From funding “a productive alligator-research program” to researching “blackbird-control efforts” and studying “the epidemic of obesity,” federal earmarks have allowed University researchers to explore topics they may not otherwise been able to afford. The LSU System’s Baton Rouge office has received $19.1 million in unshared earmarks – the 12th highest of any academic institution nationally – during the 2008 fiscal year, which started in October 2007. This funding has been given for 12 separate projects, according to a report published by The Chronicle of Higher Education. The University fell from its position as sixth-highest recipient among national academic institutions in 2003, then receiving $26.1 million. Of the 50 peer Universities identified by the Flagship Agenda, nine rank in the top-20 institutions for receiving federal earmark funds. Only four of these nine peers received more earmark money than the LSU System’s Baton Rouge office in the 2008 fiscal year. Federal earmarks are bill amendments made by legislators to favor their constituents by giving federal funds to their states through a non-competitive process. Academic earmarks for research bypass the traditional approval of peer scientists needed to grant federal funding to an institution, allowing more broad use of the funds. Edward Miller, System Federal Affairs interim-executive director, reviews earmark requests. The process of obtaining earmark funds, Miller explained, begins when System President John Lombardi asks the leaders of LSU System entities for earmark requests. These requests are then reviewed by System officials, including Miller, for accuracy and to ensure the proposed projects correspond with the strengths of the department requesting the funds. They also make certain that System entities are not competing for similar projects. Once approved, the earmark requests are given to external lobbyists hired to represent the System. These lobbyists then communicate with legislators about sponsoring the earmark projects. Legislators agreeing to sponsoring earmarks prioritize the request and find relevant appropriations bills for the earmarks, Miller said. “It’s a pretty standardized routine,” Miller said. “These earmarks are important for the University and for the System. It’s a lot of federal money that comes down to the campuses.” Miller recognized criticism of earmark-funded projects avoiding the normal peer-review process for competitive grants. He said the System does not like a single project to be funded by earmarks for more than a few years. The better alternative is to use earmark funding, because it is easier to obtain, while refining the areas of research and improving proposals to obtain competitive grants for the same project, Miller said. Legislators passed more than 2,300 earmarks to 920 academic institutions in the past year – a 25 percent increase in the number of institutions receiving earmarks and a 17 percent increase in the total number of academic earmarks since 2003, the last year surveyed, according to the report. These institutions received at least $2.25 billion – mostly for research – in the 2008 fiscal year, a drastic increase from 10 years ago when only $528 million was spent nationally. Five years ago, $2.01 billion was spent on earmarks for higher education, which is slightly greater than the 2008 amount when adjusted for inflation. Higher education institutes in Louisiana received $50.1 million in non-shared academic earmarks in 2008, the 18th highest amount for a state. Texas received the most with $177 million. Mississippi State University received the most funds overall in 2008 – $43 million for 30 projects.
—-Contact Nicholas Persac at [email protected]