Summary
The public colleges and universities established in 1862, 1890, and 1994 as part of the land-grant system have historically played an important role in bringing the assets of institutions of higher education to bear on the public good. Their program activities in research, education, and cooperative extension support the public with opportunities to gain and apply knowledge, and their presence in the community has contributed to social cohesiveness, local problem-solving, and the regional economy.
Although their overarching mission to serve the public good is a commonly stated aspiration, land-grant colleges and universities vary widely in size, capacity, and funding with which to realize that goal. Their programmatic directions and priorities have also evolved in directions that influence their orientation toward local, regional, and state priorities and needs. The most recently established land grants, the 1994 Tribal Colleges and Universities, have the fewest resources and are tightly coupled with the priorities of the tribal nations with which they are associated. The 1890 land-grant institutions, all Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), are modestly resourced and characterized by their role in supporting the needs of small-scale enterprises and disadvantaged communities. The institutions established in the first wave of the land-grant system, the “1862s,” receive the most public funding, and include schools of many different sizes, including some large research-oriented universities and others best known for being the most accessible source of a college education in a region. By virtue of their size, employment, and concentration of people, they can be significant parts of their local and regional economies. Although their establishment under the under the Morrill Act of 18621 mandated teaching to promote “the practical education of the industrial classes” and their mission statements include goals such as “improving the lives of the people in [their respective state]” and “service to the community,”2,3,4 their research and education programs are shaped as much by funding priorities, shifting political climates, and the individual pursuits of researchers and educators as by needs expressed by the state or local communities. Some administrators of land-grant universities understand a connection with local needs to be the sole responsibility of Cooperative Extension programs. These programs, historically linked to agriculture, are explicitly mandated to engage with and have a physical presence in surrounding communities.5
This report, which is focused on the need for explicit institutional strategies for fostering and supporting collaboration to increase the impact of institutions in the land-grant system, is being released at a time of public skepticism about the public value of institutions of higher education, with critics pointing to the tuition increases that outpace inflation, a perception that teaching is secondary to research, and a concern that a college degree does not lead to well-paid employment. Public trust in the authority of evidence-based inquiry is
___________________
1 See Morrill Act of 1862, ch. 130, 12 Stat. 503 (1862).
2 See https://www.k-state.edu/about/values-and-mission/ (accessed August 14, 2025).
3 See https://www.uidaho.edu/about/mission-vision-values (accessed August 14, 2025).
4 See https://research.arizona.edu/land-grant-mission (accessed August 14, 2025).
5 See Smith-Lever Act of 1914, Pub. L. 63-95, 38 Stat. 372 (1914).
weakened by competing narratives from social media that challenge the motivations and ideological agenda of the academy. Federal and state funding for core university functions is unstable.
Land-grant colleges and universities are seeking answers to the question of how to make their activities more impactful so that they are recognized and supported by the public and policymakers. They also face questions about how best to demonstrate public value when institutions of higher education are not the sole producers of knowledge. Other forms of knowledge, information, and insight come from businesses and industries, communities and governments, for example. The dominant types of knowledge being taught in colleges and universities are frequently offered as narrow disciplinary knowledge, which is often misaligned with the types of skills employers seek and student expectations around career readiness and employment. If land-grant colleges and universities wish to successfully address complex problems facing society, their analysis will be stronger if those problems are examined together with other organizations and entities that hold complementary knowledge.
Building the capacity to undertake collaborative work is the central subject of this report, prepared by a study committee appointed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. The report’s primary audiences are Congress, which requested the study; state policymakers, because state governments provide funds that match federal dollars to support their local and regional institutions; the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA), which is the administrator of funds for the land-grant system; the colleges and universities of the land-grant system; and the many organizations deeply invested in the success of the land-grant system, not the least of which is the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) and funders such as the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research.
This report acknowledges the important multi-state and multi-sectoral projects underway, many documented in public databases.6, 7 The perspective of this report is on the collective impact of the land-grant system. Its focus is broader than the fields of agriculture, the work of a College or the traditional scope of Cooperative Extension and is aimed above the level of individual collaborative projects. This report is concerned with how to build the capacity to reflect the public interest in multiple ways across the institutional activities of research and education, integrated with extension and service, and how to bring the land grant system together (1862s, 1890s, and 1994s) in collaborative partnerships that broaden public awareness of the contributions of the system as a unified whole.
The report’s overarching premise is threefold:
First, for many institutions in the land-grant system, embracing an outward-facing posture toward engagement and partnership, as realized by changes in how it carries out its core missions, would be a significant shift in the status quo of the institution that will take place only through an intentional transformation guided by leaders. It would be anticipated that research and teaching will change, with cooperative extension evolving alongside. The experience of faculty and students would also be different.
Second, there are multiple value propositions for undertaking this transformation, such as better preparation and outcomes for students; more positive public perceptions of the relevance of the college or university; and potentially, the emergence of new funding sources, leveraged by the value placed on activities that involve broader circles of partners, such as different sectors of society invested in the outcomes. Moreover, the progress of science and
___________________
6 See https://landgrantimpacts.org/ (accessed August 14, 2025).
7 See https://www.mrfimpacts.org/ (accessed August 14, 2025).
the needs of society demand a more efficient way of working and more strategic formulation of how to attack problems—not only from an intellectual perspective, but from an organizational one—by bringing together different perspectives. That is consistent with recent debates about the effectiveness of long-standing academic departmental structures in a modern institution of higher education, given new multi- and interdisciplinary modes of generating actionable knowledge. System-level thinking and multisectoral collaboration are increasingly perceived as essential to solving the complex problems facing society.
Third, the path to institutional transformation toward greater collaboration (internally and externally) has already been followed with success by a growing number of colleges and universities. Since the publication of the 1999 Kellogg Commission’s report, Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution, an increasing number of land-grant institutions have transformed themselves through university community engagement. In parallel, an ecosystem of individuals and groups whose purpose is to study, document, and support the movement toward a new way of pursuing the activities of the land-grant mission is gaining traction. Again, long-term leadership is needed to institutionalize collaborative platforms across the land-grant system.
ORIGINS OF THE STUDY
The fiscal year (FY) 2021 congressional appropriations bill for the U.S. Department of Agriculture included a brief paragraph entitled “Enhancing Land-Grant Coordination”; it provided NIFA with a small amount of funds with which to create a blue-ribbon panel for “evaluating the overall structure of research and education through the public and land-grant universities . . . to define a new architecture that can better integrate, coordinate, and assess the economic impact of the collective work of these institutions.” With few additional details for this broad charge, and a short time frame for a response, NIFA asked the National Academies for a report addressing the sentiment of the language. The National Academies appointed a committee that prepared the report, published in 2022, Enhancing Coordination and Collaboration Across the Land-Grant System. It provided an overview of the state of collaboration within the land-grant system, framed the value of collaborative and multidisciplinary research, described principles for success, and noted barriers to collaboration.
The FY 2022 appropriations bill8 included similarly broad language and a continuation of the study of enhancing and communicating the impact of the land-grant institutions through collaboration. NIFA again turned to the National Academies, which proposed a statement of task (SOT) focused on exploring how multi-institutional collaborative platforms might be constructed to meet multiple important goals, such as high-quality science, broad participation, and equitable access to platform resources to participants. It also sought to address the elements of those partnerships that are conducive to enhancing team science; sharing assets; building capacity; and generating translational knowledge. It further sought to identify specific ways to connect education, research, and extension. The SOT called for a brief report recommending concerted strategies for constructing collaborative platforms to maximize the benefits and impact of land-grant universities. The full SOT can be found in Chapter 1, Box 1-1.
The committee viewed this charge as a starting point acknowledging that only certain elements of the charge could be addressed in the given time frame. Given the breadth of topic and variables involved, the committee found the SOT to be more appropriate for a research
___________________
8 See https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2471/text (accessed July 8, 2025).
project than a brief, workshop-based consensus study. The committee also recognized that any assessment of collaborative platforms was not unique to food and agriculture; it decided to take a systems view of the land-grant system to include other areas of focus under the broader frame of “community engagement,” inclusive of policymakers, community groups, and industry, that are representative of the public, private, civic, and nonprofit sectors.
In the committee’s interpretation of the SOT, the questions about collaborative platforms should not be posed at the level of individual collaborative projects but at the higher levels of institutional partnership and of the system. In the committee’s analysis, the strategic innovations needed to make collaboration more broadly possible and successful in meeting multiple goals are institutional-level culture, infrastructure, and supports. Thus, the committee focused its study on identifying what it means to transform an institution so that its culture and capacity to engage, partner, and collaborate are central to its identity and purpose. To reach its conclusions and develop recommendations, the committee organized a 2-day workshop of presentations and discussion involving some of the nation’s leading experts on multi-institutional partnerships, community engagement, and institutional transformation; it included representatives from faculty, industry, and foundations, who the committee interviewed with questions related to its interpretation of the charge.
CONCLUSIONS
The committee’s study of collaborative platforms, which drew from discussions and presentations of a workshop held in June 12–13, 2025, produced nine conclusions, discussed below.
Over their evolving histories, the committee acknowledges, land-grant colleges and universities have responded to external opportunities and pressures that in some cases, have drawn them away from their historical attention to public values and toward other priorities, such as scientific prestige through the pursuit of grants, college rankings that prioritize research, and an emphasis on developing innovations that can be spun out to commercial markets. While those activities are indicators of economic success and knowledge that contributes to the public good generally, they also mark a departure from a more tangible connection of the local and regional public to the college or university. Restoring those connections by giving them equal priority in the portfolio of land-grant activities could mitigate the sense of a growing distance between the values of the university and those of the public.
A reprioritization of institutional priorities with public purpose would require greater integration of research, teaching, and extension at a time when the public value of higher education is being called into question, but this is an opportunity for service learning and engagement through research. This will necessitate the coordination of academic research and education with cooperative extension across a greater number of disciplines and fields, a transition that can stimulate novel approaches to research, learning, and problem solving.
Conclusion 2-1: Land-grant colleges and universities have evolved in many directions in response to different opportunities and pressures which in some cases has also moved the institutions further from public engagement and collaboration, a situation that may have exacerbated the erosion of public trust in institutions of higher education in recent years.
Conclusion 2-2: Rebalancing the priorities of the land-grant institutions to align its mission with public values, integrating public purpose into research, teaching, and extension, and transitioning towards a community engagement model offers a way for the land-grant system to reconnect with the public and overcome public skepticism of the value of institutions of higher education.
The committee concluded that foundational to successful collaboration are relationship building and the time it takes to build trust, develop mutual understanding, and common goals. Attention to, transparency with, and alignment between, university priorities and community partners’ goals create an environment in which all parties can mutually learn, be honest, and take risks. The importance of this simplistic sounding recipe cannot be overstated. It takes intentionality, leadership, commitment, and persistence to accomplish.
Conclusion 2-3: Authentic engagement and relationship building for the long term sets the stage for successful and thriving collaborations. Institutional partnerships built on shared goals, transparency, trust, and mutual respect are foundational for collaborative projects to have a long-lasting impact.
The committee found that there is an “ecosystem” of engagement professionals, funders, and other organizations on university campuses, across university systems, and in a national network of organizations that are working to create support systems for sustainable relationship building. They not only help institutions to create the capacity to be an engaged institution by facilitating knowledge sharing and support, they cultivate partnerships and try to capture learnings from collaborative activities to understand how to make them more impactful.
Conclusion 3-1: Ecosystems for sustainable relationship building to reconnect higher education to public impacts are emerging at the national and state level among engagement professionals, public agencies, non-profit organizations and funders. This includes a focus on fostering institutional transformation, cultivating balanced and impactful partnerships, enhancing the measurement and communication of impact, strengthening collaboration and knowledge sharing, and addressing societal issues. The relationships involved in these ecosystems vary by type, focus, and intensity, and are organized at various levels on university campuses, across university systems, and among a national network of national organizations, agencies, and funders.
At the heart of building the capacity for collaborative partnership that result in an “engaged institution” is the intentionally built infrastructure, supports, and people put in place across the university who are able cross boundaries between institutions to bring them closer together, or are relationship stewards who follow up on the needs of the partners, and the conveners who routinely bring parties together. The infrastructure includes advisors to would-be collaborators, and those whose job is to remove bureaucratic barriers to collaboration. The supports are funding, training, and time that allow faculty and others to innovate and collaborate as an expectation of their duties, not as an add on to their full-time occupation as a teacher or researcher.
Conclusion 4-1: The institutional mindset and capacity to undertake meaningful long-term engagement that supports impactful collaboration depends on institutional transformation intentionally built across the university in relation to its multiple roles, tying the institutional mission to public values, and requiring transformation in culture and practice. Such a transformation has occurred in some institutions, enabled by the commitment of university leaders who put into place the supports necessary to allow partnerships to flourish.
Conclusion 4-2: Infrastructure such as a dedicated coordinating body that acts as a “community engagement backbone” can support collaborations by carrying out functional tasks that improve the ability of an institution to convene, coordinate, and communicate impacts. Over time, as the backbone matures, it can grow in influence and expertise, evolving to tackle more complex efforts such as “building public will, advancing policy, and mobilizing funding.” This illustrates the outcome of long-term institutional capacity building to facilitate deep connections to communities.
Conclusion 4-3: Institutional supports (monetary, recognition, promotion, and other measures) can be directed at multiple levels (individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, public policy). They are a signal that an institution values and rewards collaboration. Recognition and reward of community partners can build trust and enhance institutional reputation. Examples of supports are abundant and wide-ranging but can loosely be grouped into four main areas: leading, incentivizing, enabling, and resourcing.
Bringing public awareness to the value created through collaborative partnerships is achieved through measuring and communicating their impact. The committee found that the measurement of impacts becomes more difficult as evaluation moves from outcomes at the level of a collaborative project to characterizing impacts at the level of collaborative platforms (institutional partnerships).
To demonstrate what land-grant institutions are capable of, metrics of public impact are best co-developed with collaborative partners from the community. Capturing public value and impact is difficult and must be approached as a long-term assessment, which is best achieved by developing context-specific measures that meet the needs of those affected by or who use information on outcomes for specific purposes. Partners in collaborations are in the best position to talk about what they perceive as impacts and outcomes.
Conclusion 5-1: Measuring and communicating impacts of collaborative partnerships has multiple potential purposes, including demonstrating transparency and accountability, supporting advocacy for collaboration, and providing feedback on the effects of the collaboration on both external (e.g., community partner, public policy) and internal (e.g., tenure and promotion, student success, return on investment) goals. It is critical that what is measured relates to the outcomes of interest to those involved in collaborations and the public and communities these individuals serve.
Conclusion 5-2: The effort to identify metrics of impact is most successful when co-developed with collaborative partners. Traditional metrics such as peer-reviewed journal papers, publications, and economic impact reports are too narrow and cannot fully
capture public value. Authentic assessments involve stakeholders in discussing, defining, and developing context-specific and culturally appropriate measures for short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes. Partners representing public, private, and nonprofit sectors are in a strong position to describe the impact of collaboration within the places and populations they serve. Collaborative evaluation aligns universities with community needs and values from project conception to design, development, and implementation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Capitalizing on the power of collaborative partnerships to amplify the impact of land-grant institutions and make them recognizable to the public requires leadership and institutional transformation. Aware that the process of transformation will take time and effort, the committee offers the following recommendations as opportunities for invested parties to move the land-grant system forward on this important journey.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Congress should use its legislative and funding authority to reinforce and provide additional support for the public service mandate of land-grant institutions and the system-wide expansion of institutional partnerships that generate public impact locally and nationally. Congress should require land-grant colleges and universities to assess their capacity for engagement with external partners using a benchmarking tool like the Carnegie Elective Classification for Community Engagement and develop action plans for strengthening their capabilities. These assessments and plans will help land-grant institutions coordinate, collaborate, and fill capacity gaps through internal and external support, including through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the administrative body for the land-grant funding.
RECOMMENDATION 2: State, tribal, and local elected officials, working with their in-state boards of regents and with campus-level and systemwide leadership, should pursue the formation of a partnership of their state land-grant and other academic institutions in the state that can establish collaborative platform(s) to facilitate the engagement of colleges, schools, and faculty members/staff with each other and with communities, businesses, and other organizations located in the state. Through consistent and intentional relationship building that removes bureaucratic and technical barriers, such platforms will facilitate collaborative projects by prospective partners (e.g., faculty and staff from different institutions and a community group) and will grow institutional and faculty expertise as a community of practice in integrating the needs and values of the public into research and teaching activities. Involving Cooperative Extension programs in these partnerships, when appropriate, will take advantage of their existing connections to communities across the state.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Leaders of land-grant institutions (university chancellors, provosts, and faculty senates) should formally recognize individuals who serve as boundary spanners or cultural brokers, system stewards, and convenors for their role in supporting the infrastructure and collaborative culture of their
institutions, rewarding them through processes such as faculty tenure and promotion, staff annual evaluations, annual awards, and monetary prizes.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Managers of federal programs that fund research, education, and extension activities should pilot the involvement of eligible applicants in co-designing grant solicitations. The purpose of co-design, which would go beyond a listening session, would be to stay abreast of current trends (e.g., emerging issues, urgent needs) that are relevant to achieving societal goals through collaboration. Co-designing grant solicitations could elicit better proposals that result in a higher quality of community engagement and ultimately greater impacts. Scholars and practitioners of impact evaluation could be of assistance to funding agencies in identifying pertinent outcome measures that could capture the impacts of collaboration more fully.
RECOMMENDATION 5: APLU should create a clearinghouse of resources for land-grant institutions seeking to pursue transformation toward collaboration. These resources could include, for example, a list of national organizations, scholarly journals, and funding opportunities, as well as conferences, events, and other professional development opportunities. APLU should connect with national and international organizations such as the Engagement Scholarship Consortium, International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, the Academy of Community Engagement Scholarship, Advancing Research Impact in Society, and others that can provide guidance, evidence-based research, and relevant and timely information.
RECOMMENDATION 6: National organizations that work on institutional transformation, together with funding agencies, foundations, companies, and donors, should educate executives and other university leaders about the returns of collaborative partnerships in meeting institutional goals for improving student success, supporting research excellence, building public trust, and increasing awareness of the public value impact of collaborative partnerships. The goal of these efforts would be to elevate leadership commitment to build infrastructure and support for sustained collaboration and engagement that outlasts any single individual.
In summary, unprecedented financial, political, and social pressures bear down on the land-grant system and other institutions of higher education. These pressures are the fire under a crucible of change that makes innovation an imperative. To survive and succeed in the current environment, the land-grant system and its institutions need a sense that they can be transformative in carrying out their missions. Because every institution of higher education and their social ecosystem is highly unique, the process of transformation—the way in which a public purpose is integrated into research, teaching, and extension, and the formation of collaborative platforms and projects—will unfold and appear differently for each land-grant college and university. A collective effort to move this transformation forward is essential to the future of the system.
Additional context for the conclusion and recommendations summarized here is provided in the full report, which includes perspectives from individuals deeply involved in the process of supporting this transformation and examples of collaborative platforms that various institutions have built to realize their public mission.
