Colleges' Earmarks Grow, Amid Criticism

Money from Congress flows to directed grants as peer-reviewed research struggles

Related materials

Databases: View two searchable databases of academic earmarks, from 1990 to 2003 and from 2008

Table: Institutions Receiving Non-Shared Earmarks, Ranked by Total Dollar Amount

Table: More Colleges Win More Projects

Table: Top College Recipients of Earmarks

Graphic: Subcommittee Chiefs Lead in Earmarks

Table: How Earmarks Are Divided Among Agencies

Table: How the States Rank in Academic Pork

Text: 2 of 3 Presidential Candidates Have Earmarked Money for Colleges

Article: An Inside Look at 5 Earmarks

• Video: Watch Sen. Robert C. Byrd issue a strong defense of earmarks on the Senate floor

Article tools

Printer friendly	E-mail article	Subscribe	Order reprints
	Discuss any Chronicle article in our forums
Latest Headlines San Diego State U. Defends Its Role in Federal Drug Sting The university's decision to use federal undercover drug-enforcement agents in a sting operation has brought the institution both heat and praise. Colleges Foresee Shortfall in Perkins Loan Funds This Year Student-Loan Market Shows Small Signs of Revival U.S. House Approves New GI Benefits, but Measure's Fate in Senate Is Uncertain Rutgers U. Earmark Becomes Issue, and Irony, on N.J. Campaign Trail Forum Focuses on Private Role in Expanding Global Access to Higher Education Where Students Compete 'Against the Wood' Slide Show: Photos From the Spring Meet Commentary Tell TIAA-CREF You Do Not Want Your Retirement Money to Support Genocide

By JEFFREY BRAINARD and JJ HERMES

Washington

A record-breaking number of Congressional pork-barrel projects this year has loaded college and university plates with more of these controversial grants than ever before. The number of institutions receiving earmarks has shot up despite growing worries that the noncompetitive grants undermine the American scientific enterprise, and in spite of promises by some lawmakers to cut back.

An exclusive analysis by The Chronicle shows that legislators channeled more than 2,300 projects to 920 institutions, mostly for research, in the 2008 fiscal year. That is a 25-percent increase in the number of colleges and universities over 2003, when The Chronicle last surveyed earmarks. The total dollar amount for 2008 is at least $2.25-billion. The spending is a slight increase from five years ago, though it is a bit lower when adjusted for inflation. But it is a huge jump from 10 years ago, when pork spending totaled $528-million.

Earmarks are given out by members of Congress — without review of the projects' merits by knowledgeable scientists — by sprinkling the money into annual spending bills to favor constituents. This year, for the first time, it is possible to see just how widespread the practice is: A new law requires Congress to identify the sponsor of every earmark.

The numbers and names show "a system that's out of control," says Michael S. Lubell, director of public affairs at the American Physical Society.

The danger of increased earmarking, critics charge, is that it continues even as legislators have fallen behind in spending for scientific grants awarded the conventional way, through open competition and peer review. Competition is widely regarded as having made America's science the world's best, and the strength of that science has helped make America's economy the world's biggest. Earmarks have neither beneficial effect, some studies suggest, and other countries' research and trade are catching up.

The dirty little secret about earmarks for science is that while college officials occasionally fret about them in public, they chase them in private. At meetings of the Association of American Universities, a group of 62 research institutions, some presidents regularly complain that earmarks are squeezing out peer-reviewed awards — "and then they go home and call up their congressman to ask for an earmark," said one president, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to be free to discuss the meetings.

Politicians are similarly conflicted. On the presidential-campaign trail, earmarks are getting high-profile attention. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, battling for the Democratic slot, supported a one-year moratorium, though they both handed out generous earmarks to colleges last year. Sen. John McCain, the expected Republican nominee, wants to abolish them. But members of both parties in Congress are likely to maintain their support for earmarks.

A Zero-Sum Game?

Some of this year's academic pork went for campus roads, classroom buildings, and other construction projects, but two-thirds, or $1.6-billion, was directed to scientific research at almost 500 institutions, The Chronicle's analysis shows. That represents about 5 percent of all federal money for academic research.

The war in Iraq and rising gasoline prices clearly influenced the topics of earmarked research, sparking interest in studies of brain and spinal-cord injuries, biofuels, and fuel cells. (See articles.)

Compared with 2003, the average value of earmarks for higher education has dropped because Congress spread roughly the same amount around many more projects. For 2008, the median earmark was $462,000, down from $497,000 in 2003.

That's not the only change in how research is supported. Until a few years ago, Congress had been raising spending for peer-reviewed grants much more than it had for earmarks. The budget of the National Institutes of Health doubled between 1998 and 2003, to $27-billion.

But since 2003, peer-reviewed federal research grants have become significantly harder to win, making earmarks more difficult to ignore. The budgets of the NIH and the National Science Foundation, the two principal federal sources for academic research money, have declined, considering inflation. In 2008 each agency expects to approve about one in five grant applications, down from one in three in 2001.

A stream of university representatives have visited Capitol Hill in recent months to plead for relief. They warn that the tight budgets are driving talented young scientists away from research and damaging the country's capacity for innovation. Congress took note of the issue last year and passed the America Competes Act, which promised to double spending on the NSF and other physical-sciences programs over seven years.

But the legislators have already fallen short of this goal. Most of the increase proposed for 2008 was cut from the final version of a spending bill after Democrats and the president deadlocked over government spending.

That underscores what is arguably a trade-off between money for earmarks and for peer-reviewed work. Consider that the $1.6-billion in Congressional earmarks for academic research this year could have paid for the entire increase called for by the America Competes Act in 2008, with $1-billion to spare. If that money were given to the NIH, it would have allowed the agency's budget to keep pace with inflation.

University officials talk up spending for merit-based awards when they visit their Congressional representatives, but they send mixed messages by requesting earmarks during the same meetings, said a higher-education lobbyist, who asked not to be named so he could speak freely about the private sessions. Given that the earmarked money is guaranteed to come to a lawmaker's district and money for peer-reviewed grants is not, "which part of the message do you think the member is going to listen to?" he says.

Lawmakers, of course, are aware that it's far easier to claim credit for a direct earmark. In news releases sent to their home districts, they regularly boast about their successes at delivering the money to colleges.

Institutions that receive lots of research earmarks are unapologetic about accepting them with open arms. Take Mississippi State University, which topped The Chronicle's list of institutions receiving the most earmarks in 2008. The institution pursues the set-asides because "we're in a poor state," says Kirk H. Schulz, vice president for research and economic development. He credits earmarks for helping Mississippi State lay the groundwork — by starting research programs — that has increased the money it gets for peer-reviewed federal awards. (But that growth has not been remarkable, roughly matching the average for all academic institutions.)

Other Choices Explored

That claim, that earmarks help colleges with few resources improve themselves, has hardly ever been scrutinized independently. One of the few such studies, by James D. Savage, a University of Virginia political scientist, found that the majority of colleges that secured large amounts of the noncompetitive grants actually dropped in the rankings for total federal research money received.

Mr. Savage says that defenders of the noncompetitive grants ignore that major federal science agencies set aside a pool of money for peer-reviewed grants to help develop the research capacity of universities like Mississippi State. Awards made by the NSF's Epscor program (short for Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) are reserved for colleges in 24 states, most of them rural or small in population, that historically received small shares of federal research dollars.

The trouble is that Congress has financed these programs far less generously than its research earmarks. The NSF program's budget is only $111-million this year. Similar programs in other agencies provide an additional $291-million.

Earmarks are also avidly pursued by major research universities that win many peer-reviewed grants and can hardly plead poverty. Mr. Lubell, a professor of physics at the City University of New York's City College, suggests that those institutions should give up earmarks and present a united front to Congress in favor of healthy increases for peer-reviewed science.

That's been tried before, though, and it was a dismal failure. The Association of American Universities asked members to volunteer to give up earmarks in the 1980s. The effort fell apart when most of the members continued to get earmarks anyway.

Then, as now, large research universities worried that if they turn away from earmarks would not divert the money to peer-reviewed awards. Instead, lawmakers would simply give more earmarks to other colleges.

As the president of one of these institutions puts it, "No one wants to be a chump."

Number of institutions receiving earmarks 1998 208 2003 716 2008 920 Total number of academic earmarks 1998 338 2003 1,964 2008 2,306 MORE COLLEGES WIN MORE PROJECTS The Democrats won control of Congress in 2006 partly by pledging to rein in pork-barrel spending. But academic earmarks are ever popular with lawmakers, who often proclaim that earmarked academic research will spur business creation and job growth in their home states. While the value of the earmarks has hardly changed since 2003, the date of the last Chronicle survey, the wealth has been spread around a lot more. Now more colleges get projects. The number of institutions receiving earmarks rose 28 percent from 2003 to 2008, and the total number of academic earmarks rose 17 percent.

TOP COLLEGE RECIPIENTS OF EARMARKS The list of colleges that have received the most earmarks has remained fairly stable during the past five years even though control of Congress changed hands in the middle of that period. About half of the 20 universities that secured the most earmarked money in 2008 also ranked high in 2003. Repeat customers, in fact, took 60 of the top 100 slots, although some have moved up or down the list dramatically. Some of those universities also take in substantial amounts of federal money from merit-based research awards but pursue earmarks to get even more. Of the top 100 institutions on the most recent list of those receiving the most federal research money of all types, 89 colleges secured at least one earmark for research in 2008. Their collective haul: at least $371-million. Some of these institutions have staying power in the face of shifting political winds because they have cultivated patrons in both parties. Others are represented by Republicans who retain seniority although they now serve in the minority party. For example, Mississippi State University topped this year's list thanks in large part to Sen. Thad Cochran, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Click here for a listing of all institutions receiving non-shared earmarks. Institution Total non-shared earmarks (in millions) Rank Mississippi State U. 2008 $43.0 1 2003 $18.9 17 U. of Mississippi 2008 $37.6 2 2003 $25.9 8 U. of South Alabama 2008 $33.4 3 2003 $11.9 40 Texas A&M U. at College Station and System Office 2008 $31.3 4 2003 $46.4 2 U. of Hawaii-Manoa 2008 $30.7 5 2003 $30.6 4 North Dakota State U. 2008 $28.2 6 2003 $13.4 31 New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology 2008 $28.1 7 2003 $56.1 1 U. of North Dakota 2008 $24.5 8 2003 $13.3 32 U. of South Florida 2008 $22.9 9 2003 $42.9 3 U. of New Mexico 2008 $22.6 10 2003 $15.6 25 U. of Louisville 2008 $21.2 11 2003 $12.6 36 Louisiana State U. at Baton Rouge and System Office 2008 $19.1 12 2003 $26.1 6 West Virginia U. 2008 $17.6 13 2003 $17.6 19 U. of Kentucky 2008 $17.6 14 2003 $11.5 43 Wichita State U. 2008 $17.5 15 2003 $5.0 93 U. of Alaska at Fairbanks 2008 $17.1 16 2003 $12.6 35 Marshall U. 2008 $16.8 17 2003 $17.2 21 U. of Nebraska 2008 $16.7 18 2003 $10.2 48 Montana State U. 2008 $15.7 19 2003 $20.2 15 U. of Vermont 2008 $15.4 20 2003 $2.7 154 NOTE: The Chronicle ranking is based on the dollar value of earmarks that Congress did not require the colleges to share with any partners. Figures are rounded, but rankings are based on unrounded figures.

SUBCOMMITTEE CHIEFS LEAD IN EARMARKS This year Congress revealed for the first time which members sponsored individual earmarks. The disclosures show that pork distribution is not linked to party affiliation but is strongly tied to seniority. What's more, many of science's supposed champions in Congress, who proclaim the virtues of peer-reviewed research, are not at all shy about requesting non-peer-reviewed earmarks for their own constituents. Earmarking for academe was almost perfectly bipartisan in 2008, continuing what political experts say is a long tradition. Democrats sponsored about one-third of all spending earmarked for projects involving academe, Republicans another third, and members of both parties joined together to sponsor the remainder. But the distribution of earmarks was clearly influenced by political power of a different type — seniority. Earmarks were heavily concentrated among the chairmen of Congress's appropriations subcommittees, or "cardinals," as they are called on Capitol Hill, and the most senior Republican on each panel. The Senate and the House of Representatives each have 12 such panels, for a total of 48 such lawmakers. They write the spending bills that finance the federal government annually — giving the leaders plenty of opportunity to add earmarks. The cardinals and ranking members make up less than one-tenth of Congress's total membership, but they sponsored about half of all appropriations earmarked for academic projects in 2008. The concentration is even more pronounced at the next-highest level, in, the full appropriations committees. The 95 members of those groups, in both the House and Senate, sponsored three-quarters of all the money for academic earmarks. The disclosures also revealed that many on the 41-member House Committee on Science and Technology sponsored earmarks for scientific research. About two-thirds of the panel's 23 Democrats, and the same proportion of its 18 Republicans, requested at least one of these noncompetitive grants. Five representatives, including three members of the science committee, hold Ph.D.'s in the natural or behavioral sciences, so unlike many of their Congressional colleagues, they once were directly exposed to the system of research reviewed for its merit that is a cornerstone of American science. In 2008, four of the five also obtained research earmarks for universities in their home states. Top senators Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) $161.6 Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) $85.8 Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) $81.2 Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) $74.0 Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) $73.1 Top representatives Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) $41.8 Rep. F. Allen Boyd Jr. (D-Fla.) $36.4 Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.) $35.9 Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) $33.6 Rep. C. W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) $33.6 NOTE: Figures are rounded, but rankings are based on unrounded figures.

Defense 41% Other 30%     Commerce 5%     Education 5%     Health and Human Services 5%     Homeland Security 5%     Justice 3%     NASA 2%     Housing and Urban Development 1%     Interior 1%     Labor 1%     Small Business Administration 1%     Other 1% Energy 13% Agriculture 8% Transportation 7% NOTE: Figures are rounded. HOW EARMARKS ARE DIVIDED AMONG AGENCIES The Defense Department has become a favorite spot for lawmakers to tuck in academic earmarks. The Pentagon sponsors a lot of scientific research, and in recent years, including the 2008 fiscal year, Congress has increased the money for this kind of work, mostly in the form of earmarks reaching a total of $2.25-billion. Some university officials, meanwhile, have complained that the agency's competitively awarded scientific programs have been starved financially.

HOW THE STATES RANK IN ACADEMIC PORK Rank State Total non-shared earmarks in millions, 2008 1 Texas $177.0 2 Kentucky $165.0 3 Mississippi $144.6 4 New York $124.9 5 Florida $111.5 6 California $102.6 7 Pennsylvania $89.4 8 Alabama $89.0 9 North Dakota $74.9 10 Maryland $66.1 11 Ohio $65.8 12 New Mexico $65.7 13 Massachesetts $59.1 14 Illinois $57.4 15 Missouri $55.8 16 Oregon $51.0 17 Iowa $50.6 18 Louisiana $50.1 19 indiana $50.1 20 West Virginia $48.1 21 Michigan $47.0 22 Hawaii $47.0 23 Kansas $43.7 24 New Jersey $42.5 25 South Carolina $39.6 26 Tennessee $39.0 27 Nebraska $34.8 28 Alaska $32.3 29 Nevada $31.6 30 North Carolina $31.2 31 Georgia $28.2 32 Wisconsin $24.6 33 Washington $24.5 34 Montana $23.0 35 South Dakota $22.7 36 Virginia $21.7 37 Utah $20.8 38 Arkansas $20.8 39 Idaho $20.3 40 Oklahoma $17.7 41 Vermont $17.1 42 Delaware $17.0 43 Colorado $16.8 44 Minnesota $13.8 45 Arizona $12.1 46 Connecticut $11.6 47 Maine $8.3 48 Wyoming $7.5 49 Rhode Island $6.0 50 District of Columbia $4.2 51 New Hampshire $3.6 52 Guam $0.4 NOTE: The Chronicle ranked states by the total dollar value of earmarks that went to colleges in those states and that Congress did not require to be shared with any partners in other states. Sums are rounded, but states are ranked in order of actual amounts received.

2 OF 3 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES HAVE EARMARKED MONEY FOR COLLEGES All three presidential candidates are U.S. senators and have track records of setting aside federal dollars for academe. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton $70.1-million 21 earmarks involving 14 colleges Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ranked sixth in earmarked money among all senators in 2008. (She cosponsored almost all of these projects for New York's colleges with her state's other senator, Charles E. Schumer, a fellow Democrat who ranked seventh.) Sen. Barack Obama $19.2-million 10 earmarks involving 7 colleges Sen. Barack Obama, of Illinois, her rival for the Democratic nomination, fell in the middle of the pack, at 55th.               Sen. John McCain No earmarks The presumed Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, of Arizona, has long criticized earmarks as wasteful and has not sponsored any. He has promised a total ban if elected president. But it's likely he would face a fierce fight with both parties in Congress.     Despite the two Democrats' past support for earmarks, they joined Mr. McCain this month in endorsing a proposal in Congress for a one-year moratorium on the noncompetitive grants. The Senate rejected the measure, which was meant to give legislators time to develop increased accountability requirements for recipients.