(but primarily to improve timber 

 production and utilization as 

 evidenced by testimony 

 surrounding passage); and 



• To stimulate expansion in 

 the training of scientists in forestry 

 and forestry-related specialties 

 needed by Forest Service, forest- 

 industry, and university research 

 programs. 



Federal funds had to be matched 

 one to one with non-Federal 

 dollars (Gray 1977 unpubl.). 



Post- 1962 Development — Although 

 the initial Mclntire-Stennis 

 appropriation was only $1 million 

 and had grown to only $9.3 million 

 by fiscal year 1983, the Act was a 

 tremendous boost to the growth of 

 university forestry and forest- 

 products research nationwide. 

 Indeed, one astute, long-time 

 forestry and agricultural research 

 administrator in the South, Rodney 

 Foil, felt that modern southern 

 university forestry research began 

 with passage of the Mclntire- 

 Stennis Act. 



To identify its impact, I conducted 

 an informal survey through 

 interviews with current leaders of 

 six programs that were active in 

 1960. These programs were 

 established at Arkansas, Auburn, 

 Stephen F. Austin, Louisiana 

 State, Mississippi State, and 

 Tennessee. In 1960, the six had a 

 combined total of 20 full-time- 

 equivalent research scientists 



engaged in 41 different projects. 

 By 1984, the totals had risen to 64 

 scientists and 181 projects. The 

 number of scientists had more than 

 tripled, and the number of projects 

 had more than quadrupled. 



More complete data, but for 

 different years, are regional figures 

 for fiscal years 1968 and 1983. 

 Fiscal year 1968 was the first for 

 which centralized reporting had 

 been routinized under the national 

 Computerized Research 

 Information System (CRIS) of the 

 Cooperative State Research 

 Service. 



Comparisons for these 2 years are 

 shown in table 5. Sources are 

 annual inventories of agricultural 

 research published by the U.S. 

 Department of Agriculture. 



For the South, as well as for the 

 rest of the Nation, Mclntire- 

 Stennis dollars were far more 

 significant in providing leverage to 

 generate other support than they 

 were in themselves. For example, 

 table 5 shows that in fiscal year 

 1968 southern university forestry 

 research was supported almost 

 equally by Federal and non- 

 Federal organizations. But in fiscal 

 year 1983, non-Federal funding 

 was more than double Federal 

 levels. State appropriations in 

 fiscal year 1983 were more than 8 

 times 1968 levels, and those of 

 industry grants were almost 14 

 times the 1968 levels. 



34 



