Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
The Smith-Lever Act is the federal statute that funds Cooperative Extension work at land-grant colleges. Its text sits in 7 U.S.C. 341 to 343. The part that matters to a grants office is the money mechanics: a fixed 4% federal administrative share, a three-part allotment formula to the states, and a requirement that each state match federal dollars with its own non-federal funds or lose the difference. This guide walks through those rules from the statute text and the NIFA program page, checked 2026-10-29.
What the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 is and who runs it
The Act of May 8, 1914 (ch. 79, 38 Stat. 372) is codified in 7 U.S.C. 341 onward. Congress later added a short-title provision, so the subchapter may be cited as the “Smith-Lever Act.” It is also popularly known as the “Agricultural Extension Work Act” (7 U.S.C. 341, notes). Writers also use “Smith-Lever Act of 1914” and “Smith-Lever Act” interchangeably; all refer to the same statute.
Section 341 states the purpose: to aid in diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture, home economics, rural energy and solar energy as it relates to agriculture. The work is carried on in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. Where a state has two or more colleges receiving benefits under the land-grant subchapters, the funds are administered by those colleges “as the legislature of such State, Territory, or possession may direct” (7 U.S.C. 341).
In practice the Act is a capacity (formula) program, not a competition for individual project awards. USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) administers it and lists it among its capacity grants as the “Smith-Lever Act Capacity Grant,” with the program titled “Cooperative Extension Programs under the Smith-Lever Act section 3(b) and (c).” NIFA describes the purpose in terms of developing practical applications of research knowledge (NIFA program page).
Eligibility: who receives the funds
Eligibility comes from the statute rather than from an application form. Section 341 covers colleges in each state, territory or possession that receive benefits under the first two land-grant subchapters of the chapter. For the history of those colleges, see our guide to the Morrill Act and the 1890 and 1994 land-grant categories.
Section 343(d) adds direct routes outside the state allotment. A college or university eligible to receive funds under the 1890 land-grant Act, including Tuskegee University, “may compete for and receive funds directly from the Secretary.” The 1994 Institutions have a similar provision, but theirs is tied to the Children, Youth, and Families at Risk program rather than to Smith-Lever funds generally.
Eligibility, the match and the formula all come from the statute rather than from NIFA’s program page.
What the Act funds and requires
Section 343(a) authorizes appropriations of “such sums as Congress may from time to time determine to be necessary.” The statute therefore sets no dollar figure; the amount available in a given year is whatever Congress appropriates. The 4 percent and 20/40/balance split below comes from section 343(c).
Step 1: the federal administrative share
Under 343(c)(1), four per cent of the sum appropriated for each fiscal year is allotted to the Secretary of Agriculture for administrative, technical and coordinating work.
Step 2: the allotment to the states
Under 343(c)(2), the remainder is split as follows:
- 20 per cent in equal shares to the states.
- 40 per cent in proportion to each state’s share of the rural population.
- The balance in proportion to each state’s share of the farm population, using the decennial census.
Step 3: the non-federal match
Section 343(e) limits a state’s allotment to the amount it matches. Under 343(e)(1), no allotment or payment may be made in excess of the amount the state makes available out of non-federal funds for extension work, so federal payments cannot exceed the state’s non-federal funds, dollar for dollar. Section 343(e)(4) sets an exception: Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands must match at not less than 50 percent, and the Secretary may waive that requirement. If a state falls short, the Secretary “shall withhold from payment to the State” the shortfall (343(e)(2)), and the withheld sums are reapportioned to states that met the match (343(e)(3)). For the grants-office view of this idea, see our dictionary entries on mandatory cost share and voluntary cost share.
One older provision no longer applies: a former plans-of-work requirement in section 343(h)(2)(D) was struck by Pub. L. 115-334, so it should not be described as current.
Compliance steps in the order the statute implies
The sequence below follows the statute text, not an official application form.
- Congress appropriates funds for the fiscal year under 343(a).
- The Secretary retains the four per cent administrative share.
- The remainder of the 343(c) sums is allotted by the 20/40/balance formula, using rural and farm population from the decennial census.
- Each state shows the non-federal funds it makes available, since its allotment is limited to that match.
- Any shortfall is withheld and reapportioned to states that met the match.
Typical phases
Because the program is formula-based, the phases are the steps above repeated each fiscal year: appropriation, retention of the federal share, allotment, state match, then payment, withholding and reapportionment. The statute fixes no calendar dates for these phases, and this guide gives none.
Common mistakes
- Treating it as a competitive grant. The state allotment is formula-driven; the statutory competition paths under 343(d) are for 1890 institutions (including Tuskegee) and, for the Children, Youth, and Families at Risk program, 1994 Institutions.
- Quoting a fixed funding level. The statute leaves the amount to Congress’s appropriations, so any figure belongs to a specific fiscal year, not to the Act.
- Confusing the Smith-Lever Act with its neighbours. The Morrill Act established the land-grant colleges, and the Smith-Hughes Act is a separate statute. Smith-Lever covers extension work, and NIFA lists the Hatch Act of 1887 as its own capacity program.
- Ignoring the match. A state that does not provide the non-federal funds loses the shortfall to other states.
Related programs
NIFA’s capacity grants page names these programs together. Each has its own NIFA page and rules.
| Program (as titled by NIFA) | Relationship to this page |
|---|---|
| Smith-Lever Act Capacity Grant | The program this guide describes |
| Smith-Lever Act Sections 3(b) and 3(c) Special Needs Capacity Grant | Separate NIFA listing under the same Act |
| The Hatch Act of 1887 | Separate NIFA capacity grants |
| McIntire-Stennis Capacity Grant | Separate NIFA capacity grant |
| Renewable Resources Extension Act Capacity Grant | Separate NIFA capacity grant |
| Agricultural Extension Programs at 1890 Institutions | Separate NIFA capacity grant |
For competitive USDA research funding, see our guide to NIFA AFRI program areas and submission. For USDA’s in-house research arm, see USDA ARS and how outside researchers partner with it.
FAQ
What is the Smith-Lever Act of 1914?
It is the statute, now at 7 U.S.C. 341 to 343, that authorizes Cooperative Extension work at land-grant colleges in cooperation with USDA and funds it through a formula allotment to the states that requires a non-federal match.
What was the Morrill Act in simple terms?
It is the earlier land-grant law that created the colleges the Smith-Lever Act later funds for extension work. Our Morrill Act guide covers its terms, the 1890 Act and the 1994 land-grant category.
How did the Smith-Hughes Act impact agriculture?
The Smith-Hughes Act is a different statute and is not covered here. This guide covers only the Smith-Lever Act, which concerns extension work at the colleges.
Why is the farm bill not being passed?
That is a question about current legislative politics, which this page does not cover. What the statute does say is that Smith-Lever appropriations are “such sums as Congress may from time to time determine to be necessary” under 7 U.S.C. 343(a).
Sources
- 7 U.S.C. 341, Cooperative extension work by colleges, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/341, checked 2026-10-29.
- 7 U.S.C. 343, Appropriations and allotment, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/343, checked 2026-10-29.
- USDA NIFA, Smith-Lever Act Capacity Grant, https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/capacity-grants/smith-lever-act-capacity-grant, checked 2026-10-29.
- USDA NIFA, Capacity Grants, https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/capacity-grants, checked 2026-10-29.
