Introduction

The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (7 U.S.C. §§341 et. seq.) created the Agricultural Cooperative Extension System (CES) associated with each land-grant institution (LGI).¹ As amended, this act directs LGIs "to aid in diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture, uses of solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics, and rural energy, and to encourage the application of the same … in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture [USDA]."² The CES, known simply as extension, is now a nationwide, noncredit educational network with programs in every state and U.S. territory.³ Extension is a cooperative venture between USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and LGIs. Its objective is to deliver practical education in agriculture, science, and engineering to individuals and communities across the United States through research-based knowledge.

This report describes the structure, service delivery, and funding mechanisms of extension. It analyzes funding trends from FY2017 to FY2024. It closes with a discussion of issues of potential congressional interest.

Background

The foundations of extension date back to the early 1800s with the emergence of agricultural clubs and societies. By 1819, periodicals such as American Farmer were fostering a culture of knowledge sharing among farmers, promoting new techniques and best practices.⁴ The Morrill Act of 1862 (12 Stat. 503) eventually led to the establishment of 56 LGIs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and territories. One of the missions of these new universities was the teaching of agricultural and mechanical arts.⁵ The subsequent Morrill Act of 1890 (26 Stat. 417) led to the establishment of 18 historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) that belong to the U.S. land-grant university system.⁶ The Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382, §§531-535) added specified tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) to the land-grant system.⁷

Extension offices operate within the main and satellite campuses of LGIs and in field offices in every U.S. jurisdiction. They are in all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands (see Figure 1 for a map). There are over 100 extension programs affiliated with LGIs. As of FY2024, there were 56 extension programs affiliated with 1862 Institutions,⁸ 19 affiliated with 1890 Institutions,⁹ and 35 affiliated with 1994 Institutions.¹⁰

Figure 1. Map of U.S. Extension Programs Located at Land-Grant Institutions

Source: CRS from data available at U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), "College Partners Directory," https://www.nifa.usda.gov/land-grant-colleges-and-universities-partner-website-directory. Note: Colors of dots indicate years in which statutes establishing given land-grant institutions were enacted.

Structure of Extension

As illustrated in Figure 2, practical, research-based knowledge is delivered through a three-tiered system of service delivery at the federal, state, and local levels.

Figure 2. Three-Tiered System of Service Delivery

Source: USDA, NIFA, "Cooperative Extension System," https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/how-we-work/extension/cooperative-extension-system.

At the federal level, NIFA distributes funding for extension's work. At the state level, LGIs (1862, 1890, and 1994 Institutions) serve as the primary centers for extension activities. These LGIs receive federal funds, often matched by state funds, to support educational services and initiatives and to pay the salaries of extension workers. Extension agents from LGIs and regional and county offices (sometimes called field offices) collaborate with local agricultural producers and community members to implement knowledge from agricultural research. Educational workshops, programs, and consultations are organized to adapt to the specific needs of local communities. Extension educators and specialists from LGIs and field offices provide expertise in areas such as agriculture, family and consumer sciences, food safety, nutrition, youth development (e.g., the 4-H organization), and community development.¹¹ In this partnership, USDA, through NIFA, provides the comprehensive financial support and direction; LGIs and associated entities, such as the academic departments and state Agricultural Experiment Stations (AESs),¹² supply research, content, and teaching; and field offices help extension workers from LGIs to disseminate knowledge to the public.

Topics of Coverage

Extension programs primarily focus on informal education, including traditional extension initiatives such as teaching in campus and field classrooms, public schools, and online platforms. Additionally, they integrate extension with research projects to conduct applied or participatory research. Teaching content covers various subjects, including modern agricultural science, technology adoption, business operations, and financial literacy. Extension efforts also include youth education in agriculture and natural resources, often with hands-on learning experiences such as 4-H. According to NIFA, extension services aim to translate scientific findings into practical applications, identify emerging research questions, and promote the application of science and technology to improve U.S. rural and urban agriculture.¹³ The methods that extension programs use to disseminate information or instruction vary according to the intended purpose, topic, and audience, and include personalized visits, office calls, telephone consultations, tailored letters, demonstrations, conferences, discussions, immersive field trips, bulletins, leaflets, circulars, and other training meetings.¹⁴

Extension Programs at LGIs by Type of Funding

There are two types of funding streams for extension programs: capacity grants and competitive grants. FY2024 enacted appropriations (P.L. 118-42, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024) provide a total of $561.7 million for extension activities (see Table 1).¹⁵ USDA allocates capacity grants on a noncompetitive basis using predetermined formulas, criteria, and other metrics. In contrast, competitive grants involve a selection process where individuals, LGIs, organizations, and other eligible entities apply for funding by submitting proposals or applications. USDA awards grants after peer review, on the basis of the quality of proposals or the potential impact or alignment with funding priorities of the particular grant program. Some capacity and competitive programs have no requirement to match federal with nonfederal (e.g., state and local) funds, while others have a 100% match requirement.¹⁶

Extension Programs Funded Through Capacity Grants

Capacity grants are federal funds provided to specific LGIs, forestry schools, and veterinary schools for research, teaching, and extension. The grants use a statutory formula considering factors such as rural and farm population, number of small farms, total population, and other metrics (see below for each formula). These grants often require nonfederal matching funds, although this requirement may be waived in some circumstances.¹⁷ In FY2024, capacity grant programs for extension activities received $471 million in federal funding. For recent annual appropriations of all capacity and competitive programs for extension activities, see Table 1.

Extension Funding for 1862 Institutions

The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (38 Stat. 372), as amended, provides capacity grants to 1862 Institutions for extension activities. Smith-Lever Act Section 3(b) and 3(c) capacity grants are distributed on the basis of rural and farm population proportions among states.¹⁸ Matching requirements apply, with federal funds matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis with nonfederal funds, except in the District of Columbia and insular areas, which are subject to matching requirements of at least 50% of the Smith-Lever Act funds they receive.¹⁹ For FY2024, Congress appropriated $325 million for the Smith-Lever Act Section 3(b) and 3(c) programs for 1862 Institutions.

Extension Funding for 1890 Institutions

The National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA; P.L. 95-113, 7 U.S.C. §§3221-3229) established capacity grants for extension programs at 1890 Institutions, similar to Smith-Lever Act funding for 1862 Institutions.²⁰ The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) modified the funding formula, requiring allocation of at least 20% of the total annual appropriation under the Smith-Lever Act for Section 3(b) and 3(c) grants to 1890 Institutions. This funding requires dollar-for-dollar matching from nonfederal sources.²¹ USDA may waive or modify the matching funds requirement under certain circumstances, for example, if a state is unlikely to meet it.²² Congress appropriated $72 million for extension services at 1890 Institutions for FY2024.

The Food and Nutrition Education or Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program

Established under NARETPA within Smith-Lever Act Section 3(d), the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP; 7 U.S.C. §3175) operates as an extension capacity grant program. EFNEP capacity grants fund education efforts that emphasize nutrition education for low-income individuals and families.²³ Congress appropriated $70 million to this program for FY2024.

The Renewable Resources Extension Act

The Renewable Resources Extension Act program (RREA; 16 U.S.C. §§1671 et seq.) was established by the Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-306). RREA funds extension efforts that aim to help forest and range landowners and managers make informed decisions based on research.²⁴ These decisions involve managing various resources such as vegetation, water, fisheries, wildlife, soil, and recreation.²⁵ Congress appropriated $4 million to this program for FY2024.

Extension Programs Funded Through Competitive Grants

NIFA awards competitive grants directly to specific extension projects proposed by eligible applicants, determined through a national peer-review process. NIFA's primary competitive grants program is the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), established by the 2008 farm bill and reauthorized in subsequent farm bills.²⁶ Grants from AFRI support extension, research, and education activities in six priority areas outlined in statute: plant health, animal health, food safety, bioenergy, agriculture systems, and economics.²⁷ The 2008 farm bill established the requirement that AFRI allocate at least 30% of its total funding to integrate extension activities with research and education activities. Integrated projects include at least two of the three functions of the land-grant university system (i.e., research, teaching, and extension), including collaborations between research and extension initiatives within a project.²⁸ In FY2024, competitive grant programs for extension activities received $83.1 million in federal funding.

Table 1 lists extension programs funded by NIFA through competitive grants and the appropriations they received in recent years.

Tribal Colleges Extension Program Capacity Applications or Extension Services at 1994 Institutions

The Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382, 7 U.S.C. §301 note), as amended by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA; P.L. 105-185), established the Tribal Colleges Extension Program: Capacity Applications. The program funds projects at 1994 Institutions that aim to establish extension offices for their reservation communities; 1994 Institutions need to apply for these grants, which are awarded on a competitive basis for capacity-like purposes.²⁹ These extension offices collaborate with reservation communities to develop programs addressing local needs, aiming for diversified and targeted outreach.³⁰ Congress appropriated $11 million to this program for FY2024.

The Facilities Improvements at 1890 Institutions

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246) established the Facilities Grants Program (7 U.S.C. §3222b). The 1890 Facilities Grants Program provides funding for 1890 Institutions to acquire and enhance facilities and equipment related to food, agriculture, natural resources, and human sciences, including libraries.³¹ Congress appropriated $21.5 million to this program for FY2024.

The Rural Health and Safety Education Program or Rural Health and Safety Education Competitive Grants Program

The Rural Development Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-419), as amended, established the Rural Health and Safety Education Competitive Grants program (RHSE; 7 U.S.C. §2662(i)). RHSE funds projects that aim to develop rural health leadership and to support health education (for both individuals and families) and farm safety.³² Congress appropriated $4 million to this program for FY2024.

The Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database

The Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database (FARAD) program (7 U.S.C. §7642) was established by AREERA (P.L. 105-185). FARAD collaborates with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure food safety by providing a computer-based system that offers practical information on avoiding residues in animal agriculture.³³ Congress appropriated $2 million to this program for FY2024.

The Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Fields Program

The 2008 farm bill established the Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Fields Program (7 U.S.C. §5925(d)(7)). The program funds projects that aim to support research, teaching, and extension activities that foster participation of women and minorities from rural areas in STEM, with a focus on K-14 students (kindergarten through 12^th grade plus two years of postsecondary schooling; e.g., vocational technical institutions or community or junior colleges).³⁴ Congress appropriated $2 million to this program for FY2024.

The Food Safety Outreach Program or National Food Safety Outreach Program

The Food Safety Outreach Program (FSOP; 7 U.S.C. §7625) was established by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010 (FSMA; P.L. 111-353). FSOP funds projects that focus on food safety training, extension, education, outreach, and technical assistance and that aim to improve public health.³⁵ Congress appropriated $10 million to this program for FY2024.

The Food and Agriculture Service Learning Program

AREERA (P.L. 105-185) established the Food and Agriculture Service Learning Program (7 U.S.C. §7633). The program funds projects that aim to increase children's knowledge of agriculture and improve their nutritional health.³⁶ Congress appropriated $1 million to this program for FY2024.

The Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network

The 2018 farm bill established the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network (7 U.S.C. §5936). The program funds projects that aim to maintain a network connecting individuals engaged in farming, ranching, and other agriculture-related occupations to stress assistance programs.³⁷ Congress appropriated $10 million to this program for FY2024.

The Farm Safety and Youth Farm Safety Education Programs or Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification Program

The Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification program (7 U.S.C. §343(d)) is authorized under Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§341 et seq.). The program funds projects that aim to provide nonformal education in effective farm safety initiatives.³⁸ Congress appropriated $5 million to this program for FY2024.

The New Technologies for Agricultural Extension Program

The 2008 farm bill established the New Technologies for Agricultural Extension program under Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (7 U.S.C. §§341 et seq.). The program provides funds aiming to increase the capability of extension programs to adopt new and innovative technology applications.³⁹ Congress appropriated $1.6 million to this program for FY2024.

The Children, Youth, and Families at Risk Program

The Children, Youth, and Families at Risk program was established under Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, as amended (7 U.S.C. §343(d)). The program provides funds for the development and delivery of educational programs aiming to address the specialized needs of at-risk youth and families.⁴⁰ Congress appropriated $8 million to this program for FY2024.

The Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program

The Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) was established with the 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624) and authorized under Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, as amended (7 U.S.C. §343(d)). FRTEP provides funds for extension programs on Indian reservations and in tribal jurisdictions.⁴¹ Congress appropriated $4 million to this program for FY2024.

Extension Funding

Total federal appropriations for extension activities (capacity and competitive programs and federal administration expenses) gradually increased, in current-year dollars, from $477.4 million in FY2017 to $561.7 million in FY2024 (Table 1).⁴² However, adjusting for inflation shows that the total has decreased over time, from $582.8 million in FY2017 to $561.7 million in FY2024 (Figure 3). Annual inflation-adjusted appropriations for capacity grants have decreased, from $509.8 million in FY2017 to $471 million in FY2024. Annual inflation-adjusted appropriations for competitive grants fluctuated but generally increased over the same period, from approximately $62.7 million in FY2017 to $83.1 million in FY2024.

Capacity Versus Competitive Funding for Extension Activities

Figure 3 illustrates federal funding on extension categorized by type and year. The amounts for capacity grants decreased gradually from $509.8 million in FY2017 to $471 million in FY2024, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Competitive grants increased from $62.7 million in FY2017 to $88.5 million in FY2021, then decreased to $83.1 million by FY2024. Federal expenses in administering extension activities decreased from $10.3 million in FY2017 to $7.6 million in FY2024, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Overall, total extension funding fluctuated since FY2017, starting at $582.8 million in FY2017, peaking at $609.5 million in FY2020, and then decreasing to $561.7 million by FY2024, in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Figure 3. Federal Funding for Extension Activities by Type and Year Dollars in millions, adjusted for inflation

Source: Compiled by CRS from National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), congressional budget justification documents under extension activities tables from FY2017 to FY2024. Notes: Data are inflation-adjusted to FY2023 dollars using the gross domestic product (GDP) chained price index for FY2017-2022, and inflation-adjusted dollar amounts for FY2023 are calculated using the FY2024 estimated GDP chained price index, May 2024, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Historical Tables: Table 10.1—Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2029," https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/hist10z1_fy2025.xlsx.

Considerations for Congress

Since the establishment of the land-grant university system in 1862, Congress has continued to shape and support the central role of LGIs in agricultural research, teaching, and extension. Areas of potential congressional interest regarding extension include the balance between capacity and competitive funding, differences in the allocation of funds among LGIs, the effectiveness of matching fund waivers and their impact on the scope of topics covered by extension services and their outreach, and the balance between extension and research funding.

Balance Between Capacity and Competitive Funding

An ongoing debate about federal funding for extension activities concerns the allocation of federal resources between capacity grants and competitive grants, mirroring a similar discourse taking place in agricultural research at LGIs.⁴³ The balance between these two grant types influences who provides the outreach and training to farmers, ranchers, and local communities.⁴⁴ Advocates of competitive, peer-reviewed funding processes for extension programs assert that there are broader candidate pools (since more entities, not just LGIs, are eligible to apply) with more diverse expertise in providing extension services and that financial support is awarded on the basis of the merits of the projects and not because of predetermined criteria.⁴⁵ Additionally, USDA claims that because of the rigorous nature of the peer-review process, only the highest quality proposals are selected for funding from a large pool of institutions and organizations.⁴⁶ Proponents of capacity grants state that stable funding enables long-term planning and investments into extension activities.⁴⁷ This is because capacity funding is determined using census-based formulas and is funded through annual appropriations, offering predictability to the states and their LGIs each year.⁴⁸ Additionally, some claim that a nationally competitive grant process tends to underfund multidisciplinary projects that aim to address local and state-specific issues because competitive grants tend to encourage applicants to focus on national concerns rather than more local topics.⁴⁹ According to a 2017 NIFA external evaluation study, when extension and research activities are integrated, a capacity funding model is superior to a competitive funding model because the former leverages federal dollars from various nonfederal sources, including state, local/county, nonprofit, or corporate funding.⁵⁰

Differences in Funding Between LGI Types

Differences in funding between types of LGIs, particularly capacity funding, can impact the development and spread of agricultural knowledge. Funding also affects the focus of extension topics, how various institutions cater to their specific audiences, and the resources allocated for extension activities and training.⁵¹ Additionally, differences in funding among the LGI types may have negative consequences for minority applicants.⁵² Table 2 outlines some differences in federal extension capacity grant appropriations among LGI types in FY2024. In that fiscal year, 1890 Institutions received 22% ($72 million) of the appropriations provided for extension capacity grants at 1862 Institutions. Similarly, 1994 Institutions received approximately 3% of the funds provided to 1862 Institutions.

Some stakeholders have noted that the funding differences can be attributed to variations in LGI size (number of students, programs, degrees) and their regional context.⁵³ Others advocate for more parity in funding levels. For example, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, a nonprofit group representing TCUs, has consistently advocated for increased appropriations for 1994 Institutions, framing the funding differences with 1862 Institutions as an inequity.⁵⁴

Matching Fund Waivers

Federal capacity grants for the different LGIs generally require one-to-one nonfederal matching funds as a way to encourage states to provide funding for those institutions. However, current law permits USDA to waive up to 50% of the matching requirement for 1890 LGIs if the state is unlikely to provide sufficient funds to match the federal funds. The option of waiving nonfederal matching funds within the 1890 Institutions was intended to address persistent concerns that these institutions were continually unsuccessful in obtaining federal funding because they were unable to obtain complete state matching funds.⁵⁵

While a waiver allows an 1890 Institution to receive its full allocation of federal funding, such a waiver may reduce the total public support for the institution (combined federal and state funding) compared with what it would have received if a complete match had been provided.⁵⁶ Also, although waivers for matching funds allow for federal funding of 1890 Institutions without complete state funding, they may increase disparities in total funding provided between the 1890 and 1862 Institutions. The 2018 farm bill (7 U.S.C. §3221(a)) established a transparency requirement for USDA to report annually the allocations made to, and matching funds received by, 1890 Institutions and 1862 Institutions for agricultural extension programs. The new transparency requirement aimed to encourage full state matching funds. Data from 2019 to 2022 show that 42% of the 1890 Institutions (8 of 19) have received full nonfederal matching funds (Table 3).⁵⁷

In September 2023, the Secretaries of Education and Agriculture sent letters to 16 governors, emphasizing that, over 30 years, they calculated a more than $12 billion cumulative funding disparity between the 1890 Institutions and their 1862 peers in their states.⁵⁸ These letters highlighted the underfunding of 1890 LGIs and urged governors to rectify the situation, bringing up the importance of equitable funding in line with the Second Morrill Act of 1890.⁵⁹

Members of Congress may choose to evaluate the effectiveness of the transparency requirement and may consider alternative requirements to encourage states to provide 100% matching funding for these institutions. For example, removing the option to apply for a waiver could encourage some states to increase their matching funds to ensure that their 1890 Institutions qualify for these federal funding programs. Conversely, such a change could result in some institutions becoming ineligible to receive any federal funds if their states do not increase their matching contributions.

Optimizing Federal Funding for Agricultural Teaching, Research, and Extension

LGIs are tasked with generating original agricultural research and disseminating it through teaching, research, and extension services to the nonuniversity public. Every year, through annual appropriations, the federal government provides federal funding to support all components of the agricultural knowledge system within the land-grant university system. Consequently, within this system, extension services are intertwined with the research and education efforts undertaken by the LGIs.⁶⁰ According to USDA, returns from public agricultural extension programs and research are positive and complementary and contribute to agricultural productivity gains.⁶¹ Some studies indicate a positive return on investment from federal spending on both extension and research, with some suggesting returns exceeding 100% for extension investments.⁶² While extension and research are funded through separate accounts, they often compete for federal funding within the broader research, teaching, and extension mission funding area of USDA. In a budget-constrained environment, options for Congress include considering whether the current balance of funding between extension and research produces the optimal return on public investment in agriculture.