1
Introduction

The United States established public universities and colleges under the first (1862) and second (1890) Morrill Acts and the 1994 Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act. Additional amendments and Acts broadened the benefits of the land-grant system to territories in Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Micronesia, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Establishing at least one land-grant university or college in every state and territory has slowly expanded the reach of higher education to the nation’s populace. A hallmark of land-grant institutions that their institutional mission is intended to reflect and respond to the unique needs and ambitions of the respective local and regional communities in which they are located. Historically, this connection has been exemplified by the integral cooperation of university extension services with farming and rural communities; today, engagement with communities encompasses an increasingly broad set of social concerns and economic goals.

Under the authority of the Acts listed above and other legislation, land-grant colleges and universities receive federal funds to support their activities; in some instances, federal funds require a match or partial match of state or nonfederal funds. As public institutions supported by taxpayers, the land-grant colleges and universities are accountable to state and federal policymakers who have increasingly sought evidence of the public return on this investment. Constrained federal and state budgets, reduced public trust undermining support for higher education, and private-sector competition for the provision of technical training and services that once were the sole domain of higher education are challenging the status quo of the land-grant institutions.

These factors have land-grant leaders considering the public perception of their institutions, the effectiveness of their approach to delivering the public value that communities and other invested partners seek, and the best ways to measure and communicate their impacts so that the value of the land-grant mission registers with policymakers and the public. As they assess the mechanisms available for responding to the call for greater impact while simultaneously improving the resilience of their institutions, the pressures created by current financial and political forces may become the impetus for institution-wide innovation in how the land-grant colleges and universities will carry out their mission in the future.

THE CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE AND ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE STATEMENT OF TASK

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine became engaged in the topic of collaboration in the land-grant system in late 2021, following a request for assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). In its fiscal year (FY) 2021 appropriations bill,¹ Congress directed the under-secretary for research, education, and economics (a position vacant at the time) to establish a blue--

___________________

¹ See https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/133/text (accessed July 8, 2025).

ribbon panel to explore how better coordination in the land-grant system could increase the collective contributions of the system in addressing national issues and global food security. At NIFA’s request, the National Academies appointed the Committee on Enhancing Coordination and Collaboration Between Land-Grant Universities and Colleges, which in 2022 produced a report focusing primarily on the status of collaborative interactions of the institutions inside the land-grant system (NASEM, 2022). In addition to exploring the benefits of and ingredients for successful collaboration and the state of the knowledge of team science, the report noted examples of robust collaboration between researchers at the 1862 institutions from different states, with documented impacts in project-level databases, such as the National Land-grant Impacts Database² and the Multistate Research Fund Impacts program.³

NASEM (2022) also noted that the participation in those collaborations by faculty from the 1890 and 1994 institutions was very limited; the report authors attributed this to factors such as a general lack of awareness of the expertise offered by faculty from those institutions and the inadequate time, capacity, and resources with which to enter and fully participate in collaborative activities.

A second congressional request to NIFA in the FY 2022 appropriations bill⁴ called for a continuation of the study of enhancing the impact of the land-grant institutions through collaboration. In 2025, with NIFA’s support, the National Academies established the Committee on Building Impactful Collaborative Platforms in the Land-Grant System. Committee members were appointed on the basis of their expertise in, understanding of, and experience with the process of developing long-term institutional relationships both inside the land-grant system and with organizations outside the system, such as other universities, for-profit companies, and communities. Biographical information for the four members of the committee can be found in Appendix A.

In consultation with NIFA, the National Academies staff developed a study statement of task (SOT) to guide the committee (see Box 1-1). The SOT requested that the study committee organize a workshop as the centerpiece of an information gathering process from which the committee would draw insights and evidence in the development of a “fast-track” consensus report, to include conclusions and recommendations. The SOT charged the committee with exploring how “multi-institutional collaborative platforms” can be constructed to maximize the impact of the land-grant system in generating knowledge and its applications, while also achieving multiple desirable outcomes: high-quality science, broad participation, equitable access to platform resources, enhanced team science, asset sharing, capacity building, broader impacts, and the generation of translational knowledge. The SOT furthermore asked the committee to articulate how collaborative platforms can explicitly connect education, research, and extension, and to identify what is needed for institutions to effectively evaluate and communicate the impact of their collaborative work.

The committee used the SOT as a starting point; however, it concluded that many of the topics in the task, while important, had been addressed in NASEM (2022), and further, that the scope of an effort to analyze outcomes of collaborations on a scale large enough to offer definitive best practices was beyond what could be accomplished within the time frame and budget allotted. The committee acknowledged, however, that the scholarship and interest in evaluating the dynamics of collaborative projects is active and growing. After deliberating on the motivation of the congressional request for the study (to increase the collective impact

___________________

² See https://landgrantimpacts.org/ (accessed July 31, 2025).

³ See https://www.mrfimpacts.org/ (accessed July 31, 2025).

⁴ See https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2471/text (accessed July 8, 2025).

of the land-grant system through collaboration) the committee determined that its focus should be on identifying the conditions at the institutional level that must be constructed intentionally to produce a culture of collaboration throughout the institution at all levels. Furthermore, given that calls for such transformation are not new, the committee felt it important to explore what catalysts exist to make progress in advancing the cultural transformation at institutions throughout the system. In other words, this report’s contribution is characterizing the meaning of institutional transformation and how to make it happen. Additionally, the committee offers insights to the level of effort that must be placed on capturing and communicating the public value of what emerges from collaborative partnerships in ways that are meaningful to different users of that information and others invested in relevant outcomes.

The committee interpreted “multi-institutional collaborative platforms” as the partnerships among colleges and universities in the land-grant system and with other organizations. More than a memorandum of understanding, a collaborative platform includes the partners’ commitments to a set of purposes and provides the structure for how the partners will conduct their engagement in pursuit of mutual goals. Collaborative platforms may be used to align institutional policies (e.g., contractual, data sharing, and intellectual property practices) that smooth the way for faculty to launch collaborative projects without burdensome bureaucracy; these platforms may build shared infrastructure, host research centers, or seek any number of outcomes around important issues. Given the unique identity of each land-grant college and university and their environment, these collaborative platforms are likely to take many different forms. The overarching issue is how institutions can prepare themselves to be successful collaborators, including at the top, where collaborative platforms built with other institutional partners are the foundation for collaborative projects, launched from across the broader institutional ecosystem with internal and external partners.

The committee’s report thus describes what is needed to move beyond program, projects, and ad hoc partnerships and toward the institutionalization of this work in capacities that require additional coordination, supports, and infrastructure. This report supports decision making and actionable steps for the land-grant system to create impactful collaborations. It builds on decades of work to create a more engaged and collaborative land-grant system, including the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998,⁵ the Kellogg Commission’s (1999) recommendations on engaged institutions, and Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) 2015 report on the centrality of engagement in higher education. Institutions have made progress by implementing the recommendations from these reports to foster collaboration and enhance engagement. This is evidenced by a growing number of institutions that have earned recognition through the Carnegie Elective Classification for Community Engagement.⁶

STUDY PROCESS: HOW THE COMMITTEE CONDUCTED ITS WORK

The study was conceived as a fast-track, workshop-based consensus study, a relatively new type of advisory product, conducted in a compressed time frame. The committee began meeting in the spring of 2025, holding several closed meetings to identify the challenges, needs, and innovative approaches to support collaborative platforms in the land-grant sys-

___________________

⁵ See https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/senate-bill/1150 (accessed July 30, 2025).

⁶ See https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/ (accessed July 30, 2025).

tem. Having identified several critical questions it felt that experts could answer, the committee organized a public workshop in which its members interviewed presenters and engaged in discussion to obtain insights on key issues. The 2-day workshop included a keynote presentation on the history of collaboration in the land-grant system and seven panel sessions with three or more speakers.⁷ For one session, public webcast viewers were placed into three breakout groups for informal discussion about what institutions should start or stop doing to create public impact. Approximately 25 presenters offered their perspective and answered additional questions from the committee.

The presenters included many experienced leaders in outreach, community engagement, external relations, and experiences, including:

• leaders across the land-grant system (vice chancellors, vice presidents for research, provosts, assistant provosts, leads of state cooperative extension, chief innovation officers);
• scholars of higher education, educational leadership, policy, and law;
• Tribal College and University land-grant faculty members and managers;
• faculty members from schools of public health, colleges of agriculture, a college of education and human development, a department of agricultural economics, and departments of global development and foreign policy;
• two partnership leads from for-profit companies (one building large language models, the other a large consumer products firm); and
• several presenters from nonprofit organizations (e.g., American Council on Education, the 1890s University Foundation, Foundation for Food and Agriculture) collectively, represented over 14 states and included both land-grant and non-land-grant institutions.

A subset of questions from the workshop is provided here as context for the committee’s approach to the SOT:

• What is the historical context for collaboration in the mission of the land-grant system?
• What is the value proposition of collaborative work when it takes time to demonstrate impact, and what is the return on investment for collaboration involving multiple parties?
• What are the essential ingredients to successful collaborations that lead to impact? How is collaboration different from other kinds of innovation?
• Is systems thinking a defining feature of collaboration; what special skill sets are needed for successful long-term collaboration?
• What are challenges and opportunities for fostering collaborations among 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant institutions?
• How might collaborations redefine institutional relationships in the land-grant system?
• What types of supports are vital to creating a culture of collaboration and engagement?

___________________

⁷ See https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/45203_06-2025_fulfilling-the-public-mission-of-the-land-grant-system-building-platforms-for-collaboration-and-impact (accessed July 13, 2025).

• What does the institutionalization of engagement look like? What tensions exist between engagement offices and cooperative extension?
• Is there a difference between institutional collaborations and individual programs and projects when it comes to measuring impact?
• What are effective strategies for changing institutional culture?
• What is the value proposition for efforts to create a culture of collaboration that executive leaders and funders need to know?

The workshop began with a historical overview of the land-grant system, including its history of collaboration and perspectives of those engaged with the institutions. A key area of exploration was focused on restoring trust in higher education by demonstrating how collaborations through partnerships contribute to the public good. This is a timely topic, as funders are interested in understanding how their financial support is making a difference in academia and society.

For collaborations to endure and have lasting impact, they need sustained innovation. The third session explored how collaborative innovation can differ from other forms of innovation, including the key elements that contribute to successful partnerships that generate meaningful impact. It also examined how effective collaborations foster sustained engagement, build trust, and maintain long-term relationships.

The next discussion focused on examining how boundary spanners facilitate communication to build understanding and support meaningful interactions across diverse perspectives in collaborations. The discussion also considered formally recognizing the skill sets of boundary spanners and cultural brokers by higher institutions. Building on this theme, participants explored ways to bridge access and promote co-learning by examining the challenges and opportunities faced by land-grant institutions.

Institutional supports play a critical role in fostering sustainable and resilient collaborations. Participants explored barriers within institutions that impede the fulfillment of the land-grant mission; they also identified the types of support needed to cultivate a culture of collaboration and engagement. In addition, participants examined how institutions measure and communicate the impacts of their collaborations. Lastly, they discussed how collaborative engagement can drive institutional transformation by utilizing strategies for shifting organizational structure. (See Appendix B for the workshop agenda.)

During their presentations, participants referenced different collaborative partnerships, collaborative platforms, and activities that are captured in boxes in the report. These are not exhaustive lists of collaborative activities; rather, they demonstrate the many variations in how partnerships are organized. Additional examples and resources include the National Land-Grant Impacts Database⁸ and the Multistate Research Fund Impacts program.⁹ See Appendix C for organizations involved in supporting capacity building for community engagement; Appendix D is a resource guide to assist scholars and practitioners in selecting community engagement journals for article submissions.

___________________

⁸ See https://landgrantimpacts.org (accessed August 7, 2025).

⁹ See https://www.mrfimpacts.org (accessed August 7, 2025).

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

This report is organized into six chapters on amplifying the impact of collaborative platforms in land-grant institutions and elevating their public recognition through active community involvement. Chapter 2 provides a retrospective on the land-grant mission and addresses current challenges of public perception, reconnecting the mission of “public value” back to land-grant institutions, and building enduring collaborative relationships. Chapter 3 discusses supporting ecosystems of engagement between external collaborators. Chapter 4 describes the elements of an “engaged institution” by providing infrastructure and strategies for creating a meaningful culture of collaboration and engagement. Chapter 5 considers how to effectively evaluate and communicate the impact of an institution’s collaborative activities using concepts such as “purpose and process” and “vigorous reciprocity.” Finally, Chapter 6 presents the committee’s recommendations regarding the actions land-grant institutions, funders, organizations can undertake to sustain meaningful, successful, and transformative collaborations.