Summary

Engaging the full breadth of talent in the United States is an important component of growing and sustaining dominance in research and development (R&D) and supporting national security into the future. By 2030, one-fifth of Americans will be above age 65 and at or nearing retirement from the workforce. Estimates of race and ethnic demographic changes between 2016 and 2030 show a decrease in the non-Hispanic white population and an increase in terms of both number and share of all other demographic groups (U.S. Census, 2018), and this trend will continue. These population shifts signal a citizenry and workforce that will be increasingly diverse. For the United States to maintain its global competitiveness and protect its security interests, targeted support is needed to cultivate talent from communities throughout the nation.

The federal government’s investment in R&D supports strengthening the nation’s competitiveness and security. The nation’s more than 800 minority-serving institutions (MSIs) provide an impactful and cost-effective opportunity to focus on cultivating the current and future U.S. population for careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), including in fields critical to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Given the DOD’s interest in biomedical research, this report incorporates medicine when referencing “STEM” disciplines as a component of scientific research.

STUDY CHARGE

In response to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY23 Sec. 233 and the NDAA for FY20 Sec. 220,¹ DOD approached the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) to identify tangible frameworks for increasing the participation of MSIs in defense-related R&D and, where possible, identify the necessary mechanisms for elevating MSIs to R1 status (doctoral universities with very high research activity) on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education scale. To address this charge, the National Academies appointed a committee to do the following:

1. Summarize previous National Academies’ reports on MSIs, including capacity development and engagement in U.S. R&D;
2. Assess the activities and investments necessary to, where possible, elevate additional MSIs to R1 status and increase their participation in defense-related R&D and industries; and
3. Identify goals, incentives, and metrics to measure MSI capacity to address DOD’s needs in engineering, research, and development.

The committee held nine committee meetings and five open sessions in 2023. The open sessions were useful to investigate existing MSI engagement strategies across the DOD branches and R&D programs, as well as learn about opportunities for collaboration and support with University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). The committee also invited speakers from other federal agency programs involved in data collection or addressing the various components of capacity development at emerging research institutions to understand their frameworks and funding structures and elucidate best practices to identify mechanisms that could be adapted for DOD. A representative from the American Council on Education briefed the committee on the forthcoming changes to the Carnegie Classifications to better understand the metrics that will inform the revision.

In addition, the committee conducted three site visits to receive candid feedback and develop an assessment of institutional capacity and

___________________

¹ Text - S.1605 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022. (2021, December 27). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7776/text for FY 2023 and https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ92/PLAW-116publ92.pdf for FY 2020.

opportunities. The site visits represented three targeted institution types: a Historically Black College and University (HBCU), Tribal College and University (TCU), and Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI), respectively Fayetteville State University, Diné College, and California State University at Bakersfield. Recognizing that each school is unique, and these schools do not capture all HBCUs, TCUs, or HSIs, the visits were invaluable to expose committee members to the on-the-ground experiences of leaders, administrators, faculty, and students, as well as to tour facilities and other infrastructure. All three are engaged in research but are below R2 (High Research Activity) on the Carnegie Classification, and one aim of the visits was to identify potential interventions for increasing capacity at diverse and often under-supported institutions. The committee also drew from previous National Academies’ studies and from perspectives shared during the National Academies-led Town Hall series on building defense research capacity (NASEM, 2024).

The committee developed and distributed a Request for Information (RFI) publicly available through the National Academies’ website and other channels. The goals of the RFI were to collect information on how MSIs broadly assess their current research, resources, and capabilities; determine their research aspirations in defense-related research and industries critical to U.S. national security; and learn how they currently engage with DOD.

MSI CONTEXT

The nation’s first MSIs were the HBCUs that trace their origins prior to the Civil War. The decades following the Civil War saw a flourishing of newly established institutions, both public and private, dedicated to the education of the formerly enslaved and their descendants. There are now more than 100 HBCUs.

TCUs were established by individual Native American tribes “to strengthen reservations and tribal culture without assimilation,” starting with Navajo Community College (now Diné College) in 1968. TCU-specific federal funding only began through the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978. And although the original Morrill Act to create land-grant universities was funded through the granting of more than 10 million acres of land expropriated from Native American tribes, Congress did not grant TCUs status as land-grant institutions until 1994. There are now 35 TCUs that operate more than 90 campuses and other sites.

In addition to these two historically defined designations, legislation between 1992 and 2008 established criteria for five categories of enrollment-defined or enrollment-driven MSIs, beginning with HSIs in 1992. As the Latino population increases and more Latino students enroll in 2- and 4-year institutions, the number of HSIs has increased in the past few decades. As of this writing, there are about 600 HSIs, and many others are on the cusp of reaching the federally defined threshold.

There is substantial diversity among MSIs related to mission, size, resources, location, STEM programs, and other characteristics. TCUs, for example, generally are small institutions of several hundred students, and many are geographically remote. Some of the larger HSIs are in urban areas educating tens of thousands of students. Some MSIs are actively working to boost their research portfolio while others see their primary purpose in teaching and service to their communities. Across these differences, they share several characteristics. They provide a strong system of support to students, many of whom are the first in their families to go on to higher education. They educate talent in STEM, social sciences, and humanities in service to the domestic and international agenda of the United States. They represent an underutilized and underappreciated asset in particular in growing the STEM workforce (NASEM, 2019). Yet, they also have in common the reality that on both the federal and state levels, support to MSIs has lagged behind support to non-MSIs since the 19th century and through the present day.

Language in the study charge asked the committee to consider ways to increase the number of MSIs reaching R1 Carnegie status. The committee did so in the context of strengthening research at all institutions who have this aim, both those that may and may not become R1s. As a system for describing large, well-funded academic institutions, the Carnegie Classifications are well situated to provide a cursory assessment of the research capabilities of R1 and R2 institutions. However, the committee felt the Carnegie Classifications have fallen short in providing an assessment of the unique contributions that institutions that fall below the R1/R2 thresholds provide the U.S. R&D ecosystem. R1s account for approximately 4 percent of all U.S. institutions of higher education, which means that the vast majority of U.S. students pursuing undergraduate and postgraduate education do so at a non-R1 institution. Non-R1 institutions include a diversity of schools that serve rural communities, returning learners, Indigenous and African American communities, and other populations that have much to offer DOD. Robust R&D engagement occurs at non-R1s. Thus, while R1 and

R2 designation is important for many institutions, targeting resources to a broader array of MSIs will expand capacity and provide an opportunity to increase the diversity of perspectives engaging throughout the U.S. R&D landscape.

DOD AND OTHER FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR R&D

As noted, the federal government’s investment in R&D strengthens the nation’s competitiveness and security. The study focused on DOD but also looked at research supported by other agencies in service of the national security of the United States. It and other studies (e.g., NASEM, 2019, 2022) point to the competitive advantages of increasing the capacity of HBCUs, TCUs, HSIs, and other MSIs to conduct defense-related research and train the next generation of scientists. Among the advantages are to increase the talent pool of U.S citizens equipped to take on work that requires security clearances and to offer complementary areas of knowledge, innovation, and experience to the existing R&D ecosystem.

In FY 2023, Congress appropriated $144 billion to DOD for a pipeline of activity, known collectively as research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). Within RDT&E, university science and technology (S&T) engagement typically occurs in three parts of the pipeline: Basic Research, Applied Research, and, to a lesser extent, Advanced Technology Development, which had a combined appropriation in FY 2023 of about $22.5 billion. Multiple entities manage these funds. They include the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy; offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense; and defense agencies such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. In addition, through its present set of UARCs and FFRDCs, the DOD has a research network that spans most of the United States. Many UARCs and FFRDCs are located in regions of the country with relatively nearby TCUs, HBCUs, and/or other MSIs. Taking advantage of this relative proximity may be an opportunity for greater engagement by UARCs and FFRDCs with MSIs.

The committee noted that while most defense-related research has focused on STEM, the social sciences, humanities, and other disciplines have been shown to be important in addressing emerging mission needs that range from rapid adoption of autonomy to tackling the integrity of the information environment (NASEM, 2020). Moreover, some emerging challenges, such as those related to environmental and societal impacts of

new technologies, fall into the specific and unique expertise of many MSIs that have not traditionally engaged with the DOD. This recognition offers another avenue for acceleration of MSI participation in defense-related research.

Universities that work successfully with the DOD have developed a unique set of administrative, infrastructure, and process capabilities, along with general awareness of mission needs. Even universities that have a record of funded research with other agencies such as the National Science Foundation often require a different set of resources to engage at scale with the DOD. Working on the DOD research requires relevant research infrastructure, different financial processes (e.g., related to contract rather than grant management), and, in some cases, specialized facilities. Many MSIs do not have the resources to meet these requirements in order to, for example, lessen faculty teaching loads or invest in sponsored program expertise. Overall, the variation across the DOD Request for Proposals/Funding Opportunity Announcement processes can likely contribute to lower submission rates by MSIs without the resources to navigate the system.

The military services and other entities do have programs that are either explicitly designed for MSIs or are particularly conducive to MSI participation. In addition, the locus for MSI engagement within the DOD is the Research and Education Program for Historically Black Colleges & Universities and Minority Institutions (MIs) within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. While the office has made strong contributions, its budget of about $100 million represents only 0.56 percent of the S&T budget.

Defense-related research is sponsored by other federal agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Energy. They also sponsor research and scholarship at HBCUs, HSIs, and TCUs in domains useful to national security concerns. Examples include but are not limited to studies in materials science, microbiology, toxicology, and marine science and oceanography. Deficits in support and engagement of MSIs not only have been relevant to the DOD but also extend to other agencies. The study committee hosted representatives from several agencies and drew on discussions during the Town Hall series to better understand the breadth of interventions used across the federal government. While not exhaustive, agency representatives shared promising examples aimed at increasing the engagement of underinvested institutions, some of which can provide the DOD with potential frameworks to adopt through the development or reconfiguration of its programs.

SETTING A PATH FORWARD FOR ASSESSMENT AND DECISION-MAKING

Previous reports have spotlighted challenges with collecting and utilizing data and operationalizing frameworks that effectively assess and articulate existing capabilities that can serve to benefit the DOD. Historical inequities in decision-making within federal agencies, including the DOD, have engrained a perception of MSIs that perpetuates an R&D landscape that lacks parity in growth opportunities. The committee focused on intervention mechanisms that target institutional planning and practices, decision-making at the DOD, facilities and administration (F&A) recuperation, and data collection on MSI capabilities.

Applying a Resource-Based Assessment to MSIs

In considering approaches to identify the assets that MSIs bring to the DOD, the committee turned to Grant’s Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage, a seminal theory in the field of organizational development (Barney, 1991). It emphasizes the importance of an organization’s internal resources and capabilities to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, and it posits that an organization’s long-term success is grounded in its use of internal resources to contribute to higher productivity (Holdford, 2018).

Applying the five elements of contextual significance in Grant’s Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage may be useful to consider what different MSIs can offer to the defense research ecosystem. First is resource heterogeneity, in that organizations possess different types of resources and capabilities that lead to performance variations, as noted previously. Second is resource immobility, in which institutions have resources and organizational capabilities that may be difficult for competitors to obtain or replicate. The social complexities that contribute to the factors and characteristics of MSIs are part of that immobility. Third is the role of a value, rarity, inimitability, and organization (VRIO) framework. Through this framework, organizations can assess their resources and capabilities to determine their sustained competitive advantage that could result in increased R&D or cooperative agreement funding acquisition. What is most critical to this assessment framing is that an organization’s rare and unreplicable resources must be organized to provide a sustainable advantage, thus implying the needs for internal systems. Fourth is the dynamic capabilities of an

organization. Not only do organizations need to possess valuable resources, but they also need the ability to adapt, reconfigure, or renew their resource base in response to changing market conditions or competitive pressures. For MSIs this includes being able to adapt academic programming or offerings, reconfigure infrastructural operations for R&D, and be dynamic enough to respond to changes in emerging or shifting science and engineering fields. Fifth is the role of strategic implications. This concept emphasizes the need for an organization to focus internally on developing and leveraging its unique strengths rather than chasing external opportunities.

Addressing Potential Biases in Award Decision-Making

Efficient decision-making is an absolute necessity as it impacts an organization’s ability to make choices that have the most impactful outcomes. This is particularly true in the context of the DOD. Warfighters engaged in battle must make split-second decisions to survive. A challenge for the DOD is that fast decision-making on the battlefield does not necessarily translate to the slow progression of thinking that happens in the research enterprise. The DOD program managers (PMs) must support and give institutions that are newer to its research ecosystem the time and opportunity to build a resilient infrastructure. Many non-MSIs have engaged with the DOD for decades—as is well documented—but resources at U.S. universities are unequally distributed. The top 30 institutions in R&D expenditures represent less than 3 percent of all institutions of higher education yet account for about 42 percent of the total spent on R&D expenditures (NSF, 2023).

The autonomy of PMs that allows for heuristics-based decision-making could be one causal factor that over time has led to this unequal distribution of resources. It is simply more expedient, and may seem less risky, to invest in the universities that are known performers than to seek out “startups” (i.e., universities newer to the research game). PMs could be incentivized to create diverse funding portfolios that include both the known performers (R1 universities) and the “startups” (non-R1 universities), or this could be a factor in their performance assessments. While these startups may come with greater risk, the opportunity for greater return on investment is also present. That said, when PMs add these startup universities to their portfolio, they need to acknowledge the challenges that can come with the execution of the research at the university, while recognizing the value-add in the expertise and perspective of the institution that is part of the portfolio. The PM must support and give the startup time and opportunity to build

a resilient infrastructure. In addition, by having a diverse portfolio, natural mentor-mentee relationships can develop between established and startup universities to give PMs an effective yield on their investments.

Addressing Inequities in F&A Rates

The committee reviewed F&A rates, often called indirect costs (IDC), and their impact on research infrastructure growth. F&A rates are calculated based on the indirect expenditure infrastructure and support services costs incurred by an institution’s direct costs. These expenditure costs are grouped into various categories, such as depreciation, utilities, libraries, and administrative expenses. When identifying F&A rates for an institution, several bases can be used, including calculating an F&A rate based on an institution’s Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC); salaries, wages, and fringe benefits; or just salaries and wages. The difference between negotiating an F&A rate based on MTDC versus salaries, wages, and fringe benefits, or just salaries and wages, lies in the cost base used to calculate and apply the F&A rate.

MTDC is the most common base used for calculating and applying F&A rates. It includes all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). Notably, the MTDC rate is only available to institutions with over $10 million in yearly research expenditures. Thus, this threshold excludes many HBCUs, TCUs, and HSIs that are not R1 institutions. Alternatively, institutions may negotiate an F&A rate based on a cost base that includes only salaries, wages, and fringe benefits, or solely salaries and wages excluding fringe benefits. These F&A calculation methods result in a lower F&A calculation than MTDC, resulting in lower F&A reimbursements.

The resultant lower F&A reimbursements mean that MSIs have fewer resources to invest in building and maintaining research infrastructure, hiring administrative staff, and providing support services for researchers. With federal research funding skewing toward R1 institutions, and consequently MSIs receiving a disproportionately small share of research grants, MSIs struggle to build the necessary physical and administrative infrastructure to compete effectively for grants, creating a cyclical environment of underinvestment that leads to stagnated research infrastructure growth. To rectify this self-perpetuating cycle in which MSIs struggle to compete for research funding, limiting their ability to grow their research programs and negotiate

higher F&A rates, a multipronged strategy that evaluates current F&A rate negotiation policies and identifies revisions and support necessary for more equitable forward-looking IDC reimbursements must be explored.

Increasing Data Collection on MSI Capabilities

The National Academies’ study Defense Research Capacity at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Institutions (NASEM, 2022) discussed the need for more data to adequately assess and monitor ongoing efforts to build research capacity and increase the DOD research dollars going to HBCUs, TCUs, and HSIs. This current study aimed to address a principal conclusion from the 2022 report: “There is insufficient data collection, inter-departmental program coordination, long-term records, and a lack of quantitative evaluations to appropriately assess” (NASEM, 2022).

The 2022 report comprehensively documented a number of data sources. One exciting departure articulated here is to initiate an effort to gather data directly from the DOD. Constructing this dataset can help in directly confronting the biases and limitations identified in the current data sources, paving the way for a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of the situation. This represents a significant step forward in the ability to measure and evaluate progress. The proposed tool would be useful as the DOD continues its efforts to build research capacity and increase the DOD research dollars going to HBCUs, HSIs, TCUs, and other MSIs. Outputs can include datasets based on queries or visual graphics such as a heat map to help decision-makers easily visualize outcomes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Several barriers have been elucidated in this and prior studies that impact the ability of MSIs to engage meaningfully in federal R&D. These barriers often reflect the lack of resources necessary to adequately support research-engaged faculty and trainees, and facilitate ways to increase coordination of the existing research capabilities of MSIs toward equitable research partnerships that can address defense-related R&D needs. The committee explored these barriers and developed recommendations that the DOD and MSIs can implement to support the growth of research-engaged faculty and trainees and to ensure that MSIs maintain existing missions.

RECOMMENDATION 2-1: The systemic underinvestment in R&D capacity at MSIs, particularly in their infrastructure at the state and federal levels, is a pressing issue. To capture the full potential of MSIs, it is imperative that the DOD, with congressional support, introduce mechanisms for dedicated funding for non-R1 MSIs to foster research infrastructure growth including funding facilities and equipment. Potential forms of support could include the following:

• Providing direct support for investment in facilities and equipment to increase R&D relevant to national needs for MSIs such as TCUs, which span multiple states, and private HBCUs, which receive less state support than their public counterparts.
• Providing matching funds for states to invest in research infrastructure growth at MSIs seeking to increase their research infrastructure. These matching funds will incentivize state and local governments that have fallen short of authorizations, which has led to systemic and inequitable underinvestment in MSIs.

RECOMMENDATION 3-1: For MSIs to contribute more fully to defense-related research, research capacity and talent must be developed and strengthened. This is a unique strategic opportunity for the DOD and national security. Many MSIs (in particular TCUs) embody distinctive perspectives and so have the potential to make completely unique research contributions in areas such as addressing agricultural systems that are resilient in drought conditions. These distinctive ways of thinking, problem-solving, and social organization should be of interest to both the DOD and the broader scientific community. Investing in investigators at non-R1 MSIs will not only increase the defense-related research capacity base nationally, but also deepen and diversify the available investigators that can support and advance the Department’s R&D needs.

• To partially engage this opportunity, the DOD, with support from Congress, should develop and administer a DOD MSI Investigator Award for very capable scholars at HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs. This new program should be modeled after existing department programs such as the DARPA Young Faculty Award, Air Force Young Investigator Program, and ONR Young Investigator Program. In the implementation of DOD MSI Investigator awards, the following factors should be included:

• Up to 100 awards made per year across the Department’s branches (Air Force, Navy, Army, etc.).
• Tracking of the number of awards made to each institution type to guide evaluation, outreach, and programmatic planning.
• An average of $150,000 per grant per year over a 5-year grant period with the option to renew. This sustained funding will include funding that enables each DOD MSI Investigator to establish a research lab at their institution, pursue topics relevant to the DOD’s R&D needs, and serve as a focal point for increased engagement for defense-related research.
• Cohorts of investigators should be convened in-person on an annual basis to discuss successes, roadblocks, and recommendations to refine and reshape this program based on the unique and not-well-understood challenges and opportunities at their sites with the identification appropriate metrics for evaluation.
• The focus should be on faculty at HBCUs, TCUs, and non-R1 MSIs with award recipients providing 51 percent of their effort to the funded research project during the duration of the award. The National Institutes of Health PIONEER award and Howard Hughes Medical Institute Program may serve as models for an agency-wide program that supports promising scientists across career stages in addressing high-risk/high-reward issues relevant to the DOD’s mission.
• The DOD should avoid the use of ‘tenure track” designated faculty as a criterion. The use of “tenure track” appointments creates a barrier for engagement for smaller institutions such as TCUs. As a result, any program focused on developing researchers at non-R1 MSIs that use “tenure track” as an eligibility criterion would preclude both their engagement from these institutions and the DOD from broadening its potential researcher base.
• Review criteria and processes should be developed with an advisory council that includes researchers and research administrators from MSIs and institutions with historical engagement with the DOD.

RECOMMENDATION 3-2: To support the existing missions of MSIs to educate and provide support for investigator release time, the DOD should develop a postdoctoral fellowship program for MSIs geared

toward doctoral recipients with specialized expertise in defense-related research areas, broad disciplinary understanding, and interest in developing instructional skills. Funding that provides relief for course and research support at MSIs will help incentivize institutions where teaching loads prohibit significant engagement in research. It can also help support the careers of postdocs pursuing experience as faculty. The DOD should incorporate the following into the program:

• Recipients can allot 50 percent of their time as a research associate within the lab of a faculty member conducting defense-related research and 50 percent of their time to teach courses typically covered by the investigator.
• The duration of the fellowship should correspond with the length of a typical research grant to ensure continuity in course coverage. It should be affixed to non-R1 primary teaching institutions and DOD-relevant MSI funding mechanisms.
• A matching mechanism that connects prospective fellows with MSI faculty should facilitate awarded fellows’ identification of a supervising investigator.
• A postdoctoral mentoring plan should be included. Mentoring plans should be standardized to ensure continuity in support for fellows, and mentors should receive training on mentorship.

RECOMMENDATION 3-3: Inter-institutional collaborations among MSIs are an underutilized strategy to leverage unique perspectives, skills, and abilities to further the DOD research objectives. Frequently, no single institution possesses the necessary breadth of talent to broadly serve the DOD’s research needs. Furthermore, under-resourced administrative staff often disincentivize MSI collaborations, especially when a well-resourced Primarily White Institutions R1 is poised to take the lead. To increase capacity development and engagement, the DOD should develop a funding program to support the creation of research consortia with an HBCU, TCU, HSI or other non-R1 MSI lead. The research consortia would focus on a clear area or project and include scholars from three or more MSIs. The committee is aware of the Research Institute for Tactical Autonomy, led by Howard University, an HBCU, and recommends that additional consortia be developed to address research projects of critical need to the DOD to facilitate the engagement of more MSIs. In the implementation of this funding program, the following factors should be included:

• Support for developing consortia that fund R&D.
• Funding for at least 5 years for each consortium to support planning, execution, and evaluation activities.
• Support for consortia that exhibit intentional and equitable collaboration and mutually beneficial partnerships through strategies, including at least 6 months of pre-award communication, partnership agreements, and/or articulated resource and personnel sharing frameworks.
• Planning grants for prospective consortia to develop full proposals.
• Supplements for institutional mentorship between MSIs and known performers to assist with the consortia’s planning and implementation.

RECOMMENDATION 3-4: An under-resourced administrative infrastructure to secure, manage, and coordinate grants, contracts, and other opportunities is a significant barrier to engagement in the DOD and other federal agency opportunities. To increase the ability of under-resourced MSIs to adequately and effectively participate in opportunities, the DOD, with congressional support, should develop a funding program to develop administrative hubs. The administrative hubs would allow MSIs the option to coordinate through a professional organization that possesses the administrative expertise and resources necessary to support grant and contract acquisition and management (pre- and post-award). The hubs could also coordinate faculty and student participation in DOD opportunities, and communicate the current and evolving capabilities of member institutions. Additionally, these hubs would be used by three or more non-R1 MSIs that are regionally located or geographically close to facilitate coordination and mutual use and complications due to differences in administrative policies, complexities and protocols need to be built into use agreements. In the implementation of this program, the following factors should be included:

• Funding for at least 5 years to launch each hub and facilitate planning, execution, and evaluation.
• Support for lead organizations with clearly articulated missions relevant to MSIs who exhibit intentional development through strategies, such as the following:
  • Referencing at least 6 months of pre-award communication,
  • Partnership agreements with participating institutions,
  • An administrative capability track record, and

• Clearly defined sustainability plans that demonstrate maintenance and long-term administrative support for participating institutions post-award.
• Planning grants for prospective hubs to develop full proposals.

To better coordinate this engagement DOD-wide and track and increase success toward more engagement, the committee proposes several strategies for evaluation and coordination that provide interagency coordination and sharing of best practices. A significant impediment to engagement with DOD R&D is a lack of awareness of the diversity of R&D supported by the Department. When exploring the DOD’s Critical Technology Areas (CTAs) and dissecting the components of each CTA, the committee found that most MSIs possess academic programs equivalent to one or more of the CTAs. To better engage with DOD R&D, the Department, Congress, and MSIs must conduct a thorough evaluation that matches current programs at MSIs to the basic and applied components of the CTAs. Exploring these areas through internal and external engagement pathways could leverage existing infrastructure, increase the efficacy of outreach activities, and identify a more comprehensive view of R&D that is inclusive across disciplines to increase engagement and advance the DOD’s research and workforce needs.

RECOMMENDATION 4-1: Engaging the breadth of research disciplines relevant to national security is necessary to fully explore opportunities and increase MSIs’ engagement in defense-related R&D. Congress should create programs that increase the utilization of the full breadth of the DOD’s research in non-engineering disciplines.

• The DOD should further develop its research capacity by including and expanding funding to support the social sciences in its calls for proposals, focusing on the unique perspective MSIs bring to these fields. HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs can provide rich contributions in the social sciences and other non-engineering-focused disciplines that are critical to DOD research.

RECOMMENDATION 4-2: Beginning in FY2026,² the DOD Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should collect and

___________________

² This text was updated after release of the report to the study sponsor to reflect the fiscal year for the DOD to implement changes.

publish data annually that measure the efficacy of existing outreach programs targeting MSIs, and share lessons learned with DOD agencies to accelerate the dissemination of best practices.

• This report should include a longitudinal analysis to provide evidence of successful engagement and impact. Potential metrics should include the following:
  • Number of MSIs engaged quarterly,
  • Data on personnel interacted with (investigators, administrators, students),
  • Institution type,
  • Hours and type of engagement,
  • Number of applications received and time to successful award, and
  • Measurement of research infrastructure growth among awardees (instrumentation, research-engaged faculty, administration support, etc.).
• Metrics collected should be used to set a baseline for improvement of how the DOD engages with MSIs. They should be assessed annually to direct resources and engagement activities toward increased participation in DOD R&D.
• The DOD Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should administer new outreach programs that do the following:
  • Create and deploy a DOD liaison to HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs to translate the DOD’s interests to the university and university capabilities and interests to the DOD.
  • Place scientists and engineers from local military labs at MSIs to teach STEM courses and provide course load relief for investigators pursuing and conducting defense-related research, as referenced in Chapter 3. A potential framework could be the use of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program.³
  • The DOD Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should expand existing outreach programs so that HBCU, TCU, and MSI employees are eligible for sabbaticals to gain R&D experience with DOD acquisition and operations organizations.

___________________

³ For more information, see https://www.doi.gov/pmb/hr/ipa-mobility-program.

These new outreach programs will allow for increased awareness and provide teaching load relief to HBCU, TCU, and MSI faculty conducting DOD R&D. In doing so, however, DOD’s HBCU/MI programs should address institutions’ unique contexts and needs rather than group HBCU, TCU, HSI, and other MSI engagements. A one-size-fits-all approach decreases the successful engagement of MSIs, given the diversity of needs, challenges, engagement, and opportunities within and across MSIs. To plan and implement more granular interventions, the DOD should undertake robust comment periods, listening sessions, and dialogue with institutions and their supporting communities to develop engagement frameworks tailored to each MSI type to increase the Department’s success in its engagement with MSIs and relationship development activities. This approach is both in the strategic interest of the DOD and helps support global competitiveness, national security, and historic disparities.

RECOMMENDATION 4-3: The DOD should allocate resources to assess the potential for regional connectivity and partnerships between existing DOD labs, UARCs, and FFRDCs, and local or regional HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs. This assessment should include collecting metrics on existing and potential research collaborations between these entities.

• Based on this assessment described above, the DOD should provide guidance to DOD labs, UARCs, and FFRDCs about how to support and expand collaborative R&D with MSIs within proximity or sharing similar research foci.
• The DOD should develop a pilot funding opportunity that allows MSI investigators to develop research projects with investigators at DOD labs, UARCs, and FFRDCs. Awards should include MSI investigators as lead investigators, co-investigators, or lead contractors.

RECOMMENDATION 4-4: The DOD Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should create programs for evaluating and assessing MSI institutional capacity building. Specifically, this would include a program that supports the development of a “lessons learned” report on building, operating, and maintaining lab infrastructure to conduct unclassified R&D at MSIs. Special considerations should also be given to the unique ability of many MSIs, such as TCUs, to conduct

classified research and to the strategic advantage of geographic locations like institutions that are remote. These additional funds should be aimed at understanding and communicating information relevant to long-term capacity building at MSIs. Information that could be examined in such a report might include best practices for the following:

• Standardizing and accelerating institutional R&D capability with a focus on physical plant and equipment investments;
• Increasing the institutional success rate;
• Identifying strategies for developing partnerships with non-R1 MSIs; and
• Identifying approaches by institution type (HBCU, TCU, nonR1 MSI), highest degree offered, level of research engagement, and geography.

RECOMMENDATION 5-1: MSIs that seek to increase their R&D footprint, elevate across Carnegie Classifications, and/or improve the rate at which they secure funding should develop an internal strategic plan that advances their R&D goals and clearly articulates their unique value. Such plans could include the following elements:

• Principles of the Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage.
• An institutional SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis or other strategic analysis to identify specific areas of the DOD’s interest in which its capabilities could have outsized impact.
• A 10-year roadmap to guide and prioritize internal investments and engagement with relevant DOD sponsors. Investments could include infrastructure, instrumentation, personnel, curriculum, and/or services.
• For institutions with demonstrated need, the DOD and other federal agencies should provide grants for institutional assessment and strategic planning toward increased research engagement and capacity building.

RECOMMENDATION 5-2: The DOD should intentionally engage MSIs as part of its R&D portfolio to competitively seek the broadest range of ideas and innovators possible. Increasing the diversity of institutions and researchers actively engaged in the DOD’s research ecosystem will support increased global competition, undergird national

security, and increase innovations that protect the warfighter. In implementing this increased engagement, the following factors should be included:

• Metrics on the number of current and new grant awards and contracting programs to institutions of higher education, with coding to identify MSIs by type, on an annual basis beginning in FY2026. Data should also capture dollar amounts for each award to establish a baseline for growth that dates back to FY2011.
• A tangible goal, set annually by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, for growing the awards and contracts granted to MSIs as the lead applicants for funding opportunities for each program.
• An assessment by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering of MSI success rates and program performer diversity at the end of each fiscal year. This metric can address the DOD’s needs by capturing MSI engagement and project relevance to the Department’s mission as data for goal-setting in subsequent fiscal years.
• The introduction of training on best practices and implicit bias. The incorporation of best practices and training to address implicit bias in the grant-making process will equip PMs with tools to ensure assessments of institutions and funding decisions are devoid of any implicit biases that may impact proposals from previously under engaged institutions.

RECOMMENDATION 5-3: To support the growth and development of research programs at MSIs, Congress should provide dedicated funding to help HBCUs, TCUs, and non-R1 HSIs build and maintain state-of-the-art research facilities and equipment. This investment will enable MSIs to compete more effectively for research grants. An example of a program that can be adapted is the 1890 Facilities Grant Program. A similar funding mechanism will provide support for the development and improvement of facilities, equipment, and libraries necessary to conduct defense-related research.

• Congress should also evaluate the effectiveness of the existing F&A de minimis rate⁴ and set a de minimis rate that does the following:

___________________

⁴ The de minimis IDC rate is 10 percent of an organization’s MTDC: 2 CFR 200.414.

• Allows for institutions seeking to increase R&D activity to receive a more adequate reimbursement for engagement in federally funded R&D.
• Is higher for smaller institutions to support increased engagement in federally funded R&D.
• Additionally, federal agencies should implement an F&A Cost Rate Support Project to provide ongoing technical assistance and support to MSIs in developing and negotiating their F&A rates. The basis of F&A rates for MSIs should be different than for other institutions because institutions with historic investments by states and the federal government benefit from the current structure while MSIs continue to suffer current inequities that are a direct consequence of prior investment disparities in research-focused facilities, equipment, and infrastructure. This will help ensure these historically disadvantaged institutions receive more appropriate F&A reimbursements for their research activities and increase their ability to contribute to U.S. R&D, global competition, and national security.

A PLAN FOR INCREASED ENGAGEMENT IN DOD R&D

The study committee’s charge was to conduct an assessment of the activities necessary to increase the engagement of MSIs in defense-related research, where possible elevate to R1 status, and identify strategies for tracking and increasing the capacity of MSIs to address the R&D needs of the DOD. The committee recognizes these efforts take time and resources on the part of the DOD and institutions. However, when collected and used, the recommendations can help the DOD more effectively assess its current and ongoing impact and better plan its future interventions. To better understand how MSIs can increase their capacity for R&D, it is essential to identify and address the barriers that have historically impacted their engagement. Many MSIs were developed as teaching institutions, providing the only opportunity for members of the communities they serve to receive an education. Those missions have persisted through times of underfunding and historic marginalization. Regardless of the underinvestment and historic missions, MSIs have continued to grow the breadth and scope of their academic offerings and research capacity. Furthermore, HBCUs, TCUs, HSIs, and other MSIs provide a diversity of perspectives that will support innovation and advancements that will improve the

nation’s competitiveness and national security. To facilitate this innovation and engage these institutions fully, Congress, the DOD, and other federal agencies must address existing barriers, explore unique strategies, and develop frameworks that allow MSIs to grow their capabilities and retain their uniqueness with intentionality that supports the assets that they have always possessed.

REFERENCES

This page intentionally left blank.