More than $2.25 billion was handed out to colleges and universities nationally this year, according to an analysis of U.S. congressional appropriations by a higher education magazine.

Of that $2.25 billion split among 848 schools, Mississippi State University received the largest share at $43 million, and Howard University in Washington, D.C., received the least – just a fraction of a million dollars, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. At Kansas University, earmarks this year totaled about $4.5 million.

KU’s director of government relations and chief lobbyist Keith Yehle – who is often responsible for explaining to lawmakers why a KU program should be chosen – said this form of funding ultimately benefits not only the individual institutions but the nation.

“This piece of equipment makes us more competitive,” Yehle said as he stood in the shadow of a large, highly complex microscope that was funded with an earmark in 2006. “We’re going to provide a superior end product (because of this microscope). Every time we use this, it’s going to benefit society and the government.”

Providing for needs

Earmarks are any funding, usually federal, that is provided by Congress for projects or programs where usual merit-based financing is eliminated, or the Executive Branch is not involved in determining how the money is spent. They are typically supported by just one house of Congress and are included in larger appropriation bills that often have nothing to do with the individual earmark approved.

Yehle argues earmarks are an important part of funding for research – particularly at KU.

“These are not a bridge to nowhere. There are not something we just dreamed up,” Yehle said. “We will use this equipment every day. We identify a need and then try to find funding.”

In 2008, KU received four earmarks: $2.3 million for research and development on advanced vehicle technology, $1.1 million for a biodiversity research center, $700,000 for pharmaceutical small-business development and about $406,000 for equipment in the office of therapeutics. Kansas’ U.S. Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts and Rep. Nancy Boyda helped secure KU earmarks.

As for the microscope he was using as an example, Yehle said that would provide a huge return on investment because it would increase the amount of research money flowing to KU, and it also could be used by non-KU scientists to do research for a fee. This particular microscope, a transmission electron microscope, is the most advanced in a multistate area and is housed at KU’s Haworth Hall.

Where KU stands

This year, KU was relatively small potatoes on the earmark list. Out of 848 schools, KU was 107th for the amount of earmarks received. Two other Kansas universities, Kansas State and Wichita State, both received substantially more. WSU received $17.5 million – 15th most nationally – and KSU received $11.5 million, making it 36th on the list.

Yehle said it’s nearly worthless to compare rankings because they swing wildly from year to year. As an example, he said KU received a multimillion-dollar earmark in a 2005 federal highway bill.

“You can’t expect to have an earmark every year,” Yehle said. “We’re cognizant of not overextending our reach.”

Criticism

While earmarks are popular avenues for funding, critics contend it’s inappropriate for Congress to be doling out more in earmarks while competitive science funding from the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and others stagnates or declines.

At KU, the decline in competitive research funding became a problem last year when the actual earnings from overhead fees on research grants came up $2 million less than expected. At the time, positions went unfilled and major changes were made.

Steve Warren, vice provost for research and graduate studies, said KU is expecting to meet its budget target for research overhead this year. But there was a major adjustment in the way those figures were computed.

“We’ve got a more sophisticated model for calculating that now,” Warren said. “The Congress capped discretionary funding at $800 million in 2003. That’s caused the research budget to stop growing and start to actually decline in terms of real dollars.”