in the 1890 Institutions. These departments
grew virtually at a zero rate because of a lack
of: demand for students (graduate school and
employment), funds, and activities other than
teaching. “Departments” Ofagricultural eco-
nomics existed as service units within col-
leges of agriculture and produced virtually
no students in the area of agricultural eco-
nomics (most programs in these institutions
were in general agriculture or agricultural
education). However, recent surveys show
that a majority of blacks trained in agriculture
received their first degree from a historically
black institution (Jones et al.). In a 1983
survey of graduate students enrolled in grad-
uate programs in agricultural economics, 60
percent reported that they had obtained their
first degree from a historically black insti-
tution. Thus, the historically black, or “1890”
Institutions, have had, and are expected to
continue to have, a major role in supplying
blacks who are entering graduate degree pro-
grams. It is essential that these schools con-
tinue to get qualified doctoral graduates so
that they can continue to train students and
provide the type of training that is needed
to enter into professional and graduate stud-
ies. Not only is there a need to satisfy in-
structional programs, but there is also a need
to satisfy the research programs of the 1890
Institutions.
For nearly 100 years, virtually no funds
were available on a continuing basis for re-
search at the 1890 Institutions. It was not
until fiscal year 1967 that any money became
available. In the first year, $283,000 or
$17,692 per campus, was available for re-
search administered by the Cooperative States
Research Service (CSRS), USDA under Public
Law 89-106. In 1972, the annual allocation
for funds for research at the black land-grant
institutions, was raised to $8.83 million. Over
the 5-year period from 1972-77, the amount
gradually increased to $13 35 million. Dur-
ing that period, all of the money was treated
as “soft” money. That is, they were grant
monies provided by USDA. Individuals wrote
specific proposals which were funded from
these funds, and had up to 5 years to expend
the funds. In 1977, with the passage of the
new bill, changes were made in the formula
and funding process. This new bill, known
as the Evans-AllenAct, created “hard” money
for the 1890 Institutions and patterned the
program after the 1862 Institutions’ alloca-
tion. The bill specified that not less than 15
percent of the total allocation would go to
the 1890 Institutions. It further provided
only one year to spend the money, at which
time it reverted back to USDA. The law did
not require a matching part on behalf of the
states. Further, few states have chosen to
make any substantial matching amounts. Thus,
for all practical purposes, the funds available
through the USDA∕CSRS Evans-Allen Bill are
the only source of hard money available for
this purpose.
In 1981, Congress passed legislation pro-
viding $50 million to upgrade and improve
facilities at the 1890 Institutions. These funds
were allocated over a 5-year period and are
subject to the annual approval of Congress.
The allocations OfEvans-Allen funds are based
upon a formula similar to the Morrill Act
fund for the Agricultural Experiment Stations
at the 1862 Institutions.
Currently, approximately $23 million are
allocated annually for research at the 1890
Institutions. It ranges from a few hundred
thousand dollars at the smallest institutions
to over $2 million at the largest institutions.
As the research programs at these institutions
begin to grow and as they seek funds not
only from the Evans-Allen Bill, but also from
competitive grants and other awards, it is
more important that qualified and trained
faculty in all agricultural disciplines be avail-
able for employment at these institutions.
While the amount of money is small relative
to the flow to the 1862 Institution, it is a
substantial amount for those 1890 Institu-
tions which had not received much research
funding prior to this recent legislation. Thus,
it is more critical than ever that qualified
people at the Ph.D. level are available for
research at the 1890 Institutions.
The historical nature of the black land-
grant institutions has been such that they have
provided a multiplicity of services to black
people residing in the rural and urban areas
of their respective states (Williams). The
broad nature of the training programs, and
more recently, the research and extension
programs have shown that these ihstitutions
have had major impacts on higher education
and human capital development. Enrollment
and graduation figures have demonstrated the
extent to which these institutions provide
training for blacks (Jones et al.; Robbins and
Evans).
Recent surveys of research efforts directed
toward small farms have shown that the his-
torically black land-grant institutions share a
67