Pork Projects in the House

This week, the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee followed on the heels of the House of Representatives by passing its version of a bill that sets funding levels for Department of Education programs in the 2010 fiscal year. Included within this legislation will be the first figures for earmarks given to specific colleges and universities within the Fund for Improvement of Postseondary Education, or FIPSE. While we wait to see just what pet projects the upper chamber would fund, let's take a look at some of the House's more questionable spending priorities.

First, a quick FIPSE refresher. Originally intended as a way to fund innovative reform projects through a competitive grant process, FIPSE instead became the main vehicle for Congressmen to direct a few hundred thousand dollars toward their favorite colleges and universities each year. The pork pursuit has grown so much that twice in the last five years there have not been any leftover competitive grant funds once the pet projects got their money.

This year, the House requested a total of $68.2 million in earmarks funding, significantly less than the $91.2 million Congress provided last year, though the final number is likely to increase once the appropriation bill gets to the conference committee. Either way, it's still nearly double the $34.8 million the House provided for competitive grants.

That said, here are a few of the earmarks in this year's House bill that raised eyebrows based on their descriptions. (For anyone who wants to play along, I've scanned the relevant pages and put them in a PDF here.)

• Livingstone College, $300,000 for the school's Center for Holistic Learning "to provide academic and student support services, which may include equipment and technology."
• University of Virginia's College at Wise, $150,000 to install a voice over Internet protocol system (basically what Skype does) and "demonstration activities through its Emerging Technologies Learning Center."
• Evergreen State College, $325,000 for its Bioregion initiative, which "aims to better prepare undergraduates, as well as ourselves, to live in a world where the complex issues of environmental quality, environmental justice, and sustainability are paramount."
• Niagara Community College, $100,000 to buy equipment and technology for its hospitality and tourism training programs.
  
• Metropolitan State College, $200,000 for an aviation training program (at least its accredited).
• Oklahoma State University, $450,000 for a wildlife management technician program, including buying equipment.
• University of Massachusetts, Boston, $12.6 million for the Edward Kennedy Institute for the Senate, including supporting an endowment. This award is 12.6 times greater than any other FIPSE grant listed.
  

Now, picking on these institutions is not entirely fair because they actually bothered to provide some information about their award. More common were vague grants for schools like the State University of New York, Geneseo ($500,000 "for purchase of equipment") or Rockford College ($250,000 for "technology upgrades.") If those schools get their awards, we won't have any idea what the money actually funds until the online FIPSE database updates. Once it does, we'll find out if that money is going to meaningful reform, or to study what affects the quality of wine. With this little information available, how could any Congressman claim to make a meaningful judgment of whether these initiatives merit federal dollars?

Regardless of the quality of the proposal, these FIPSE grants subvert the program's initial intent of being one of the few federal funding streams that encourages institutions to innovate by competing for awards. And so long as Congressmen willingly fund pork over reform this program will continue to be little more than an annual wasted opportunity.