Center for American Progress

Donate

Center for American Progress

The 2023 Farm Bill Must Address Inequities in the Land-Grant University System
Report

The 2023 Farm Bill Must Address Inequities in the Land-Grant University System

Despite the wide-ranging contributions that HBCUs and Tribal colleges have made to agriculture and conservation, these institutions receive fewer research and extension opportunities than their predominantly white peers.

Building an Economy for All, Higher Education

Media Contact

[email protected]

Government Affairs

[email protected]

In this article
Florida A&M University entrance sign, with FAMU spelled out in trimmed bushes
The Florida A&M University entrance sign is seen. (Getty/Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group)
Key takeaways

  • Inequalities in farm bill-funded research and extension programs helped create and continue to perpetuate the larger resource challenges of historically Black and Tribal land-grant institutions.

  • Between one-third and one-half of states with historically Black land-grant universities decline to fully fund these programs each year as a result of federal policies around matching requirements.

  • Inequalities in matching funds have resulted in land-grant historically Black colleges and universities losing out on more than $90 million in the past five years—even as states fund equivalent programs at their predominantly white land-grant universities, in some cases, many times over.

  • Tribal colleges and universities only have one guaranteed source of capacity funding for agricultural research and extension, despite Native American communities’ historical role as stewards of the nation’s land.

  • Congress can help rectify some of these inequalities by funding programs that support equitable state funding, infrastructure development, and scholarships for underrepresented students at historically Black and Tribal land-grant institutions.

Introduction and summary

This report contains a correction.

There is a frequently used adage that minority-serving institutions “do more with less.” While this is undoubtedly true, it is also undeniably unfair. Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and Tribal colleges and universities (TCUs), in particular, have fewer resources and facilities than predominantly white universities to carry out their work and serve their communities. Despite these institutions’ important role as innovators and engines of economic opportunity, they have not been afforded equal opportunities to participate in the nation’s system of public land-grant universities.

The 2023 Farm Bill represents an opportunity to address the underfunding of HBCUs and TCUs, better supporting important agricultural research and delivering on the nation’s promise of a fair and equal education system for all.

Importantly, the farm bill funds many of the important agricultural programs at land-grant universities, and it is up for reauthorization this year.1 The 2023 Farm Bill represents an opportunity to address the underfunding of HBCUs and TCUs, better supporting important agricultural research and delivering on the nation’s promise of a fair and equal education system for all.

As Congress revisits this legislation, it is vital that policymakers work to address the funding inequities built into it that magnify the broader resource challenges of historically Black and Tribal land-grant institutions.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

A case study: Funding disparities between 2 Florida universities

The stark disparities between the predominantly white University of Florida and the historically Black Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University exemplify the inequities that minority-serving institutions face.2

The University of Florida system had a banner year in 2022 for academic research: It joined an exclusive group of 15 public university systems that have surpassed $1 billion in annual research expenditures,3 with the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) receiving at least $130 million in state appropriations for agricultural research and extension programs.4 With research facilities that include “12 Research and Education Centers, five Research and Demonstration Sites (that include two biological stations), a research forest, and an 850-acre dairy farm,” it would be hard to argue that the state of Florida was pressed for cash to support agricultural research and extension work at its state-run public universities.5

In the same year, however, Florida declined to fully fund its historically Black land-grant university, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), in Tallahassee. FAMU did not receive the $2.2 million in state funds necessary to meet the cost-sharing requirement for the federal grants that support its agricultural research and extension programs.6 These federal programs are equivalent to the programs that established and help maintain research and extension work at the University of Florida, the state’s predominantly white flagship land-grant institution. The same year that Florida failed to meet FAMU’s 1-to-1 match of state-to-federal funds, it far exceeded the same matching requirement for the University of Florida, providing a state-to-federal ratio of at least 14-to-1.7 FAMU, meanwhile, was forced to request a special waiver to avoid losing its federal funding after it could not meet the state cost-sharing requirement.

However, that has not stopped FAMU from producing groundbreaking research that responds to the needs of its Florida Panhandle region. FAMU’s Center for Viticulture and Small Fruit Research, for example, used genetic research to develop three new, patented grape varietals that will grow in hot, humid conditions such as the southeastern United States, extending the existing geographical footprint of domestic wine production.8 Its Center for Water Resources, meanwhile, conducts research within in-demand areas such as soil nutrient management, wetland ecology, aquatic ecosystems, forest conservation, geospatial technologies, phytoremediation (the use of plants to decontaminate land), and soil erosion.9 FAMU ranks third among HBCUs in the production of intellectual property, with 52 patents to its name as of 2021.10

What are land-grant universities?

Many land-grant universities (LGUs) are their state’s flagship institution, and they comprise an important network of public universities that was established by the First Morrill Act of 1862. In this legislation, the federal government conferred land to the states for the purpose of providing education to the working classes and spurring the growth of the new nation through agricultural and industrial research.11 Today, the mission of LGUs continues as they offer high-quality, affordable education to students from across the socioeconomic spectrum; produce high amounts of research with a focus on agriculture and the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM); and share the benefits of their staffs’ knowledge and expertise with their surrounding regions through extension programs.

Many of the important agricultural programs at land-grant universities are funded by the farm bill, which is up for reauthorization this year.

Research programs at LGUs, which are funded by the farm bill, address critical areas such as plant genomics, animal agriculture, forestry, soil health, invasive species, water resource management, and food safety, to name just a few examples. Extension programs, also funded by the farm bill, are unique forms of outreach that originate in the effort to extend the research findings of LGUs—such as new farming technologies or methods—to agricultural producers in the local region, often through technical consultations, informal education, and other programming for farmers. Extension programs often also deliver additional community services, such as nutrition education, small-business development, life skills programs for youth, and financial literacy courses.

Resource inequities across land-grant universities

Equitable funding for research, extension, and education programs at special-mission land-grant universities would help maximize the innovative potential of the land-grant system while increasing workforce diversity and boosting college attainment for Black and Native American students.

Despite serving students and communities with the greatest financial need, 1890 and 1994 institutions have the fewest resources upon which to draw.

Notably, historically Black LGUs have some of the highest levels of research productivity among HBCUs.12 They also play an important role in graduating Black students for a range of in-demand careers, including in STEM and the agricultural sector. HBCUs, in general, play an outsize role in providing educational and economic opportunity to Black students and are important centers of Black culture, community, and identity.13

TCUs are another category of special-mission LGU. They play myriad crucial roles in their communities, offering an affordable and accessible path through higher education for Native American students, while also working to preserve Indigenous culture and deliver crucial community services.14 TCUs represent cultural self-determination for Indigenous communities and help fulfill federal trust and treaty responsibilities to Tribal nations.15 The fact that nearly 11 million acres of land that had been seized or otherwise transferred from Indigenous Tribes was used to establish and fund the LGU system makes the United States’ obligation to support postsecondary education for Tribal communities even more urgent.16

Categories of land-grant universities17

1862 institutions: Established by the First Morrill Act of 1862, these land-grant institutions tend to serve predominantly white student populations.18 There are 57 total, with one located in each state; one in Washington, D.C.; and six in U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Micronesia, and the Northern Mariana Islands). The 1862 institutions in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. territories were given 1862 land-grant status through various pieces of legislation from 1908 to 1986.19

1890 institutions: Established by the Second Morrill Act of 1890, these 19 land-grant institutions are recognized as historically Black colleges and universities, and they generally serve large populations of Black students, particularly in relation to the demographics of their respective states.20

1994 institutions: Established by the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act, 1994 institutions are Tribal colleges and universities. There are 35 TCUs, most of which are located in the upper Midwest or Southwest United States.21

Yet special-mission LGUs such as 1890 institutions and 1994 institutions have historically been underfunded in relation to predominantly white flagship LGUs. Established later and funded through different legislation, historically Black and Tribal LGUs face resource challenges while serving students from predominantly low- and low-middle-income backgrounds.22 While about one-quarter of undergraduate students at flagship 1862 land-grant institutions qualify for Pell Grant funding, more than 6 in 10 students at special-mission land-grant universities fall into this category.

FIGURE 1

Scroll to the section

Despite serving students and communities with the greatest financial need, 1890 and 1994 institutions have the fewest resources upon which to draw. As shown in Figure 2, 1862 institutions have about eight times more endowment assets per student than the historically Black 1890 institutions and about 4.5 times more than Tribal institutions.

FIGURE 2

Scroll to the section

The disparities in resources across land-grant institutions are the result of a wide range of historical and socioeconomic factors.23 However, some of the structural inequalities built into the farm bill today, such as those relating to research and extension programs, also contribute significantly to the continuing resource equity gaps experienced by historically Black and Tribal LGUs.

The impact of underfunding

Historically Black colleges and universities (1890 institutions)

Currently, the federal government maintains separate grant programs for research and extension for 1862 and 1890 institutions. All of these programs require institutions to provide matching funds equal to the federal allocation—a 1-to-1 or 100 percent match—in order to receive full federal funding.24 The nonfederal match generally comes from state appropriations, so this portion is frequently called the “state matching requirement.” Only the programs for 1890 institutions, however, allow up to 50 percent of this state matching requirement to be waived. In each of the past five years, between 6 and 9 of the 19 historically Black LGUs were unable to secure their full state match, as shown in Figure 3.25

Figure 3 shows the impact of the waived funds for 1890 institutions. Strikingly, over the past five years, historically Black land-grant universities were shortchanged more than $90 million in state funds.

Figure 3

Scroll to the section

The structural inequity built into this process reflects and continues a history of resource disparities for schools and institutions that serve Black communities. 1890 institutions were established by the Second Morrill Act, which prohibited LGUs that receive federal funding from making “a distinction of race or color in the admission of students.”26 However, it considered the establishment of colleges “separately for white and colored students” to be in compliance with this requirement if states ensured a “just and equitable division” of land-grant funding.27 The intention was that the 1890 institutions would be “entitled to the benefits” of the land-grant system as much as the 1862 institutions.28

Since their founding, however, the historically Black 1890 land-grant institutions have not received the intended “just and equitable division” of resources. For example, while the 1862 institutions were granted formula-funded capacity grants for research programs in 1887 and for extension programs in 1914, the 1890 institutions did not begin to receive federal funding for this type of work until 1977.29

Over the past five years, historically Black land-grant universities were shortchanged more than $90 million in state funds.

Meanwhile, even as 1890 institutions struggle to meet their required state match for these programs—with between 30 percent and 47 percent of them forced to request waivers each year—there is evidence that the same states not only meet—but exceed—the matching funds for the 1862 institutions, sometimes many times over.30

In fiscal year 2022, for example, Alabama requested a waiver for about $828,000 in state funds for Tuskegee University’s agricultural research programs; that same year, it provided more than $36 million in state funds to the agricultural experiment station at Auburn University, the state’s predominantly white flagship—about seven times the flagship’s federal allocation for research capacity funding.31 Arkansas, meanwhile, provided $8 million to the state university system’s agricultural experiment station and $31 million to its cooperative extension service in FY 2022, about 3.5 times the flagship’s federal funding. The same year, Arkansas requested a waiver for $3 million in state funds for research and extension at the University of Arkansas Pine Bluff.32 Texas, similarly, appropriated more than $112 million from its general revenue fund in FY 2022 for its AgriLife Research and Extension services at Texas A&M University – College Station, while requesting a waiver for $7.2 million in state matching funds for Prairie View A&M University, the state’s HBCU land-grant.33 The funds appropriated to Texas A&M University were 4.8 times that of, or $89 million more than, Texas A&M University’s required state matching amount.34

State-to-federal funding ratio for farm bill research and extension programs at select predominantly white LGUs, FY 2022

7-to-1

Auburn University in Alabama

4.8-to-1

Texas A&M University

3.5-to-1

University of Arkansas

At least 14-to-1

University of Florida

See endnote 4 for the sources and calculations for this figure.

These examples show that waiver requests for 1890 capacity funding frequently are not a matter of financial exigency. Rather, they are a reflection of intentional choices to continue to build and invest in the research and extension programs connected to the predominantly white flagships while offering more limited opportunities to the institutions that, today, primarily serve Black communities.

As a result of these disparities, 1890 institutions have fewer resources and facilities to carry out their work, including less support for limited-resource farmers, fewer services for the rural communities in which they are located, and less research to address the challenges agricultural producers in their regions face.

Learn more about HBCUs

Tribal colleges and universities (1994 institutions)

Farm bill research and extension programs, which are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), fall into two primary categories: 1) capacity grants, which are formula funded and through which all eligible institutions receive a grant every year; and 2) competitive grants, for which eligible institutions compete for a limited number of grants. Capacity grants provide eligible institutions with sustained streams of funding year over year, allowing them to build research and extension programs over time. Competitive grants, on the other hand, allocate more limited program funding to select institutions that is best suited for them.

The fact that nearly 11 million acres of land that had been seized or otherwise transferred from Indigenous Tribes were used to establish and fund the LGU system makes the United States’ obligation to support postsecondary education for Tribal communities even more urgent.

As depicted in Figure 4, only one capacity grant is currently dedicated to 1994 institutions: The Tribal College Endowment Program, which receives annual appropriations from Congress, maintains accounts containing general-purpose funds from which accrued interest is distributed to TCUs and can be used at the discretion of the institutions.35 While this type of general operating support is valuable, TCUs do not receive dedicated funding for research or extension programs that would allow them to build capacity in these areas. TCUs are also eligible for a variety of NIFA-administered research and extension competitive grant programs, but competitive grants do not offer each individual institution the sustainable funding year over year that would allow them to build their own research and extension programs.

Figure 4

Scroll to the section

With the resources TCUs do have, however, they have developed innovative research and extension programs, which often reflect the specialized knowledge of their Tribal communities. For example, Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College in Minnesota addresses “the potential impact of mercury” in nearby watersheds and trains students in techniques such as “genetic sequencing, field sampling, [and] data analysis” to help protect local waterways.36 Diné College, which has locations in Arizona and New Mexico, improved the “[m]eat and wool quality of Navajo sheep herds … strengthen[ing] local food systems.”37 The extension program at Salish Kootenai College in Montana is implementing “native plant restoration” to combat invasive species, while Northwest Indian College in Washington teaches financial literacy to Tribal youth and families in its area.38

Historically Black LGUs did not receive capacity funding for research and extension until almost 100 years after their founding. TCUs, now approaching their 30th anniversary, should receive the resources to pursue their own research agendas and grow their capacities to serve their communities through extension programs, as other LGUs have.

Read CAP’s series on Tribal colleges

Learn more about the innovation taking place at Tribal colleges and universities.

CLICK HERE

Policy recommendations

Special-mission, minority-serving institutions such as historically Black colleges and universities and Tribal colleges and universities play an important role in making affordable, quality higher education accessible to all Americans. In addition, they contribute to the growth and prosperity of their regions and bring a diversity of perspectives and areas of expertise to academic research. Their locations in rural and lower-income regions allow them to reach underserved populations through community engagement and to address pressing local problems through research.

Special-mission, minority-serving institutions such as HBCUs and TCUs play an important role in making affordable, quality higher education accessible to all Americans.

Despite these important contributions to the nation, however, 1890 and 1994 institutions have not been afforded equal opportunities to participate in the U.S. land-grant system. The following recommendations would represent important steps to promote equity among LGUs funded through the farm bill.

1. Modify matching requirements for NIFA’s capacity and competitive research and extension programs to improve equity and access for 1890 institutions

The state matching requirement for capacity programs for 1890 institutions remains one of the most contentious and pressing equity challenges for the land-grant university system. By drawing upon the collaborative and networked nature of the land-grant system, the solutions below present a new approach to a problem that has thus far eluded resolution.

For capacity grants, implement a joint process for the certification of matching funds and matching fund waiver requests for 1862 and 1890 institutions

1862 and 1890 institutions located in the same state already submit joint plans of work and joint reports on their research and activities to NIFA.39 They also collaborate with and rely on one another in the work itself, particularly through cooperative extension systems. The current process places the full burden on the 1890 institutions for acquiring the state matching funds (generally through advocacy with their states) and for producing the documentation to justify the waiver request, while the decision to provide state funding is ultimately in the hands of the state legislature.40 The proposed changes to the waiver process below would incentivize a more equitable distribution of funds between 1862 and 1890 institutions:

  • Joint certification of matching funds: 1862 and 1890 institutions should annually submit their certification of matching funds for all land-grant research and extension capacity grant programs (Hatch, Smith-Lever, Evans-Allen, and Section 1444) as a combined document.41 This would better centralize decision-making around the distribution of funds across state university campuses and increase the visibility within states of the resource challenges that 1890 institutions face.
  • Joint waiver requests for state matching funds: In the event that institutions anticipate being unable to meet the matching requirements and seek to apply for a waiver, this waiver request should be submitted jointly between the two institutions and be signed by the systemwide chancellor or president of the state university system.42

Supporting documentation should include data on state allocations for agricultural research and extension funding for both institutions for current and previous years, to convey the full picture of state support for these programs, including instances in which institutions receive funding in excess of the state match—even if it is not strictly documented as a “state match.” This requirement should apply to agricultural research and extension work regardless of which administrative unit it is located in within the university.

To implement this, 7 U.S.C. 3222(d) should be amended to include 1862 institutions, or another new, joint section that applies equally to both 1862 and 1890 institutions should be created in order to ensure that other structural inequities are not introduced or perpetuated.43

  • Shared distribution of waived funds: In the event that the secretary of agriculture grants a waiver for state matching funds, the waived funding amount should be distributed proportionally between 1862 and 1890 institutions.* For example, if a waiver is requested for 20 percent of the total state matching funds, it should be distributed to reduce the 1862 institutions’ state match by 20 percent and the 1890 institutions’ state match by 20 percent. The “state match,” here, would be defined as 100 percent of the federal matching funds amount and exclude the resources committed to agricultural research and extension programs by states beyond that amount.
For competitive grants, remove or reduce matching requirements for 1890 institutions

Congress should also consider waiving or reducing matching requirements for the range of NIFA-administered competitive farm bill research programs for which 1890 institutions are eligible. This would allow 1890 institutions to compete for project-based funding on the merits of their research skill, insight, and innovation, rather than on the basis of institutional resources. The current structure shuts less-resourced institutions out of grant competitions for which they may be strong applicants because they cannot provide cost sharing. It also deprives the nation’s agriculture sector of the breadth of possible innovation and the diversity of perspectives that could bring new insights to challenging problems.

2. Better support the research and extension activities of 1994 institutions

To better support the research and extension activities of 1994 institutions, the federal government should make the Tribal College Research Grants Program and the Tribal College Extension Grant Program formula-funded capacity grant programs guaranteed to all TCUs, rather than competitive programs.44

As historical inhabitants and stewards of the land that makes up the present-day United States, Indigenous groups have specialized knowledge of natural resources. Furthermore, 75 percent of remaining Tribal territory is agricultural or forested.45 Greater investment in the capacities of TCUs to conduct agricultural research, forest management, and natural resource conservation would be a matter of both equity and practicality. It would better acknowledge the historical habitation of Indigenous Tribes on the land that makes up the land-grant university system, while allowing the wider scientific community and the national agricultural sector to benefit from Indigenous knowledge.46

Some of the existing competitive research and extension grant programs, moreover, require partnerships with other institutions, a stipulation that denies TCUs the autonomy to conduct their own research programs.

Therefore, the two existing competitive grant programs for research and extension at 1994 institutions should be made into formula-funded capacity grant programs modeled after those available to the 1862 and 1890 institutions. These new programs should not include any requirements to partner with other institutions and should allow funding to be used for facilities construction and maintenance to enable TCUs to jump-start the growth of their research capacities.

3. Support the infrastructure needs of 1890 and 1994 institutions to help address the impacts of historical underfunding

Deficiencies in the quality and breadth of an institution’s research capacities are a “chicken and egg” problem: Past research funding and activity create the institutional capacity needed to procure more research grants and contracts in the future from both the government and the private sector. Conversely, a history of underfunding makes it increasingly more challenging for institutions to compete with their peers that have longer track records of success, more established relationships, and the facilities necessary to conduct academic research.47

To help special-mission LGUs begin to overcome some of these disadvantages, the 2023 Farm Bill should continue the programs that invest in the research and infrastructure needs of 1890 and 1994 institutions:

  • 1890 institutions: One of the most pervasive and challenging consequences of historical underfunding for 1890 institutions is capital project needs and deferred facilities maintenance.48 A 2016 Government Accountability Office report on the infrastructure needs at HBCUs found that public HBCUs, on average, had $67 million in deferred maintenance needs; a 2021 follow-up survey conducted by the Thurgood Marshall College Fund found an average of $81 million in deferred maintenance expenses.49 Because many of the recent, historic investments in HBCUs were made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this funding generally went to the immediate needs that the crisis presented.50

Congress should reauthorize existing programs that provide facilities grants and fund capital projects for 1890 institutions. These include the 1890s Facilities Grants Program, the Centers of Excellence at 1890 Institutions, and the 1890s Capacity Building Grants Program.51

  • 1994 institutions: Research programs at TCUs, meanwhile, identify and seek solutions to problems that affect both Tribal communities and the nation as a whole, with strengths in “nutrition; health; the environment; economic and community development; and land and water use.”52 However, these institutions have never been granted adequate resources to build research facilities that do justice to the wealth of knowledge and unique perspectives of their Tribes. The economic impact of greater research investment in 1994 institutions would also be a boon to Tribal communities, which have the highest rates of poverty in the country.53 To support these needs, Congress should create a 1994 Facilities Grants program similar to the one available for 1890 institutions but widen the available uses to all those related to research, extension, or education, given the wider breadth of TCUs’ needs.

In addition, Tribal colleges play important roles in their communities, including offering adult education services and financial literacy classes, hosting special cultural events, and leading rural health initiatives.54 For many Tribal communities, the library facilities at TCUs are the designated public libraries and some of the only places where residents can access the internet.55 TCUs also work as centers of community engagement, cultural preservation, and technical assistance.56 Congress can continue to support TCUs as the backbones of their communities by reauthorizing the Tribal College Initiative Grants for essential community facilities.57

4. Support postsecondary attainment for underrepresented groups

The federal government can help improve postsecondary attainment rates for underrepresented groups by making Scholarships for Students at 1890 Institutions permanent and modifying the requirements for 1994 institutions for the New Beginning for Tribal Students program.58

Both American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) and Black postsecondary students face greater challenges accessing, completing, and paying for college than do their white peers.59 In fact, Black and AI/AN four-year undergraduate students have the lowest bachelor’s degree completion rates of any group, at 40 percent and 39 percent respectively, compared with 64 percent for white students.60 In addition, Black undergraduate students rely on student loans more than any other racial or ethnic group, with 86.3 percent taking out loans in 2016 compared with 67.8 percent of white students, and debt loads that are an average of 32 percent higher than those of white students.61 Both Native American/American Indian and Black graduates, furthermore, face wages gaps that lead to them making, on average, 77 cents and 76 cents on the dollar, respectively, compared with white graduates.62 This makes it even more challenging for them to pay back these higher debt loads once they enter the workforce.

National postsecondary attainment rates by race

64%

White

Rates refer to six-year graduation rates of first-time, full-time bachelor’s-degree-seeking undergraduates at four-year institutions, excluding transfers. National Center for Education Statistics, “Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups—Indicator 23: Postsecondary Graduation Rates.”

NCES

40%

Black

Rates refer to six-year graduation rates of first-time, full-time bachelor’s-degree-seeking undergraduates at four-year institutions, excluding transfers. National Center for Education Statistics, “Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups—Indicator 23: Postsecondary Graduation Rates.”

NCES

39%

American Indian/Alaska Native

Rates refer to six-year graduation rates of first-time, full-time bachelor’s-degree-seeking undergraduates at four-year institutions, excluding transfers. National Center for Education Statistics, “Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups—Indicator 23: Postsecondary Graduation Rates.”

NCES

Farm bill programs such as Scholarships for Students at 1890 Institutions and New Beginning for Tribal Students offer Black and AI/AN students crucial support to help them attain a postsecondary degree:63

  • Scholarships for Students: The 1890 Scholarships program has been transformational for the students it supports, and it attracts more diverse talent to the agricultural workforce. This program should not only be reauthorized but also be made permanent.64
  • New Beginning for Tribal Students: While New Beginning for Tribal Students offers much-needed support to AI/AN students, all LGUs are eligible to apply, and the program includes a 100 percent institutional matching requirement. This puts less-resourced institutions—including TCUs, whose mission is to serve Indigenous students—at a disadvantage. Although 85 percent of students at TCUs are AI/AN, the population that New Beginning for Tribal Students is intended to serve, only 6 of 39 awards made from 2020 to 2022 went to 1994 institutions.65 While the award requires that funds be used for activities “that would increase the retention and graduation rate of Tribal students enrolled at land-grant colleges or universities,” and therefore does go to support Tribal students (if not TCUs), advocates cite the required institutional match as creating a barrier that prevents TCUs from applying for this award.66

Because there is a limit on the amount of funding that a state can receive through this program, TCUs are essentially competing with their better-resourced land-grant peers for this opportunity. Therefore, Congress should consider removing the institutional matching requirement for 1994 institutions, creating a funding set-aside specifically for TCUs within this program, raising the statewide funding cap, and/or requiring that funds are shared across institutions.

Continuing support for postsecondary attainment through these scholarship programs will have an immense impact on the ability of Black and Indigenous individuals to achieve a postsecondary education at a more affordable cost and climb the economic ladder less burdened by student debt.

Related read

5. Protect the oceans by enhancing the capacities of land-grant institutions in U.S. territories to lead marine sciences research and develop conservation policies

There are six institutions with 1862 land-grant status located in U.S. territories.67 They are, in order of when they gained land-grant status, the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez (1908), the University of the Virgin Islands (1972), the University of Guam (1972), American Samoa Community College (1980), the College of Micronesia-Federated States of Micronesia (1980), and Northern Marianas College (1986).68

These institutions range in size—from the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez (UPRM), which enrolls about 10,000 undergraduates and 800 graduates annually and hosts research centers such as the Puerto Rico Water Resources and Environmental Research Institute and the Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, to the more teaching-focused community colleges in American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands that enroll around 1,200 students each.69 The University of the Virgin Islands, though smaller than UPRM, similarly hosts a variety of research programs that focus on water resources, marine life, and agriculture.70 The University of Guam, similarly, conducts leading research in sustainability and marine protection, among other scientific areas.71

Given the extent to which ocean ecosystems are at risk due to the devastating consequences of climate change, as well as their capacities to contribute to adaptation, marine sciences research should be at the forefront of conservation and sustainability efforts. Importantly, these regions are inhabited primarily by Indigenous Pacific Islanders, who have long histories of acting as stewards of marine environments, and U.S. territories in the Pacific have an important role to play in ocean conservation and the prevention of biodiversity loss.72 Indeed, these island communities are on the front lines of climate change and will be some of the first to feel its impacts, despite contributing proportionally much less to the release of carbon into the atmosphere.73

Congress should use the opportunity presented in the 2023 Farm Bill to leverage these communities’ strengths and expertise.74 Specifically, it should create two new Centers of Excellence for 1862 institutions located in U.S. territories. Modeled after the 1890s Centers of Excellence, which host interdisciplinary research that addresses areas of critical need, one 1862 center should be administered by an institution in the Caribbean, and the other should be administered by an institution in the Pacific. They may be collaborative in nature and engage researchers from the other territorial 1862 institutions in their region. These centers should focus on ocean conservation, the protection of marine life, climate change, or other related areas, and offer an opportunity to realize the full potential of Indigenous-led conservation to contribute to the future health of the planet.

See also

Conclusion

As bastions of practical research, community development, and access-oriented higher education, land-grant universities serve the public good and offer a powerful return on federal investment. With greater funding, HBCUs and TCUs could increase the rate at which they develop solutions for underresourced areas and improve postsecondary attainment for Black and Native American students. Modifications should be made to funding models and program requirements to allow these minority-serving land-grant institutions to continue to grow the education, research, and extension capacities that serve their communities and the nation.

* Correction, July 26, 2023: This report has been corrected to reflect that the secretary of agriculture grants a waiver for state matching funds.

Endnotes

  1. Renée Johnson and Jim Monke, “Farm Bill Primer: What Is the Farm Bill?” (Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2023), available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12047.
  2. In recent years, the percentage of white students at the University of Florida has hovered just above 50 percent. Twelve-month enrollment data for all students for academic years 2017-18 to 2020-21, the latest available at the time of publication, show the percentage of white students ranging from 50.6 percent to 52.6 percent over this time period. While the University of Florida served a student population that was 51 percent white and 6 percent Black in the 2020-21 academic year, the student population at FAMU was 83 percent Black and 6.5 percent white. National Center for Education Statistics, “Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2017-2018; 2018-2019; 2019-2020; 2020-2021, Enrollment component,” available for download at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data (last accessed July 2023). Figures are based on the 12-month enrollment of all levels and degree-seeking statuses of enrolled students.
  3. Joseph Kays, “University of Florida surpasses $1 billion in research spending for first time in 2022,” University of Florida News, July 19, 2022, available at https://news.ufl.edu/2022/07/one-billion-in-research-funding/.
  4. The University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences documented $430.5 million in operating revenues in its fiscal year 2022 annual report. Of this, 49.6 percent, or about $214 million, came from state appropriations. Research expenditures of $229.7 million and extension expenditures of $92 million account for 79.9 percent of UF/IFAS’ $402.8 million total operating expenses. A conservative estimate, in which other categories of expenditures (instruction and operations) are assumed to be completely funded through state appropriations, would leave about $130 million in state appropriations for research and extension work. These calculations assume that appropriations are used proportionally across remaining functions, with 79.9 percent of state appropriations funding research and extension expenditures. University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, “UF/IFAS Annual Report FY2022: Cultivating Florida’s Future” (Gainesville, FL), p. 7, available at https://branding.ifas.ufl.edu/downloads/uploads/Extension%20Brochures/IFAS/IFAS-Annual-Report-2022.pdf (last accessed June 2023).
  5. University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, “Research Facilities,” available at https://research.ifas.ufl.edu/research-areas/facilities/ (last accessed June 2023).
  6. According to data from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture on FY 2022 federal allocation and state matching for land-grant research and extension programs, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University received $2.6 million for extension (Section 1444) and $3.1 million for research (Evans-Allen), for a total of $5.7 million in federal funding, while the state only matched $3.5 million in funds, for a funding gap of $2.2 million. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, “FY 2022 Allocation and Matching,” March 15, 2023, available at https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/FY2022%20Allocation%20and%20Matching_remediated_v2.pdf.
  7. The total federal funding for Hatch Act and Smith-Lever programs, the research and extension programs for 1862 institutions, for the University of Florida in FY 2022 was $9.2 million, about 14 times the minimum amount of state funding that could have used for research and extension by UF/IFAS ($130 million; see endnote 2). Ibid.
  8. The three new breeds of grape are technically “cultivars,” rather than varietals, since they are scientifically created. Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, “Center for Viticulture and Small Fruit Research,” available at https://cafs.famu.edu/departments-and-centers/research/center-for-viticulture-and-small-fruit-research/index.php (last accessed June 2023).
  9. Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, “Center for Water Resources,” available at https://cafs.famu.edu/departments-and-centers/research/center-for-water-resources/index.php (last accessed June 2023).
  10. Mirtha Donastorg, “HBCUs Continue to Get New Patents, Though Disparities Remain,” The Plug, November 3, 2021, available at https://tpinsights.com/hbcus-continue-to-get-new-patents-though-disparities-remain/#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20four%20decades,areas%20few%20schools%20focus%20on.
  11. 12 Stat. 503; 7 U.S.C. §301 et seq. For more on the legislation now commonly referred to as the First Morrill Act or the Morrill Act of 1862 for its sponsoring senator, Justin Morrill (R-VT), see National Archives, “Morrill Act (1862),” available at https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/morrill-act (last accessed July 2023).
  12. For recent information on the research accomplishments of 1890 institutions, see 1890 Universities Foundation, “2021-2022 Annual Impact Report” (Washington), available at https://www.1890foundation.org/_files/ugd/35e04d_41f46c0c58b34b36abaab1e394c6c924.pdf (last accessed July 2023).
  13. Megan Covington and others, “The HBCU Effect: An Exploration of HBCU Alumni’s Peer Networks and Workforce Outcomes” (Washington: UNCF, 2022), available at https://cdn.uncf.org/wp-content/uploads/The-HBCU-Effect_FINAL.pdf?_ga=2.218637209.1882319667.1684423028-1914733925.1684423028&_gac=1.248005365.1684505106.CjwKCAjwvJyjBhApEiwAWz2nLV9z02t9JgPPMUX4rtYRxDCK9tFydT9vynDdR6tpHW7YeVvv70vCaRoCS5EQAvD_BwE.
  14. Marcella Bombardieri and Dina M. Horwedel, “For Native Americans, Tribal Colleges Tackle the ‘Present-Day Work of Our Ancestors’,” Center for American Progress, November 18, 2022, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/for-native-americans-Tribal-colleges-tackle-the-present-day-work-of-our-ancestors/.
  15. Carrie Billie, “Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Hearing on the History & Continued Contributions of Tribal Colleges and Universities,” House Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Investment, July 19, 2022, available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ED/ED13/20220719/114961/HHRG-117-ED13-Wstate-BillyC-20220719.pdf.
  16. Robert Lee and others, “Land-Grab Universities,” High Country News, available at https://www.landgrabu.org/ (last accessed June 2023).
  17. For a full list of LGUs and their locations, see National Institute of Food and Agriculture, “Land-Grant Colleges and Universities With State, District, or Territory Name and List of Institutions,” available at https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/how-we-work/partnerships/land-grant-colleges-universities (last accessed July 2023).
  18. Because land-grant universities are generally access oriented, they tend to serve more diverse populations of students than moderately or highly selective universities. 1862 institutions in 41 out of 50 states serve student populations that are greater than 50 percent white. States where less than 50 percent of the student population at the 1862 institution is white include Arizona, Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Hawaii. National Center for Education Statistics, “Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2020-2021, Enrollment component: 12-month enrollment, by race and ethnicity,” available for download at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data (last accessed July 2023).
  19. Croft, “The U.S. Land-Grant University System: An Overview,” pp. 9–10.
  20. West Virginia State University, Lincoln University (Missouri), Central State University (Ohio), University of Maryland Eastern Shore, and Kentucky State University all serve student populations that are less than 50 percent Black, but also in proportions that far exceed those of the demographics of their respective states. National Center for Education Statistics, “Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2020-2021, Enrollment component: 12-month enrollment, by race and ethnicity.”
  21. Croft, “The U.S. Land-Grant University System: An Overview,” pp. 2–3. For a map of the TCUs, see National Institute of Food and Agriculture, “NIFA Land-Grant Colleges and Universities – 1994,” available at https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resource/1994%20LGU%20Map%2003_18_19%20-%20508.pdf (last accessed July 2023). While some sources include Deganawidah-Quetzalcoatl University, or D-Q University, in the count of TCUs for a total of 36, it lost accreditation in 2005 and therefore does not participate in farm bill-funded programs. Jocelyn Stewart, “Native American College Shuts Down,” Los Angeles Times, February 20, 2005, available at https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-feb-20-me-tribalu20-story.html#:~:text=Officials%20at%20D%2DQ%20University%20shut,one%20firing%20the%20school’s%20president.
  22. Low- and low-middle-income categories are approximated by Pell Grant recipient status. Ninety-four percent of Pell Grant recipients come from families with incomes of less than $60,000 per year. Melanie Hanson, “Pell Grant Statistics,” Education Data Initiative, June 5, 2023, available at https://educationdata.org/pell-grant-statistics.
  23. See Denise Smith, “Achieving Financial Equity and Justice for HBCUs,” The Century Foundation, September 14, 2021, available at https://tcf.org/content/report/achieving-financial-equity-justice-hbcus/; Christine A. Nelson and Joanna R. Frye, “Tribal College and University Funding: Tribal Sovereignty at the Intersection of Federal, State, and Local Funding” (Washington: American Council on Education Center for Policy Research and Strategy, 2016), available at https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Tribal-College-and-University-Funding.pdf.
  24. For further detail on the various federal research and extension programs at land-grant universities, see Genevieve K. Croft, “The U.S. Land-Grant University System: An Overview” (Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2022), available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45897.
  25. Data for FY 2011–2022 are available from National Institute of Food and Agriculture, “Capacity Grants – Allocation and Matching,” available at https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/capacity-grants (last accessed July 2023).
  26. Act Of August 30, 1890 (Second Morrill Act) (26 Stat. 417; 7 U.S.C. §321 et seq.), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10284/pdf/COMPS-10284.pdf.
  27. Ibid.
  28. Ibid.
  29. Croft, “The U.S. Land-Grant University System: An Overview.”
  30. These percentages are calculated from the data cited in Figure 3, showing that from 6 to 9 of 19 institutions from FY 2018 to FY 2022 requested waivers.
  31. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, “FY 2022 Allocation and Matching,” p. 1, indicated by the difference in “FY 2022 Allocation” and “FY 2022 Allocation” for “Evans-Allen – 1445” for Tuskegee University. See also Alabama Department of Finance Executive Budget Office, “Education Trust Fund Budget Summary,” p. 10, available at https://budget.alabama.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/FY23-ETF-Handout-no-reversions-PDF.pdf (last accessed July 2023). In this year, the state of Alabama did meet the full match for its other historically Black land-grant university, Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University. Alabama is the only state with two 1890 institutions. Tuskegee University, although it is a private institution, has had land-grant status since 1899 and as an 1890 institution is entitled to the same federal and state support as others with that designation. See Croft, “The U.S. Land-Grant University System: An Overview,” p. 6, fn. 14.
  32. University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, “FY 2022 Budget,” pp. 11–12, available at https://adhe.edu/File/UA_-_Div_of_Agri_FY22.pdf (last accessed July 2023). Data on waived state funds for the University of Arkansas Pine Bluff are from U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, “FY 2022 Allocation and Matching,” p. 1.
  33. State of Texas Legislative Budget Board, “General Appropriations Act for the 2022-23 Biennium” (Austin: 2021), pp. 486–488, available at https://www.lbb.texas.gov/documents/gaa/general_appropriations_act_2022_2023.pdf. The Texas State Legislature allocated $63,595,744 for its Texas A&M University AgriLife Research program and $48,778,807 for its AgriLife Extension Service from its state general revenue fund in FY 2022, for a total of $112,374,551. Allocation and matching data for federal allocations from NIFA for FY 2022, meanwhile, show $23,478,089 in federal allocations for the Smith-Lever and Hatch programs (for the 4.8-to-1 ratio of state-to-federal funds) from Texas A&M University. The data also show $7,190,663 in waived funds for Section 1444 and Evans-Allen programs for Prairie View A&M University the same year. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, “FY 2022 Allocation and Matching.”
  34. As shown in endnote 33, the required state match for Texas A&M University was $23,478,089 in FY 2022. The state legislature appropriated $112,374,551, or $88,896,462, more than was required by the federal government for the cost sharing. Ibid.
  35. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, “Tribal College Endowment Program,” available at https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/capacity-grants/tribal-college-endowment-program (last accessed July 2023).
  36. American Indian Higher Education Consortium, “1994 Land-Grant Tribal Colleges & Universities: Research” (Alexandria, VA: 2023), available at https://webassets.aihec.org/Policy-Advocacy/FY2022%20AppropriationsFunding%20Requests/1994%20-2023-Research-Revision2-Feb.pdf.
  37. Ibid.
  38. American Indian Higher Education Consortium, “1994 Land-Grant Tribal Colleges & Universities: Extension” (Alexandria, VA: 2023), available at https://webassets.aihec.org/Policy-Advocacy/FY2022%20AppropriationsFunding%20Requests/1994ExtensionFinalRevised_clbka.pdf.
  39. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Research, Education, and Economics Information System,” available at https://reeis.usda.gov/areera/search/2007/to-date (last accessed June 2023).
  40. While removing the waiver for 1890 institutions might seem like a promising solution, it would put the institutions at risk of losing their federal funding entirely in the event that states cannot or choose not to meet the full matching requirement. This would be a devastating outcome for these institutions and the communities that rely upon their work.
  41. Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361§a-i); Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. §341-349), Section 1445; Evans Allen Research Program (7 U.S.C. 3222), and Section 1444 (7 U.S.C. 3221).
  42. Eighteen states have one 1862 land-grant university as well as one 1890 LGU. Only Alabama has two 1890 LGUs, Alabama A&M University and Tuskegee University. Tuskegee University is a private institution, but still functions similarly to other land-grant universities for the purpose of research and extension programs. See Croft, “The U.S. Land-Grant University System: An Overview.”
  43. 7 USC 3222(d): “Matching funds requirement for research and extension activities at eligible institutions,” July 12, 2023, available at https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:7%20section:3222d%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title7-section3222d)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true.
  44. The relevant section of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334) for the Tribal College Research Grants Program is Section 7502(d). The Tribal College Extension Grant Program is authorized under Section 534(b) of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), as amended by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601). This section amends Section 3 of the Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914 (7 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), as amended. National Institute of Food and Agriculture, “Request for Applications: Tribal Colleges Extension Program Capacity Applications,” available at https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/FY22-TCEP-CA-RFA-508-MOD1_0.pdf (last accessed July 2023).
  45. American Indian Higher Education Consortium, “Tribal Colleges & Universities – 1994 Land-Grant Institutions: Summary of Proposed Amendments to 2023 Legislation to Reauthorize the Agriculture Act of 2018 (Farm Bill)” (Alexandria, VA: 2023), available at http://old.aihec.org/what-we-do/docs/FY24/1_AIHEC%20Farm%20Bill%20Amendments_Feb%207%202023_clbjp_013123.PA.pdf.
  46. See, for example, Tyler D. Jessen and others, “Contributions of Indigenous Knowledge to Ecological and Evolutionary Understanding,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 20 (2) (2021): 93–101, available at https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2435.
  47. Current and previous presidential administrations have recognized this issue and made efforts to increase federal research grants and contracts for HBCUs. For example, in December 2020, the White House released a “Federal HBCU Competitiveness Strategy,” an interagency framework to improve coordination and collaboration between HBCUs and U.S. federal agencies to, among other things, increase the competitiveness of HBCUs to win federal grants and contracts. In addition, the HBCU PARTNERS Act of 2020 (P. L. 116-270) created new requirements for federal agencies to engage HBCUs and strengthen their competitiveness for federal grants and contracts. White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, “Federal HBCU Competitiveness Strategy” (Washington: 2020), available at https://sites.ed.gov/whhbcu/files/2021/01/Federal-HBCU-Competitiveness-Strategy.pdf; HBCU PARTNERS Act, S. 461 (February 12, 2019), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/461.
  48. The HBCU Capital Financing Program is a valuable program that will help address the infrastructure needs of many HBCUs in the private sector, but many states have laws that prevent public higher education institutions, such as 1890 institutions, from participating in financing programs. U.S. Department of Education, “Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Program,” available at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/hbcucapfinance/index.html (last accessed July 2023).
  49. Thurgood Marshall College Fund, “HBCU Infrastructure Needs,” available at https://www.tmcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Infrastructure.Needs_.Fact_.Sheet_.Logo_.Final_.8.23.21.pdf (last accessed June 2023).
  50. A July 2022 report from UNCF indicated that “technology (distance/remote learning),” “lost revenue,” and “reimbursement” (such as for student tuition relief) were the top three priorities for 26 to 27 of the 34 institutions surveyed. Longer-term investments, such as facilities, were only among the top priorities for 5 of the 34 institutions surveyed. Lodriguez Murray and Nadrea R. Njoku, “Greater Funding, Greater Needs: A Report on Funding for HBCUs” (Washington: UNCF, 2022), available at https://cdn.uncf.org/wp-content/uploads/UNCF-Patterson-HBCUs-funding-report_V6.pdf?_ga=2.14056247.1478935991.1689905815-732146024.1688736323; Deana Around Him and Heather Sauyaq Jean Gordon, “Latest Census Estimates Show Disproportionate Poverty Among American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Children and the Overall AIAN Population,” Child Trends, November 15, 2022, available at https://www.childtrends.org/blog/latest-census-estimates-show-disproportionate-poverty-among-american-indian-and-alaska-native-aian-children-and-the-overall-aian-population.
  51. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334), Sections 7118, 7213, and 7107, available at https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ334/PLAW-115publ334.pdf.
  52. American Indian Higher Education Consortium, “Tribal Colleges & Universities – 1994 Land-Grant Institutions: Summary of Proposed Amendments to 2023 Legislation to Reauthorize the Agriculture Act of 2018 (Farm Bill),” February 7, 2023, p. 7, available at http://old.aihec.org/what-we-do/docs/FY24/1_AIHEC%20Farm%20Bill%20Amendments_Feb%207%202023_clbjp_013123.PA.pdf.
  53. Around Him and Sauyaq Jean Gordon, “Latest Census Estimates Show Disproportionate Poverty Among American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Children and the Overall AIAN Population.”
  54. Cheryl Crazy Bull, “Engaging Life: TCUs and their Role Building Community,” Tribal College 27 (1) (2015), available at https://tribalcollegejournal.org/engaging-life-tcus-and-their-role-building-community.
  55. Ibid.
  56. Ibid.
  57. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Sec. 6406, also called Tribal College Initiative Grants; U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Tribal College Initiative Grants,” available at https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/community-facilities/tribal-college-initiative-grants#overview (last accessed June 2023).
  58. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Sections 7117 and 7120.
  59. See Matthew N. Atwell, Eleanor Manspile, and John M. Bridgeland, “Boosting Postsecondary Attainment for American Indian and Alaska Native Students” (Washington: Civic, 2021), available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED614268.pdf; Postsecondary National Policy Institute, “Black Students in Higher Education” (Washington: 2022), available at https://pnpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/BlackStudentsFactSheet-Nov-2022.pdf.
  60. U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics, “Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups—Indicator 23: Postsecondary Graduation Rates,” available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_red.asp (last accessed July 2023).
  61. The average debt load for white students pursuing bachelor’s degree is $29,900, compared with $39,500 for Black students. National Center for Education Statistics, “Fast Facts: Student Debt,” available at https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=900 (last accessed June 2023).
  62. U.S. Department of Labor, “Earnings Disparities by Race and Ethnicity,” available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/about/data/earnings/race-and-ethnicity (last accessed June 2023).
  63. American Indian Higher Education Consortium, “Tribal Colleges & Universities – 1994 Land-Grant Institutions: Summary of Proposed Amendments to 2023 Legislation to Reauthorize the Agriculture Act of 2018 (Farm Bill).”
  64. House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Rep. David Scott (D-GA) recently initiated this change in separate legislation, H.R. 1436, “To provide additional funding for scholarships for students at 1890 institutions.” House Agriculture Committee Democrats, “Ranking Member David Scott Introduces Legislation to Support 1890 Scholarships,” Press release, March 8, 2023, available at https://democrats-agriculture.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2750.
  65. These award winners include Nebraska Indian Community College, Oglala Lakota College, Ilisaġvik College, College of the Muscogee Nation, Blackfeet Community College, and Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe University. Data on assistance listing #10.527 are from USAspending.gov, “Advanced Search,” available at https://www.usaspending.gov/search/?hash=31942d7d50a246801bf3bd2cd2779660 (last accessed June 2023).
  66. National Institute of Food and Agriculture, “Request for Applications: New Beginning for Tribal Students Program,” available at https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/FY23-NBTS-RFA-508-F.pdf (last accessed July 2023).
  67. These institutions are also called “insular area” institutions, in farm bills and other official contexts, for their island geography. In this report, the author refers to them by their administrative region’s territorial status for greater specificity. American Samoa is the only U.S. territory where residents are U.S. nationals, not U.S. citizens. See U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Insular Affairs, “American Samoa,” available at https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/american-samoa#:~:text=Unlike%20citizens%20of%20other%20U.S.,elections%20and%20pay%20Federal%20taxes (last accessed July 2023).
  68. The College of Micronesia-FSM gained land-grant status in 1980, when it was part of the trust territory in the Pacific administered by the United States following World War II. Micronesia began the process of becoming an independent nation in 1979, and finalized a Compact of Free Association with the United States in 1986. U.S. Department of State, “A Guide to the United States’ History of Recognition, Diplomatic, and Consular Relations, by Country, since 1776: Federated States of Micronesia,” available at https://history.state.gov/countries/micronesia (last accessed June 2023); Croft, “The U.S. Land-Grant University System: An Overview.”
  69. See Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, “Puerto Rico Water Resources and Environmental Institute – University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus,” available at https://www.uprm.edu/prwreri/ (last accessed July 2023); Puerto Rico Water Resources and Environmental Research Institute, “Caribbean Coral Reef Institute,” available at https://www.uprm.edu/ccri/ (last accessed July 2023).
  70. See University of the Virgin Islands, “UVI Research Activities,” available at https://www.uvi.edu/research/index.html (last accessed July 2023).
  71. See University of Guam, “Center for Island Sustainability,” available at https://www.uog.edu/center-for-island-sustainability/ (last accessed July 2023); University of Guam, “Marine Laboratory,” available at https://www.uog.edu/ml/ (last accessed July 2023).
  72. For the demographics of each of the Pacific territories, see the CIA World Factbook entries for Guam, American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Northern Mariana Islands, available at https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/australia-and-oceania/.
  73. See Chris Parsons, “The Pacific Islands: The Front Line In The Battle Against Climate Change,” National Science Foundation, May 23, 2022, available at https://new.nsf.gov/science-matters/pacific-islands-front-line-battle-against-climate; Kausea Natano, “The Climate Crisis Is Making the Pacific Islands Uninhabitable. Who Will Help Preserve Our Nations?”, Time, September 28, 2022, available at https://time.com/6217104/climate-crisis-pacific-islands-uninhabitable/.
  74. Angelo Villagomez, Anuka Upadhye, and Zainab Mirza, “U.S. Pacific Territories and the America the Beautiful Initiative Can Deliver Ocean Climate Solutions,” Center for American Progress, November 8, 2022, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/u-s-pacific-territories-and-the-america-the-beautiful-initiative-can-deliver-ocean-climate-solutions/.

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Author

Sara Partridge

Associate Director of Higher Education

Team

Higher Education Policy

The Higher Education team works toward building an affordable and high-quality higher education system that supports economic mobility and racial equity.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.