Interim Report

Committee on Defense Research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Institutions

Overview: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Defense Research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Institutions presents interim findings related to the methods and means necessary to advance research capacity at covered institutions to address the national security and defense needs of the United States. While critical data-gathering efforts are still in progress, these interim findings can be used to begin to inform decision making processes related to three key areas of the Statement of Task: current Department of Defense investments, opportunities and challenges at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other Minority Institutions, and potential best practices for stakeholders. The final report with formal research conclusions and recommendations will be issued in 2022.

BACKGROUND

The Department of Defense (DoD) reinforces America’s traditional tools of diplomacy in an environment defined by rapid technological change and challenges from adversaries in every operating domain. In March 2021, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III summarized DoD’s three overarching priorities: defending the nation, including through innovation and modernization; taking care of the people within DoD, including by growing civilian and military talent; and reinforcing teamwork with allies and partners.¹

Achieving these priorities relies on advanced scientific and technological (S&T) capabilities. Moreover, as one of the largest federal S&T funding agencies and employers, DoD

___________________

¹ Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, Message to the Force, March 4, 2021. https://media.defense.gov/2021/Mar/04/2002593656/-1/-1/0/SECRETARY-LLOYD-J-AUSTIN-III-MESSAGE-TO-THE-FORCE.PDF.

plays a critical role in what the National Science Board (NSB) and others refer to as the U.S. S&T ecosystem. To maintain U.S. leadership in the critical years ahead, the NSB has called for an expansion of domestic talent reflective of the increasing diversity of the nation, as well as attracting and retaining global talent.² While DoD draws on the expertise of both U.S. and international researchers to achieve its mission, national security requirements limit many other critical areas of the DoD S&T enterprise to U.S. citizens. This national security imperative calls for DoD to focus on the domestic side of the equation as suggested by the NSB: that is, cultivating and supporting the diverse pool of U.S. talent who can meet DoD needs. Previous studies by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) have documented how Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority Institutions (MIs) can help to access this expanded population of scientists and engineers. The studies have also indicated that that DoD has not made full use of the opportunities offered by HBCUs and other MIs. For example, a 2014 study focusing on Army Research Laboratories (ARL) commended ARL’s programs to support STEM capabilities at HBCUs and other MIs, but found that a lack of written directives, policies, or a strategic plan has limited their potential impact.³ Similarly, a 2019 National Academies report reinforced that minority-serving institutions represent an excellent way to tap into talent because they educate a significant portion of the nation’s S&T students of color, who—as the report title suggests—are an “underutilized resource.”⁴

Congress has also taken note of the need for a diverse workforce in order to meet national security needs, especially in the future. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA) required DoD to “conduct an assessment of critical skillsets required across, and the diversity of, the research and engineering workforce of the Department of Defense.”⁵ As one pathway to ensure development of these skillsets and to “comprehensively address the national

___________________

² National Science Board. 2020. Vision 2030. Report #: NSB-2020-15. https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2020/nsb202015.pdf (accessed July 21, 2021).

³ National Research Council. 2014. Review of Army Research Laboratory Programs for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18963.

⁴ NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2019. Minority Serving Institutions: America's Underutilized Resource for Strengthening the STEM Workforce. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25257.

⁵ Text - S.1790 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. December 20, 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1790/text (accessed July 21, 2021).

security and defense needs of the United States,” the NDAA required the Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with the National Academies to conduct a study of the status of defense research at HBCUs and other MIs. During the first public workshop,⁶ Congressman Anthony Brown, co-sponsor of the legislation, asserted that these institutions are vital to our nation’s security. Noting their outsized results in educating underrepresented minorities in STEM fields and their potentially larger role in achieving DoD objectives, he expressed concern that they carry out a substantially low percentage of DoD-funded research. It is within this context that the current research study was commissioned.

COMMITTEE FORMATION AND PROCESS

In June 2020, in response to the request contained in the NDAA, DoD requested the National Academies form an expert committee on the status of DoD research at HBCUs and other MIs (referred to as HBCU/MIs throughout this report), and the methods and means necessary to advance research capacity at these institutions to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States. The 13 members of the committee currently hold, or recently held, positions in a range of institutions of higher education, uniformed military services, private industry, or the nonprofit education sector. Appendix A provides the committee statement of task and Appendix B identifies the committee members and their affiliations.

To date, the committee has held six meetings and four public workshops to learn more about the current landscape of S&T funding and programs across DoD. Testimonies were collected from representatives within separate Military Departments, Defense Agencies, and programmatic offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as leaders from a range of institutions of higher education on the best practices and challenges in competing for DoD research funding. Throughout the study, the research focus has been on S&T fields relevant to DoD needs (e.g., physical and computer sciences, engineering) and on institutional capacity (rather than, for example, the pathways of individual students). At the time of this interim report, important data gaps remain. In the coming months, the committee will complete further data

___________________

⁶ For a video recording of the workshop, including Congressman Brown’s remarks, see https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/10-05-2020/defense-research-at-historically-black-colleges-and-universities-and-other-minority-serving-institutions-meeting-1.

collection and analysis, receive and discuss the findings from commissioned papers, and, importantly, learn from a series of 12 to 15 focus groups with faculty and administrators working at HBCU/MIs. The findings in this interim report could not take advantage of these critical inputs—which are expected by fall 2021—along with identification of critical knowledge gaps that remain because of limitations in the data. However, as the committee discussed its study’s charge in its closed deliberations, initial findings have emerged related to three key areas of the Statement of Task: Current DoD investments, opportunities and challenges at HBCU/MIs, and potential best practices, which, along with caveats, are presented below.

CONTEXT BEHIND INTERIM FINDINGS

The committee’s final report will delve into greater detail about relevant DoD programs, challenges and opportunities at HBCU/MIs, and potential best practices from a range of agencies and institutions of higher education. A brief overview of these topics is useful to place the interim findings in context.

Department of Defense

In the base year for this study (Fiscal Year [FY] 2020), Congress appropriated approximately $109 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), much of it for the development of crucial emerging technologies.⁷ Historically, the combination of basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development—designated respectively as “6.1,” “6.2,” and “6.3” within the department’s overall research portfolio—is referred to as “Science and Technology” (S&T). In FY 2020, the S&T budget was $16.1 billion, which was about 15 percent of the total RDT&E appropriation. Of that $16.1 billion, $2.6 billion was allocated to basic research (6.1) and $6.1 billion to applied research (6.2)—the two areas (especially basic research) that represent the bulk of research funding available to universities.⁸

___________________

⁷ Sargent, J. 2020. Department of Defense Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E): Appropriations Structure. Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44711 (accessed August 17, 2021).

⁸ Of the remaining amount within S&T, $7.4 billion is designated for Advanced Technology Development, known as 6.3, to fund such areas as advanced component development and prototypes. American Institute of Physics, 2020. Final FY20 Appropriations: DoD Science and Technology. https://www.aip.org/fyi/2020/final-fy20-appropriations-dod-science-and-technology (accessed August 17, 2021).

Thus, with 6.1 research constituting less than 3 percent of the RDT&E annual appropriation, all research universities currently are competing for and undertaking a very small slice of the research vital to the DoD mission. Similarly, in a more recent FY 2022 defense budget request,⁹ President Joe Biden requested approximately $112 billion for RDT&E, from which 13 percent ($14.7 billion) would be allocated for the S&T budget, from which less than 3 percent ($2.3 billion) of the RDT&E appropriation would be allocated for 6.1 basic research.

There are multiple defense agencies, offices, and related organizations with perspectives that can inform the committee’s work. For example, invited presenters at the committee’s workshops—including the Army’s Director of Basic Research, the Chief of Naval Research, the Deputy Director of the Office of Air Force Scientific Research, and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s Manager of Basic Research—articulated the importance of involving a larger pool of institutions in the research they support. They described programs targeted to HBCU/MIs and/or to underrepresented minorities at all U.S. institutions. In addition, representatives from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense highlighted initiatives that include support for nine Centers of Excellence with HBCUs and MIs established through cooperative agreements. Invited University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) leaders described their efforts to involve HBCU/MIs in their activities; however, it was acknowledged that these efforts have not resulted in significant, sustained support for these institutions. Presenters also described outreach efforts such as participation at career fairs (e.g., National Society of Black Engineers, National Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers) and webinars to explain the DoD funding process. Quantifiable outcomes and metrics for these efforts have been solicited in follow-up data requests from the committee.

In addition to DoD’s HBCU/MI-targeted funding opportunities, HBCU/MIs are eligible to apply for any other open funding opportunity for which they meet the minimum criteria. However, early findings suggest that success has been limited as they compete against better-resourced and connected institutions, mostly non-HBCU/MIs. Several stakeholders at the committee’s public workshops commented on a vicious cycle at play: that is, HBCU/MIs have historically been less successful in securing awards for non-targeted DoD research funding

___________________

⁹ Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer. May 2021, RDT&E Programs (R-1). Department of Defense Requested Budget, Fiscal Year 2022. https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2022/FY2022_Budget_Request.pdf (accessed July 21, 2021).

opportunities, and therefore have gained less support to build physical, scientific and administrative infrastructure as compared to non-HBCU/MIs, are thus less competitive in securing DoD grants that would allow them to build such capacity, and thus face challenges when competing for future DoD grants. Framed another way, successful institutions are often those that are able to build upon past successes because of stronger infrastructure, formal and informal connections with grant-makers, long track records of DoD investment and success, recruitment of nationally acclaimed research faculty and top students, and other systemic advantages.

The committee is currently following up with workshop presenters and has engaged with the Institute for Defense Analyses to better understand how S&T funding decisions are made and tracked within DoD. In its research to date, the committee has encountered several difficulties in analyzing DoD investments in research at institutions of higher education. One observed difficulty is that the level of detail in funding data varies in granularity across departments and agencies within DoD. Other data limitations include lack of a complete datasets of targeted versus open-funding success rates by HBCU/MIs, inconsistent delineations across DoD between minority-serving institutions and minority institutions (see below for further clarification of these terms), quantifiable metrics of success from outreach activities, the number of grant applications from HBCU/MIs (for targeted and open funding opportunities) that are submitted versus funded, and the level and utility of feedback on proposals from HBCU/MI applicants that were declined for funding.

With data expected in fall 2021, the committee expects its final report to further delineate how HBCU/MIs fare within the DoD research world. What the committee has learned to date, however, supports Congressman Brown’s statement at the workshop that the positive support articulated verbally by DoD leaders is historically not reflected in significant financial investments.

Institutions of Higher Education with a Focus on HBCU/MIs

Approximately 4,000 post-secondary institutions grant degrees in the United States, encompassing public, nonprofit, and for-profit, and both two- and four-year, institutions.¹⁰ Based on the most recent Carnegie Classifications,¹¹ almost one-third are community colleges and other two-year institutions that offer associates’ degrees as terminal degrees. At the other end of the continuum, 266 institutions are “very high” or “high” (R1 or R2, in Carnegie parlance) doctoral-granting universities that confer at least 20 doctoral degrees annually and have at least $5 million in total research expenditures. Beyond these two categories, the majority of other institutions are those that offer bachelor’s or master’s degrees as their highest degrees offered, are established as special-focus programs, or grant doctorates with a professional (e.g., law or divinity) rather than research focus.

Among the institutions relevant to this study are roughly 400 public and private HBCUs, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and other two- and four-year MIs, as listed in Appendix C. Two points need to be made about this universe of higher education institutions.

First, the NDAA specified the study focus on “minority institutions”, which the NDAA defines as HBCUs and other institutions of higher education with at least 50 percent minority enrollment, as opposed to the more widely known “minority-serving institutions” that are either historically-defined or enrollment-defined with varying threshold requirements for minority enrollments and institutional expenditures.¹² Thus, MIs are a subset within the larger group of MSIs, and research on MSIs cannot necessarily be applied when focusing on MIs. As one example of the distinction, Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) are federally defined by the U.S Department of Education as institutions with 25 percent or more total undergraduate Hispanic full-time-equivalent student enrollment,¹³ and although they are designated as MSIs, certain HSIs may not reach the student enrollment threshold criteria to be categorized as an MI.

___________________

¹⁰ 2019-2020 figure from Digest of Education Statistics (National Center for Education Statistics), Table 317.10, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_317.10.asp?current=yes.

¹¹ See https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu. An updated list of institutions by Carnegie Classification is expected in January 2022, if available for the final report, the committee will draw on these data.

¹² Drawing on relevant legislation, the U.S. Department of Education maintains the list of MSIs, see https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/edlite-minorityinst.html. See also: Text - S.1790 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020." December 20, 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1790/text (accessed August 16, 2021).

¹³ For a full list of qualifications for federal distinctions, see Higher Education Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-325 (1992).

Second, among the 266 doctoral-granting universities delineated through the Carnegie Classification, fewer than 10 percent are HBCU/MIs. Two MIs (University of Texas at El Paso, Florida International University) are designated as R1 institutions, and 19 HBCU/MIs are R2 institutions.¹⁴ Many HBCU and MI leaders have stated their desire to maintain or increase their research activity and gain an R2 designation or move from R2 to R1. Others cannot or do not want to have this research focus, a fact also reflected among the large number of non-HBCU/MIs that are not heavily engaged in research. However, all HBCU/MIs play an important role in preparing STEM students of color for graduate study—whether at the same school, another HBCU/MI, or a non-HBCU/MI—and for the workforce.

Even given their varying sizes and research aspirations, HBCU/MIs offer an opportunity to reach a diverse pool of students interested in STEM fields. They award bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields to U.S. students of color at a high rate relative to the size of their student populations and of their percentage of overall minority enrollment. HBCUs, for example, represent 3 percent of all U.S. institutions and enroll almost 10 percent of African American undergraduates.¹⁵ Yet, according to a recent analysis by the UNCF Patterson Institute, they award 24 percent of all bachelor’s degrees received by African American students in STEM fields.¹⁶ As another indication of strength, among the top 10 schools that sent Black undergraduates on to earn science and engineering doctorates between 2010 and 2019, eight were HBCUs. Among the top 10 schools that sent Hispanic undergraduates on to earn science and engineering doctorates during this same time period, four were MIs, including those in the top three spots.¹⁷

Findings from the 2019 National Academies report pointed to the supportive environments that students find within HBCU/MIs, realized through interaction with faculty,

___________________

¹⁴ R1s include: Florida International University and The University of Texas at El Paso. R2s include: Clark Atlanta University; CUNY City College; Delaware State University; Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University; Hampton University; Howard University; Jackson State University; Morgan State University; New Mexico State University-Main Campus; North Carolina A & T State University; Tennessee State University; Texas A & M University-Corpus Christi; Texas A & M University-Kingsville; Texas Southern University; The University of Texas at San Antonio; The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley; University of California-Merced; University of Maryland Eastern Shore; University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras. See Appendix C.

¹⁵ Saunders, K.M., and B.T. Nagle. 2018. HBCUs Punching Above Their Weight: A State-Level Analysis of Historically Black College and University Enrollment Graduation. Washington, DC: UNCF Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2019 Survey of Earned Doctorates. Special Tabulation (RTI, 2021). Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available upon request.

opportunities for research and internships, and expectations that they can and will reach their full academic potential as reasons for these institutions’ success in educating and training STEM students.¹⁸ The current committee’s commissioned focus groups will elaborate on these previous findings, within the context of DoD research capacity, and offer suggestions to increase yield.

Although HBCUs/MIs have a record of success in training a diverse undergraduate workforce in STEM fields, early analyses by the committee reveal that strikingly low levels of DoD R&D funding have been competitively awarded to these institutions.¹⁹ Evidence suggests that the majority of HBCU/MIs are at a disadvantage compared with research-successful non-HBCU/MIs when competing for DoD-funded research outside of the small percentage of targeted programs. Based on information shared by multiple workshop presenters, administrative capacity (related to proposal marketing, development support, submission, and management, etc.) is a key infrastructure requirement for a university’s readiness to successfully expand its DoD research portfolio. Limitations in administrative capacity have been discerned for some HBCU/MIs, as well as significantly higher teaching loads of faculty at HBCU/MIs compared to those carried by faculty at research-successful non-HBCU/MIs. It has also been evident from the initial data gathered by the committee that different HBCU/MIs have different levels of need (e.g., physical infrastructure, cultivating relationships with DoD personnel and industry, building a culture of research and commercialization, recruiting and retaining faculty). The committee’s current work is seeking to gain a deeper understanding of these complex issues.

In their data collection efforts, the committee is seeking out the promising practices of research-successful HBCU/MIs and non-HBCU/MIs. At one of their public workshops, leaders from institutions (HBCU/MIs and non-HBCU/MIs) shared with the committee their routes along the Carnegie Classification continuum with the ultimate goal of classification as an R1 or R2 research-intensive institution. Their presentations and a review of the literature underscore the importance of strategic leadership in setting forth and working toward a vision, investments in key equipment and computing capabilities, support from state and federal policy makers as an institution grows its research program and supportive infrastructure, and mutually beneficial partnerships with state and federal agencies and industry. On this last point, the committee

___________________

¹⁸ NASEM. 2019. Minority Serving Institutions: America's Underutilized Resource for Strengthening the STEM Workforce. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25257.

¹⁹ The committee is continuing to conduct analyses on these data. Figures will be forthcoming in the final report.

recognizes the value of, but also the multiple meanings assigned to, “partnerships,” from authentic and mutually beneficial relationships (i.e., those with a clear mission, meaningful roles and responsibilities, and equitable distribution of resources through which all parties benefit) to those that are little more than check-off-the-box arrangements. The focus groups planned for late summer and early fall are expected to provide input on partnerships that should be able to inform a committee recommendation on this important topic, including which types of partnerships with other federal agencies may provide useful examples for DoD to consider.

Another consideration underlying the need for the current study is the growing number of international students in U.S. universities, especially in graduate-level fields of interest to DoD, who may have limitations to their participation in DoD-supported programs. Overall, according to the National Center on Education Statistics, the number of international undergraduate and graduate students in science and engineering (those entering the United States on an F-1 visa) rose from about 278,000 in 2012 to 413,000 in 2018, with the largest increases in fields of interest to DoD. For example, in 2017, temporary visa holders earned 57 percent of doctorates in engineering, 56 percent in computer sciences, 49 percent in mathematics and statistics, and 45 percent in physics.²⁰ In 2020-2021, restrictive immigration policies and COVID-19 depressed the number of international students enrolling in U.S. institutions, but many institutions are projecting a rebound to at least pre-pandemic levels, if not larger.²¹

International students attend HBCU/MIs, of course, but seem to have a lesser presence than at many research-intensive non-HBCUs/MIs. The committee is further exploring the trends in international graduate student enrollment and faculty appointment, and the potential impact on DoD-funded research at HBCU/MIs.

Observations from Other Federal Agencies

Other federal agencies have targeted programs that work directly with HBCU/MIs through funding and other support. It may be useful for DoD to consider elements of these

___________________

²⁰ Trapani J. and K. Hale K.2019. International S&E Higher Education. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20197/international-s-e-higher-education (accessed August 16, 2021).

²¹ Redden, E. 2021. A pandemic graduate admission cycle. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/02/18/survey-finds-steep-decline-first-time-international-graduate-enrollments-last-fall.

programs to build its programs. For example, the committee is examining the capacity-building elements within programs at the National Science Foundation; U.S. Department of; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the National Institutes of Health.²²

___________________

²² Example programs include: National Science Foundation’s HBCU-Undergraduate Program; TCU-Undergraduate Program; Computer and Information Science and Engineering Minority-Serving Institutions Research and Expansion Program (CISE-MSI); Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST); and HBCU Research Infrastructure for Science and Engineering (HBCU-RISE). Department of Energy’s Minority Serving Institutions Partnership Program. NASA’s Minority University Research and Education Project. National Institutes of Health’s Innovative Programs to Enhance Research Training (IPERT); Institutional Research, Academic Career Development Award (IRACDA); Maximizing Opportunities for Scientific and Academic Independent Careers (MOSAIC) and the Sponsored Programs Administration Development Program.

Interim Findings on the Methods and Means to Increase DoD-Funded Research Capacity at HBCU/MIs

National Academies committees that are charged with recommendations do so based on evidence-based findings and the expertise of committee members, which are subject to extensive peer review and National Academies’ approval processes. Given that the committee is in its information-gathering stage, in accordance to National Academies guidelines, the committee has not yet developed research conclusions or recommendations. The committee can, however, share the following interim findings:

Department of Defense and Congress

1. Over at least the past four decades, DoD NDAA statutes have encouraged involvement of HBCU/MIs both in targeted and non-targeted funding opportunities. However, with limited set-aside dollars and no requirements or incentives to increase their participation in non-targeted programs, this encouragement has not translated into significant capacity-building or sustained support.
2. Basic research funding (i.e., 6.1 funds from the S&T budget) is currently the most likely source of DoD research funding for HBCU/MIs; however, this pool of money is limited. New funding streams (increases to the S&T budget but also other sources) may be necessary to expand opportunities to HBCU/MIs while also not curtailing fulfillment of other defense priorities.
3. Insufficient data collection and coordination across DoD may hamper internal and external efforts to track progress, identify pitfalls, and evaluate the impact of proposed solutions to support and expand research capacity at HBCU/MIs. Helpful data in this regard include a breakdown of targeted versus open-funding success rates of HBCU/MIs, quantifiable metrics from HBCU/MI outreach activities, the number of grant applications from HBCU/MIs that are submitted versus funded, and the level and utility of feedback on proposals that were declined for funding.

Institutions of Higher Education, with a Focus on HBCU/MIs

4. A longitudinal assessment of the National Center for Education Statistics’ full-time student enrollment data shows an increased representation of international students in STEM research programs in U.S. institutions, particularly at the graduate level and in disciplines of interest to DoD. These trends may impose certain challenges for the DoD research and workforce enterprise due to national security requirements for U.S. citizenship.
5. HBCU/MIs have a long-standing record of graduating U.S. undergraduate students of color in STEM fields, in proportions that are on par or exceed rates at non-HBCU/MIs, and serve as a resource for domestic talent for graduate study and the workforce.

Best Practices and Current Challenges for Institutions, with a Focus on HBCU/MIs

6. Practices identified in institutions of higher education (HBCU/MIs and non-HBCU/MI) transitioning along the Carnegie Classification continuum include strategic institutional leadership, partnerships with state and federal agencies and industry, strategic investments in laboratory facilities and computing equipment, and financial support from state and federal policy makers as an institution grows its research program and supportive infrastructure. State support was important for MIs and for non-MIs that have successfully made the transition to R1 status.
7. Mutually beneficial partnerships may serve as a strategy for HBCU/MIs to build and better utilize their current capacity to conduct DoD-funded research; however, the committee has chosen to delay fuller discussion of their potential as a best practice until additional HBCU/MI perspectives on the benefits and challenges of partnerships are assessed, using data collected from upcoming HBCU/MI focus groups interviews.
8. HBCU/MIs are often at a disadvantage when they compete for open (non-targeted) DoD research opportunities, as compared with non-HBCU/MIs with long-term relationships and a stronger understanding of DoD culture, priorities, and processes. Potential constraints for HBCU/MIs include limited administrative support, laboratory facilities, computing

infrastructure, and resources, support, and incentives to offer existing and potential new faculty (e.g., protected research time, teaching support, research starter funds, competitive salaries). While it is unrealistic that all HBCU/MIs will have a strong interest, or ability, to secure a substantial DoD research portfolio, especially in the short to medium term, evidence suggests that many are already desirable, capable, and/or stand at the cusp of engaging in this area. Additional research is needed to determine the type(s) of DoD investment (e.g., physical resources, education, funding) needed to most effectively strengthen capacity and better position certain HBCU/MIs to compete for open (non-targeted) DoD research.

Programs in Other Federal Agencies

9. Capacity-building programs at other federal agencies may provide useful models for DoD to consider in their development of longer-term, sustainable initiatives for HBCU/MIs. The committee is exploring the potential for the adaptation of elements of these programs to meet DoD needs.

LOOKING AHEAD

The committee is continuing its research and analysis to deepen its understanding on how strengthening HBCU/MIs can comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States, now and in the future. Its final report, to include formal research conclusions and recommendations for DoD, HBCU/MIs, and other stakeholders, will be publicly available in spring 2022.

Appendixes:

A: Statement of Task

B: Committee Roster and Biosketches

C: List of Institutions Considered in This Study

D: Acknowledgment of Reviewers