Overview of Presentation

Transcription

1 State Funding of Agricultural Experiment Station: Why Leadership Needs to be Engaged in Making Political Sausage Gregory M. Perry Colorado State University Overview of Presentation Review of funding history and sources for agricultural experiment stations Explore the role of line item appropriations in experiment station funding Regression analysis of state experiment station funding for Implications for retaining and growing state budget allocations to the experiment station Hatch Act of 1887 Provided federal support for agricultural experiment stations Initiated by Congressman William Hatch (D) of Missouri Initial allocation was $15,000 to each state Tied to Land Grant Universities 1

2 Objective of the Hatch Act Purpose was to promote the efficient production, marketing, distribution and utilization of products of the farm as essential to the health and welfare of our peoples and to promote a sound and prosperous agriculture and rural life as indispensable to the maintenance of maximum employment and national prosperty and security. Also to conduct original and other research, investigations and experiments bearing directly on and contributing to the establishment and maintenance of a permanent and effective agricultural industry of the United States, including researches basic to the problems of agriculture in its broadest aspects, and such investigations as have for their purpose the development and improvement of the rural home and rural life and the maximum contribution by agriculture to the welfare of the consumer... " Each of the more successful stations based its research policy at least partially on the needs of the farm associations. State Granges and boards of agriculture, associations of dairymen and fruit growers, florists, poultry raisers, and cranberry growers even apiarists might be the source of much needed political support. (p. 6) By 1900 the more successful and dexterous station directors were able to call a well organized network of influence to the aid of favored measures in local statehouses or in Washington. (p. 7) From The Adams Act: Politics and the Cause of Scientific Research. Charles Rosenberg. Agricultural History, V38, No 1 (Jan 1964) Smith Lever Act of 1914 Provided federal support for cooperative extension service Initiated by Hoke Smith and Ashbury Lever Initial allocation was $10,000 to each state Feds required a match from each state Adopted experiment station formula in 1950 s. 2

3 2016 Colorado Ag Experiment Station Funding Amount Total (thousands) NIFA Administered Hatch Funds $2,132. Multi state Funds $1,120. McIntire Stennis Funds $414. Grants, contracts, cooperative agreements $7,265. $10,931. Other Federal Funds USDA $4,140 Other Federal Funds $3,767 $7,907. Non Federal Funds State Appropriations $8,350. Commodities, industry, other $9,250 $17,600 Total All Categories $36,439. Federal and State Formula Funds Hatch, Smith Lever and State Funds are Foundational Amount guaranteed (more or less) Can be used for faculty, staff, students, supplies, equipment, etc. In practice most states put a high percentage into tenure track faculty salaries 3

4 Most States Suffered a Decline in State Funding Since 2007 Change 2007 to 2016 Loss of more than 10% Loss of 0 to 10% Gain of 1 to 10% Gain of more than 10% Number of States Source: CRIS Data Base (NIFA), FY2007 to FY 2016 Loss of State Funding Translates to Loss of Federal Funds Change 2007 to 2016 Number of States Decline in Federal Funds Increase in Federal Funds Loss of +10% Loss of 0 to 9% Gain of 1 to 9% Gain of +10% Trends for Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Nevada State Funding $4,947, $7,127, $596,250 $7,317, Oregon Idaho Colorado Nevada Source: CRIS Data Base (NIFA), FY1993 to FY

5 Why Such a Discrepancy Between Colorado and These Other States? Hypothesis 1: The other three states have line Item appropriations for experiment station and extension budgets, Colorado does not. Is Separate Line Item Desirable? Benefits Leadership motivated to directly interact with legislature about programs, incentive is to educate and listen Helps prevent uninformed university leadership from raising havoc with experiment station budgets Industry groups can lobby for specific funding additions without concern it will be lost in university Drawbacks Can remove incentive for leadership to be politically engaged Funding for pay raises can be problematic Jumps in other expenses have to be absorbed by station Legislature can single out station for larger cuts ROUND 1: ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF THE LINE ITEM APPROPRIATION AND AG SECTOR SIZE ON STATE ALLOCATION 5

6 Data Used in Analysis State and Federal Funding Reported to NIFA in CRIS system, annual summaries by state. Analysis covered years State Budget Expenditures Includes general funds, federal money coming into state, bond expenditures and others for Agriculture Gross Receipts Total by year and state Survey of experiment stations regarding line item appropriation (28 states have line item) Initial Model = α+ β β β β Initial Results Variable Estimated Coefficient Standard Error t Statistic Intercept *** /State Budget *** Line Item *** Ratio Com Receipts/GDP *** Ratio CR/SGDP*Line Item R 2 =

7 Results Line item made significant difference in state funding Size of ag economy also important to state funding For Colorado Predicted 2016 funding was $14.8 Million, it was actually $10.1. Estimated the value of not having the line item as $9.6 Million. For Oregon Predicted 2016 funding was $26.9 Million, actually was $46 Million. Estimated value of line item was $10.4 Million Problems With Initial Model Models appear to be incomplete, variables missing Western Experiment Station Directors challenged fundamental assumption about line item Nevada has line item but President has taken over all interactions with legislature ROUND 2: EXPLORE THE IMPORTANCE OF RELATIONSHIPS AND OTHER FACTORS IN EXPERIMENT STATION FUNDING 7

8 Follow Up Interviews Visited with individuals from each experiment station to explore advocacy process 50 states, 50 different relationships Two key interactions emerged Station leadership and state legislature Station leadership and stakeholders Three Levels of Interaction with Legislature High Level (H) Station operates separately from land grant Often employs a lobbyist (educator) Frequent interactions with legislators Medium Level (M) All legislative interactions run thru president s office Lobbyist assigned to advocate for experiment station, coordinated messaging Leadership sometimes asked to interact with legislature Low Level (L) President s office controls messaging, discourages input from station leadership Leadership chooses not to engage in political process Three Levels of Interaction with Stakeholders High Level (H) Branch stations systematically identify funding priorities with stakeholders Station leadership sets legislative agenda based on these priorities Stakeholders work as a coalition with leadership to lobby on behalf of entire package Medium Level (M) Prioritization process not systematic, efforts targeted toward particular projects Good stakeholder support for these projects, but not for entire station Low Level (L) President s office exerts control over stakeholder interaction process Station leadership makes little effort to organize stakeholders as advocates for programs 8

9 Additional Hypotheses Hypothesis 2: Higher levels of interaction between leadership and legislators result in higher funding levels Hypothesis 3: More coordinated lobbying efforts by stakeholders result in higher funding levels Hypothesis 4: Political leanings in a state influence the amount of state funding allocated to the experiment stations Hypothesis 5: State funding varies based on the mix of agricultural activity in that state. Additional Data Used in Analysis Dummy variables reflecting high and medium legislative interaction Dummy variables reflecting high and medium stakeholder activity Cook Partisan Voting Index (CPVI) measures how strongly a state leans toward one party or another Expanded Model = α+ β β β β β β β β β β CPVI+ β Total State Budget 9

10 Variable Round Two Estimation Results Estimated Coefficient Standard Error t Statistic Intercept *** /State Budget *** Line Item High Legislature Interaction ** Med Legislature Interaction *** High Stakeholder Interaction *** Med Stakeholder Interaction Ratio Commodity Rev/GDP Ratio * State Budget CookPVI *** CookPVI *** Ratio*Cook *** R 2 = Interpretation of Results (in Millions) State Status 2016 NIFA State Amt Value of Line Item Value of HL Value of ML Value of HS Predicted State Funding Colorado NL,LL,LS $ $3,346 $6,965 $7,433 $8,155 $12,202 Relationship between Political Leanings and Impact on State Experiment Station Funding KS AR ID OK 0.2 SC WY 0.1 AZ FL 0 CO WI MA 0.1 IL OR 0.2 For AZ: *39287=+$5.9 Million HI VT CA

11 ROUND 3: EXPLORING THE ROLE THAT DIFFERENT AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES HAVE ON STATE FUNDING Total Value of Agricultural Gross Receipts Commodity Categories Meat Animals Dairy Products Poultry & Eggs Sheep, Aquaculture Food Grains Feed Crops Oil Crops Cotton Tobacco Vegetables & Melons Fruits & Nuts Other Crops Meat Animals & Dairy Poultry and Other Food Grains Feed & Oil Crops Cotton Tobacco Vegetables, Fruits & Other Round Three Estimation Results Variable Estimated Coefficient Standard Error t Statistic Intercept *** /State Budget Line Item High Legislature Interaction *** Med Legislature Interaction *** High Stakeholder Interaction Med Stakeholder Interaction Meat + Dairy *** Poultry + Sheep + Aquaculture + Other Feeds + Oils *** Food Grains *** Vegetables, Fruits, Nuts, Other *** Cotton *** Tobacco *** Year *** Year *** R 2 =

12 Category Results for Colorado Gross Receipts (Thousands) Contributions to Budget (Thousands) Base $4,168. Beef, Pork & Dairy $3,921,977 $1,234. Other Animals $238,015 $154. Feeds & Oils $938,032 $871. Food Grains $294,492 $871. Fruits, Nuts, Vegetables, Other $776,038 $3,528. Total $6,168,554 $8,358. Estimated Impacts of Commodity ($ per Million of Commodity Sales) Missouri Colorado Virginia Beef, Pork, Dairy $ (0.24) $ (0.31) $ (0.28) Other Livestock $ 0.49 $ 0.65 $ 0.58 Wheat, Rice*** $ 2.23 $ 2.96 $ 2.64 Feed Grains & Oil Seeds *** $ 0.70 $ 0.93 $ 0.83 Cotton *** $ 7.91 $ $ 9.37 Tobacco *** $ $ $ Fruits & Vegetables *** $ 3.43 $ 4.55 $ 4.07 Relationship Implications Stakeholder coalitions are the key Engagement with legislature also important, whether directly or through university lobbyists Some commodity groups more influential in the legislative process Fruits & Vegetables, Food Grains, Cotton, Tobacco most influential, feed grains & oils to some extent Livestock seems to have no impact 12

13 Political Implications Large scale agriculture leans Republican, experiment station seems associated with large scale agriculture Experiment Station needs to be more visible with research that impacts urban leaning interests Local, organic Food safety and nutrition Food startups and innovation Resource conservation and protection Next Steps for Research Reconcile published data with information sent in Examine the role of state funding on federal funding received Understand the interplay between federal, state and industry funding Explore extension funding models 13