2

Government Engagement with Minority-Serving Institutions: History and Common Themes from Previous Reports

In the early years of the United States, federal and state governments did not play a large role in education. Most Americans left school after Grade 8, if they were fortunate to go that far. An even smaller percentage of the population attended college: about 1 percent of the population in 1869-1870 (the first year for which data are available) and almost exclusively white Protestant men (NCES, 1993). With a few exceptions, the nation’s first institutions of higher education (IHEs) were established by religious and private organizations. In 1839, the first public “normal school” to prepare teachers opened in Massachusetts.

The U.S. government first became significantly involved in higher education in 1862 with the passage of what is now called the First Morrill Act.¹ It provided federal funding to states to establish land-grant colleges focused on agricultural and mechanical subjects and included exploring military tactics, all topics of importance to the Department of Defense (DOD). Five years later, in 1867, a federal office of education was established, originally within the Department of the Interior and staffed by a commissioner and three clerks (NCES, 1993). After World War II, as articulated in Science—the Endless Frontier (Bush, 1945), the federal government began to invest heavily in science and technology (S&T), both within agencies but especially through support of academic research. While industry funds a higher

___________________

¹ U.S. Congress. Act of July 2, 1862. First Morrill Act. Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1996. General Records of the United States Government. National Archives.

amount of research than other sectors, it is mostly in the area of experimental development. Through investments in basic and applied research, the federal government funds about 52 percent of research and development (R&D) performed by higher education institutions (NSF, 2024).

Recognizing the large role that the government plays in the higher education landscape, numerous studies by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) have looked at government engagement with minority-serving institutions (MSIs). This chapter highlights aspects of that history relevant to the committee’s statement of task and summarizes common themes and gaps across previous National Academies’ studies.

HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT ENGAGEMENT

Government Designations of MSIs

The first MSIs were the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) that trace their origins prior to the Civil War. Among these are Cheney University and Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, established by private philanthropy respectively in 1837 and 1854. Wilberforce University in Ohio was similarly founded in 1857. 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.

Through the First Morrill Act of 1862, Congress bestowed “land-grant” status to one educational institution per state “to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts.”² The new institutions extended higher education to thousands of farmers and other working people, but states could (and did) set their own exclusionary policies as to who could enroll. The Second Morrill Act of 1890 required each state either to admit students without regard to race or to establish a separate land-grand institution for students of color.³ Rather than admit African American students into their existing institutions, 18 southern states created a second set of land-grant universities, sometimes known as the “1890 Schools.” These and other institutions were defined as HBCUs

___________________

² U.S. Congress. Act of July 2, 1862. First Morrill Act. Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1996. General Records of the United States Government. National Archives.

³ U.S. Congress. Act of August 30, 1890. Second Morrill Act. Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1996. General Records of the United States Government. National Archives.

by the Higher Education Act of 1965: “any historically black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans.”⁴ There are now 107 HBCUs.

Tribal Colleges and Universities (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 (AIHEC, 1999). And although the original Morrill Act 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, through the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994. There are now more than 30 TCUs.

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:

1. Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), established through the Higher Education Act of 1992, are institutions with 25 percent or more total undergraduate full-time-equivalent student enrollment of Hispanic students.
2. Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), established through the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, have at least 10 percent enrollment of Asian American or Pacific Islander students.
3. Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, established through the Higher Education Act of 1998, have at least 20 percent Alaska Native students or 10 percent Native Hawaiian students.
4. Predominantly Black Institutions, established through the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, are institutions that are not HBCUs but (1) have at least 1,000 students; (2) have at least 50 percent low-income first-generation-to-college, degree-seeking undergraduate enrollment; (3) have low per-full-time undergraduate expenditure in comparison with other institutions offering similar students; and (4) enroll at least 40 percent African American students.

___________________

⁴ Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-329, Title III, Section 322(2), 79 Stat. 1219 (1965).

5. Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions, also established through the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, are institutions that are not TCUs but have at least 10 percent Native American students.

Because enrollment percentages, expenditures, and other variables can change over time, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education maintains a list of these MSIs. Institutions can have more than one designation (e.g., based on enrollment numbers, an institution can be both an HSI and AANAPISI). It is also noteworthy that changes in overall demographics can move an institution into an enrollment-defined designation, with universities in Texas, California, and Arizona, where Latinx populations have increased in recent years, as examples.

Today, there are over 500 HSIs across the United States, ranging from community colleges to comprehensive universities. HSIs represent 60 percent of all MSIs (Collins et al., 2017).

Funding Disparities from the Start

On both the federal and state levels, support to MSIs has lagged support to non-MSIs since the 19th century. For example, early federal legislation to support research (Hatch Act of 1887) and extension (Smith-Lever Act of 1914) at land-grant institutions did not extend to the HBCUs that were established under the Second Morrill Act.⁵ It took until 1977 (for research) and 1997 (for extension) to guarantee funding similar to the initial 1862 institutions (Lee and Keys, 2013). Even then, states could apply for waivers to avoid matching federal funds for the 1890 schools, something they were prohibited to do for the 1862 schools. As a result, non-MSI land-grant universities often received greater than the required matching funds from the states, while the 1890s schools fell short. Only recently has the federal government begun holding states accountable for underfunding their public HBCUs (Hunt Institute, 2022) and, in some instances, depriving land-grant HBCUs of their fair allocation of resources designated for the states’ land-grant institutions. In FY 2020, 12 of the 19 schools received a full nonfederal match (Congressional Research Service, 2021), but this does not

___________________

⁵ U.S. Congress. Act of August 30, 1890. Second Morrill Act. Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1996. General Records of the United States Government. National Archives.

make up for years of underfunding. In September 2023, the U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture and Education reported a $12 billion disparity in funding between HBCU and non-HBCU land-grant institutions in 16 states in the past 30 years alone (U.S. Department of Education, 2023). It should be noted that the private HBCUs receive little, if any, state funding.

The history of federal funding of TCUs is more inequitable than HBCUs. Through the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978, the federal government committed to provide TCUs with $8,000 per year per each enrolled Native American student; however, in FY 2015, funds only equaled $6,355 per Native American student (Nelson and Frye, 2016). TCUs are more reliant on federal funding than other public institutions because in most instances, they receive no state tax financial support and are unable or reluctant to levy taxes on their own generally high-poverty populations (Stull et al., 2015). A study of the funding of TCUs using academic year 2013-2014 data showed dramatically different funding between 4-year TCUs and 4-year public, non-TCU institutions (Nelson and Frye, 2016):

• The average TCU received 73.7 percent of its funding from the federal government in the form of direct federal appropriations, grants, and contracts. By contrast, public, 4-year, non-TCUs received just 18.7 percent of their funding from federal sources.
• State appropriations, grants, and contracts were virtually nonexistent for TCUs, but provided 33.8 percent of public, non-TCU funding. Only two states (North Dakota and Arizona) allocated funding to TCUs to help support the costs of enrolling both Native and non-Native students.

TCUs receive about 9 percent of their revenues from student tuition and fees, as compared to 37.7 percent for non-TCUs. Moreover, TCU tuition and fees are below the national average, and most provide significant tuition and waivers to meet the financial constraints of their students.

HSIs represent the largest percentage of MSIs, and the number is anticipated to increase in alignment with the national demographic trends reported by the U.S. Census. While HSIs are often celebrated for their commitment to undergraduate education, their research capacity and contributions to the national research ecosystem are less explored and understood. As examined more fully in Chapter 3, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics data indicate very disparate funding portfolios. A

small number (about 3.5 percent of the total) receive 79 percent of federal S&T dollars awarded to High Hispanic Enrollment institutions.

Finding:

• On both the federal and state levels, support to MSIs has lagged behind support to non-MSIs since the 19th century.

THEMES AND GAPS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES

The committee’s statement of task requested that it refer to previous National Academies’ reports that assessed the current and potential capabilities of MSIs to participate in defense-related engineering and R&D activities. While not an exhaustive search, the focus was to identify common themes and point to gaps that the current study could address. The committee reviewed reports that studied minority participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) generally, as well as those focused on the DOD (Box 2-1).

Previous reports have explored themes of challenges and opportunities that persist across MSIs and the communities they serve as efforts are made to increase their STEM footprints. The themes presented here center on the roles that institutions and federal agencies can play toward increased minority engagement in federal R&D. Investigations have highlighted capacity-related challenges within institutions to not only engage in research but also administer grants and make changes related to leadership, the professoriate, and pedagogy. Previous reports have also highlighted the need for federal agencies to provide targeted funding to support MSI infrastructure needs, the development of programs that impact workforce development through support for faculty and students at MSIs, and the creation of mechanisms that support collaborations across MSIs and incentivize increased R&D interactions with larger well-sourced academic institutions such as R1s through more equitable partnerships.

Theme I: Internal Interventions for Better Engagement with Federal R&D

Previous reports identified that a significant factor in how an institution engages with the federal R&D enterprise, defense-related or otherwise, hinges on its ability to develop internal structures that provide an environment for research personnel’s success. Strong, forward-looking

leadership with comprehensive strategic planning and the subsequent implementation of those plans can allow institutions to develop nimble systems that can adapt to developing national research priorities and needs. According to several studies, adequate strategic planning should focus on efficient resource allocation to support existing infrastructure. The administration at MSIs interested in expanding DOD research should prioritize investments in internal infrastructure relevant to key areas of STEM across government and industry to ensure that institutional priorities closely align with funding and workforce needs. Moreover, institutions with

aspirations to increase their research capabilities should work to modernize processes to increase their productivity through the incorporation of new technologies and management practices and adoption of best practices for operational efficiency. In some instances, outsourcing, centralizing, or sharing research support and resources could increase capacity across multiple MSIs (National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, 2009, 2012; National Research Council, 2012; NASEM, 2019). Chapter 5 explores a strategic planning methodology that MSIs can explore using an assessment of existing assets.

Academic institutions seeking to develop a more effective and engaged R&D ecosystem must tackle faculty recruitment, retention, and development to sustain their strategic efforts, these studies recommend. Necessary faculty support mechanisms for MSIs are wide-ranging, requiring interventions that address the institution’s mission and the needs of the faculty. To recruit research-capable faculty, institutions must develop competitive compensation and startup funds commensurate with the compensation provided at larger institutions within their vicinity. MSIs must also administer policies that address barriers to engaging in research, such as prohibitive teaching loads that require faculty at MSIs to teach three to five classes per semester. Finally, enhancing faculty development through the introduction of development programs and research-engaged sabbaticals will support skill development and help foster leadership in research. Formalized mentoring will ensure that the environment at a given institution supports the success of industrious research-capable faculty populations (National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, 2009; NASEM, 2019, 2022).

Developing a strong culture of administrative leadership and research-engaged faculty will support the development of the next generation, ensuring that students at MSIs can successfully pursue careers and advanced degrees in STEM relevant to federal R&D priorities. Many MSIs are 2-year degree-granting institutions; introducing and broadening existing articulation pathways among MSIs and across IHEs will assist in the lifetime success of their student populations. These pathways must provide training and exposure to opportunities for engagement in federal R&D and embed preparation for obtaining security clearances to support and conduct classified research. With appropriate support, institutions can enhance existing curricula with intentional reforms that support a diverse student population by providing research experiences, mentoring, and other evidence-based STEM engagement structures. Furthermore, institutions must develop and coordinate co-curricula that leverage technology and external expertise

in key STEM areas (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2011; National Research Council, 2013; NASEM, 2016).

A major challenge identified in several studies is that while MSIs have committed leaders, dedicated faculty, enthusiastic students, and proud alumni, they lack the capital resources that are critical to establish, support, and scale up the most effective programs (e.g., NASEM, 2019). A common point of pride among MSI leaders is that investments made in these institutions result in a higher return on investment than a similar investment made at a non-MSI. But as with the wrestler or boxer constantly fighting above their weight class, it is an exhausting battle, as related in previous reports. For each success story, long days are needed to put out both figurative and even literal fires due to delayed maintenance resulting from years of underfunding.

Findings from Previous Reports:

• MSIs seeking to develop a more effective and engaged R&D ecosystem must tackle faculty recruitment, retention, and development to sustain their strategic efforts.
• Many MSIs are 2-year degree-granting institutions; introducing and broadening existing articulation pathways within MSIs and across all IHEs will assist in the lifetime success of their student populations.

Theme II: External Investments and Strategies to Support MSI Research

Federal, state, and local governments have a long history of supporting the research infrastructure at IHEs. Unfortunately, MSIs have disproportionately gone under-resourced and underutilized in the national R&D landscape. Previous reports have highlighted that underinvestment at the state and federal levels prevents the full breadth of the U.S. R&D ecosystem from active, meaningful participation. To address this underinvestment, both federal and state governments must provide equitable and adequate funding coupled with autonomy for research-engaged or aspiring institutions. Further government funding and policies should be provided in a stable fashion that fosters innovation and growth toward better engagement in national R&D priorities.

Previous studies have also specified the need for federal agencies to administer targeted investments. These investments should center on

existing barriers and challenges and provide opportunities for growth. Investments can provide funding for physical infrastructure and major instrumentation, support growth in MSI administrative infrastructure, and introduce funding for faculty development and financial support for students pursuing degrees in STEM priority fields. Furthermore, federal agencies that provide research grant funding and support STEM education programs should improve their data collection and analysis activities to integrate efficiency and better evaluation of the outcomes of federal research intervention investments toward more effective programs. To ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of efforts, an interagency task force facilitated by the White House or central organizing body should be developed to oversee and improve agency policies and regulatory frameworks for the increased participation of MSIs in federal R&D.

More needs to be done to undergird strong government, university, and industry partnerships to sustain investments and growth in research, previous National Academies’ studies have urged. Workforce development and R&D need more effective collaborative frameworks between academic institutions, industry, and government to better integrate with national priorities. These frameworks should incentivize joint research initiatives that leverage the faculty and students of MSIs and facilitate investments in an institution’s infrastructure and needs. These partnerships will provide the students with practical experiences in industry and federal labs to ensure the proper development of participants in the relevant STEM ecosystems. This multisectoral environment will ensure that there is not only an increase in diversity of STEM workers but also a feedback loop of capacity development at MSIs.

Workforce development is in the DNA of MSIs. This often leads the DOD and other entities to see the main value proposition of MSIs to be talent pipelines (NASEM, 2022). While this is an important contribution, making investments in the pipeline, and not just tapping into it to select individual students, is critical to forming true partnerships. STEM degrees can be more expensive and take longer to obtain than non-STEM degrees. Creative programs such as the Defense Civilian Training Corps already exist to provide valuable scholarships while opening the pipeline beyond those who want to wear the uniform and join Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs (U.S. Department of Defense, 2024). The DOD also has its own job training sites such as the War College and Navy Post Graduate School. These types of programs could be linked to undergraduate programs at institutions to add advanced skills and training as well as appeal to students considering a DOD pathway.

Finally, as the reports point out, the country needs “all hands on deck” to meet the nation’s future STEM needs. Women in STEM and specifically women of color in STEM require intentional and targeted attention (National Research Council, 2013). Women of color are more likely to work at MSIs, providing a mentoring pipeline for female students. A female student is more likely to choose a career pathway if she has contact with a female professor in that pathway. Involving women in the DOD research and training enterprise will open access to an underrepresented perspective of ideas that will help secure the future of the DOD.

Finding from Previous Reports:

To ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of efforts, an interagency task force should be developed to oversee and improve agency policies and regulatory frameworks for the increased participation of MSIs in federal R&D.

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.

REFERENCES

Collins, T.W., S.E. Grineski, J. Shenberger, X. Morales, O.F. Morera, and L.E. Echegoyen. 2017. Undergraduate research participation is associated with improved student outcomes at a Hispanic-serving institution. Journal of College Student Development, 58(4), 583-600.

Congressional Research Service. 2021. 1890 Land-grant universities: Background and selected issues. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11847/2.

Hunt Institute. 2022. Addressing historic underfunding of HBCUs: Implementing bipartisan legislation in Tennessee. https://hunt-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022.12.6_THI_HE_LuminaBrief3.pdf.

Lee, J.M., and S.W. Keys. 2013. Land-grant but unequal: State one-to-one match funding for 1890 land-grant universities. https://www.aplu.org/wp-content/uploads/land-grant-but-unequal-state-one-to-one-match-funding-for-1890-land-grant-universities.pdf.

NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2016. Barriers and opportunities for 2-year and 4-year STEM degrees: Systemic change to support students’ diverse pathways. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21739.

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.

NASEM. 2022. Defense research capacity at historically black colleges and universities and other minority institutions: Transitioning from good intentions to measurable outcomes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26399.

NASEM. 2023. Transforming research and higher education institutions in the next 75 years: Proceedings of the 2022 Endless Frontier Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26863.

National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. 2009. Partnerships for emerging research institutions: Report of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12577.

National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. 2012. Assuring the U.S. Department of Defense a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13467.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2011. Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12984.

National Research Council. 2010. Examination of the U.S. Air Force’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce needs in the future and its strategy to meet those needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12718.

National Research Council. 2012. Research universities and the future of America: Ten breakthrough actions vital to our nation’s prosperity and security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13396.

National Research Council. 2013. Seeking solutions: Maximizing American talent by advancing women of color in academia: Summary of a conference. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18556.

NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). 1993. 120 years of American education: A statistical portrait. Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf.

Nelson, C.A., and J.R. Frye. 2016. Tribal college and university funding: Tribal sovereignty at the intersection of federal, state, and local funding. American Council on Education & Center for Policy Research and Strategy. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Tribal-College-and-University-Funding.pdf.

NSF (National Science Foundation). 2024. The state of U.S. science and engineering, 2024. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators.

Stull, G., et al. 2015. Redefining success: How tribal colleges and universities build nations, strengthen sovereignty, and persevere through challenges. Penn Center for Minority Serving Institutions. https://repository.upenn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/2a615606-674f-4991-989d-17ab866d65e9/content.

U.S. Department of Defense. 2024. Defense Civilian Training Corps. OUSD Acquisition & Sustainment. https://dctc.mil/.

U.S. Department of Education. 2023. Secretaries of Education, Agriculture call on governors to equitably fund land-grant HBCUs. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretaries-education-agriculture-call-governors-equitably-fund-land-grant-hbcus.

This page intentionally left blank.