I’m pleased John asked me to provide the inaugural editorial for Synthesis. It gives me a chance to share some of my thinking and what we’ve been doing with regard to funding for our College and programs. Our College, like most major land grant colleges of agriculture across the country, is dependent upon five sources of funds:

State appropriations to UM and subsequently to MU and CAFNR for Academic Programs, MOAES and F-21-C.

Federal appropriations through USDA-Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education Service (CSREES) as base or formula funds through the Hatch Act for research, Smith-Lever Act for Extension, McIntire-Stennis Act for forestry and natural resources research and Animal Health Acts for research in animal health.

Grants and contracts (directed mostly to individual faculty initiatives) for teaching, research and outreach. These include many "special grants and contracts" that come through targeted support from our federal and state legislators.

Development support through donations ranging from funding to services.

Earnings from limited commodity sales from the farms and centers, the Ag Chem Lab and fertilizer and lime inspections.

Our most recent annual receipts (for FY 02, which just ended) show the split among those income sources at approximately 41.5% state ($27.8M), 8.4% federal ($5.6M), 41.8% grants/contracts ($28M), 4% gifts ($2.6M), and 4.2% through earnings ($2.9M). I’ll comment briefly on each of these sources and what CAFNR can expect from them in the future.

State Funding
Like most other states, Missouri is suffering from a severe economic downturn. Our liaisons with the General Assembly tell us to brace for another year or two of shrinking budgets as expenditures are reduced to match decreased revenues.

Just as the UM-System is examining all of its options, we in CAFNR must use this time to set priorities for funding among our most critical programs.
Because of the steady drop in general state funds, we have been working for the past three years with campus and system administrators on a special initiative for our College. Our friends in the General Assembly advised us to wait until FY 03 to go forward with the initiative, to coincide with the ending of Mission Enhancement funds.

As you might imagine, the initiative, Ag Biovalue 21, has gone nowhere. It was a request to bring $11M of new base (rate) funding into the College to shore up important, existing programs and underwrite new efforts. It was designed to include an internal, competitive grants program, the hiring of critical faculty and staff, and a recurring equipment replacement and repair program. I have not lost my enthusiasm to push for this needed initiative, but as you might understand, we won’t get many takers for a while.

In the meantime, many of us worked hard to retain some tobacco settlement funding for life sciences research and education. Until the last few months of the budget session, approximately $21M of tobacco funds was slated for life sciences. In fact, the grant selection panel met, identified worthy proposals, and made recommendations. At the last minute, however, those tobacco funds were shifted from grants and used to help address the state’s fiscal problems.

At this point, the only potential source of discretionary state funds in the foreseeable future could come from the proposed increase from a tax on cigarettes/tobacco that will appear on the November ballot. While none of us likes taxes, we did work hard to inform folks about the benefits of such an initiative. If passed by Missouri voters in November, a portion of those tax revenues are earmarked for competitive state funding in the life sciences, ranging from basic research to educational programs.

I typically view state appropriation as core funding to leverage and attract other sources. You have demonstrated we can be very competitive for these funds should they become available, and we can leverage our existing infrastructure to support our proposals. Overall, except for possible special program opportunities, I don’t expect state funding to increase in the near future, and hope the cuts received this past year signify the end of this downturn.

Federal Funding
USDA formula funds have not increased proportionately with other federal agencies in recent years. Oh, we’ve had a few, minor percentage increases, but even those have not allowed us to keep pace with inflation, let alone increase efforts. In fact, the NIH budget has increased 56%, EPA 30%, NSF 77%, while USDA has increased only 21% (includes food stamps and commodities), with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) receiving nearly the same level of increase.

For about a decade I’ve been, in one capacity or another, involved with the Board on Agriculture Budget Committee of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges ( NASULGC). NASULGC is the organization that represents all state universities and land grant colleges at the national level. Since a recent reorganization, the Board on Ag. has become the Board on Agriculture Assembly and the former Budget Committee is now the Budget and Advocacy Committee. I am chair of that committee. Our primary focus is on increasing funding for the National Research Initiative (NRI), the Initiative for Future Agriculture Food Systems (IFAFS) and the base programs (Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, Smith-Lever, etc.).

Presently we are working on a supplemental budget request for FY02, the current budget. There is some support to provide several million to Extension and research to address preparedness in agro-security as part of the Homeland Security commitment of the President. It’s late in the game for any FY 02 additions, so expectations are not high.

For FY 03 we submitted a budget totaling $212M in new funding targeted to Agro-Security efforts. The budget includes increases of $34M in research base funds, $62M in Extension base funds and $30M for the NRI. Also included are funds for facilities improvements, higher education Challenge Grants and national needs fellowships.

As I write this, Congress is meeting and debating the FY 03 budget. There is much ground to be "ploughed" before we will know the outcome of the budget. By the way, the budget NASULGC promotes would, if funded, be appropriated through USDA-CSREES. That is the primary route through which land grant universities receive federal funds relating to agriculture and natural resources. We do receive some funding from other agencies, e.g. EPA, but most come from USDA-CSREES. This month, I will be meeting with federal agency leaders to begin discussion on the development of an FY 04 budget. The overall goal will remain the same, increase funding for teaching, research and outreach.

In addition to the "regular" budget efforts, we have been working hard to get IFAFS reauthorized in the Farm Bill. After much back-and-forth negotiation involving strong supporters across the country, it was authorized for $200M per year for five years. HOWEVER!!! just because it is authorized does not mean it will be funded. Now the work starts to get it APPROPRIATED by the House and Senate. Apparently it did not make it in the House, but there is much to happen before the FY 03 budget is finished. We are committed to doing everything we can to get it appropriated.

At the federal level, I think most funding increases will be limited to competitive programs, e.g., NIH, NSF, NRI, IFAFS (if appropriated). There is a continuing sentiment against base funding. Since CAFNR faculty have an outstanding record of success in competing for funds, I see this as an area for continued success.

Grant and Contracts
Our college has a good track record on competitive grants/contracts, and overall has an amazing success ratio of nearly 60% of all submissions over the past five years.

As I mentioned above, I view this as a major source of funding for the future of our College and its programs in teaching, research and outreach. It is important that we seek sponsorship from the best sources, and that the funding is directed at our highest priorities.

John Gardner is actively meeting with funding agencies and others to learn of funding opportunities and to share the expertise in our College. He has reoriented the office of Research and Outreach, which is charged with aiding our competitive ability to seek appropriate grants/contracts, and this first issue of Synthesis is part of that effort. In Synthesis, we plan to share the efforts and successes of our College in attracting extramural support. We have a track record in which we take great pride and we want folks to know about our efforts. I want to thank all of you for the outstanding record of success we have in attracting grants and contracts. You’re great!!!

Development
With declining state and federal base support, in addition to grant and contract support, we are becoming increasingly dependent upon private giving from individuals, corporations and foundations. These gifts are critical to the support we provide many of our students. We have the largest college-based scholarship program on campus, which is funded through gifts. To date we offer over 500 scholarships totaling more than $700K annually. And of course, we enjoy gifts in support of many other areas of need in our college.

This past year one of our loyal alums, Al McQuinn and his wife Mary Agnes, provided us with generous gifts totaling $1.5M for support of the Life Sciences Center, CAFNR educational programs and farm equipment.

Another loyal alum, Lowell Miller and his wife Marian, supported the Life Sciences Center, too, with a gift of $100K. Lowell and Al have also agreed to volunteer their valuable time as co-chairs for CAFNR’s fund raising efforts.

Ann Dickinson and the Gary Dickinson Family Charitable Foundation are providing $500K to renovate the academic programs offices into the Gary Dickinson Student Achievement Center.

Some examples of past giving include: $250K from MFA Incorporated in support of the Life Sciences Center; $300K from Mo-Ag Industries for the same purpose; gifts from the Missouri Soybean Merchandizing Council to endow three professorships; and the list goes on. We are indebted to all who are helping our college by providing gifts for our programs.

Presently the University is in the planning phase of a major institutional fund raising effort. Funds will be raised for faculty development, student support, program enhancement and facilities.

Darcy Wells, Executive Director of Advancement in CAFNR, and her team of Matt Gaunt, Kristen Smarr, and Deb Batterson are leading our effort to increase private support. They are committed to providing professional fund raising assistance, and are producing a Fund Raising Handbook for faculty and staff. I endorse this effort and look forward to the distribution of this valuable handbook in the fall.

So much of what we do in raising funds centers on our ability to communicate with others and to build relationships. Faculty and staff contacts with people who care about CAFNR, our units and departments are key to achieving greater external support for our programs. To be successful, we all need to participate in cultivating alumni and friends and expressing appreciation to our donors.

Building a tradition of giving takes time for any institution. Our college has some unique development opportunities and serves a vital role that is visible to the public. With the major development target categories of support for faculty, students, programs and facilities, I ask each of CAFNR’s units to identify their own unique plan to contribute to our overall fund raising efforts and to work with Darcy and her team.

Earnings
We collect little in terms of sales of commodities that result from some of our production studies and demonstrations. Because our lands are needed for research and outreach, we cannot justify turning to production only to help supplement our college’s finances.

As it is, we use what income we gain from sales to support those areas from which the income is derived and some other areas as well. We will continue to look at potential earning capability to help our college. But our focus is research and education first, and we will not jeopardize those responsibilities in order to raise funds from our lands.

Final note
If left to state and federal sources alone, we would have half the college we have today. I don’t think we can allow ourselves to be reduced to that size and scope. Rather, our challenge is to utilize the precious public resources we have to attract and leverage other sources of funding for the good of Missourians.

Our neighbors expect no less of us — theirs is a resource to invest, not hoard or protect. Our challenge is to invest it wisely.

Adversity often brings out the best in people. Look around you, and you'll see living proof. Thanks for your understanding, support and commitment.

Cheers, Tom :-)