Lincoln University officials are pleased Gov. Jay Nixon released the $500,000 in land-grant matching money lawmakers gave the school a year ago but the governor had withheld.
However, Chief Financial Officer Sandy Koetting told LU's curators last Thursday, "We are learning that this is going to be a one-time allocation at this point - it is not going to roll into our base allocation for 2016."
She said LU officials will be watching the House-Senate budget negotiations this week, to see how Lincoln's land-grant match will fare.
The House-passed budget set-aside $250,000 for Lincoln. The Senate's version included $500,000.
LU President Kevin Rome told the News Tribune last week, "It's significantly less than what we need."
Also, that doesn't help LU's agriculture research and extension programs, as required by their land-grant status, in the long run.
Lincoln is one of Missouri's two land-grant universities - the University of Missouri is the other.
The federal government provides the land-grant designation, thanks to laws Congress passed in 1862 and 1890.
As John Michael Lee, vice president of the Association of Public Land-Grant Universities (APLU), explained in a September 2013 policy brief, "On July 2, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act into law, forging a new partnership between the federal government and the states to create the backbone for what is today the public system of higher education in America."
In the 150 years since, Michaels and Program Assistant Samaad Wes Keys wrote, "The nation's land-grant colleges and universities have provided a "liberal and practical education' and these institutions have helped open the doors of access and empower students with the education they need."
The Morrill Act was named for U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill, of Vermont.
In 1890, Congress passed the Second Morrill Act, adding 18 black universities to the land-grant program.
The 1890 law "required each state to show that race was not an admissions criterion, or else to designate a separate land-grant institution for persons of color," Michaels and Keys wrote in the policy brief report titled "Land-Grant but Unequal - State One-to-One Match Funding for 1890 Land-Grant Universities."
They noted, "Though the 1890 Act granted cash instead of land, it granted colleges under that act the same legal standing as the 1862 Act colleges; hence the term "land-grant college' properly applies to both groups," as well as to a third group of schools in 1994, primarily Native American-based schools.
Over the years, the federal government has provided money for the land-grant schools - but also required a state, or at least a non-federal source, to match the federal money.
Starting in the 1999-2000 business year, it was a 30 percent local match to the federal money. A year later, the federal government required a 45 percent match.
Also, since the 2001-02 business year, the federal regulations have required a one-to-one match - for every federal dollar offered, there must be a $1 local match.
The Michaels-Keys policy brief said the partnership generally has worked.
"What started as a system of colleges to educate the industrial class, is today a system of comprehensive colleges and universities that are centers for research, teaching, agricultural innovation and the liberal arts," they said.
However, the policy brief also argues, over the years, the 1862 schools like the University of Missouri have done better financially than the 1890 schools like LU.
Since the 1999-2000 business year, LU has had to return more than $7.899 million in federal funding back to the U.S. government because it didn't have enough local money for the match.
John Fougere, the University of Missouri system's chief communications officer, said MU's matching money is "part of our core state appropriation."
If there is a shortfall in the matching funding, he explained, "We address such shortfalls the same way we address other cuts to state appropriations and manage our internal funds accordingly to meet our commitments."
Last week, he agreed there is a funding disparity that the 1890 land-grant schools "tend to have more financial troubles. ... This is a national trend that is true for smaller, higher education institutions, as there tends to be more competition and relatively less demand."
It's frustrating for LU administrators, Rome said last week.
"A few years ago (lawmakers) did put some money in our base - so, we have about between a $6 and $7 million match that we have to make," he said. "If we look at the past, we probably have received in our base somewhere around $800,000 - but we are still short" each year.
Records Koetting provided the News Tribune show the state's support didn't begin until the 2007-08 business year.
The APLU's policy brief also noted the federal government has allowed the 1890 schools something the 1862 land-grant schools don't have: a waiver.
"As a result, from 2010-12, 1890 land-grant institutions did not receive almost $57 million in federal matching funds for research and extension activities," Michaels and Keys wrote. "The one-to-one matching inequity that is being experienced by 1890 land-grant institutions is not in any way caused by the federal government or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"In fact, Congress established the matching requirement so that all land-grant institutions would receive one-to-one matching funds from their respective state. This inequity in funding to HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) by states has been well documented since the founding of these institutions, and funding at these schools was very poor and not equitable compared to white institutions."
The report shows LU requested a total of $8,768,673 in waivers during that period.
"It's differential treatment, and it's unfair toward the 1890s, because it puts the institutions at a deficit," Rome said. "And, as I shared with the legislators in the funding meeting, we've had to put in from Lincoln's core funding about $50 million over the years.
"If that money could have been used for the university, for the infrastructure, for other things, we would be in a much different place today. So, it puts us at a disadvantage and it's not equitable treatment for the university."
Koetting told LU curators last week, "We're going to start talking with budget and planning and various state officials in July or August of this year, to find out how we can request that those allocations become a part of our base, so we don't have to go back and vie for the same dollar every year."
Rome said, "We hope that (lawmakers) are open to looking at the value that we bring to the state, the value that we bring to this nation and the work that we're doing.
"And we hope that they find it somewhere in their decision-making process to just think what is fair and what is right for Lincoln University, for the students who attend Lincoln, for the alumni and for this community."
Rome said Lincoln's funding problem isn't a battle with MU.
"They deserve the money that they're getting," he said. "We're asking the state to do the right thing and provide the funding for Lincoln University.
"We have a very good collaboration with (MU). Our faculty work well together, and we try to make sure that we are not focusing on the same research, in the same areas.
"So, we complement each other. I think it's been a great partnership."
Rome expects Missouri lawmakers eventually will provide LU with all the money needed for the federal match.
"The question is, when are they going to do it?" Rome said.
"And we shouldn't have to beg the state to do something that they're supposed to do."
The APLU policy brief can be found at www.aplu.org/library/land-grant-but-unequal-state-one-to-one-match-funding-for-1890-land-grant-universities/file.