6

Conclusion

As mandated in Section 220 of the FY 2022 National Defense Authorization Act and Section 233 of the FY 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, this study aims to outline specific interventions that can be taken by the Department of Defense (DOD), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), enrollment-defined Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), and Congress to increase the participation of MSIs in defense-related research and development (R&D). Where possible, this study will also operationalize targeted strategies that provide the resources for elevation on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education spectrum. Carnegie designations as R1 (very high research activity) and R2 (high research) institutions are solely obtainable for institutions with a diversity of research-focused doctoral programs and that surpass specified thresholds for R&D expenditures. This posed an immediate conundrum in the committee’s deliberations, given that a significant portion of MSIs lack doctoral programs or graduate programs altogether. Furthermore, given additional factors such as state legislation, some institutions are unable to increase their doctoral program offerings and are legally unable to obtain R1 status as a result (California State Legislature, 2023). Nevertheless, there are unique opportunities for interventions that can increase the engagement and activity of MSIs in defense-related research.

Recognizing that high-impact academic research is not only centered at R1 and R2 institutions, in 2025, the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education will utilize a more comprehensive methodology that

introduces a new category entitled “Research Colleges and Universities,” allowing for research-engaged institutions to be accurately reflected in the U.S. research enterprise as important contributors to R&D (Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education, 2024). Therefore, to address the core intent of the legislation and DOD’s activities, the committee centered on opportunities for increasing engagement of the majority of MSIs to support defense-related R&D and national security needs.

Throughout the study process, perspectives from across the DOD, other federal agencies, MSIs, and institutions and industries that receive significant DOD support provided a comprehensive review of the barriers faced by MSIs as they increase their research activities, defense-related or otherwise. They point to how DOD’s R&D programs interact with MSIs and what opportunities are currently available so that MSIs can contribute to DOD’s existing R&D infrastructure.

The committee found that there are indeed significant barriers to MSI engagement in federal R&D, but there are also opportunities to provide unique engagement mechanisms that leverage their strengths in research and personnel (faculty, students) and support sustainable capacity development. For example, the legislation and committee’s statement of task initially called for the committee to address “DOD’s engineering and research and development needs” and increase “defense-related research activities” at MSIs. However, defense-related research activities not only are more comprehensive by discipline but also extend outside of the DOD to science funding agencies that support basic and applied research that contributes to the Department’s mission and Critical Technology Areas (CTAs). Moreover, to ensure sustainability in defense-related research capacity development at MSIs, successful interventions should leverage activities across the federal government and identify ways that investments in MSI capabilities for basic and applied research outside of the DOD can be used to make institutions more prepared to support DOD’s needs.

The 2022 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report Defense Research Capacity at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Institutions: Transitioning from Good Intentions to Measurable Outcomes outlined several important factors necessary for increasing research capacity at MSIs. In addition to defining the components of research activity across previous Carnegie Classifications, the report identified a framework for effective ancillary services that allow an institution to facilitate federal grants. The report highlighted the need for long-term support to counteract a history of underinvestment, increase real

funding for basic research and HBCU/Minority Institution (MI)-centered programs, and develop better data tracking mechanisms to evaluate existing HBCU/MI programs administered by the Department.

Additional reports have identified important internal mechanisms at MSIs, such as sustaining strong, forward-looking leadership with comprehensive strategic planning that aligns resource allocations with national science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) needs; addressing faculty recruitment and retention through competitive compensation packages; supporting faculty development through research-engaged sabbaticals; and formalizing mentoring to support success. External mechanisms also play an important role in developing and sustaining research infrastructure at MSIs that have been historically underfunded and underutilized. Local, state, and federal agencies involved in research funding and capacity building should provide stable funding for MSI R&D to support local industries and national priorities. Studies have underscored the important role of federal agencies that support academic research and STEM education in developing programs that target MSIs, increase data collection on the effectiveness of said programs, and coordinate through an interagency task force to better leverage efforts across the federal government. Furthermore, to cement sustainability, efforts to develop research capacity at MSIs through federal agencies require a multisectoral approach that includes an equitable coordination across MSIs, federal agencies and labs, and STEM industries.

ADAPTING NON-DOD AGENCY MODELS

The 2022 National Academies’ report included recommendations for the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to incorporate models used at other science funding agencies (NASEM, 2022). The committee explored several mechanisms through open session discussions and a review of a Town Hall series held in 2023 to identify potential frameworks that could be incorporated into new and existing MSI-focused funding mechanisms. Promising practices included introducing synergistic programs that create continuous funding sources for trainees (undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral) and faculty researchers, with a specific target for MSIs. Successful funding mechanisms administered by other agencies include support for individual trainees and faculty to provide flexibility and independence with funding periods that provide stability and establish a research lab led by a grantee that can support an agency’s mission. Given the diversity of MSIs, with HBCUs, TCUs, Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), and others

exhibiting diversity in barriers and strengths within and across institutional classifications, agencies have implemented a diverse suite of interventions that addresses the complexity of the capacity needs of different MSIs. These targeted programs incorporate the communities’ perspectives in planning, developing, administering, and evaluating new and existing capacity development programs. Additionally, agencies that have shown positive growth in their underinvested institution performer base include language in their funding announcements that is explicit and sets eligibility metrics. These eligibility metrics identify a maximum of previous support and set funding levels across tiers or tracks that allow for flexibility and sustainable investments in the institution’s research capacity development.

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. 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 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.

The DOD has created a tapestry of R&D infrastructure across the nation that advances innovation in research areas of national security. Its labs, University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) have the potential to provide the infrastructure necessary for sustainable engagement in the Department’s research ecosystem.

During the open sessions, the committee found that several DOD programs currently engage with MSIs through outreach activities (e.g., workshops, site visits, conferences). However, this engagement is disparate. 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 MSI 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 CTAs and dissecting the components of each CTA, the committee found that most MSIs possess academic programs equivalent to one or more of these areas. 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, the DOD Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should collect and 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.
• 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.

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, the 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 rate¹ and set a de minimis rate that does the following:
  • 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

___________________

¹ The de minimis IDC rate is 10 percent of an organization’s MTDC: 2 CFR 200.414.

• 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 these institutions to R1 status, and identify strategies for tracking and increasing the capacity of MSIs to address the R&D needs of the DOD. Many of the recommendations listed above, particularly drawing from Chapters 4 and 5, center on data collection; additionally, Chapter 5 presents a data collection framework to collect, analyze, and present data related to MSI engagement with the DOD. The committee recognizes these efforts take time and resources on the part of the DOD and institutions. However, when collected and used, these data 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 can support innovation and advancements and strengthen the nation’s competitiveness and national security. However, 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 unique role in the research enterprise.

REFERENCES

This page intentionally left blank.