extension of the benefits of higher education to a larger an example of effective Federal-State cooperation in financing strengthening programs of training and research in food and Factors against funding included: the funds represent a small source of revenue for land-grant inequity in funding a program that reaches only land-grant inability to target funds to institutions with special needs; • availability of alternative funding through HEW's Strengthening a shift in educational policy toward student assistance and most of the funds do not directly support agricultural Uses of Bankhead-Jones and Morrill-Nelson Funds Land-grant institutions have expended Bankhead-Jones funds in accordance with the law. The largest share of funds (37 percent) went to agriculture and closely allied disciplines; engineering received 28 percent, and other disciplines 35 percent. Approximately four out of every five Bankhead-Jones dollars were allocated to salaries, the remainder to instructional equipment. Morrill-Nelson funds were expended in similar fashion. Among the uses of Bankhead-Jones and Morrill-Nelson funds in 1978-79 were these: faculty salaries, including guest faculty and special professional positions; special events such as programs and guest speakers; curriculum development; field trips; student support; and library acquisitions and other instructional materials. Program Funds Relative to Total Instructional Budget Bankhead-Jones accounted for 0.4 percent of all instructional expenditures for those land-grant institutions responding to the mail survey. Bankhead-Jones and Morrill-Nelson funds together accounted for 0.5 percent of instructional expenditures. These funds generally constituted a larger share of the instructional budget of smaller institutions. Specifically, Bankhead-Jones and Morrill-Nelson represented 1.3 percent Distribution of Bankhead-Jones and Morrill-Nelson Funds by Size of The enabling legislation specifies that Morrill-Nelson and a part of Bankhead-Jones funds be distributed in uniform grants to eligible jurisdictions, along with a variable grant under Bankhead-Jones determined by the proportion which the total population of the State bears to the total population of all States. The effect of these distributive guidelines upon land-grant institutions varying in size, region, and land-grant status follows. Size. In absolute dollar amounts, institutions with larger enrollments averaged more Bankhead-Jones funds than smaller institutions. Specifically, institutions with full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollments over 20,000 received an average of $235,000 in 1978-79; those with FTE enrollments between 10,000 and 20,000 averaged $178,000; and institutions with FTE enrollments under 10,000 received an average of $102,000. However, smaller institutions received more support per full-timeequivalent student. Institutions with an FTE enrollment over 20,000 received on the average less than 7 dollars of Bankhead-Jones funds per FTE student. This compares with $14 per FTE student for institutions enrolling 10,000 20,000 and over $20 for institutions under 10,000 in size. Region. Institutions in most Southern States and in several Northeastern States received smaller amounts of Bankhead-Jones and Morrill-Nelson funds than institutions in other regions, because of the presence of two land-grant institutions in those States. Specifically, institutions in the South received an average of $115,000 in Bankhead-Jones and $27,000 in Morrill-Nelson funds. Institutions in the north central region averaged the largest amount of Bankhead-Jones funds ($206,000), while institutions in the West received the largest average amount of Morrill-Nelson funds ($50,000). Land-Grant Status. 1890 institutions received an average of $69,000 in Bankhead-Jones and Morrill-Nelson support in 1978-79, compared with an average of $198,000 on the part of 1862 institutions in the same States. This represents the established pattern for dividing BankheadJones and Morrill-Nelson funds over at least the past 14 years. As for support per FTE student, 1890 institutions received an average of $21 per FTE student, compared with $10 for the 1862 institutions in the same States. Comparing 1862 institutions in States which have no 1890 institution, those with FTE enrollments under 10,000 averaged $28 per FTE student, while those with larger enrollments averaged $10. Perspectives of Land-Grant Officials Officials of land-grant institutions perceived the benefits of Bankhead-Jones funds as follows: Opportunity for enhancement and enrichment of programs; resources for improving the quality of programs, staff capability, and service to students; impetus for redesign of curricular offerings; and resources for adding faculty and facilities. The main features of these programs, as campus officials see it, are as follows: flexibility in determining use; availability of "seed" money; extra funds available for improving the quality of programs; and the commitment of the Federal Government to the land-grant concept in the provision of higher education as well as in The land-grant officials also indicated that the funds serve a number of they specifically reflect a Federal commitment to higher they support instruction that otherwise may require a hike in they support land-grant institutions' contribution to Higher-Education Participation in Agriculture and Engineering From 1960 to 1975, total enrollment at land-grant institutions increased from 629,000 to 1.4 million. Between 1975 and 1978, however, enrollment at land-grant institutions declined by approximately 55,000 students, while enrollment at other institutions offering four or more years of higher education grew by nearly 94,000. From 1960 to Slightly more than 147,000 students were enrolled in agriculture and natural resources throughout the United States and outlying areas in fall 1978. This represents a decline of 6 percent in agriculture enrollment since 1976. Of all those enrolled in agriculture in fall 1978, 60 percent attended land-grant institutions. Land-grant institutions conferred 73 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded in agriculture in 1977-78 in the United States and outlying areas. The comparable statistics for the master's and doctor's levels were 81 and 95 percent. Slightly more than 521,000 students enrolled in engineering throughout the United States and outlying areas in fall 1978. Since 1976, engineering enrollment increased by 14 percent. Of all engineering enrollees in fall 1978, 30 percent attended land-grant institutions. Land-grant institutions conferred 35 percent of the bachelor's degrees awarded in engineering in 1977-78. The comparable statistics for the master's and doctor's levels were 37 and 51 percent. Review of the Bankhead-Jones Program: Final Report This report reviews the Bankhead-Jones program. The Morrill-Nelson program has been included as an integral part of the review because it is identical in purpose and administratively related. Both the Morrill Act of 1890, as amended by the Nelson Amendment in 1907, and the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935, as amended in 1960, authorize funds for the support of instruction at land-grant institutions in agriculture, the mechanical arts (engineering), and related areas. The 1980 appropriations for the two programs were $2,700,000 for MorrillNelson and $11,500,000 for Bankhead-Jones. The Morrill-Nelson program is a permanent appropriation available each year, while Bankhead-Jones has to be appropriated annually. Auspices for the Review The review was undertaken in response to the congressional directive of October 24, 1979, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture along with appropriate nongovernmental representatives The conferees also expressed an interest in targeting Bankhead-Jones grants to instruction in agricultural education. The conferees will expect that, to the maximum extent Procedures Used in Review In response to the above directive, a study group was formed within the Joint Planning and Evaluation Staff of the Science and Education Administration of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Consultative relations were established and maintained throughout this review with the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges as well as officials in both land-grant and nonland-grant institutions. 1/ House Report 96-553, p. 16, which accompanied H. R. 4387, the Conference Report of the Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 1980. 2/ Ibid. |