1. Click. DIRECT FUNDING TO HARVARD FROM HUD.
2. Click. The National Institute of Justice is the group charged with responsibility for the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Defense to determine and prototype domestic applications of non-lethal weapons.
1. DIRECT FUNDING TO HARVARD FROM HUD.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has posted a database on special appropriations earmarked by Congress for Universities and Colleges. This years list includes a $3MM earmarking for Harvard from HUD to study public housing: http://chronicle.com/stats/pork/
From the issue dated July 28, 2000:
Congress Gives Colleges a Billion-Dollar Bonanza. Emboldened by budget surplus, lawmakers’ earmarks for specific institutions soar by 31%.
By Jeffrey Brainard and Ron Southwick © 2000
Washington. Pork-barrel spending on academe blew pas the billion-dollar mark for the first time ever this year, as a swelling budget Pork-barrel spending on academe blew past the billion-dollar mark for the first time ever this year, as a swelling budget surplus emboldened Congress to earmark a record amount of money for projects involving specific colleges.
For the 2000 fiscal year, Congress directed federal agencies to award at least $1.044-billion for such projects, according to an analysis by The Chronicle. That’s a 31-percent rise over last year’s record total of $797-million. Such spending has more than tripled since 1996, two years after the Republicans took over Congress vowing to control pork-barrel politicking.
Such directed appropriations have been controversial because they are awarded without competition, and often depend on universities’ connections with members of the powerful appropriations committees in Congress. However, past reticence by some universities to seek earmarks has given way to a rush to the trough. A record number of new institutions received earmarks this year, and money was provided for colleges in every state but Delaware.
"To be honest, when it comes to going after external dollars, you try to utilize every avenue that you’ve got for an advantage," said Vincent A. Scalia, dean of the University of Northern Colorado’s College of Health and Human Sciences. The university received a $1.81-million earmark this year to expand its Rocky Mountain Cancer Rehabilitation Institute.
The practice of earmarking differs significantly from the methods used by federal agencies, which often hold open competitions to distribute money for research, facilities, and other university projects. Supporters of earmarks argue that without such targeted appropriations, some worthy projects would languish, because the grant competitions sponsored by federal agencies focus on specific priorities. Earmarks provide an alternate route for meritorious projects to advance and show success, they argue. But critics charge that the practice of earmarking can waste taxpayer money on research or buildings of dubious merit, and may divert funds from research programs that award money competitively through peer review.
The rapid upward trend in earmarking "threatens to undermine America’s position as the world’s leader in science and technology," said Neal F. Lane, President Clinton’s science adviser. The economy, he said, "has grown by leaps and bounds, because of the rapid pace of discovery and innovation made possible by funding the highest-quality research."
The earmarking data come from The Chronicle’s annual survey of federal spending laws and the Congressional reports that explain them. This year’s crop contains some unconventional projects. For example, Congress directed $1-million to Texas Tech University for a "garden machine," designed to nurture plants under difficult conditions to help determine if plant growth is feasible during long-term space missions.
The University of Missouri at Rolla received $200,000 to study the use of soybean plants to produce a nonpolluting smoke screen, an alternative to petroleum-based fog, for the U.S. Army. The amounts of the earmarks ranged widely. Charles R. Drew University of Medicine & Science, in Los Angeles, received the smallest, $10,000 to offer health care to residents of public housing through telemedicine. At the high end of the scale, three universities Dartmouth College, Loma Linda University, and the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa—each got individual appropriations worth $15-million.
By comparison, the average annual grant by the National Science Foundation this year was about $95,000. For the first time, Congress earmarked funds for a virtual university. Lawmakers directed $2.4-million to Western Governors University for a distance-learning program. Western Governors, a private, nonprofit institution, offers courses on the World Wide Web from 40 colleges in 22 states. Officials of the Forest Service—a division of the Department of Agriculture—made it clear that they opposed an earmark requiring the agency to spend $4-million to construct a new building for Auburn University’s forestry school. In a report obtained by The Chronicle, Forest Service officials wrote, "Although we understand Auburn University’s desire for a new building and support its efforts to raise funds from alumni, other school supporters, and the Alabama state legislature, the Forest Service does not support the request" for an earmark. Nonetheless, the agency financed the project. Agencies that hold up earmarks can incur Congress’s wrath.
Lawmakers recently scolded Energy Secretary Bill Richardson for his policy of personally approving any earmark before the agency can release funds. "This policy has resulted in a bureaucratic morass and prevented the timely initiation of important research," members of Congress wrote in a conference report on legislation making supplementary appropriations for 2000, which lawmakers passed last month. Mr. Richardson "is urged to reexamine this policy," the report says.
States receiving the most earmarked funds tend to be represented by members of Congress who hold key posts on appropriations committees, which draft the federal budget. Six of the 10 states that received the most earmarked funds that were not shared with partners have members who lead subcommittees of either the House or Senate appropriations panels. Conversely, only one of the bottom 10 states can boast of having a legislator who leads a spending subcommittee.
West Virginia, which ranks fifth this year in earmarked funds not shared by a partner, is represented by Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a Democrat who is legendary for his ability to procure funds for his home state. Wheeling Jesuit University is the home of the Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center. That center received $7-million through earmarks in 2000. A $2-million earmark went to Wheeling Jesuit’s Erma Ora Byrd Center for Educational Technologies, which is named for the senator’s wife. At California’s Loma Linda University, a private institution affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church that ranked No. 1 on this year’s pork list, a portrait of Rep. Jerry Lewis hangs in the lobby of a research building. Mr. Lewis, a Republican whose district includes Loma Linda, has used his position as chairman of the defense-appropriations subcommittee to help steer millions of dollars to the university.
Rep. John Edward Porter, an Illinois Republican, admitted that it is almost impossible to evaluate closely the merits of all the requests for earmarks from members. Representative Porter heads the House appropriations subcommittee that drafts budgets for the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. "We really rely upon the members’ judgment about what is going on in their own districts and what needs they see as unmet," Mr. Porter said. Rep. James T. Walsh, a New York Republican, isn’t shy about financing projects, especially in his home state. Representative Walsh, the chairman of the House subcommittee that drafts the budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, inserted in the agency’s budget several earmarks to New York institutions.
Mr. Walsh directs federal funds to New York because he feels the state doesn’t get its fair share through other channels, said Ron E. Anderson, a legislative aide. While saying that Mr. Walsh won’t support an earmark unless it has merit, Mr. Anderson noted that some other factors determine which members win funds for their states. Projects supported by powerful lawmakers, like the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, C.W. (Bill) Young, a Florida Republican, are more likely to get money.
And House leaders tend to approve funds requested by Republicans who face a tough reelection fight, Mr. Anderson said. The buildup in earmarking appears to have been fueled partly by sunny fiscal times for the federal government, which logged a record $124-billion surplus for the 1999 fiscal year. The government now projects surpluses as high as $2.2-trillion over the next decade. Moreover, repeating a pattern of recent years, Congress last fall wrapped up the final 2000 budget during a last-minute rush a full month into the current fiscal year.
Lawmakers ultimately approved an omnibus measure that covered several federal agencies and was crammed with last-minute spending projects that few people—in or out of Congress—had time to read before the bill passed. Also helping to drive this year’s spending spree was a sharp rise in earmarks for construction projects. Lawmakers spent more than $152-million on brick-and-mortar projects on campuses in 2000, more than double the amount spent last year.
University officials have been clamoring for federal help to finance new construction. However, traditionally the federal government has not directly supported such costs. That changed in a big way this year. Many of the construction earmarks -- 31 projects worth about $54-million—came in the budget for the Department of Health and Human Services. By comparison, the National Institutes of Health, which is part of that agency, had a budget of $75-million this year for competitive awards for facility construction, the largest federal program of its kind.
The current interests of members of Congress can also lead to earmarks, if universities craft pitches that appeal to them. Members of Congress earmarked $44.3-million for campus research on thwarting terrorism and biological and chemical weapons, compared with only $1.5-million in 1999. Many of those grants came from the Department of Justice, in whose budget Congress did not historically place earmarks. Lawmakers directly appropriated money for more Justice Department projects to colleges in the 2000 fiscal year than in the previous eight years combined. One of this year’s appropriations went to Dartmouth, a relative newcomer to earmarking. The college received a $15-million earmark to establish the Institute for Security Technology Studies for research on terrorism, including attacks on computer systems. "Both the president and many members of Congress were calling for greater activity in this area, because it was beginning to be seen as an emerging national need," said Susan Westerberg Prager, Dartmouth’s provost.
With a core of strong faculty members in computer science and information technology, the college thought it could contribute, she said. But when Dartmouth began planning its center, no competitive grant program offered money for what the college planned to do, she said. That earmark and one other obtained by Dartmouth underscore a shift in the college’s strategy toward Congressional appropriations. In the 1999 fiscal year, Dartmouth received just $1-million in earmarked funds, and in seven of the eight years before that, no funds at all. Now, the institution plans to work actively with its Congressional representatives to support the security institute, and perhaps other projects, too. Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire and a member of the Appropriations Committee, lent critical support in securing funds for the institute, Ms. Prager said.
Some lawmakers assert that Congress has a responsibility to make sure that smaller universities, and institutions in smaller states, receive more money. Many university officials echo that contention, and are increasingly willing to seek help from lawmakers. For example, the University of Mississippi Medical Center, in Jackson, received one of the largest construction set-asides— $5.437-million. David J. Dzielak, the center’s executive director for research, said the center worked with the Mississippi delegation, which includes Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Thad Cochran, the second ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee. "We’re in a state that doesn’t get a lot of funding" for research, said Mr. Dzielak.
The state of Mississippi ranked 32nd in 1998 -- the most recent year available—for receipt of all federal research funds. It came in third on this year’s pork list, up from 11th last year. "We’re trying to improve, to be with the elite institutions in the country," Mr. Dzielak said. That stance is not lost on institutions that until now have been reluctant to press their members of Congress for support.
The University of Wyoming received just one earmark in the 2000 fiscal year: $300,000 for research on wool. But the university plans to follow the flock in pursuing more support for specific projects, campus officials said. "You sometimes have to play the game the way the rules are written," said Scott C. Farris, the university’s director of governmental relations.
Advocates of earmarks see them as one tool to help even the playing field between the haves, who receive the lion’s share of competitively awarded federal grants, and the have-nots. The theory is that universities that receive a lot of earmarked funds should also receive a growing share of competitively awarded federal grants, relative to other institutions. The earmarks serve to prime the pump, giving researchers a toehold from which they can go on to win more grants through competitive means. However, an analysis by The Chronicle suggests that the idea is not necessarily valid. The Chronicle examined the top 100 recipients of pork from 1990 to 1998; each had received a total of at least $10-million over that nine-year period. That list was compared with the institutions’ ranking in the receipt of total federal funds for research and development after they received earmarks.
The rankings are compiled annually by the National Science Foundation, and the latest available cover the same time period. For each institution, The Chronicle averaged its federal rankings over the years following the first year that it received an earmark. Forty-four of the 100 institutions saw their rankings drop after receiving earmarks, while the rankings of 37 increased. Two remained unchanged, and insufficient data made it impossible to draw conclusions about the remaining 17.
A limitation of the analysis is that receiving earmarks tends to increase an institution’s rank in federal funds, and this effect cannot be measured. Still, many institutions’ rankings slipped despite the gain they got from earmarks. University officials who defend earmarks note that Congress hasn’t neglected peer-reviewed competitions for research. Lawmakers have agreed on a plan to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health, which now stands at $17.8-billion. That agency distributes funds almost exclusively through open competition. But outside the N.I.H., directors of grant programs that award funds on the basis of merit say they would like Congress to show more support for their priorities, and less for the lawmakers’ own pet projects.
The growth of projects directed by Congress left officials at NASA scrambling this year. While federal support for the space agency remained essentially flat in 2000, Congress earmarked $65.3-million of the agency’s funds to colleges, an increase of about 25 percent from 1999. The agency would prefer to see that money go to its competitive grant programs for space research, said Gen. Spence M. Armstrong, senior adviser to Daniel S. Goldin, NASA’s administrator. "The best way to do it is to have free and open competition that is peer-reviewed," said General Armstrong. Public controversy over earmarking occurs infrequently, but the issue made a brief appearance on the national stage this year, thanks to the reform message promoted by the former presidential contender John McCain.
For the past several years, Mr. McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona, has railed against pork-barrel spending, calling it "obscene." He has published long lists of spending projects not requested by the administration, including many that go to universities. Mr. McCain’s stance on the issue did little to lift the senator’s prospects during his failed campaign, because earmarking doesn’t resonate with voters, said John J. Pitney, associate professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. "When pollsters ask people about their major concerns, this doesn’t come on the charts," he said. "Nobody outside Alaska much cares about a fisheries program in Alaska."
Fiscal discipline is a greater concern among Republican lawmakers and party members, to whom Mr. McCain was trying to appeal, Mr. Pitney said. However, he said, "when it comes to local spending, there are very, very few local conservatives" in Congress. In past years, few voices have been raised in Congress against academic earmarking. A key one was stilled when Rep. George E. Brown Jr., a Democrat from California, died last year. Mr. Brown held hearings in the early 1990’s to investigate the rise of earmarks. A Congressional Porkbusters Coalition claims members of both parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. But its road can be a lonely one. "There are members who have no shame with respect to this," said Rep. David Minge, a Minnesota Democrat who is co-chairman of the coalition. "I’ve been in meetings where I’ve brought this up with colleagues who I thought would be sensitive to it."
Lawmakers seek funds for their own projects largely to bolster their chances for reelection, said Ronald D. Utt, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank. Last year, Mr. Utt published a study tracking the growth of transportation earmarks from 1985 through 1998. He criticizes the increase in spending, saying that many earmarked funds should have been directed to the priorities of state and local officials. Still, members of Congress embrace earmarking as a way to give voters tangible evidence of their efforts in Washington, Mr. Utt says. "Nobody cares about your budget-deficit plan. Nobody cares about your world-peace plan. There are no unifying issues that galvanize the national attention. It’s simply, ‘What can I get for my community?’"
To most college administrators, seeking support from Congress for earmarks is increasingly a fact of life. C. Peter McGrath, president of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, said his group doesn’t take a position opposing earmarks. Many earmarks support worthy programs, Mr. McGrath said. He added that he would like to see some of the money that Congress earmarks to universities go instead to the National Science Foundation or the "terribly underfunded" National Endowment for the Humanities. But Mr. McGrath doubts that Congress would direct funds to those areas if the funds weren’t slated for specific universities. "I do not believe that most of the earmarked money would be going to worthy causes," Mr. McGrath said.
Section: Government & Politics Page: A29
Congressional Earmarks for Higher Education Year 2000 Year State Institution Agency Individual Earmarks Shared Earmarks Description 2000 Massachusetts Harvard University Housing and Urban Development $3,000,000 -- for the university’s Graduate School of Design to conduct a study on the costs of operating well-run public housing
Congressional Earmarks for Higher Education
Year 2000 Year State Institution Agency Individual Earmarks Shared Earmarks Description 2000 Massachusetts Harvard University Housing and Urban Development $3,000,000 -- for the university’s Graduate School of Design to conduct a study on the costs of operating well-run public housing 2000 Massachusetts Harvard University Defense $2,000,000 -- research by university faculty members at the Schepens Eye Research Institute, one of the university’s affiliates, to develop ways to prevent and diagnose eye diseases. 2000 Massachusetts Harvard University Defense -- $10,000,000 research on treating various illnesses using techniques that are minimally invasive to the body
Year 1997 Year State Institution Agency Individual Earmarks Shared Earmarks Description 1997 Massachusetts Harvard University National Institutes of Health -- $2,500,000 construction and renovation projects at regional primate centers
Year 1996 Year State Institution Agency Individual Earmarks Shared Earmarks Description 1996 Massachusetts Harvard University National Institutes of Health -- $2,500,000 construction and renovation projects at regional primate centers
Year 1994 Year State Institution Agency Individual Earmarks Shared Earmarks Description 1994 Massachusetts Harvard University Defense $2,000,000 -- burn research at Massachusetts General Hospital, which is affiliated with the university
Year 1991 Year State Institution Agency Individual Earmarks Shared Earmarks Description 1991 Massachusetts Harvard University Energy -- $9,000,000 to operate the National Institute for Global Environmental Change
Year 1990 Year State Institution Agency Individual Earmarks Shared Earmarks Description 1990 Massachusetts Harvard University Energy -- $6,000,000 to operate the National Institute for Global Environmental Change, which will make competitive research grants to universities (Harvard refused to participate until a regional competition was organized, which Harvard won)
2. The National Institute of Justice is the group charged with responsibility for the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Defense to determine and prototype domestic applications of non-lethal weapons.
John B. Pickett Fellowships in Criminal The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) announces fellowships in Criminal Justice Policy and Management at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government for two separate programs: 1) a 1-year Master's in Public Administration Program and 2) a 3-week Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government. NIJ is the research and development agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. It sponsors research into promising methods of controlling crime and improving the criminal justice system and evaluates programs to determine what works and why.
The fellowship program was established in memory of John B. Pickett, the first Director of Planning and Management at the National Institute of Justice. During his 20-year career at NIJ, Mr. Pickett made many significant contributions to the administration of criminal justice. He was instrumental in establishing the Executive Session on Policing at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and helped develop the management and administrative policies of the State Justice Institute, where he served as Acting Director on assignment from NIJ. He was the recipient of Justice Department outstanding performance and special achievement awards and a 1978 presidential certificate of appreciation. He died in 1990.
Pickett Fellowship applicants for both programs must demonstrate the qualities of integrity, professionalism, and dedication to public service exemplified in John Pickett's character and distinguished career and must have the motivation and values to lead in their fields and to meet society's need for excellence in government.
Mid-Career MPA Program
This fellowship will provide full or partial tuition for a student pursuing a 1-year Master's Degree in Public Administration. The fellowship is for experienced mid-career professionals working in public service who seek to expand their knowledge of criminal justice policy and management.
Eligibility requirements: Applicants must have an outstanding academic and professional record and be enrolled in or admitted to the Kennedy School of Government. The Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) or Graduate Record Examination (GRE) is required for admission to this program. Fellowship applicants also should have at least 7 years of experience in law enforcement, corrections, prosecution, courts, or other criminal justice professions. Preference will be given to applicants who demonstrate a desire to continue in the field of criminal justice policy and management, although not necessarily in their current capacity.
Award amount and application procedure: The fellowship will cover some or all of the cost of tuition for the 1-year Master's Degree in Public Administration. Applicants must submit a statement of proposed graduate study and career plans, a detailed resume, and three letters of reference. For further information about the fellowship, contact Dr. Brenda White, Associate Dean for Enrollment Services, at 617-495-1153, at , or at the following address: Mid-Career Admissions, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government
This program offers an intensive 3 weeks of executive education for senior-level executives in all government functions from State, county, and municipal government and their elected counterparts. Recent participants have included a State cabinet secretary, a city manager from a mid-size city, and a governmental affairs officer from a major corporation, as well as police chiefs and other criminal justice officials. It is designed to prepare participants for increased responsibilities and stimulate interest in new management ideas and techniques.
Eligibility requirements: Pickett Fellowship applicants for this program must be senior- level criminal justice executives; some preference will be given to police. Applicants must be able to demonstrate that their organizations are committed to community- oriented policies and procedures and that the applicant has had a significant role in designing or implementing the strategy. Examples of recent Pickett Fellows include a major city police chief and a local prosecutor.
Award amount and application procedure: The fellowship will provide partial cost of tuition, lodging, meals, and instructional materials for the 3-week session. Applicants or their agencies must contribute at least $1,000 of the total cost. Applicants may request one of two sessions: July 7 to 26, 1998, or July 5 to 24, 1998. When requesting an application, please indicate intention to apply for a Pickett Fellowship.
All Pickett Fellowship applicants must submit with their application a statement, of no more than 3 pages, that demonstrates a tangible commitment by their agency to a community-oriented strategy, policies, or procedures. The statement should also include evidence of the applicant's role in this community-oriented approach.
For further information, contact Persis Whitehouse, Associate Director, Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government, at 617-496-4305, at , or at the following address: Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.