APPENDIXES A. Current fund income of institutions of higher education, by source and by State: 1963-64. B. Total Federal obligations to universities and colleges, by agency and type of program, 1963-66___ C. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, D. Fields of science as defined by the National Science Foundation. F. University science development grants, (NSF), 1965-68- G. Departmental science development grants, (NSF), 1967 to present I. General research support grants (NIH), 1962–67. J. Biomedical sciences support grants (NIH), 1966–67. K. Health sciences advancement awards (NIH), 1966-67. L. Health professions basic improvement grants (NIH), 1966-67 M. Allied health professions basic improvement grants, (NIH) 1967–68_- O. NAŠA sustaining university program multidisciplinary research grants-amounts to universities, 1962–68_ - P. Developing institutions grants by the Office of Education, 1967.. Page 41 43 44 46 48 58 59 60 61 70 72 73 76 84 85 87 105 A NATIONAL PROGRAM OF INSTITUTIONAL GRANTS FOR SCIENCE AND SCIENCE EDUCATION-LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND STUDY I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to provide background information on the legislative precedents of the national institutional grant program proposed to be established by H.R. 875, which was introduced by Chairman George P. Miller, of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, on January 10, 1967, and similar bills. The report touches briefly on the evolution of the institutional support concept for science as a means to complement the project grant system. A comparison of H.R. 875 with other similar pending proposals is made, followed by a section-by-section analysis of the bill. The report then discusses institutional development-type grant programs of the principal science-oriented departments and agencies. Statistical data showing the distribution of funds to individual institutions under each of the programs described are included in the appendixes. Also included in the appendix is an extensive annotated chronology which traces the history of the institutional support concept from 1945, when it was debated in connection with proposals to establish a National Science Foundation, to the present. B. SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS We cannot say categorically that there is no direct legislative precedent for the proposed legislation, other than Mr. Miller's bill, H.R. 13786 of the 89th Congress. Based on a check of the Congressional Record Index, and the Bill Digest, back to 1958, we did not find a previous proposal resembling this program. Nor were references to other legislative proposals found in the extensive literature which was searched on this subject. We did, however, find the substance of the present proposal outlined in testimony of a witness who appeared on behalf of the National Association of State Universities & Land-Grant Colleges before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development at its 1964 hearings on geographical distribution and indirect costs questions. See chapter III.C. There is ample precedent for the use of the formula method to distribute funds for specific purposes among the States and within a State to elementary and secondary schools, public community colleges and public technical institutes, and public or nonprofit institutions of higher education. We do not know of any other public document which contains as much information on the overall institutional picture as does this admittedly limited report. A Subcommittee on Institutional Development of the Committee on Academic Science and Engineering (CASE) of the Federal Council for Science and Technology has been assigned to serve as a coordinating and advisory body for institutional development programs. The Federal Council's Annual Report for 1965-66 set forth the subcommittee's tasks and stated that it planned to begin full-scale operations during fiscal year 1967. We have no more recent public information on this subcommittee's activities. In this brief summary of observations that were made as a result of our attempt to describe the present situation, with respect to institutional development-type grants, almost as many questions were raised as were answered. Because time limitations precluded an exhaustive review, we can only suggest some of the matters which the committee will wish to pursue further in the forthcoming investigation. 1. Different agencies have different concepts of what an institutional development program is.-For instance, the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science and Technology include Project Themis of the Department of Defense in a listing of major Federal programs intended to provide direct aid for development of academic institutions. However, the Department of Defense states categorically that Project Themis is not an institutional development program. The institutional development programs of the National Science Foundation are intended to assist institutions which already have more than minimal strength. On the other hand, the developing institutions program of the Office of Education and the special improvement grant program of HEW's health professions educational improvement program are intended for institutions which are clearly "struggling" to exist. To cite another example, the objectives of the HEW health sciences advancement award program appear to make it a development program, but the fact that a new health sciences development program is being considered indicates that HEW does not regard the already existing program as a development program. 2. Some similarity exists among institutional development programs of different agencies. NSF's institutional grants program and NIH's general research support grant program both were designed to offset imbalances caused by previous reliance upon the project grant system of research support. NSF's college science improvement program and OE's developing institutions program are both aimed at the undergraduate level. DOD's Project THEMIS, NASA's multidisciplinary research program and NSF's departmental science development program all are aimed at building graduate research capability within or among specific disciplines. Most of the programs receive guidance from advisory councils which set the details of administration and funding where these are not specifically spelled out in legislation. 3. The effectiveness of coordination between programs cannot be assessed in the absence of cumulative statistics on who is getting what and how much.-A compilation of individual institutional development support from various agencies would be very helpful. Is it intended that the National Institutional Science Council proposed in H.R. 875 will be a coordinating source for all institutional grant-in-aid programs? 4. It is not clear whether the proposed legislation will replace any of the existing programs, or what effect a program as broad as this will have on other programs at a time when science expenditures have leveled off and many budgets are being cut. For instance, if the House Appropriations Committee's recommendation for a cut in NSF 1969 funds to $400 million from the $495 million appropriated for fiscal year 1968 is allowed to stand, it will necessitate considerable cutback in programs at a time of continually increasing costs. 5. The coverage of the proposed legislation appears to need clarification, both regarding fields covered and regarding areas to be included in the science teacher training category. This point is also mentioned in the section-by-section analysis of H.R. 875 in chapter III. |