The Partnership Workshop Planning Committee identified major events in the US socio-economic environment and the general impacts on the partners.  The impact on over three time periods:  pre-1980, 1980’s, and 1990’s.

U.S.

Pre-1980

• Population shifts from rural to metro areas
• Move from agrarian society to manufacturing/industrial society
• Discovery of DNA
• Viet Nam war and civil disturbance
• Explosion of biological sciences research
• Significant increase in research funding in NSF, NASA, ed. For higher education – USDA is not the only major funder of agricultural research
• Supreme Court school desegregation decision

• Early 1980’s farm crisis
• Start of biotechnology revolution
• Concept that agriculture does not involve science
• Recession – stock market tumble
• ’85 Farm Bill – more urban environmental pressure and less agricultural support
• Reagan Administration move to conservative government
• Growth of environmental activism
• Global economy increasingly impacting US economy

• Economic “super time” with low interest and booming stock market
• Biotechnology revolution
• “Urbanization” of America
• Significant demographic culture shifts, increased corporate agriculture
• Internet use expands rapidly
• Globalization of the economy very significant factor

Additional Historical Context Thoughts:

go to: top / table of contents

AES and CES

Pre-1980

• Farm/farmer/rural major program focus
• County Extension staff were technological leaders
• Establishment of CRIS database
• Vannevar Bush concept of science and emergence of “research university”
• AES and CES not well integrated …except that many faculty had joint appointments
• Federal funds flowing very well in the ‘70’s for AES and CES
• Establishment of IPM program
• Rapid technological change in agriculture

• Environmental issues main concern of production agriculture
• Executive budget proposed 70% Federal appropriations budget cut for CES
• Issues like IPM encouraged more active interaction between AES and CES
• Response to farm financial crisis by CES
• Issues programming initiated by CES
• Change in farm policy encouraged more work between AES and CES on how farmers make economic decisions with regard to “federal farm programs.”  Extensive research based literature and division models emerged from analysis by CES to enhance farmer decision making.
• Increase in joint AES/CES  appointments
• Growth years – CES expansion into urban/areas and CES shift to corporate agriculture/agribusiness

• Extension administrative structure continue to shift – 40% of state CES’s not in the Colleges of Agriculture
• CES increases program focus
• Consumer
• Biotechnology, GMO’s and potential loss of consumer confidence in agricultural research and agricultural consolidation
• State matching funds to receive federal funds for 1890 institutions
• AREERA work groups
• Butler communication and partnering required to address complex issues
• Major shift in structure of agriculture
• AES and CES “impact” database
• Scarcer federal establish program funding and support
• Broadening roles beyond traditional focus on agriculture, home economics, 4-H
• GPRA implementation begins

Additional Thoughts on the Historical Context of AES and CES:

go to: top / table of contents

Partnership

Pre-1980

• USDA developed CRIS to track overall program
• In 1977, the Farm Bill provided CES funds directly to the 1890 institutions
• Bigger overall USDA:  CSRS, ES and Higher Ed, smaller players among 40+ agencies
• Federal funding for CES and AES very good
• Limited recognition and role of 1890 LGU’s

• Development of NRI and federal funding for a competitive grant programs
• Farm crisis
• Role of USDA National Program Leaders began to change from expert to facilitator
• Federal Budget cuts of 1980’s
• Separate CSRS, Extension Service, Higher Ed.

• Merger of ES and CSRS, Higher Education formation of CSREES
• Higher ed/research/extension merged into one agency
• First time federal staff were required to work with AES, CES and Higher Education as a whole
• CSREES administrator announcing to CES and AES, “I am not your advocate
• Greater demands for accountability
• Government begins to require coordination and multiple function programming
• More competitive grants
• Severe budget constraints

go to: top / table of contents

The Story That is Told by These Events

• There was a shift in the relative position of the partners
• During the ‘60’s into the ‘70’s, there was an increase in federal funding and the federal partner played a significant role as a result.
• In the late ‘70’s, federal funding decreased and the issues became more complex.  At the same time, state funding increased and research began doing more competitive grants.  This led to a decreasing role for the federal partner and tension between AES and CES over competitive grants.
• USDA began pushing things like environmental issues and AES and CES were seen as resistant.
• Following World War II, the US economy was dominant in the world and most current employees grew up in that period.
• Accountability was a new concept, beginning in 1969, increasing in prominence during the Reagan Era and again in the last ten years.
• There was a shift from applied to basic research.
• There was an increase in AES and CES funding from other agencies.
• Following WWII, federal government research policy was to invest in research because of  “cold war” being a priority issue
• Changes in funding mechanisms led universities to become research institutions, which led to declining importance for agriculture and environment within the institutions.
• Private sector investment in research increased, which impacted the role of CES.
• The ‘70’s was the beginning of the recognition of the 1890’s institutions as a partner probably connected with the Civil Rights Movement
• The 1890’s are now seeing increasing state funding and Congress has recognized the need to increase funding for the 1890’s colleges.
• There are separate 1890’s and 1862 research programs.  The 1890’s, tribal and HIS institutions all aggressively pursue research funding.
• As issues became tougher and more complex and more social/community issues arose, federal funding did not keep up.  This led traditional AES and CES support groups to favor the status quo and be perceived as unwilling to change.
• The federal policy opened Federal funding from CSREES up to non-LGU’s impacting funding for LGUs.

Additional Thoughts:

go to: top / table of contents

The Implications of This Story for Improving the Partnership

• The system is trying to respond to complex issues and the funding situation.  Responses include National CFAR and the NASULGC President’s Food and Security project.  There is no clear, formalized role for CSREES in these efforts.
• These special funding projects are more agricultural science related.  What does this mean about CES’s role?
• There is even more need for this system in the future than in the past.
• The role of CSREES has changed from engagement with programmatic efforts to becoming more of an accountant.  This causes stress in the system.
• CSREES Staff have gone from being program leaders to managers, tied to the increase in competitive grants.
• The CES leadership role is gone, and staff are perceived as moving from a helping to an oversight role.
• There is a need for an honest accountant role to retain the Federal funding that currently exists.
• One of the things CSREES can do is be information brokers in addition to funding brokers, particularly related to public policy and regulation.
• CSREES spends a lot of time responding to Congress.  How many of these Congressional requests have states generated?  This is an important role, yet states may not see it as important and it may become harder to do as they have to review more grants.
• There are more “partners” involved than in the past, with non-LGU’s and others competing for funding.
• This raises questions – who are the “partners”?  What should the emphasis be?  Are they partners or competitors?
• OMB has the attitude that only competitive programs are quality programs, and USDA seems to accept this.
• The “cheese has been moved,” we’re not sure where it’s moved to, who moved it, and what it is, and there are other owners.  This leads us to move from partnership to “alliance.”
• To some degree, we are all losing our advocates – states are losing their traditional base and states are not advocating for CSREES.
• Is there a reason for the relationship even if there were no dollars?
• Dramatic forces of change have come from different directions, the “partners” have had to “react differently, and our challenge is to get out in front with a strategy that allows us to be effective leaders.
• There is a shift to alliances with other agencies.
• We don’t take advantage of other potential advocates, like other agencies, to expand our base.
• The Kellogg concept of the “engaged institution” is an example of how CES is being seen as having a role on many campuses which is broader than agriculture.  This leads to a strain in the partnership because the Experiment Stations still report to Colleges of Ag.
• There is a possible role for CES as a “sales force” force and intelligence gatherer for AES.
• Maybe the partnership needs to be redefined.
• We tend to be slow about negotiating.  We need to find ways to expedite negotiations and be responsive in a timely manner to societal issues.
• We make decisions, like tenure-track faculty hires, that lock us in for decades.  How can we be more nimble and responsive?

Additional Thoughts on the Implications:

go to: top / table of contents