Are States Finally Closing the Funding Gap for Land-Grant HBCUs?

“States play the biggest role and…could, if they wanted to, make sure that that funding was equitable.”

CJ Libassi, PhD, Senior Research Associate at American University’s PEER Center

Three years after federal officials put a dollar figure on decades of unequal state investment in historically Black land-grant universities, the funding picture is beginning to change. In 2023, the U.S. Departments of Education and Agriculture calculated that 16 states would have given their 1890 land-grant historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) more than $12 billion in additional funding between 1987 and 2020 if state support per student had matched that of their predominantly white 1862 land-grant institutions. 

By fiscal year 2025, USDA data reviewed by Inside Higher Ed indicated that 18 of the 19 historically Black land-grant institutions appeared to be receiving their required state matching funds, with Prairie View A&M University operating under a federal waiver for some research funding.

The annual match is an important part of how these universities finance their land-grant missions. Federal capacity funds support agricultural research and extension work at 1890 institutions, and the relevant USDA programs generally require an equal amount from nonfederal sources. Those dollars support research and practical work with farmers, landowners, families, and communities.

Recent progress therefore gives institutions access to resources that states had often failed to provide consistently. It also captures only one part of a much larger funding disparity. The federal government’s 2023 estimate measures differences in overall state funding per student, rather than simply unpaid USDA matching dollars. Officials argued that the accumulated shortfalls left institutions with fewer resources for infrastructure, student services, and the research capacity needed to compete for additional grants.

The question now is whether the improvement in annual funding marks a lasting change in how states finance their 1890 institutions, and what closing a gap accumulated over decades would actually require. To understand how those disparities developed and what recent state action can address, we spoke with CJ Libassi, a Senior Research Associate at the PEER Center at American University who studies higher education finance, access, and accountability.

CJ Libassi is a senior research associate at the Postsecondary Education & Economics Research Center at American University, where he studies the economics of higher education, including how financial aid, college pricing, and accountability policies influence where students enroll and whether they complete their degrees. He previously served as a Senior Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of the Chief Economist and held earlier research roles at the College Board and the Center for American Progress.

Libassi holds a PhD in Economics and Education from Teachers College, Columbia University. His research has been published in the American Economic Review and Economics of Education Review.

To understand why recent increases in state support cannot erase the disparity quickly, it helps to look at how funding decisions build on one another over time. Land-grant HBCUs rely on state appropriations alongside federal support to finance research, extension programs, faculty, facilities, and other parts of their academic mission. In USDA’s principal research and extension capacity programs for 1890 institutions, federal dollars generally come with a requirement for an equal nonfederal contribution. When a state does not provide the full amount, USDA can waive up to half of that matching requirement under certain circumstances. The institution can continue participating in the federal program, though the missing state contribution still means fewer total dollars available for its work.

CJ Libassi explains that the matching issue represents only one piece of a much larger funding history. He calls it “a small part of the story about the overall inequity between the institutions,” and points to broader differences in state support, enrollment, tuition revenue, and the resources universities have built over time.

He also describes how those differences can compound across decades. Libassi points to “long compounding historical things” that affect what institutions are positioned to pursue later. 

One example he gives is whether a university has a hospital. Institutions with that kind of infrastructure may be able to pursue additional categories of federal research funding, creating another source of resources that can build on earlier investments.

Libassi explains that the same dynamic can extend beyond any single facility. Differences in research infrastructure, program capacity, enrollment strength, and other sources of institutional revenue can shape which opportunities a university is able to pursue over time. Years of stronger investment can create more capacity to attract additional funding, while years of lower support can leave institutions with fewer resources to build from in the first place.

That history gives the recent improvement in state matching funds more significance. Regularly providing the full match gives 1890 institutions greater certainty about the resources available for research and extension work. Whether those appropriations become durable parts of state budgets will help determine how much of the accumulated disparity they can begin to address.

The clearest sign of progress appears in the annual matching requirement itself. USDA’s fiscal year 2025 allocation data show that the principal 1890 extension and research programs received full matching amounts across nearly all of the 19 institutions. Prairie View A&M is the exception on one research program, where its $8.9 million federal allocation is paired with roughly $4.46 million in matching funds under a NIFA-approved waiver.

The improvement is taking different forms across states. West Virginia, for example, appropriated $5 million specifically for West Virginia State University’s land-grant match in fiscal year 2026 and again included $5 million for fiscal year 2027. Texas also moved to strengthen its support for Prairie View A&M. In 2023, the university announced that the state would provide a full agriculture match after years when state support had generally covered only about 45 to 50 percent of the federal requirement.

But will those gains become durable? 

Libassi explains that the improvement could last if states “make room in their budgets for it on an ongoing basis.” What matters, he says, is whether lawmakers build the funding into their regular commitments rather than finding “some extra money in the couch cushions” for a temporary correction.

In some states, the new investment already extends beyond the annual match. West Virginia lawmakers also approved $50 million for a new agricultural laboratory at West Virginia State University. The facility is intended to provide research and classroom space for the university and the state Department of Agriculture while supporting the development of a new School of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources.

These commitments give institutions more resources to carry out the land-grant work they already do and, in some cases, to build capacity that was harder to develop during years of reduced support. Their longevity is still unproven. A state can meet the match today without addressing the full effect of decades of missing funding.

That difference is where the question of parity becomes more complicated. Meeting the annual obligation improves the resources available now. Closing the historical gap requires looking at what institutions couldn’t build while those dollars were absent.

Paying the full match addresses what an 1890 institution is owed in the current budget cycle. The federal estimate that drew renewed attention to the issue measures something much larger. In 2023, the Departments of Education and Agriculture compared state funding per student at 1890 institutions with funding for their 1862 land-grant counterparts from 1987 through 2020. Across 16 states, the cumulative difference exceeded $12 billion.

Federal officials urged governors to treat that figure as more than a historical accounting exercise. Their letters called for substantial state appropriations to begin addressing the accumulated shortfalls and encouraged longer-term commitments where closing them immediately was unrealistic. One option they raised was for states to provide support equal to twice the federal land-grant allocation in future years. That was a recommendation, not a new legal requirement.

Libassi said states are best positioned to determine whether the recent progress lasts. “States play the biggest role,” he says, adding that they can choose to “make sure that funding was equitable” through future budget decisions.

That leaves states with two different measures of progress. One is whether an institution receives the full match it is due each year. The other is whether lawmakers begin reducing the accumulated disparity identified by the federal government through sustained appropriations large enough to move beyond annual compliance.

The recent gains show movement on the first measure. Whether states make meaningful progress on the second will determine how close today’s funding changes come to addressing the historic gap.

Recent state action has improved the funding picture for 1890 land-grant institutions in a way that was far less common only a few years ago. More schools are receiving the full state match tied to federal research and extension funding, and some states are pairing those dollars with additional investments in facilities and programs.

Whether that progress becomes durable will depend on future budget cycles. Libassi explains that states can sustain more equitable support if they keep room for it in their regular budgets. The question is whether those commitments remain intact when revenues tighten, leadership changes, or other priorities compete for the same dollars.

Parity also requires a longer view than annual compliance. Meeting the match can prevent institutions from losing another year of resources they should receive. The broader gap reflects decades of lower investment, and narrowing it will take sustained appropriations over time.

The recent gains therefore represent meaningful progress without settling the larger question. States have shown that they can meet the current obligation. The next measure is whether they continue doing so long enough for land-grant HBCUs to build the institutional capacity that past funding disparities constrained.