Anatomy of a Land Grant Institution

3. Anatomy of aLand Grant Institution Dorcas P. O’Rourke, D.V.M., M.S. Director, Office of Laboratory Animal Care The University of Tennessee AAALAC Council on Accreditation

6. What is a land grant institution? • Colleges and universities designated by Congress and state legislatures to receive federal support as defined in the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890

7. Rationale for LGI Development • Need for broad-based educational systems • LGIs to offer curricula in military tactics, agriculture, and mechanic arts • Provide practical education to industrial classes

8. First Morrill Act of 1862 • Allowed public lands to be donated to states • Proceeds from sale of these public lands supported the LGIs

9. Hatch Act of 1887 • Mandated creation of Agricultural Experiment Stations • Stations affiliated with LGIs • Scientific research to be conducted at experiment stations • Federal and state funds appropriated annually to support research

10. Smith-Lever Act of 1914 • Provided federal monies for support of cooperative extension efforts • Educational programs established to disseminate information obtained in experiment station research to local communities

11. Other Landmark Decisions • Six million dollar endowment to the University of Hawai’i in 1960 in lieu of federal land endowment • University of Guam, College of the Virgin Islands, Community Colleges of American Samoa and Micronesia, and Northern Marianas College achieved land grant status in 1972

12. Other Landmark Decisions (cont.) • Twenty-nine Native American colleges received land grant status and a 23 million dollar endowment in 1994

13. LGIs Today • All states and territories have at least one LGI • Total of 105 LGIs which receive over $550 million annually in federal funding

14. Characteristics of Traditional LGIs • Complex, decentralized animal care programs • Varied, multiple funding sources, including Hatch and LGI appropriations • Unique programs, such as veterinary medicine and agricultural sciences • Separate programs with overlapping research focus • Multiple lines of authority

15. LGIs and AAALAC Accreditation • Single vs. multiple accredited units • ILAR Guide for most species • Ag Guide and principles of the first three chapters of the ILAR Guide applicable to food and fiber animals

16. The Ohio State University • Single office for animal management and veterinary care for the accredited program • Single IACUC (sub-IACUC for food and fiber animals) • Single AAALAC accreditation (excluding food and fiber animals)

17. University of Wisconsin • Multiple animal care programs with multiple veterinarians, with compliance oversight in the institutional veterinarian’s office • Multiple IACUCs • Multiple AAALAC accredited programs (ag component not accredited)

18. University of Missouri • Multiple animal care programs, with many facility managers hired by and reporting to the institutional veterinarian’s office, and all veterinarians reporting to the institutional veterinarian (including ag) • Single IACUC • Multiple AAALAC accredited programs (ag component not accredited; soon to apply for single accreditation, including ag)

19. University of Illinois • Decentralized management of animal facilities and centralized oversight of all areas (including ag) through the institutional veterinarian’s office and IACUC • Centralized veterinary care for lab animals; decentralized veterinary care (with institutional oversight) for food and fiber animals. • Single IACUC • Single AAALAC accreditation, including ag food and fiber animals

20. Clemson University • All veterinary care and oversight provided by institutional veterinarian’s office • Single IACUC • Single AAALAC accreditation

21. Key to Successful AAALAC Accreditation in LGIs • Ensure adequate veterinary care and compliance oversight • Ensure clear lines of authority • Ensure strong institutional commitment to the animal care and use program

22. Accreditation for Agricultural Programs: Analysis of the Arguments For and Against Neal R. Merchen, Ph.D. Professor and Interim Head Department of Animal Sciences University of Illinois

23. General Challenges –Agricultural Animal Programs • Complex lines of accountability/authority • Teaching activities - impact on H-H programs and biosecurity • Decentralized management • Faculty involved in management/oversight • “Cultural resistance” to centralized oversight • Disconnect between clinical veterinary service and oversight by IV

24. Why Be Accredited?Arguments FOR • AAALAC website • Points from experience at U. of Illinois

26. Why Be Accredited?Arguments FOR • Symbol of quality • Value in external validation of quality • Demonstrates accountability • Validates commitment to humane and ethical animal care and use

27. Why Be Accredited?Arguments FOR • (?) Enhances quality of agricultural research • (?) Recruiting tool for faculty, students, researchers • No discernable impact • (?) Enhances funding opportunities. • Limited impact for funding of ag production research

28. Why Be Accredited?Arguments FOR • Exercise in self-assessment • Engage all participants • Re-evaluation of practices • Improves sensitivity to concerns of public • Encourages standardization of practices • Improves record-keeping

29. Why Be Accredited?Arguments AGAINST • Costs • Funding, human resources • Transaction costs for preparation • Repair, renovation of facilities • Ongoing costs

30. University of Illinois –College of ACES Agricultural Animal Program Infrastructure • Daily census 12 to 14,000 animals • 10 livestock units at 3 locations • 50 academic staff and animal caretakers • 150 animal buildings • Extensive documentation

31. Why Be Accredited?Arguments AGAINST • Difficulties in collaboration among principals • IACUC • Institutional veterinarian • Clinical veterinarians • Faculty • Animal care staff “Complex lines of accountability and authority” - Build consensus opinions/agendas

32. Why Be Accredited?Arguments AGAINST • Poor relationship between ag animal care program to local oversight of animal care program • Biggest reason for disinterest by ag animal units • Lack of communication/mutual understanding

33. Why Be Accredited?Arguments AGAINST (cont.) • Poor relationship between ag animal care program to local oversight of animal care program • Imbalance in institutional authority among IACUC, IV, IO • Poor representation of ag animal programs on IACUC • AAALAC used as a “club”

34. Greatest Opportunities –AAALAC Accreditation of Ag Animal Programs • Establishes independent seal of quality assurance • Demonstrates accountability • Self-assessment may improve practices • Professionalism/pride/esprit de corps of animal caretakers

35. Greatest Challenges - Institutions/AAALAC • Resources • Develop effective working groups among IV, IACUC, IO, ag animal programs • Improve communication between AAALAC and ag animal professionals • Clarify role of AAALAC to ag animal professionals

37. Trends in Deficiencies Kathryn Bayne, M.S., Ph.D., D.V.M. Associate Director, AAALAC International

38. Standards Used

39. Farm Animal Position Statement

40. AAALAC International & Land Grant Institutions Approximately 28% are accredited

41. Of those LGIs/State Universities that are accredited…. 38% have Campus-wide accreditation

42. The Animal Care and Use Program

43. Institutional Policies • OHSP • IACUC • Adequate Veterinary Care • Administrative Organization

44. Animal Management • Animal Space Provisions • Support Service • Sanitation Practices • Caging/Housing System • Aseptic surgery • Husbandry Practices • Identification/Record Keeping • Vermin Control

45. Veterinary Care • Preventive Medicine • Disease Diagnosis, Control, Treatment • Surgical & Postsurgical Care • Anesthesia/Analgesia • Euthanasia

46. Physical Plant • HVAC • Survival Surgery Support • Facility Maintenance • Personnel Safety Concerns • General Storage Conditions • Sanitation of Facilities

47. Physical Plant(cont.) • Illumination • Emergency Power • Physical Plant Design • Security

48. Trend Data • Data extracted from January 1993 through January 2002 meetings of the Council on Accreditation, equating to the three most recent site visits for each institution (or less if they were new to the AAALAC program)

49. Mandatory Deficiencies Identified • Range of zero to nine mandatory items in a letter • 59% of letters reviewed had no mandatory items for correction, i.e., institution granted Full Accreditation after site visit • No significant correlation between number of mandatory items identified and whether program was Campus-wide or University-limited • No correlation between number of mandatory items and whether institution had a medical school or health sciencecenter

50. Suggestions for Improvement Identified • Range of zero to 20 SFIs in a letter • 24% of letters reviewed had no SFIs • No significant correlation between number of SFIs identified and whether program was Campus-wide or University-limited • No correlation between number of SFIs and whether institution had a medical school or health sciencecenter