(b) and 3(c) capacity grants are
distributed on the basis of rural and farm population proportions among states.18 Matching
requirements apply, with federal funds matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis with nonfederal funds,
except in the District of Columbia and insular areas, which are subject to matching requirements
of at least 50% of the Smith-Lever Act funds they receive.19 For FY2024, Congress appropriated
$325 million for the Smith-Lever Act Section 3(b) and 3(c) programs for 1862 Institutions.
Extension Funding for 1890 Institutions
The National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA;
P.L. 95-113, 7 U.S.C. §§3221-3229) established capacity grants for extension programs at 1890
Institutions, similar to Smith-Lever Act funding for 1862 Institutions.20 The 2008 farm bill (P.L.
110-246) modified the funding formula, requiring allocation of at least 20% of the total annual
appropriation under the Smith-Lever Act for Section 3(b) and 3(c) grants to 1890 Institutions.
This funding requires dollar-for-dollar matching from nonfederal sources.21 USDA may waive or
modify the matching funds requirement under certain circumstances, for example, if a state is
unlikely to meet it.22 Congress appropriated $72 million for extension services at 1890
Institutions for FY2024.
The Food and Nutrition Education or Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
Program
Established under NARETPA within Smith-Lever Act Section 3(d), the Expanded Food and
Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP; 7 U.S.C. §3175) operates as an extension capacity grant
program. EFNEP capacity grants fund education efforts that emphasize nutrition education for

of the Smith-Lever Act funds they receive. These amendments also authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to 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.
18 Smith-Lever 3(b) and (c) capacity funds for 1862 LGI extension programs are distributed on the basis of the FY1962
distribution of extension funds, according to the following formula: 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.
19 See NIFA, “Smith-Lever Act Capacity Grant,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/smith-lever-act-capacity-
grant.
20 Capacity funds for the extension services at 1890 Institutions are distributed according to the following formula: 20%
equally to each state, 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, and 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.
21 Congress amended the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA)
through the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) to require matching
funding. This matching requirement increased from 30% in FY2000 to 100% from FY2007 onward.
22 For more information on waiver requirements to receive federal funds, 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, https://www.aplu.org/library/land-grant-but-unequal-state-one-to-one-match-
funding-for-1890-land-grant-universities/file.
Congressional Research Service

5

The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

low-income individuals and families.23 Congress appropriated $70 million to this program for
FY2024.
The Renewable Resources Extension Act
The Renewable Resources Extension Act program (RREA; 16 U.S.C. §§1671 et seq.) was
established by the Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-306). RREA funds
extension efforts that aim to help forest and range landowners and managers make informed
decisions based on research.24 These decisions involve managing various resources such as
vegetation, water, fisheries, wildlife, soil, and recreation.25 Congress appropriated $4 million to
this program for FY2024.
Extension Programs Funded Through Competitive Grants
NIFA awards competitive grants directly to specific extension projects proposed by eligible
applicants, determined through a national peer-review process. NIFA’s primary competitive grants
program is the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), established by the 2008 farm bill
and reauthorized in subsequent farm bills.26 Grants from AFRI support extension, research, and
education activities in six priority areas outlined in statute: plant health, animal health, food
safety, bioenergy, agriculture systems, and economics.27 The 2008 farm bill established the
requirement that AFRI allocate at least 30% of its total funding to integrate extension activities
with research and education activities. Integrated projects include at least two of the three
functions of the land-grant university system (i.e., research, teaching, and extension), including
collaborations between research and extension initiatives within a project.28 In FY2024,
competitive grant programs for extension activities received $83.1 million in federal funding.

23 Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) capacity funds for 1862 and 1890 Institutions are
distributed according to the following formula: 4% designated for USDA administrative expenses—a base amount
assigned to 1862 Institutions, reflecting their FY1981 allocation—$100,000 allocated to each 1862 and 1890
Institution, and 15% of funds exceeding FY2007 appropriations directed to 1890 Institutions. This distribution is based
on the ratio of the population living at or below 125% of the federal income poverty guidelines in the state where the
1890 Institution is situated, compared with the total poverty threshold population in all states with 1890 Institutions.
The remaining funds are distributed to each state, determined by the ratio of the poverty threshold population in that
state to the total poverty threshold population in all states. See NIFA, “Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
Program (EFNEP),” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/capacity-grants/efnep/expanded-food-nutrition-
education-program.
24 According to NIFA, “States are eligible for funds appropriated under this Act according to the respective capabilities
of their private forests and rangelands for yielding renewable resources and relative needs for such resources identified
in the periodic Renewable Resource Assessment provided for in Section 3 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the periodic appraisal of land and water resources provided for in Section 5 of the
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977.” For more information on how funds are allocated for the
program, see NIFA FY2024 Request for Applications, https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/FY24-
RREA-RFA-508-MOD1-P.pdf.
25 NIFA, “Renewable Resources Extension Act Capacity Grant,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/capacity-
grants/renewable-resources-extension-act-capacity-grant.
26 7 U.S.C. §3157(b). See USDA, “Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI),”
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/agriculture-food-research-initiative-afri.
27 7 U.S.C. §3157(b)(2).
28 Funding for all integrated projects is provided on a competitive basis. Examples include the Integrated Research,
Education, and Extension (IREE) Competitive Grants Program and the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension
Initiative (OREI). See NIFA, “Integrated Programs Application Information,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/integrated-
programs-application-information.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 15 The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

Table 1 lists extension programs funded by NIFA through competitive grants and the
appropriations they received in recent years.
Tribal Colleges Extension Program Capacity Applications or Extension
Services at 1994 Institutions
The Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382, 7 U.S.C. §301 note), as
amended by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA;
P.L. 105-185), established the Tribal Colleges Extension Program: Capacity Applications. The
program funds projects at 1994 Institutions that aim to establish extension offices for their
reservation communities; 1994 Institutions need to apply for these grants, which are awarded on a
competitive basis for capacity-like purposes.29 These extension offices collaborate with
reservation communities to develop programs addressing local needs, aiming for diversified and
targeted outreach.30 Congress appropriated $11 million to this program for FY2024.
The Facilities Improvements at 1890 Institutions
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246) established the Facilities Grants
Program (7 U.S.C. §3222b). The 1890 Facilities Grants Program provides funding for 1890
Institutions to acquire and enhance facilities and equipment related to food, agriculture, natural
resources, and human sciences, including libraries.31 Congress appropriated $21.5 million to this
program for FY2024.
The Rural Health and Safety Education Program or Rural Health and Safety
Education Competitive Grants Program
The Rural Development Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-419), as amended, established the Rural Health and
Safety Education Competitive Grants program (RHSE; 7 U.S.C. §2662(i)). RHSE funds projects
that aim to develop rural health leadership and to support health education (for both individuals
and families) and farm safety.32 Congress appropriated $4 million to this program for FY2024.
The Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database
The Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database (FARAD) program (7 U.S.C. §7642) was
established by AREERA (P.L. 105-185). FARAD collaborates with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to ensure food safety by providing a computer-based system that offers
practical information on avoiding residues in animal agriculture.33 Congress appropriated $2
million to this program for FY2024.

29 See NIFA, “Tribal Colleges Extension Program - Capacity Applications,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-
opportunities/tribal-colleges-extension-program-capacity-applications.
30 Ibid.
31 See NIFA, “1890 Facilities Grants Program,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-opportunities/1890-
facilities-grants-program.
32 See NIFA, “Rural Health and Safety Education Competitive Grants Program,”
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-opportunities/rural-health-safety-education-competitive-grants-program.
33 Food residues in animal agriculture are compounds found in edible tissues from food animals, including drugs,
pesticides, metabolites, and other substances formed during food production. For more information, see Edmond J.
Riviere, Arthur L. Craigmill, and Stephen F. Sundlof, “Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD): An
Automated Pharmacologic Databank for Drug and Chemical Residue Avoidance,” Journal of Food Protection, vol. 49,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

7

The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

The Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Fields Program
The 2008 farm bill established the Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Fields Program (7 U.S.C. §5925(d)(7)). The program funds projects
that aim to support research, teaching, and extension activities that foster participation of women
and minorities from rural areas in STEM, with a focus on K-14 students (kindergarten through
12th grade plus two years of postsecondary schooling; e.g., vocational technical institutions or
community or junior colleges).34 Congress appropriated $2 million to this program for FY2024.
The Food Safety Outreach Program or National Food Safety Outreach Program
The Food Safety Outreach Program (FSOP; 7 U.S.C. §7625) was established by the FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act of 2010 (FSMA; P.L. 111-353). FSOP funds projects that focus on food
safety training, extension, education, outreach, and technical assistance and that aim to improve
public health.35 Congress appropriated $10 million to this program for FY2024.
The Food and Agriculture Service Learning Program
AREERA (P.L. 105-185) established the Food and Agriculture Service Learning Program (7
U.S.C. §7633). The program funds projects that aim to increase children’s knowledge of
agriculture and improve their nutritional health.36 Congress appropriated $1 million to this
program for FY2024.
The Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network
The 2018 farm bill established the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network (7 U.S.C. §5936).
The program funds projects that aim to maintain a network connecting individuals engaged in
farming, ranching, and other agriculture-related occupations to stress assistance programs.37
Congress appropriated $10 million to this program for FY2024.
The Farm Safety and Youth Farm Safety Education Programs or Youth Farm
Safety Education and Certification Program
The Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification program (7 U.S.C. §343(d)) is authorized
under Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§341 et seq.). The

no. 10 (October 1986), pp. 826-830, https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x-49.10.826. Although codified by the 1998 farm
bill, FARAD existed since 1985 as a pilot extension project within four universities. Also, see NIFA, “Food Animal
Residue Avoidance Databank,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/animal-programs/food-animal-residue-
avoidance-databank.
34 See NIFA, “Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Fields Program,”
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-opportunities/women-minorities-science-technology-engineering-
mathematics-fields.
35 See NIFA, “Food Safety Outreach Program,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/food-safety/food-safety-
outreach-program.
36 See NIFA, “Food and Agriculture Service Learning Program,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-
opportunities/food-agriculture-service-learning-program.
37 See NIFA, “Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/farm-ranch-
stress-assistance-network-frsan.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 15 link to page 17 link to page 15 The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

program funds projects that aim to provide nonformal education in effective farm safety
initiatives.38 Congress appropriated $5 million to this program for FY2024.
The New Technologies for Agricultural Extension Program
The 2008 farm bill established the New Technologies for Agricultural Extension program under
Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (7 U.S.C. §§341 et seq.). The program provides
funds aiming to increase the capability of extension programs to adopt new and innovative
technology applications.39 Congress appropriated $1.6 million to this program for FY2024.
The Children, Youth, and Families at Risk Program
The Children, Youth, and Families at Risk program was established under Section 3(d) of the
Smith-Lever Act of 1914, as amended (7 U.S.C. §343(d)). The program provides funds for the
development and delivery of educational programs aiming to address the specialized needs of at-
risk youth and families.40 Congress appropriated $8 million to this program for FY2024.
The Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program
The Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) was established with the 1990
farm bill (P.L. 101-624) and authorized under Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, as
amended (7 U.S.C. §343(d)). FRTEP provides funds for extension programs on Indian
reservations and in tribal jurisdictions.41 Congress appropriated $4 million to this program for
FY2024.
Extension Funding
Total federal appropriations for extension activities (capacity and competitive programs and
federal administration expenses) gradually increased, in current-year dollars, from $477.4 million
in FY2017 to $561.7 million in FY2024 (Table 1).42 However, adjusting for inflation shows that
the total has decreased over time, from $582.8 million in FY2017 to $561.7 million in FY2024
(Figure 3). Annual inflation-adjusted appropriations for capacity grants have decreased, from
$509.8 million in FY2017 to $471 million in FY2024. Annual inflation-adjusted appropriations

38 See NIFA, “Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification Program,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-
opportunities/youth-farm-safety-education-certification-program.
39 See NIFA, “New Technologies for Ag Extension,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/environmental-
resource-economics-programs/new-technologies-ag-extension.
40 See NIFA, “Children, Youth and Families at Risk (CYFAR),” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/4-h-
positive-youth-development/4-h-access-equity-opportunity/children-youth-families-risk-cyfar.
41 See NIFA, “Federally-Recognized Tribes Extension Program,” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/nifa-
tribal-programs/federally-recognized-tribes-extension-program.
42 Table 1 includes the Agriculture in the K-12 Classroom (AITC) grant program, which was established by
NARETPA, as amended (7 U.S.C. §3152(j)). The program funds educational activities that aim to support agricultural
literacy by providing resources, training, and support to schools, educators, and volunteers in K-12 classes. Although
AITC is a competitive grant program, it is listed under “Other Expenses” by NIFA and in congressional appropriation
documents. Also, the Enhancing Agricultural Opportunities for Military Veterans (AgVets) Program, a pilot program
that provides grants to nonprofit organizations for training programs and services for farming and ranching
opportunities for military veterans, was first funded in FY2024 Enacted Appropriation. Section 760 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017 (H.R. 244) provides funds for the program. For more information, see NIFA, “Enhancing
Agricultural Opportunities for Military Veterans (AgVets),” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/enhancing-
agricultural-opportunities-military-veterans-agvets.
Congressional Research Service

9

The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

for competitive grants fluctuated but generally increased over the same period, from
approximately $62.7 million in FY2017 to $83.1 million in FY2024.

Congressional Research Service

10

Table 1. Federal Appropriations for Extension Activities, FY2017-FY2024
Dollars in millions
Program
U.S. Code
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
FY2024
Total, Extension Activities

477.4
483.5
505.6
526.6
538.5
550.7
565.5
561.7
Capacity Grants

Total

417.6
417.6
436.7
446.1
451.1
459.1
471.1
471.0
Smith-Lever Section 3(b) and 3(c)
7 U.S.C. §§343(b), 343(c)
300.0
300.0
315.0
315.0
315.0
320.0
325.0
325.0
programs at 1862 Institutions
Extension Services at 1890
7 U.S.C. §3221
45.6
45.6
48.6
57.0
62.0
65.0
72.0
72.0
Institutions
Renewable Resources Extension
16 U.S.C. §§1671 et seq.
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
Act
Smith-Lever Section 3(d): Food
7 U.S.C. §343(d)
67.9
67.9
69.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
and Nutrition Education
Competitive Grants

Total

51.4
57.6
60.6
72.2
79.1
82.5
85.3
83.1
Extension Services at 1994
7 U.S.C. §343(b)(3)
4.4
6.4
6.4
8.0
8.5
9.5
11.0
11.0
Institutions
Facilities Improvements at 1890
7 U.S.C. §3222b
19.7
19.7
19.7
20.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
Institutions
Rural Health and Safety Education
7 U.S.C. §2662(i)
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Food Animal Residue Avoidance
7 U.S.C. §7642
1.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
Database
Women and Minorities in STEM
7 U.S.C. §5925
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.0
2.0
2.0
Fields
Food Safety Outreach
7 U.S.C. §7625
5.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Food & Agricultural Service
7 U.S.C. §7633
—
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
Learning
CRS-11

link to page 16
Program
U.S. Code
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
FY2024
Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance
7 U.S.C. §5936
—
—
2.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Network
Farm Safety and Youth Farm
7 U.S.C. §343(d)
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Safety Education Programs
New Technologies for
7 U.S.C. §343(d)
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
1.6
Agricultural Extension
Children, Youth, and Families at
7 U.S.C. §343(d)
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.0
Risk
Federally Recognized Tribes
7 U.S.C. §343(d)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.5
4.3
4.0
Extension Program
Other Expenses

Total

8.4
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
9.1
9.1
7.6
Agriculture in the K-12
7 U.S.C. §3152(j)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.5
Classrooma
Other Federal Administration for

7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
8.1
8.1
7.1
Extension Activities
Source: Compiled by CRS from National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), congressional budget justification documents, extension activities tables from FY2017
to FY2024 at https://www.usda.gov/cj.
Notes: Data reflect appropriated funding levels, not obligations or outlays. Values are not adjusted for inflation. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics.
a. Although Agriculture in the K-12 Classroom is a competitive grant program, it is offered as a cooperative agreement with the eligible entity that receives the funding
and is listed under “Other Expenses” by NIFA and in congressional appropriation documents.

CRS-12

link to page 17
The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

Capacity Versus Competitive Funding for Extension Activities
Figure 3 illustrates federal funding on extension categorized by type and year. The amounts for
capacity grants decreased gradually from $509.8 million in FY2017 to $471 million in FY2024,
in inflation-adjusted dollars. Competitive grants increased from $62.7 million in FY2017 to $88.5
million in FY2021, then decreased to $83.1 million by FY2024. Federal expenses in
administering extension activities decreased from $10.3 million in FY2017 to $7.6 million in
FY2024, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Overall, total extension funding fluctuated since FY2017,
starting at $582.8 million in FY2017, peaking at $609.5 million in FY2020, and then decreasing
to $561.7 million by FY2024, in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Figure 3. Federal Funding for Extension Activities by Type and Year
Dollars in millions, adjusted for inflation

Source: Compiled by CRS from National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), congressional budget
justification documents under extension activities tables from FY2017 to FY2024.
Notes: Data are inflation-adjusted to FY2023 dollars using the gross domestic product (GDP) chained price
index for FY2017-2022, and inflation-adjusted dollar amounts for FY2023 are calculated using the FY2024
estimated GDP chained price index, May 2024, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Historical Tables: Table
10.1—Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2029,”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/hist10z1_fy2025.xlsx.
Considerations for Congress
Since the establishment of the land-grant university system in 1862, Congress has continued to
shape and support the central role of LGIs in agricultural research, teaching, and extension. Areas
of potential congressional interest regarding extension include the balance between capacity and
competitive funding, differences in the allocation of funds among LGIs, the effectiveness of
matching fund waivers and their impact on the scope of topics covered by extension services and
their outreach, and the balance between extension and research funding.
Balance Between Capacity and Competitive Funding
An ongoing debate about federal funding for extension activities concerns the allocation of
federal resources between capacity grants and competitive grants, mirroring a similar discourse
Congressional Research Service

1

The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

taking place in agricultural research at LGIs.43 The balance between these two grant types
influences who provides the outreach and training to farmers, ranchers, and local communities.44
Advocates of competitive, peer-reviewed funding processes for extension programs assert that
there are broader candidate pools (since more entities, not just LGIs, are eligible to apply) with
more diverse expertise in providing extension services and that financial support is awarded on
the basis of the merits of the projects and not because of predetermined criteria.45 Additionally,
USDA claims that because of the rigorous nature of the peer-review process, only the highest
quality proposals are selected for funding from a large pool of institutions and organizations.46
Proponents of capacity grants state that stable funding enables long-term planning and
investments into extension activities.47 This is because capacity funding is determined using
census-based formulas and is funded through annual appropriations, offering predictability to the
states and their LGIs each year.48 Additionally, some claim that a nationally competitive grant
process tends to underfund multidisciplinary projects that aim to address local and state-specific
issues because competitive grants tend to encourage applicants to focus on national concerns
rather than more local topics.49 According to a 2017 NIFA external evaluation study, when
extension and research activities are integrated, a capacity funding model is superior to a
competitive funding model because the former leverages federal dollars from various nonfederal
sources, including state, local/county, nonprofit, or corporate funding.50
Differences in Funding Between LGI Types
Differences in funding between types of LGIs, particularly capacity funding, can impact the
development and spread of agricultural knowledge. Funding also affects the focus of extension
topics, how various institutions cater to their specific audiences, and the resources allocated for
extension activities and training.51 Additionally, differences in funding among the LGI types may

43 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology, A
Review of Title VII: USDA Implementation of Research Programs, March 23, 2023, https://agriculture.house.gov/
calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=7577, and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry, Farm Bill 2023: Research Programs, December 6, 2022, https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/hearings/farm-
bill-2023-research-programs. Several bills have been introduced during the 118th Congress regarding capacity and
competitive funding for the different extension programs. Among them are H.R. 5622, H.R. 4586, H.R. 7920, H.R.
6379, and H.R. 5246. Certain provisions from these bills can be found in the House discussion draft of the 2024 Farm,
Food, and National Security Act of 2024 (2024 farm bill) at https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
discussion_draft_ffns.pdf. Similar provisions regarding capacity and competitive funding toward extension programs
are also found in the Senate discussion draft of the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act at
https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/final_research.pdf.
44 For more information on the impact of capacity and competitive grants, see Simon Tripp et al., Quantitative and
Qualitative Review of NIFA Capacity Funding, TEConomy Partners, LLC, March 2017, https://www.nifa.usda.gov/
resource/nifa-capacity-funding-review-teconomy-final-report.
45 Wallace E. Huffman et al., “Winners and Losers: Formula Versus Competitive Funding of Agricultural Research,”
Choices, vol. 21, no. 4 (2006), https://www.choicesmagazine.org/2006-4/grabbag/2006-4-13.htm.
46 NIFA, “Competitive (AFRI and Non-AFRI),” https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/competitive-AFRI-
nonAFRI.
47 Simon Tripp et al., Quantitative and Qualitative Review of NIFA Capacity Funding, TEConomy Partners, LLC,
March 2017, https://www.nifa.usda.gov/resource/nifa-capacity-funding-review-teconomy-final-report.
48 Ibid.
49 Wallace E. Huffman and Robert E. Evenson, “Do Formula or Competitive Grant Funds Have Greater Impact on
State Agricultural Productivity,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 88, no. 4 (2006), pp. 783-798.
50 Simon Tripp et al., Quantitative and Qualitative Review of NIFA Capacity Funding, TEConomy Partners, LLC,
March 2017, https://www.nifa.usda.gov/resource/nifa-capacity-funding-review-teconomy-final-report.
51 Wallace E. Huffman et al., “Winners and Losers: Formula Versus Competitive Funding of Agricultural Research,”
Choices, vol. 21, no. 4 (2006), https://www.choicesmagazine.org/2006-4/grabbag/2006-4-13.htm.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 19 The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

have negative consequences for minority applicants.52 Table 2 outlines some differences in
federal extension capacity grant appropriations among LGI types in FY2024. In that fiscal year,
1890 Institutions received 22% ($72 million) of the appropriations provided for extension
capacity grants at 1862 Institutions. Similarly, 1994 Institutions received approximately 3% of the
funds provided to 1862 Institutions.
Table 2. FY2024 Federal Extension Capacity Grant
Appropriations by Institution Type
1862 Institutions
1890 Institutions
1994 Institutions

Funding Program
Smith-Lever Section 3(b) National Agricultural
Tribal Colleges
and 3(c) programs
Research, Extension, and
Extension Program
Teaching Policy Act of 1977
Total Appropriation
$325 million
$72 million
$11 million
Total Number of
57
19
35
Institutions
Average Appropriations
$5.7 million
$3.7 million
$0.3 million
per Institution
Source: CRS, using appropriations acts and conference reports from Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024
(P.L. 118-42), Division B, pp. 9-10.
Some stakeholders have noted that the funding differences can be attributed to variations in LGI
size (number of students, programs, degrees) and their regional context.53 Others advocate for
more parity in funding levels. For example, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, a
nonprofit group representing TCUs, has consistently advocated for increased appropriations for
1994 Institutions, framing the funding differences with 1862 Institutions as an inequity.54
Matching Fund Waivers
Federal capacity grants for the different LGIs generally require one-to-one nonfederal matching
funds as a way to encourage states to provide funding for those institutions. However, current law
permits USDA to waive up to 50% of the matching requirement for 1890 LGIs if the state is
unlikely to provide sufficient funds to match the federal funds. The option of waiving nonfederal
matching funds within the 1890 Institutions was intended to address persistent concerns that these
institutions were continually unsuccessful in obtaining federal funding because they were unable
to obtain complete state matching funds.55

52 Ibid.
53 For example, 1862 and 1890 land-grant universities located in the South encounter comparable agronomic, climatic,
and social conditions, compared with 1862 and 1890 land-grant universities outside of the South, which experience
distinct contexts. See more in Norbert L. W. Wilson et al., “The Distribution of Competitive Research Grants from the
National Institute for Food and Agriculture: A Comparison of 1862 Land Grant Universities, 1890 Land Grant
Universities, and Other Institutions,” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, vol. 46, no. 1 (March 2024), pp. 76-
94, https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13413.
54 American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Fiscal Year 2024/25 Agriculture Appropriations Requests: Tribal
Colleges and Universities, https://webassets.aihec.org/Policy-
Advocacy/FY2022%20AppropriationsFunding%20Requests/FY2025_TCUs_Land%20Grant%202.pdf.
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,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 20 The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

While a waiver allows an 1890 Institution to receive its full allocation of federal funding, such a
waiver may reduce the total public support for the institution (combined federal and state
funding) compared with what it would have received if a complete match had been provided.56
Also, although waivers for matching funds allow for federal funding of 1890 Institutions without
complete state funding, they may increase disparities in total funding provided between the 1890
and 1862 Institutions. The 2018 farm bill (7 U.S.C. §3221(a)) established a transparency
requirement for USDA to report annually the allocations made to, and matching funds received
by, 1890 Institutions and 1862 Institutions for agricultural extension programs. The new
transparency requirement aimed to encourage full state matching funds. Data from 2019 to 2022
show that 42% of the 1890 Institutions (8 of 19) have received full nonfederal matching funds
(Table 3).57
In September 2023, the Secretaries of Education and Agriculture sent letters to 16 governors,
emphasizing that, over 30 years, they calculated a more than $12 billion cumulative funding
disparity between the 1890 Institutions and their 1862 peers in their states.58 These letters
highlighted the underfunding of 1890 LGIs and urged governors to rectify the situation, bringing
up the importance of equitable funding in line with the Second Morrill Act of 1890.59
Table 3. 1890 Land-Grant Universities Extension Funding
FY2019-2022
State
Total to
Match
Total Waiver
State Actual
Percentage
State
Institution
State
Requirement
Requested
Match Total
Match
Alabama A&M
AL
$10,685,002
$10,685,002
$0
$10,685,002
100%
University
Tuskegee
AL
$10,687,920
$10,687,920
$2,049,868
$8,638,052
80%
University

September 2013, https://www.aplu.org/library/land-grant-but-unequal-state-one-to-one-match-funding-for-1890-land-
grant-universities/file.
56 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 to meet the 50% waiver requirement to receive federal
funds. The university ceased providing these funds in 2018 because of 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, https://www.lincolnu.edu/News/2022/05/land-grant-full-funding.html#:~:text=Lincoln%20
University%20Poised%20To%20Receive%20Full%20State%20Match%20for%20Land%2Dgrant%20Funding,-
Contact&text=Missouri%20lawmakers%20took%20the%20historic, federal%20land%2Dgrant%20funding%20
available.
57 As of May 2024, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 House discussion draft and the Rural Prosperity
and Food Security Act Senate discussion draft for the 2024 farm bill (available at https://agriculture.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/discussion_draft_ffns.pdf and https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/final_research.pdf,
respectively) both include provisions regarding extension funding at 1890 Institutions. One of the provisions would
increase the authorization of appropriations for extension at 1890 Institutions to no less than 40% (currently 20%) of
the appropriations allocated under the Smith-Lever Act to 1862 Institutions (Section 7110 in the House discussion draft
and Section 7108 in the Senate discussion draft).
58 U.S. Department of Education, “Secretaries of Education, Agriculture Call on Governors to Equitably Fund Land-
Grant HBCUs,” press release, September 18, 2023, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretaries-education-
agriculture-call-governors-equitably-fund-land-grant-hbcus.
59 For more information, see letters from Miguel Cardona, U.S. Secretary of Education, and Thomas J. Vilsack, U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture, to state governors, September 18, 2023, https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/files/2023/09/Secretary-
letter-1890.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

4

The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

State
Total to
Match
Total Waiver
State Actual
Percentage
State
Institution
State
Requirement
Requested
Match Total
Match
University of
AR
Arkansas at Pine
$9,376,889
$6,884,384
$681,838
$8,695,051
92%
Bluff
Delaware State
DE
$5,253,880
$5,253,880
$0
$5,253,880
100%
University
Florida A&M
FL
University
$9,304,355
$9,304,355
$4,544,962
$6,000,526
63%
Fort Valley State
GA
$12,660,565
$12,660,565
$316,860
$12,343,705
97%
University
Kentucky State
KY
$15,698,950
$15,698,950
$0
$15,698,950
100%
University
Southern
LA
$8,149,505
$8,149,505
$0
$8,149,505
100%
University
University of
MD
Maryland Eastern
$6,617,887
$6,617,887
$1,683,219
$4,934,668
73%
Shore
Lincoln
MO
$16,614,509
$16,614,509
$5,877,707
$10,736,802
63%
University
Alcorn State
MS
$9,699,237
$9,699,237
$0
$9,699,237
100%
University
North Carolina
NC
A&T State
$17,628,838
$17,628,838
$339,009
$17,289,829
98%
University
Central State
OH
$15,388,762
$15,388,762
$1,334,673
$14,054,089
92%
University
Langston
OK
$10,269,538
$10,269,538
$3,662,853
$6,606,685
62%
University
South Carolina
SC
$8,978,344
$8,978,344
$0
$8,978,344
100%
State University
Tennessee State
TN
$14,423,696
$14,423,696
$0
$14,423,696
100%
University
Prairie View
TX
$22,814,576
$22,814,576
$8,159,582
$14,654,994
62%
A&M University
Virginia State
VA
$10,462,522
$10,462,522
$0
$10,462,522
100%
University
West Virginia
WV
$6,855,071
$6,855,071
$1,623,906
$5,231,165
75%
State University
Source: CRS calculations using data from NIFA Allocation and Matching reports FY2019-FY2022,
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/resources.
Congressional Research Service

5

The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

Notes: Dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation.
Members of Congress may choose to evaluate the effectiveness of the transparency requirement
and may consider alternative requirements to encourage states to provide 100% matching funding
for these institutions. For example, removing the option to apply for a waiver could encourage
some states to increase their matching funds to ensure that their 1890 Institutions qualify for these
federal funding programs. Conversely, such a change could result in some institutions becoming
ineligible to receive any federal funds if their states do not increase their matching contributions.
Optimizing Federal Funding for Agricultural Teaching, Research,
and Extension
LGIs are tasked with generating original agricultural research and disseminating it through
teaching, research, and extension services to the nonuniversity public. Every year, through annual
appropriations, the federal government provides federal funding to support all components of the
agricultural knowledge system within the land-grant university system. Consequently, within this
system, extension services are intertwined with the research and education efforts undertaken by
the LGIs.60 According to USDA, returns from public agricultural extension programs and
research are positive and complementary and contribute to agricultural productivity gains.61 Some
studies indicate a positive return on investment from federal spending on both extension and
research, with some suggesting returns exceeding 100% for extension investments.62 While
extension and research are funded through separate accounts, they often compete for federal
funding within the broader research, teaching, and extension mission funding area of USDA. In a
budget-constrained environment, options for Congress include considering whether the current
balance of funding between extension and research produces the optimal return on public
investment in agriculture.

Author Information

Eleni G. Bickell

Analyst in Agricultural Policy

60 David Ching, “What Is a Land-Grant University?,” Purdue University, March 13, 2023,
https://stories.purdue.edu/what-is-a-land-grant-university/.
61 USDA, “Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2022–2026,” https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-
2026-strategic-plan.pdf.
62 Antonio F. D. Avila and Robert E. Evenson, “Total Factor Productivity Growth in Agriculture: The Role of
Technological Capital,” in Handbook of Agricultural Economics: Volume 4, ed. Prabhu Pingali and Robert Evenson
(Alpharetta, GA: Elsevier: 2010), pp. 3769-3822,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1574007209040729; Yu Jin and Wallace E. Huffman,
“Measuring Public Agricultural Research and Extension and Estimating Their Impacts on Agricultural Productivity:
New Insights from U.S. Evidence,” Agricultural Economics, vol. 47, no. 1 (January 2016), pp. 6-7, https://doi.org/
10.1111/agec.12206; and 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/.
Congressional Research Service

6

The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview

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
R48071 · VERSION 1 · NEW
7