Land-Grant Institutions and Food Systems Webinar
Articles,  Blog

Land-Grant Institutions and Food Systems Webinar

– [Renee] Good day
everyone, I’m Renee Wallace and I’ll be the moderator
for today’s webinar. We want to welcome you to
Land-Grant Institutions and Food Systems: Acknowledging
Historical Disparities and Exploring Present-Day
Equity Initiatives. This webinar is being
hosted by the Racial Equity in Food System Workgroup. To tell you little bit
about our program for today, the webinar format is
we have three speakers who will each have 10
minutes to share with us and we’ll follow that by our
question and answer period and they occur, you can enter questions in the question and
answer box along the way, and we will be answering questions throughout the process of the webinar. Also the webinar is being recorded, so all of the attendees on the webinar will receive that recording post-webinar. At this point, I’d like
to introduce Rich Pirog and he’ll get us started with a poll. – [Rich] Thank you, Renee. Yeah, Rich Pirog, Center
for Regional Food Systems at Michigan State University and part of the Racial Equity in the Food System Workgroup Committee. What you’re looking at now
is the actual membership of the committee, a slide, this is a committee made up
of people across the country. Almost all of these individuals
with one or two exceptions are currently associated with
a university of some type. Most are land-grant universities. The purpose state of the Racial Equity in the Food System Workgroup, we’re, this is I think our fourth webinar that we’ve done nationally over the last year and
a half to two years. We’re a community of
extension professionals as well as other community
stakeholders who connect, learn, and collaborate to facilitate change in our institutions and
society to build racial equity within the food system. That said, we, although
there are a number of folks from both land-grant and
non land-grant universities on this webinar, there are
also many many other types of individuals from
nonprofit organizations to hospitals to health care
centers to state and local and federal government
on this webinar as well. All interested in the issue
of institutional racism as it applies in their own context. As Renee said, we wanted
to give you that context about who’s sponsoring
this particular webinar and funding, part of the funding for this does come from the W.K.
Kellogg Foundation. We wanna take a moment here and
introduce two poll questions and, we have the first poll question and the question is what type
of land-grant institution do you currently work in or work for? This is again, even if
you’re not with a university there is an option for
you to respond in this and we wanna be able to, you
know, capture just who is, who we have here on this live. So we’ll take a few more seconds. We’ve run about 30 seconds
into progress on the polling. We’re, we clearly, I can see we have a lot of folks from 1862 institutions on the call. We’ll wait just a little bit longer. Okay, we’ll go ahead and end the polling and want to just share
the results here with you. Are we sharing results with that over 60% are from 1862 institutions and we’ll put a little bit more context into the types of land grants
in the next poll question. About 5% from 1890 or historically-black colleges and universities. It does not look like we do
have anybody currently on. We did have registered some
folks from tribal colleges but currently not taking the poll, so we did not have any to respond there. About 6% from other
universities or colleges and about 28% outside of
academic institutions, so a significant percent of you that are currently participating are in those various
institutions, hospitals, nonprofits, and others. So we’re gonna move to
our second question. Polling is now closed, we’re gonna move to our second question. How would you rate your
knowledge of the history of land-grant institutions and
the differences between them? Very knowledgeable,
somewhat knowledgeable, slightly knowledgeable, not knowledgeable, or any knowledge is limited to
the institution where I work. So please, you know, think about this. This one is at the heart of why we’re offering this webinar is to again shed more
light on what’s happened with these institutions over time and the disparities and, you know, where we need to go in the future. So we’re gonna go ahead and end polling and share the results that only 8% of you would rate your knowledge
as very knowledgeable on the history. 30% said somewhat knowledgeable, 31% slightly knowledgeable, almost a quarter or 23%
said not knowledgeable, and less than 10% believe
that your knowledge is limited to the institution where
you currently work. So, okay. We will stop sharing these results. Okay, thank you and I’m
gonna turn things over to Renee again–
– Great. – [Rich] For introducing
our first speaker. – [Renee] Alrighty, thank you
for joining in with the poll. I wanted to introduce our
first speaker for today, Dr. Barry Dunn who is the President of South Dakota State University. President Dunn has had the opportunity to lead the university since 2016.
– Okay. – [Renee] Prior to that, he served as South Dakota State
University’s Extension Director and Dean of the College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences,
so if you would welcome me, join me in welcoming President Dunn. – Well, thank you everyone
and it’s great to be with you. I’m honored to be part
of this program today and look forward to sharing
some of my knowledge and experience, and also of
course answering questions as best I can during the Q&A part. If we come to the next slide,
I just thought I’d give you a quick outline of what
I’d like to discuss today. The first will be the
basic land-grant commitment that was made in 1862. Need to go into history with you to talk about the long and troubled past of the Lakota and Dakota
people of South Dakota and how that relationship has played out over the
last 140 years or so. I thought I’d review the
SDSU’s impact on South Dakota and what it meant to have a
land grant in South Dakota and the enormous benefits that the state have been provided to it
by its land-grant status. And then I will end with a brief overview of a new program that we
started a couple years ago. It’s called Wokini, which in
Lakota means a new beginning. So that’s what we’re gonna talk about. If we go to the next slide, I just, for everybody’s benefit, in 1862, President Abraham
Lincoln right in the middle of the Civil War signed
the Morrill Act of 1862. One of the major authors
was Justin Smith Morrill, a congressperson from Vermont and one of the great congressmen and senators in our nation’s history. And during his floor speech
to push this bill through, a bill that had been vetoed in a previous administration, the bill proposed to
establish at least one college in every state upon a sure
and perpetual foundation and pledged, if you read
the bolded print there, it pledged accessibility to all and so the key takeaways are that there was a land-grant commitment because that, the act and the creation
of these universities and the land-grant status
that carried with them was based upon a grant of land and the other thing is that
it was accessible to all. So that’s, this in human history is one of the most
important legislative pieces in all of time. It created public higher
education in the United States and really broke the mold
of the higher education for just the elite that
followed the European model that in 1862 was certainly
the predominant description of higher education. The next slide has a reviews for you, kind of a long and troubled past. It was all set up by
really the irony of 1862 right in the middle of the Civil War. Not only the Morrill Act of 1862 but the Homestead Act was passed, the Department of Agriculture was created, the legislation that ended
up being referred to as the, creating the Transcontinental
Railroad was passed so Lincoln wanted to tie the
East and West Coast together as he was fighting to keep
the North and South together. So really, and I could go on and on. It was an enormous year
of success for Lincoln and it changed our country and our nation in dramatic ways. Another thing to remember
about South Dakota but also about relationships
with the indigenous people of South Dakota and the
immigrants that were flowing into our nation at the time was the Wounded Knee Massacre which happened in Western South
Dakota in December of 1890. It’s really the last
major military conflict. It was a horrific massacre
of over 300 Lakota people, basically for just a horrible stain on our nation’s history and if, again if you don’t know
about these things, I hope you’ll take notes
and look ’em up on Wikipedia or somewhere afterwards. Just to give you some context, there’s nine federally recognized
tribes in South Dakota, and of the 50 states we have
the third-highest population of American Indians. We also have the seven of
the poorest 25 counties in the United States and
those are all reservation counties and communities. There’s kind of a myth in Indian country and around the United States that the Native American issues, American Indian challenges
are federal issues but I tell you that in South Dakota, and that last bullet there
about the incarceration rate, the challenges of the reservation and those nine reservations
in South Dakota which are some of the poor, as I said, the poorest of the poor
in the United States and impacts our entire state
and it has been a challenge of mine to get that
across to state leaders that 55% of the South Dakota, of the population in the South
Dakota Women’s Penitentiary are Lakota or Dakota people and 35% in the men’s penitentiary. I estimate that it’s between
25 and $30 million a year just in room and board
to house those people, so it’s not just a federal problem. It’s an enormous challenge to South Dakota and all of our communities. I didn’t want, I shouldn’t,
really don’t wanna leave you with this image, because on the flip side there’s tremendous leaders have emerged. It’s certainly a story
of irony and conflict but also of resilience of how, great artists like Oscar Howe, Olympic athletes like Billy Mills, congressmen like Ben Reifel, and just a long history in education with Lionel Bordeaux and Tom Short Bull. So lots of problems but
also a tremendous culture and one that I personally am
very proud of and celebrate. The next slide is, I’m
gonna take you back again into the 1860s and think about the Treaty of 1868 which was
signed with the Lakota People and the Northern Cheyenne
in Fort Laramie, Wyoming and it granted all of that
land that you see there to the Lakota People, the Northern People of the Northern Cheyenne. That’s, it crossed six states
and was enormous land mass and if you go to the next slide, I’ll show you what’s
left of that commitment. So the, there’s, one, the Flandreau Sioux Tribe really
doesn’t have any land left and so it didn’t show up,
but very little land left and even within those pink
green regions that you see, up to half and sometimes more of that, even within those boundaries has now, was sold off in the early
19th, in the early 20th century and so a lot of those
reservation boundaries depict a larger land mass than
the Lakota and Dakota People actually have as a resource base and then, and this is really important because if you go to the next slide, in 1889, South Dakota became a state and as part of the
Enabling Act of Statehood, and this is true with North Dakota, SDSU became a land-grant university. We were a small college at the time and with that land-grant status
came 120,000 acres of land. And it was 30,000 acres
for every representative and every U.S. Senator in Congress. So we had, at the time we
had two senators, of course, and two members of the
House of Representatives so we got 120,000 acres and
for the Ag Experiment Station we got 40,000 acres. So where did the land come
from, whose land was it? When the next, if you
just hit the next button, the land came from the remnants of the Great Sioux Reservation, if you compare those two
slides that I just showed you. If you go to the next slide, I’ll list off some of
the incredible benefits to the State of South
Dakota that having an SDSU as a land grant has had,
literally 10s of thousands of children have benefited from 4-H, hundreds of varieties of
crops have been released through the Agricultural
Experiment Station to improve productivity,
research on all sorts of topics. One of the major animal
vaccines in the history of our nation was developed here at SDSU, along with our partners at
the University of Minnesota. We’re one of the smallest land grants, we only have 80,000 alum but
we’re very proud of them. I say that there’s countless intangibles and if you think of the economic impact, it’s just literally billions of dollars over this 100 and near 40 years. But we serve less than,
in terms of population, less than 2% of our
undergraduate population is either Lakota or Dakota
and it would be even a smaller fraction
percentage of our alumni. So lots to be proud of
but certainly we’ve left a very important group of people behind and that’s what we’re
here to talk about today. The next slide is a quote by
one of the great theologians and philosophers and
authors of the 20th century, and C.S. Lewis said you can’t go back and change the beginning but you can start where you are and change the ending. So if you go to the next slide, at SDSU we’re trying to change the ending of our relationship with
the nine tribal nations in South Dakota, and the next slide, it outlines some of the major points. What we did at South Dakota State was we still have our land-grant land, we know exactly which land it was when it came with statehood, and so we received annual
funding from that land, it’s rented out to farmers and ranchers. So we’ve dedicated that
annual flow of money which is about $550,000
a year that had been part of our budget just basically, I just say we paid the light bill with it. We just, over the years,
we just became part of our operational budget for it. So what we’ve done at SDSU
is we’ve dedicated that flow of money to benefit the
heirs from whom the land was taken back many years ago. So kind of a dramatic decision and certainly caught the attention of people in South Dakota. Our other commitment is
to change the climate and the culture on campus
so that we better serve and we improve not only the
number of students that we serve but their graduation rate. So we want, our goal is
to have the same type, proportion of our student population. We want that to mirror the
population in South Dakota so merely 10% of our state’s population is American Indian and we, our goal is to have that
same proportion on campus. We’re building a new American
Indian student center with money we raised privately. We’re strengthening
partnerships with the tribes and TCUs in many many ways. And then I mentioned the
increase of the number of American Indian students that graduate. We have a very very poor graduation rate of those that do attend. We’re doing a lot of work
and research in extension that I can get into on
questions and answers, but I thought I’d give you that overview. But if you, if one thing to
take away from this slide is this, we’re not going to use the excuse that this is funded on grant money and so we can’t succeed. We’ve got a sustained
flow of dedicated money and we are dedicated
to changing the ending of how we serve and relate
to the American Indians in South Dakota, the nine
tribal nations in South Dakota. My last slide is a comment I made that, “We face many Grand
Challenges associated with the 21st century,” and
I as a Dean of Agriculture, I’ve talked extensively about those. I know what they are,
related to food and water and energy and population, but I’ve said over and over again, “But sadly, perhaps the
grandest of them all remains caring, sincerely
caring, for the disadvantaged who live amongst us,” and certainly the Lakota and Dakota people who live amongst the South
Dakotans are disadvantaged by a raw and, at times, ugly history and we’re trying to change the ending as we were challenged to by C.S. Lewis and serve these people as
they deserve to be served and so we’re raising scholarship
money, we’re raising, we’re creating a support
network on campus. We’re doing, we just received a grant from the Margaret A.
Cargill Philanthropies to create a program for professional development on campus, and so we’re pledged to change the path that we’re on and I look forward to answering questions. – [Renee] Thank you, President Dunn. That was very enlightening and
we do wanna remind everyone that the Q&A box is open,
you can ask questions. At this point I wanna
introduce Dr. Robert Zabawa who is a Research Professor of Agriculture and Social
Science at Tuskegee University. Dr. Zabawa has worked at
Tuskegee for over 30 years and one of his research
area focuses on small scale and minority farming
systems with an emphasis on land ownership, heirs property, family networks, resettlement, and policy as it relates
to the global self. Welcome, Dr. Zabawa. – Thank you very much. Before we start, actually my presentation is going to be a little bit
different from the previous one in that I’m going to
take a more general view of a particular part of
the land-grant system. But before I do that, I will
have to make a disclaimer that I am not representing our university since I am not its president and nor am I representing the 1890s or all the issues that are
incumbent upon the 1890s but I have some ideas and some perspective and hopefully we can
generate some discussion and some questions that will lead others to look more deeply into this issue. As I’ve talked with other organizations, even at 1862s or other land grants and they don’t have an idea about what the land-grant system is about, and I, I’m not gonna go through
these in any kind of detail since they’ve been talked about, but the idea of the
first Morrill Act of 1862 that looked at the endowment
and support and maintenance of at least one college, and that looked at the
agricultural and mechanical arts and this was opposed to kind of the Harvard model of elite education. This was to bring education to
the people, higher education, to improve the lives of the rural populace which was the majority at that time. Next slide. And of course they didn’t
have this many in 1862, so just kind of focus a
little bit on the East Coast and you can see that each of
the states and the territories now have what we call in
1862 land-grant institution. Next slide. Again, Morrill had experience of what was happening after the Civil War and he went from being
a congressman in ’62, by 1890 he was a senator from Vermont and he noted that the people of color were not allowed into the
land grants in the South. So he did his Second Morrill Act which said that no money shall be paid out where a distinction of race or color is made in the admission of students. However, he left a caveat that colleges could be established separately if the funds were equitably divided. And of course that’s probably
been the sticking point ever since that time,
what does he mean by, or what was meant by equitably divided? And of course we would say that that’s never been the case. Next slide, please. And as you can see here, these are where the 1890
institutions are located. There are 19 of them as of now. The newest one, Central
State University in Ohio, and you will notice that Alabama has two, Alabama A&M and Tuskegee University and most legislation will
say 1890s and Tuskegee because of our special status of being a land grant
but semi-private as well. Next slide. Just wanna quickly go over that there were more recent provision
in terms of the land grant that is the 1994 institutions that deal with the tribal colleges and Native American status, and those are called the
1994s, and next slide. And you can see where
those are located as well. And then finally, next slide, we have our last group that is the Hispanic-Serving Institutions and the Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities, and they are based on the percentage of Hispanic Latino enrollment,
agricultural programs, and graduation rates. Next slide, please. And then the next slide, please. And here you can see
where those are located. The ones that are receiving
funding, or the NIFA Funding, are in the dark green. Those that are eligible
in the light green, and of course you see that the majority are in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, and New York. So this is sort of an overview
of the land-grant system and in many cases, most people don’t know that the others exist. Next slide, please. So I was asked to talk about this topic. The idea was to look at
disparities and equity and I wanted to come up
with a few concrete examples that people can see what has
been going on over the years. Next slide, please. One of the major issues
is state matching funds, that is the idea that land-grant colleges receive their research
funding through the Hatch Act, the 1887 Hatch Act, as well
as their extension money from the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. But the states have to match at least one to one the dollars that come to the institutions, and in many cases the 1862 schools not only have 100% match,
they have over 100% match. Next slide, please. – [Renee] I just wanna
give you a minute warning. – Yep.
– Okay. – Okay, so what we have here
is showing you the match, that is the schools that have. And this again is in 2012, I do believe, and I have a link to this. You see which schools have a match under extension and research
and how many do not, and therefore, and then the
money that is being lost to those institutions because
the match is not there. Next slide, please. These are the rest of the institutions and I highlight Lincoln University and South Carolina State University not only because they
have the least match, but because of the
examples that will follow. Next slide, please. This is a story that was published in 2017 dealing with Lincoln University and the problems that the
administrators had to do, and it’s using their own monies to match what the state was not providing so that they could receive
their full, fed, or, receive their federal land-grant funds. That is, if you don’t
receive the 100% state match, the states have to ask for a waiver. Eventually if the waiver,
you know, doesn’t get granted then the federal government
can withhold monies based on what the state does match. In this case, Lincoln had been using their own internal funds
to help get that match, which meant that they
were also losing money. Next slide, please. Okay, this talks about
disparity and duplication. Again, this is South Carolina
State University 2015 where the legislators floated the idea of closing the school down for two years to solve some financial problems. There was also a lawsuit on behalf of the students and alumni arguing that the state
had allowed duplication of programs which meant that
they were losing students to other schools even though
they had a competitive edge in those particular areas. So again, the university is set up. But at the same time, if
other schools are allowed to take over their programs
then they lose the ability to recruit students in that area. Next slide, please. And then finally, wanted
to talk about disparity of competition, that
is, ideas that the 1890s have a particular
competitive edge in an area and once they have established it, it becomes open to other programs and then we lose that edge. And I wanted to just mention, (coughs) excuse me the 2501 Program and its goal was to reverse the decline of socially-disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers. It was an idea they came
across after a task force on black land ownership in the early ’80s and when President Reagan
issued an Executive Order in support of HBCUs to
start some pilot programs on technical assistance, mostly
African-American farmers, ranchers, and in support of
community-based organizations. And the initial group was three 1890s, a community-based organization, the Federal of Southern Cooperatives, and one 1862, New Mexico State. And at times, there was a budget between one and two million. Next slide, please. Over the next 10 to 15 years, this program became
established into the Farm Bill under Section 2501 where it got its name and again it focused mainly on the 1890s but then the tribal colleges, HSIs, and CBOs became prominent. And so by the mid-’90s
there were 17 1890s, four tribal colleges, three 1862 or other
state-related universities, and three community-based
organizations all in the South. Again, budget was increased a little bit to three to $5 million
and then from this point, there was a budget of $10 million. At one point, it was
supposed to be $20 million but that $20 million
was never appropriated. Next slide, please. Finally, this is for fiscal year 2018 and you can see here that the number of 1890s has declined,
1862s have increased, the HSIs and ’94s have increased slightly but there has been a large increase in the community-based organizations. Again, mainly in the Central
and West parts of the country. And I bring this up, and
I just wanna be clear that we’re not saying that
any of these organizations don’t deserve to have
support to assist the people that they are looking at, whether it’s African-American farmers, the Hmong in Central
states, Latinos, et cetera, but that when they’re sort of creating this overload of need whereby
budget’s not increasing. We have over 50 grants now. The budget has stayed
the same at $9 million, or a little over $9 million but the pool has just
increased tremendously to where we have gone
from multi-year projects that averaged around $400,000 to single-year projects
that average $200,000 and this did change at the
last Farm Bill slightly but again, we don’t have
this kind of increase to help those who are helping the people that need it the most. – [Renee] Okay, now Dr.
Zabawa at this point would we, oh we’re right here at the– – Yes.
– At the break, thank you, (chuckles) thank you for that. And I’m sure that’s gonna
generate a lot of questions. Just wanna remind folks
that a Q&A box is open and we’ll answer some of
the questions along the way but we’ll also open the
floor after our next speaker. Thank you very much for that. Our next speaker is Dr. Jodi Williams, the National Program
Leader for Food Safety at the USDA National Institute
for Food and Agriculture. In this role, Dr. Williams is involved in developing requests for applications and leading the panels to
select research extension and education projects in the food science and nutrition priorities. So welcome, Dr. Williams. – Thank you very much
for that introduction. I just wanna point out
that the views are my own and may not necessarily
represent those of USDA and the National Institute
of Food and Agriculture. So I do appreciate the
background that Robert just provided us on the
history of the land grants. And we’re, I’m gonna
kinda talk a little bit about how federal funds
are used to address some of those disparities
that we see in food systems. And NIFA does most of this through our programming portfolio. Robert talked a little
bit about the land grants. I’m gonna go into some
additional discussion on our competitive and
non-competitive portfolio, specifically more focusing on our minority-serving institutions but then also going into our
broad spectrum of programs and this will range from
facilities all the way to research education in
our extension programs. Next slide. And there’s about six things
that are gonna pop up, you can send ’em all through. So most of our minority-serving
institution programs are housed in NIFA’s Division
of Community and Education. This particular division,
DOCE, is housed within our Institute of Youth,
Family, and Communities and for the most part, this
looks to increase the diversity of students and STEM
to include agriculture from Kindergarten all the way through the post-doctoral education. This program focuses in on
Hispanic-Serving Institutions, our insular area institutions, our 1994 tribal colleges, our Alaska-Native Native
Hawaiian institutions, and then our 1890 institutions. Next slide, please. So across NIFA, our programs focused in on research, education,
and extension programs. We fund them competitively
and non-competitively. And we’re gonna talk a little bit about those particular programs, focusing on our
minority-serving institutions but we’ll also look at the broad strokes of our larger competitive portfolio and what we’re doing in those programs to reduce some of the disparities, particularly in the area of food systems. And what types of things
we include and incorporate into our request for applications and also in our process when we’re looking at supplemental funding,
additional or supportive language, and our request for applications to encourage collaborations, and then also looking
at in terms of process, our review panels, our
competitive review panels, and the diversity of those. Next slide, please. So we’re gonna roll right into
our non-competitive programs at our 1890 institutions. We have our 1890 Facilities Program which looks at our physical
building and facilities on 1890 university campuses, and as Robert mentioned, there
are 19 of those campuses. These funds are distributed
through a formula. We also have our Evans Allen
Research Capacity Portfolio which looks to fund capacity research at our 1890 universities, and then finally our
1890 Extension Program which looks to build capacity
in our extension and outreach on those 1890 campuses. These programs were established so our 1890s can participate
fully in the development of human capital in those
food, ag, and human sciences so we can reduce some of those disparities that we see between our
1862s and our 1890s. Next slide, please. In terms of our 1890 programs, we have one focused
competitive grant program. It’s called the 1890
Capacity Building Grant. Can you click it one more
time so the, thank you. This Capacity Building Grant Program, only 1890s are eligible to receive awards through this program as project directors, but we do encourage collaboration with the 1862s and
minority-serving institutions so we can make sure that
we’re leveraging resources across all of the federal funds for our land-grant communities. The priority areas under these programs stretch across production ag all the way to human sciences and food sciences. Next slide, please. I’ll go right into some discussion about the 1994 competitive grant programs, the 1994 institutions and the competitive and non-competitive grant
programs to support them. Talking about the non-competitive program, we have the Tribal
College Endowment Program. Funds from this program can
be used at the discretion of the institution leadership. In 2017 there were 34 tribal institutions. This endowment had $4.56 million total to spread across those institutions. This is done through a formula. Each institution received
anywhere from 60,000 to $338,000 per institution. Most of it is based on student enrollment at these institutions, so
hence the broad diversity of sizes and the award amounts. And also remember these are both two-year and four-year colleges that
are under our tribal programs. Next slide, please. In addition to those
non-competitive programs for the 1994s, we also
have competitive programs. There are three competitive programs where the 1994s are the only entities that can apply as the leads, our Tribal College Equity
which is an education program, Tribal College Extension which is more of an informal community-based
learning program really focusing in on farmer education, youth development, rural entrepreneurship, and rural entrepreneurship. And then finally we have our
Tribal College Research Program that looks to build research
capacity at those universities, both for faculty and foundation
and research for students. The third, or excuse
me, the fourth program is FRTEP, the Federally Recognized
Tribes Extension Program. This program is 1890s and 1862 land grants are eligible to apply, but they must provide informal learning to support youth development
and ag productivity in the tribal community or
within the tribal community. Next slide, please. The next program I’m gonna talk about is our Hispanic-Serving
Institution Program. And this is an education program, only Hispanic-Serving Institutions are eligible to apply for this. What many people do not know, there are over 500
Hispanic-Serving Institutions in 25 states including
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, with an additional 328 listed as emerging. This is outside of, or it, this is outside of the Hispanic-Serving
Agricultural Colleges and Universities so there are less HSACUs than there are HSIs but
I just wanted to be clear that HSIs are eligible for this, this is the large pool for
this education program. These include two and four-year public and private institutions. As I mentioned, this program is looking to develop capacity in ag ed by developing and enhancing curriculum, faculty, delivery systems and infrastructure. They looked, this program
looked to recruit and retain underrepresented students at
Hispanic-Serving Institutions and facilitate relationships
between other HS, HSIs and the public or private sector. Next slide, please. – [Renee] Hi, Dr. Williams
you have about one moment, one minute– and then we’re gonna
go directly to, I know. We’re, we’re coming close to the closure and I wanna make sure we get a chance too to get some Q&A in there. – Okay, so–
– Go ahead, mm-hmm. – The last program I’ll
discuss is the Alaska-Native Native Hawaiian Program. It’s intended to support educational needs for the food, ag, natural
resource, and human sciences. This program is looking to increase underrepresented students
from, in our ANNH Programs or institutions and prepare
students for careers in the ag sciences. Next slide, please. So one of the, thank you, one of things that I was asked to share
I’ll talk a little bit about is some of the statistics for our programs and I’ll just share with you
that about 75% of our funds from our AFRI Program
which is our huge flagship, $325 million, goes to our
1862 land-grant universities. Only 1% goes to our 1890s, and these are applications
that are awarded. In terms of applications submitted, 1862s look very very similar at 75%. 1890s were at just under 4%. So we need to work to figure out ways to get more applications from our 1890s. Next slide. Thank you, in terms of peer
review panel characteristics, one of the things that
we’re doing as an agency is to try to increase the
diversity of these panels. Gender and ethnicity is at about 60% for Caucasian males and females, 40% for minority males and females, but if we were to break those
down a little bit closer we would really see that the
number of African-Americans, Latinos, and Natives on that minority side is considerably less than 40%. So we need to take a look
at peeling that apart, and peeling that back a little bit. Also when we’re looking
at who’s on our panels, the institution types,
75% are from the 1862s, 10% are from our 1890s so
we’re not doing too bad there but we certainly need to
increase those numbers and about 4% from
Hispanic-Serving Institutions and certainly need a little bit, a lot more representation
from our 1994 land grants. Next slide, please. Next slide, so what are we doing to address those disparities? One more click, please. Across our other competitive programs, as I said when we talked a little bit about our broader portfolios,
some of the things that we’re doing is to
incorporate key language into our request for
applications for our programs that do not specifically target our minority-serving institutions. Language such as working
with underserved communities, working with diverse communities, collaborations with minority-serving institutions encouraged. We’re providing additional
supplemental funding to enhance and encourage collaborations with minority-serving institutions. We also have planning
grants and pilot grants which help us to provide capacity at those smaller institutions so that they can develop
stronger programs in the future. The other thing I wanna point out is under the Agriculture
Food and Research Initiative that I mentioned with
$325 million in 2016. In 2016, we also allocated $44 million for our FASE programs under that which mostly focuses in
on our minority-serving, well small and mid-sized institutions, and this is my last slide. When we’re looking to
recruit diverse panels, one of the things that we wanna make sure that we’re looking at, I think
Robert showed a map earlier of where all the universities are located. When we’re looking at
diversity in institution size and type, we need to
make sure as an agency we’re looking across
the country to make sure that we are geographically representing those minority-serving institutions. There’s really no good excuse not to. We have our 1890s in the Southeast, we have our Hispanic-Serving
Institutions in the West, we have our 1994s in the
North Central and Southwest and we have our HSIs in
the North East as well, and that will wrap me up. – [Renee] All right, thank you very much. And actually what we’ll do
is we have three questions. I’m gonna ask one
question of each speaker, and I’ll start with you, Dr. Williams. One of the things that you shared was that the need for more
applications from the 1890s. Can you just expand on that a little bit just to help us understand
what the challenges are with getting the applications
for the grand opportunities? – So, well (sighs)
that’s a very complicated and complex question. You get a different answer
from everybody that you ask. Some of it is that the
likelihood of success is low so across our Agriculture
Food and Research Initiative, the percent success rate is
about 10% for the programs. So the question is, in
my time that I have, which is limited,
specifically at our 1890s who often have research, education, and extension responsibilities
at their university with a huge teaching load, more so than the 1862s, where
am I gonna spend my time? Am I gonna spend my
time writing a proposal for a program where the likelihood is 10% or am I gonna spend my
time writing for a proposal for a program that the
likelihood of success is at about 25%, which is the 1890 Capacity Building Grants Program. So that’s one of the pieces. Another one of the pieces
is lack of understanding of the programs across
the entire portfolio. Some of the things that we’re doing to address that particular piece in terms of lack of
understanding of the programs is that we host webinars. Last year we did a couple of symposia, well, for the last two years
at Delaware State University we hosted grants mission workshops. Really targeting our 1890
land-grant communities so that we can get ’em with a
little bit more information, specifically in the Food
Safety and Nutrition Portfolio where they could learn a
lot more about the programs that we offer and hopefully, ideally, increase the number of
applications in those areas. – [Renee] Wonderful, thank you for that. So the next question for Dr. Zabawa, you talked about the matches
and that in many cases, there are absence of matches. Can you share a little bit with us about the challenges and the opportunities of having more match for the institutions that you are representing. – Yeah, talk about a complex question. The match is mandated by law, federal law. The states are supposed to do this, and they don’t. And what could be made, I think, I don’t know if it
showed up on the screen. It was over $50 million
that could go to the 1890s to help them fulfill their missions, and this is money that goes to
both research and extension. That is a mandate of the 1890s. What they have taken on is to
work with those communities that need assistance the most and we like to say we do
the most with the least, but there’s only so much least you can use and so the idea that the
states need to come up and say, and do what
federal law tells them to do and then even just to see the real problem of the 1890 institutions
to their communities. I would doubt that the
1862s have a hard time getting their matching funds
from their state capitals but the 1890s spend a lot of time. As a matter of fact, it
was just this past year that North Carolina State
got their first 100% match. One of their state senators, not, or federal congresswomen, came
up and told us about this. A first time that North Carolina was able to give 100% match. So what can you do with a
couple more million dollars? That’s, you know, your
imagination only tells you, but that’s mandated by law. – [Renee] Okay, thank you for that. So clearly that’s a huge opportunity and we can see the, how that disparity is really
affecting the opportunities in those communities. Dr. Dunn, one of the questions
asked if you would share a little bit more about
the Wokini Commitment and how do you go about engaging or how did you go about
engaging the tribal leaders and the community members in that process. – Well, thank you for the question. It takes a lot of commitment on our part to reach out to both the
leadership on the tribes and also the tribal
colleges in South Dakota and we’ve done that, we’ve, a lot of, a lot of time on the highway ’cause we’re a very kind of very, not very heavily populated so
you gotta be willing to drive but just have to be
intentional and in the design of our American Indian Student Center we had literally took a road
trip with the architects and one of whom was a Native American and we listened and
had engagement sessions all across the state and
we worked very closely with the tribal colleges in South Dakota. So they’ve been a great
sounding board for us. But it just has to be intentional and the resources that we now have that we allocated for the
light bill, so to speak, so to these great young
people and their communities is helping to provide those resources to keep those bridges of
communication alive and vibrant. – [Renee] Okay, thank you for that. A question and I’m not sure which of you would want to answer
this, but jump in, please. Can you give some more specific examples about how the ways that the funding and the resources from the land grants are actually benefiting the
heirs of the land itself? – Well this is, it’s Barry Dunn. So not very many people have really dug in and understood their land-grant heritage, not many land grants have. And so I don’t think that
that’s well understood in the land-grant community. For us, you know, we
did that detective work and understand our heritage and so we dedicated that flow of money, that annual flow of money
to build our staffing for recruiting Native American students, engaging them on campus,
improving their academic success, just the whole cadre of
things you need to do to serve these young people. – [Renee] Thank you for that. We are close to the official time where the webinar would end. At this moment, what
I’m gonna do is ask Rich to share with us information
about the resources and then I’m gonna come
back and officially close it but open for an additional time for additional question and answers. – [Rich] Thank you very much, Renee. Again, this webinar is a start for conversation around
looking at disparities and a move towards more equity across land-grant institutions. We’re really glad other
institutions have joined us as well. We were hearing some feedback from some of these other institutions other than the land-grants
that there aren’t opportunities to discuss equity issues
within their own institutions and that they have either
observed or are aware of instances of institutional racism, both historic and present-day
at their own institutions and, you know, part of our work here is to help shed more light
on what those disparities are and the EQUITYFOOD listserv which is a, just a national listserv is a place where we can continue this discussion. You’ll find the way to join that listserv and the resources that
were discussed here, including the resources from all three presenters at this website. If you registered and
everybody on this webinar has registered and all
the people that registered and didn’t attend will get an email with a link of the recording
and other information. All of it is gonna be found on this link that you see in front of you here on the Racial Equity in
the Food Systems webpage. So you will get all of this information. If you’re not a member of EQUITYFOOD, we are continuing to try
to build conversations of what people are learning
and what challenges they face from institution to
institution across the country, so please join. It’s very easy to do,
it’s one or two clicks. Again, the funding for
this work comes in part from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and all the members of the committee of which I’m just one representative of are also listed on this page and we are spread all over the country and we’re glad to discuss
things regionally with you. We’ve got members in California and Oregon and the East Coast and the
Midwest and the Deep South, so please look at us as allies
in resources in this work. So with that, I’m gonna
turn things back to Renee. The official end of the
webinar is complete, however we still have questions. – Yes, we do.
– And so, if you’d like to, we ask our
panelists if they can stay on, please do but any questions that we don’t, that remain unanswered, we
will send to the panelists hopefully with a chance to connect back with the questioner to get them answered. So Renee, turn things over to you. – [Renee] Great, well, well first of all, I wanna just say thank you to
everyone who joined us today. As you can tell, this topic
has a lot of depth to it as we got a good start
today in the conversation. Definitely stay connected to us, and as Rich has said, we have
a path through our website and the listserv to continue with responding to questions and your follow-up with
us also gives us insight on developing additional webinars, so we really appreciate
your presence today and your continued engagement with us through the listserv and the website. So as Rich says, that does
officially, is the official end of the webinar but I’m gonna go ahead and start with the additional
questions that we have, that you introduced. So that first question is have you had experience
working with outreach and assistance to socially-disadvantaged and veteran farmers and rancher programs, those that are authorized
by the Farm Bill, and if you have, what would
you say that the programs are doing well and what are
some of the major benefits that the programs are bringing to historically-underserved producers? And either one of the, any of the speakers could respond to that. – [Rich] If not, if
there’s maybe somebody who, like a participant.
– Or someone that is, yes, yes, or one of our
steering committee members, if you’d like to respond to that. – So this is Jodi, I’m
just gonna chime in. I’m not overly familiar, I’m
familiar with the program, not familiar exactly with the outcome and, outcomes and impacts of it today, but I would be happy to forward
this to the program folks that are associated with the program and see if they can’t get
back a better response to you. – [Renee] Okay wonderful,
thank you for that. Greatly appreciate it. All right, well let’s
go to the next question. So what outreach does South Dakota do regarding new farmer
opportunities for Native Americans? – As part of our extension programming, we’ve done, historically
we’ve done quite a bit of programming on some of
the larger reservations in South Dakota. I’d say it’s inadequate but
at the same time, you know, we’ve, you know, I could list
many programs over the years where we’ve attempted to do that. Part of the problem on the reservations is that the land is held communally and so there’s some landownership issues that if you think about the mental model or paradigm of a family farm in America, it doesn’t transplant
well to the reservations because, again, the land
is held mostly communally. They can get assignments to the land and if they do, they can
create a farm or ranch but it’s not, it doesn’t transplant well and I think part of our
problem with extension is we have basically this homestead, you know, model of extension plus we have this old model
of a small family farm and it doesn’t transplant
well to Indian country. So that’s been a long,
a longstanding problem and I don’t know that we’ve
adapted well to that challenge. – [Renee] Alrighty, thank you for that. Dr. Zabawa, the question is, one of the questions is at Alabama A&M on the chart that you showed, it said there was 100%
match but no funding. Could you share a little bit why not? – No, I think that that meant that there was no funding needed. If they had 100% match, that
column says that’s how much is owed the institution. Since they have 100% match, they don’t need to have any more by law. – [Renee] Okay, all
right great, thank you. – That column is the deficit. – [Renee] Okay, thank you
for that clarification. Another question, you know, for you. Oh I’m sorry, I
double-clicked and lost it. So what thoughts do you
have on the potential for 1980s and 1862s to partner, to do more to reach, you know,
socially-disadvantaged populations? – (chuckles) Um, oh boy,
that’s a good question too. The key word that you
mentioned there is partnership. In the cases where the 1862, 1890 programs are true partnerships, the success rate is huge, and the feeling of working
together is excellent. For example, I’m a PI and I have a co-PI at Auburn University. We have a project, a NIFA
AFRI on their property and we are basically 50/50 and the project has been
immensely successful. Unfortunately in many cases,
the 1890s find themselves maybe as, to put it
anatomically like an appendix on many larger proposals
where we get just, you know, a few cents for the dollar
and so-called partnering. But in the cases where
there is a true partnership, those are really good
projects and very successful. – [Renee] Okay great, thank you. Dr. Williams, a question for
you is how can minority-led, non-for-profits and for-profits
be more competitive, you know, for the grant funds understanding that they
collaborate with universities and with other large institutions? – So one of the things that
we always encourage anybody who wants to be more successful
in a particular program, there’s a couple recommendations
that we always give. Number one is make sure you’re reading the request for
applications very carefully when you’re looking to
submit to the program. The second piece is making
sure if there is any confusion in those particular programs, that you contact the program contact, the national program leader. There’s nothing wrong with
a cold call or a cold email to those individuals, we
get them all the time. And then the third piece that I always and highly highly
recommend is that you serve as a review panelist on the panel. Now the drawback of that is
that that particular year, the year of serving as
panelists you’re not eligible to submit a application to that as in, because it’s conflict, clearly. But it’s an invaluable
amount of experience that you receive during
those opportunities and it’s one that we’re
always looking for. One of the things that we’re
always looking for, again, is diversity and the institution type is part of that diversity. And so folks from
non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations are always being recruited for panels. – [Renee] All right, thank you for that. Here’s a question about equity. So how is equity truly being
addressed when they’re, these funding disparities
exist within the 1890s. The question is from a
student’s perspective, how is doing more with
the least is not equity. So from a student’s perspective, doing the most with the
least is really not equity. So how do we address
this funding disparities? (Robert laughing) I know, these are really
powerful questions. – Yeah.
– We can talk for the next 25 minutes (chuckles), yeah. – Yeah, can you give me a pseudonym and a fake mask? (chuckles) I won’t have a job tomorrow. – [Renee] I should have
said from the beginning that this is a safe space. We’ve realized when we
put this panel together that we were touching
on some very deep things and that’s what we endeavor to do is to get to the heart of these issues because people really
wanna do the work, so– – [Rich] And these are the real questions.
– Feel safe. These are the real, as Rich said, these are the real questions. – I’ll just pipe in just quickly. One of the answers is that
when you graduate from an 1890, that then you influence your legislature, your state legislators to
support those institutions or that institution. Some of the strongest 1890s
are the ones that have people in the legislature, you know,
in the House or the Senate that support them when
it comes to funding them. And so there is a direct
correlation with that. But, you know, call up, write,
say support Alcorn State, support Tuskegee, support
FAMU, support A&T. And, you know, it’s like everything else except for it’s harder for us. You know, when you look at Alabama, and, you know, nothing wrong with Alabama but the majority of the
legislators are from, you know, University of Alabama,
Auburn University, and so on, and you get A&M, Tuskegee. So, you know, it’s a political process but part of it is, you
know, following the law. – [Renee] Okay, thank you for that. Dr. Williams, a question for
you is you mentioned the need to diversify the review panels. So could you talk a little
bit about the kind of criteria that’s necessary for being able
to serve on a review panel? – So it depends on the panel. We have programs
specifically looking at AFRI and I guess I’ll just
preface this with your, the ideas that the individuals that are submitting the proposals are, they’re told that their
proposals will be reviewed by a group of their peers. So if the individuals
submitting the proposals are gonna mostly be PhDs then
we’re going to be looking for PhDs in research,
education, or extension depending on those programs that, depending on which program that have the, they have to meet that criteria. There are other programs
that focus on outreach, extension, community development. – Yeah, just two of them.
– Small businesses. – Trying to remember.
– Those requirements aren’t quite as astringent
in terms of terminal degrees. So there are opportunities, it just depends on which programs and what I recommend that you do is you, once you’re familiar with the program that you want to work with, reach out to the national program leader who’s associated with
that particular program and ask them for their criteria. Basically they’ll ask
you to send them a CV and they’ll let you know
whether you’re a good fit or not and if they say no, just ask ’em why. There’s nothing wrong with that. – Okay.
– And it’s good to have any recommendations for any other programs where you may fit. – [Renee] Okay, all right
great thank you for that. There were several questions
about the review panel so there seems to be a bit of interest in wanting to know that. As a last question, when we
take a look at these disparities and things we’ve talked about today, how would we define success and I know these are loaded questions so if each of you could take just a minute and just share how
would you define success in being able to move
toward a more equitable food system from a
racial equity standpoint? (Robert chuckling) – [Renee] I know, these will– – [Rich] He laughs at every one of them.
(Renee laughing) – [Renee] Go ahead, Dr. Zabawa. – Oh, I get to do it first. Um, well, besides going into the obvious,
you know, financial equity that we need to have
at all the land grants, is this idea that we work in partnerships. There are no programs
at Tuskegee where you have just one person, we
are all in partnership. Most cases we have university and community-based
organization partnerships and then we’ll have
Tuskegee community base and then 62 partnerships. But when we have true
partnerships, that’s when, I think that’s where we measure success. – [Renee] Mm-hmm. – ‘Cause that way we could bring to bear all the strengths of the universities to solve the problems of
the people that we serve. But again, until they get
that financial equity– – Mm-hmm.
– Then this could be very very difficult. – [Renee] Okay, thank you. President Dunn? – Well, I, as you can probably tell I’m pretty big into history. I think the land-grant system has to own up to its
past and as Robert said, follow the law, and I think we have to understand our roots, and so, you know, I personally felt that
this is a moral imperative for our university to
address this disparity and attack it head on. The work that we’re doing is no different than we do for student athletes, it’s no different than
we do for honor students and to not do it for, again, the disadvantaged in our
community is, I believe, immoral and we’re trying to attack it head on and I think it’s our job, it’s written in the
piece that Robert put up and it’s written in the
speech that I put up. Lincoln talked about it, and I just, I don’t know why we would
choose any other path given our historical context
in which we were created. – [Renee] Thank you, and Dr.
Williams you get the last word. – Great, okay, I’m gonna be like Robert with no job tomorrow. (group laughing) So I think that we really wanna, what we talk about in terms
of the grant program portfolio when we look into how
do we define success, increase applications across portfolios with the diversity of the
programs that we represent and the institutions that we represent as land-grant partners. So we always use a term at NIFA that we’re all land-grant partners and our 1890 land-grant partners, and our 1862 land-grant partners. But when you look at our portfolio it looks a lot like
1862 land-grant partners and we don’t really see
strong representation from our 1890s and our 1994s. Not only in our application pool but also in our panel reviews and so when we walk in the room, one of the things we do as
national program leaders is we visit other panels
and when we walk in the room and we see that it’s a
clear representation of, you know, 90%, 98% of the
panelists are from 1862s so you have no representation from 1994s, minimal representation from
Hispanic-Serving Institutions and a couple of folks from the 1890s. Really getting a grasp on what that means in terms of the funding portfolio and understanding that if
folks are not in the room to make the selection for the proposals, the likelihood of those projects
being successful decreases because there’s no one there
that knows the individuals that are providing those proposals. And although that is biased, and we know that we’re
not supposed to be biased in the annual review process, we do know that folks know
the research that’s going on at certain universities. Even our panelists know that work and while we discourage discussion
of those types of topics, during the panel process it’s
still going on in their heads. And so getting the folks in the room from the 1890s, 1994s,
Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Alaska-Native Native Hawaiians for the panel review
process, it’s critical. Increasing their
participation there, I think, really plays a role in
increasing their participation in submitting proposals,
they are more comfortable with the proposal review process, therefore they are more
likely to submit proposals. And then finally, there’s partnerships and collegiality that’s
established at those panels that could translate into
successful partnerships and collaborations on submitted
proposals in the future. – [Renee] All right, thank you. So once again we wanna
thank our guest speakers and panelists today for such
an informative opportunity to share with us as we’re learning how to address racial
equity in the food system. The questions that were
not answered directly either live or in the chat, those questions will be answered, those will be accessible
through our listserv as well as on our– – [Rich] On the webpage. – [Renee] And on our webpage. So with that we wanna thank you once again for joining us today, and
we’d ask that if you are not already a member with us
that you would join us on the listserv and stay
tuned for our next webinar. Have a great day, thank you. – [Rich] Thank you. – Thank you! – [Robert] Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *