6
Conclusion
This study was directed by Congress in Section 262 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2020, which stated the Secretary of Defense should request that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine examine the status of Department of Defense (DoD) research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other minority institutions (MIs) (i.e., covered institutions), including the methods and means necessary to advance their capacity to conduct defense research. Section 262 also calls for “actionable recommendations” for the “executive branch and Congress, among others.”1
In developing its recommendations, the committee recognized certain strong and uniquely important contributions that HBCUs and other MIs have made to the defense research enterprise, and their potential to contribute much more. These more than 400 public and private institutions across the country offer an opportunity to widen the talent pool and diversify the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce, further supporting U.S. national security goals. They can add to the ability of DoD to tap into underutilized talent and innovate in order to solve the national defense challenges that lie ahead. This recognition underlies how the committee undertook its task and the recommendations that resulted.
Representatives from DoD, leaders from institutions of higher education, and other stakeholders who contributed to the committee’s deliberations universally agreed that there is a need for a more significant role for HBCU/MIs in strengthening national defense research and in the STEM workforce. Previous reports
_____________
1 National Defense Authorization Act of 2020, see https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s1790/BILLS-116s1790enr.pdf.
from the National Academies and other organizations recognize the contributions that these institutions are making, as well as their untapped potential to contribute far more. But the needle—measured in terms of DoD funding of research at HBCU/MIs—has not moved enough to promote long-standing progress. Overall, the committee determined that current DoD programs, practices, and investments are insufficient to enhance the capacity and competitiveness of HBCU/MIs. New additional investments in infrastructure support and research funding, as discussed below, are needed to advance these institutions in their capacity to obtain funding and execute DoD-relevant research.
ADDRESSING INFRASTRUCTURE: IMPROVING HBCU/MIS’ ABILITY TO BUILD CAPACITY AND COMPETE FOR DOD FUNDING
The committee found no “textbook” definition that lays out what capacity means in the context of DoD research performance. Therefore, the committee developed its own organizational principle of capacity and used it as a framework to guide its study approach, as described more fully in Chapter 5. It encompasses the following three mutually reinforcing areas that facilitate an institution gaining access to research funding, successfully completing a funded project, and building on that success for the future:
- A strong institutional research and contract base, including appropriate physical research facilities and skilled research support to enable competitiveness
- Research faculty support, including an articulated vision and support for a research climate and culture by institutional leadership, faculty teaching workloads that allow time for research pursuits, and department/college-based research staff and administrative support
- Ancillary services, including effective human resources processes and legal/contracting assistance, and robust government relations teams
Research-intensive institutions, especially R1s that have a strong research and contract base, research faculty support, and ancillary services, are in a better position to enable faculty and students to focus their efforts on proposal writing and conduct of the funded research. These institutions are also better positioned to compete more successfully for future funding opportunities, and to recruit and retain top faculty and graduate students.
While the committee heard from representatives of DoD programs that HBCU/MIs are currently accessing (e.g., SMART [Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation] program; centers of excellence), it also learned of many other funding and capacity-building opportunities that these institutions are either not applying for or not succeeding at when they do apply. Determining how HBCU/MIs are faring across DoD proved difficult, in part because of
significant data gaps (discussed more fully in Chapter 4 and below). From the commissioned research, however, the committee found a significant disparity in DoD research funding levels across the higher education landscape. From fiscal year (FY) 2010 through FY 2020, approximately $67 billion in DoD science and technology (S&T) funding was awarded to 1,183 institutions of higher education, of which 157, or about 13 percent, were HBCUs or other MIs. However, HBCU/MIs received only 1.3 percent of the total DoD research funding awarded to all institutions of higher education. The data also indicated significant differences in the level, length, and type (i.e., contract versus grant) of DoD-funding awarded to HBCU/MIs, as compared to funding awarded to non-HBCU/MIs. These differences remain when assessing awards made to the top-funded HBCU/MIs and non-HBCU/MIs, including an analysis across 11 years of recent funding, geographical locations, and Carnegie classifications.
OVERARCHING CONCLUSION 1: A strategic commitment with long-term targeted investments (i.e., on the order of at least a decade) is needed from within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to increase research capacity at HBCU/MIs to more successfully compete for and execute DoD awards (e.g., contracts and grants). Long-term additional investments are needed in research infrastructure (e.g., physical research facilities, equipment), personnel (e.g., research faculty, student researchers, research staff, teaching loads), and programmatic support (e.g., administrative support, sponsored program offices, legal review, and technology transfer office).
Addressing Data Gaps: Improving DoD’s Ability to Assess Research Capacity at HBCU/MIs
Finding the data across DoD to determine the extent of support and identify gaps proved so much of a challenge that one recommendation is to comprehensively determine which data to collect, especially as they relate to institutional research capacity, then consistently collect, analyze, and share data. The commissioned research provided only a partial view of what would best inform DoD, HBCU/MI, and other stakeholder efforts. The committee was not able to identify, through requests to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and military departments, sufficient data to assess DoD’s level of investment and measurable impact on the advancement of HBCU/MI research capacity. Specifically, the type, detail, organization, and completeness of data submissions varied greatly across DoD and could not be characterized as long time series data, which ultimately challenged the committee’s ability to formulate research questions.
OVERARCHING CONCLUSION 2: There is insufficient data collection, inter-departmental program coordination, and long-term records, and a lack of quantitative evaluations to appropriately assess DoD’s (Under Secretary
of Defense for Research and Engineering, military departments, and defense agencies) total investment and measurable impact on the advancement of HBCU/MI research capacity.
As discussed, the committee collected expert opinions through commissioned papers and perspectives from representatives of DoD and institutions of higher education through public workshops and confidential focus groups. Ultimately, the committee found that it could not prescribe one particular route as a best practice, because of the range of HBCU/MIs, including their varying size, location, priorities, levels of experience and expertise in securing federal grants and contracts, and capacity to conduct research, as well as the lack of a rigorous evidence base about what should and should not be considered a best practice. It did, however, draw on the rich input received to identify promising practices that can result in expanding DoD research capacities at HBCU/MIs interested in pursuing research in four broad areas: establishing critical infrastructure, increasing proactive communications and relationship-building efforts, forming true partnerships, and considering other agency programs and practices for adoption/adaptation. As highlighted in Chapter 5, the committee also recognized that different stakeholders have different roles to play in implementing these practices.
Finally, it should be noted that to directly address its research charge, the committee focused on institutions (HBCU/MIs) rather than individuals from underrepresented minorities in STEM. However, comments raised during the workshops and focus groups gave insight related to students’ pathways upon graduation from HBCU/MIs that merit further examination. The committee heard concerns from HBCU/MI representatives about the career decisions many of their graduates make after conferral of bachelor’s degrees. Many HBCU/MI graduates find immediate work in industry after graduation, but too few go on to graduate programs in STEM fields. Such a situation highlights concerns related to incentives and graduate research stipends, and recruitment into post-baccalaureate research positions in academia. While it is important that HBCU/MI graduates enter the defense industrial workforce to increase DoD’s ability to innovate and solve national defense challenges, it is also important to ensure a continuing flow of STEM graduate students from underrepresented groups working on defense projects, advanced degree holders entering DoD laboratory employment, and a STEM professoriate at HBCU/MIs proposing and executing defense research. DoD programs that engage students at the beginning of their undergraduate pathway (including at two-year institutions) in research or internships may reap tremendous benefits in building interest in defense-related research. Stakeholders interested in strengthening the current and future U.S. citizen STEM workforce must acknowledge the underutilized resource of HBCUs and other MIs for STEM talent. Investments in both individuals and institutions can lead to better HBCU/MI research viability and improved success of individuals from underrepresented groups in STEM.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite continual general support and encouragements from Congress and DoD to increase the role of HBCU/MIs in national defense research and the STEM workforce, the committee found that DoD’s funding of research and research infrastructure at HBCU/MIs has largely remained unchanged over the past 10 fiscal years, as reviewed in this study. Of note, the committee’s statement of task directed an emphasis on developing research capacity that enables these institutions’ competitiveness, not just support for project funding. The committee concluded that current DoD programs, practices, and investments (targeted to HBCU/MIs or otherwise) are insufficient to enhance the capacity and competitiveness of HBCU/MIs. The committee recommends a number of actions that can be taken by DoD and entities partnering with HBCU/MIs to advance defense research capacity.
Increasing Funding for Capacity-Building at HBCU/MIs
The committee’s analysis of funding data from FY 2010 through FY 2020 indicated that there has not been a significant expansion in the funding for research projects or research capacity awarded to the vast majority of HBCU/MIs. The data show significant differences in the length and type (contract versus grant) of DoD funding awarded to HBCU/MIs when compared to funding awarded to non-HBCU/MIs. More specifically, HBCU/MIs receive a disproportionately smaller share of DoD research and development (R&D)-related funding as compared to non-HBCU/MIs.
The committee found that there were significant differences in research infrastructure support (e.g., laboratory facilities and equipment, administrative support, faculty research time) between HBCU/MIs and non-HBCU/MIs. Without access to the most up-to-date equipment, infrastructure, and administrative and program support, HBCU/MIs cannot be as competitive as other institutions for DoD research opportunities.
To address these disparities, DoD’s existing, discrete, targeted HBCU/MI research and equipment funding should be re-directed or significantly enhanced, or a new program initiated that focuses on long-term “institutional capacity-building.” Such a long-term commitment should focus on a few DoD-priority technical disciplines.
RECOMMENDATION 1A: DoD entities (i.e., Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, military departments, and defense agencies) with responsibilities to establish or increase DoD-relevant research capacity at HBCU/MIs should provide long-term institutional support in one or more of the following areas:
- Physical research infrastructure (e.g., equipment, facilities);
- Institutional research support and personnel (e.g., sponsored program offices, tech transfer offices, administrative and technical support);
- Programmatic support to research faculty and students (e.g., reduction of faculty teaching loads, training in DoD grants and contracts, incentives to conduct DoD-relevant research); and/or
- Business information technology support (i.e., establishment or updates in grant management systems).
Note: “Long term” refers to the time required to make lasting change (i.e., on the order of at least a decade).
RECOMMENDATION 1B: Annual increases in congressional allocations notwithstanding, the DoD S&T Basic Research budget (Budget Activity BA1) has largely remained flat in terms of purchasing power. To achieve DoD’s goal to increase the nation’s competitiveness, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should seek to be an exemplar in advancing the research capacity of HBCU/MIs to help address the national security and defense needs of the nation. Recommended actions include to do the following:
-
Request real growth in the S&T Basic Research budget to help fund HBCU/MI capacity-building:
- In the short term, request at least a doubling of the FY 2020 HBCU/MI targeted funding (DoD Program Element 0601228D8Z) and dedicate it to capacity-building in DoD interest areas. In addition, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the military departments/defense agencies should be granted means to increase their capacity to manage the recommended increase in DoD Program Element 0601228D8Z.
- In the longer term, DoD should strive to meet or exceed the funding levels of other mission-focused agencies that are also continuing to improve their engagements with HBCU/MIs. For example, in consideration of HBCU/MI R&D expenditures relative to agencies’ total R&D expenditures in FY 2019, DoD’s expenditures for HBCU/MIs constituted 1.1 percent of the total ($72.5 million within $6.65 billion total R&D expenditures), in contrast to the Department of Energy’s 1.9 percent ($36.6 million within $1.94 billion total R&D expenditures) and NASA’s 2 percent ($34 million within $1.64 billion total R&D expenditures).
-
Identify new allocations of non-S&T funds to help build certain aspects of institutional capacity over the longer term. Alternative funding sources worthy of investigation include but are not limited to the following:
- Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Management
- Support (6.6) funds (currently used to support DoD management costs);
- Operations and maintenance funds (currently used to support personnel incentive costs and training/education programs); and
- Select procurement accounts (e.g., Other Procurement, Army; Other Procurement, Navy; Military Construction) that support non-research project defense capabilities.
Should these potential, alternative funding sources become available, the funds should be carefully tracked by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and by the recipient HBCU/MI for use in research capacity-building efforts.
Note: “Short term” refers to action within two to three years, allowing for DoD financial programming, budget request formulation, and congressional authorization and appropriation. “Long term” refers to the time required to make lasting change (i.e., on the order of at least a decade).
RECOMMENDATION 1C: Additional funds requested and appropriated for HBCU/MI institutional capacity-building should be deployed to put military departments’ S&T program offices in more direct contact with HBCU/MIs (e.g., using the Military Department Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative competition process as a model). These additional funds, with more discretionary authority on allowable institutional costs, would be generally aimed at long-term capacity-building (not discrete short-term research projects). Examples include
- supporting the buy-out of teaching time to enable focus on research;
- developing or enhancing HBCU/MI institutional grant/contract administration capabilities to facilitate DoD proposal development and submission;
- providing tailored government support to HBCU/MIs (on-site, if practical) to assist with building capacity;
- supplementing expenses usually covered by overhead rates; and/or
- upgrading research infrastructure.
Strengthening Program Coordination and HBCU/MI Engagement
In the committee’s assessment of DoD program coordination and engagement with HBCU/MIs, it noted the need for DoD to build stronger relationships with researchers and leaders at HBCU/MIs whose interests align with those of the military departments (e.g., U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force). This would encourage the cultivation, monitoring, and tracking of HBCU/MI relationships with the groups responsible for dispersing and monitoring funding.
RECOMMENDATION 2: To improve capacity-building at HBCU/MIs, the Office of the Secretary of Defense HBCU/MI program office should have policy and oversight over DoD HBCU/MI targeted funding, but the development and execution of HBCU/MI programs should reside primarily in the military departments and defense agencies.
Improving Data Collection and Evaluation
The committee requested data from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments related to DoD’s level of investment and measurable impact on the advancement of HBCU/MI research capacity. However, the data were insufficient to meet the committee’s needs. Specifically, the type, detail, organization, and completeness of data submissions varied greatly across DoD, which ultimately challenged the committee’s ability to formulate research questions. Therefore, the committee offers recommendations to address these deficiencies in data collection, including related to proposal submissions and research capacity.
RECOMMENDATION 3A: Data Collection and Evaluation All military departments and defense agencies should collect and analyze data on HBCU/MI research and research capacity to inform decision making and assess the impact of DoD investments. Data collection and analysis should be continual and consistent across military departments and agencies so that the data can be analyzed and, to the extent practical, be compatible with and included in national databases.
RECOMMENDATION 3B: Proposal Data Collection and Evaluation To increase the coordination of data collection, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering—in collaboration with the military departments, defense agencies, and the director of the Defense Technical Information Centers—should develop guidelines for data collection on defense research and institutional capacity at HBCU/MIs.
A directive should be issued by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to ensure the coordination of data collection and codify the guidance. Whenever possible, existing databases (e.g., www.grants.gov and www.usaspending.gov) should be used to provide access to DoD proposal data, so that funding trends for HBCU/MIs can be compared with other institutions of higher education in a systematic and ongoing manner. In addition, there are areas for data collection specific to HBCU/MIs which are not currently in place but should be considered, including the following:
- HBCU/MI proposal submission rates, success rates, and reasons for not funding;
- Total number of applications as a proportion of total HBCU/MI eligibility; and
- Formal feedback mechanisms for rejected proposals from first-time applicants from HBCU/MIs.
The military departments and defense agencies should collect, maintain, and analyze data and disseminate analyses to the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering for all institutions of higher education.
RECOMMENDATION 3C: Research Capacity Data Collection and Evaluation
The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should work with the military departments and defense agencies and institutions of higher education to do the following:
- Define the components of research capacity for institutions of higher education (including HBCU/MIs) that are of greatest interest to DoD;
- Determine areas for data collection on institutional research capacity (e.g., administrative support, research infrastructure, teaching loads);
- Develop metrics to help evaluate, track, and improve institutional growth and competitiveness; and
- Support future data analyses that assess the impact of DoD investments on building research capacity at HBCU/MIs.
Data collection and analyses should be performed on a continual basis for all DoD grants and contracts across all institutions of higher education and should result in a formal annual report to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Congress (namely, the Defense Subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees) early in the calendar year to inform the development of future National Defense Authorization Acts and appropriation bills.
Fostering True Partnerships
The theme of partnerships resonated throughout the committee’s discussions. True partnerships, ones that are grounded in mutual respect, meaningful engagement, and equity in funding and resources, can present good opportunities for joint research and collaboration, workforce development, and help HBCU/MIs build and advance their own capacity to conduct DoD-funded research. Within congressional reports and legislative language and often in federal agency research solicitations, there has been encouragement of partnerships between
HBCU/MIs and other universities, government entities, and industry, yet no examples were found where partnerships with HBCU/MIs were specifically incentivized or directed by DoD.
However, partnerships remain a prime method and mean to increase HBCU/MI research funding success, and DoD should take concrete steps to support true partnerships. An example could be to weight grant or contract solicitation evaluation criteria to increase a proposal’s scoring if it includes meaningful HBCU/MI research participation. This example supports HBCU/MIs in two ways. First, it incentivizes other universities and industry to search the HBCU/MI institutions of higher education for research talent and capabilities; second, it enhances the research capacity and capabilities of the HBCU/MIs. Underlying these methods for increasing HBCU/MI participation is the need to collect sufficient data, as discussed above, to evaluate research capabilities at HBCU/MIs.
RECOMMENDATION 4A: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should move beyond encouraging partnerships to incentivize mutually beneficial true partnerships by adding an element to award evaluation criteria that assigns value (or some other metric) for including HBCU/MIs as true research partners. Weighted grant or contract solicitation evaluation criteria for proposals that include true HBCU/MI research partnerships could serve as a sample incentive.
RECOMMENDATION 4B: Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering contracts with true partnerships should include increased funding to support the partnership and longer performance periods to allow for capacity-building at the HBCU/MI.
RECOMMENDATION 4C: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should examine opportunities to incentivize the defense industry to support HBCU/MI capacity-building. For example, it could encourage the use of the Independent Research and Development (IRAD) mechanism to support HBCU/MI research capacity-building and direct additional funding to Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) research incentives for partnerships with HBCU/MIs.
RECOMMENDATION 4D: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should establish a data descriptive tool as a resource that regularly captures the STEM research capabilities and technical disciplines of HBCU/MIs, as this can aid in developing research and educational collaborations between DoD-funded entities (e.g., university-affiliated research centers [UARCs], federally funded research and development centers [FFRDCs], industry) and HBCU/MIs. Such information will help match research needs with available HBCU/MI talent and facilities.
RECOMMENDATION 5: To further highlight opportunities to partner with HBCU/MIs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should examine and highlight HBCU/MIs with close proximity to DoD R&D centers and other DoD entities. It should also look to Defense Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR) and Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) programs, which may serve as models to expand research capacity in areas with potential for increased DoD research participation, as is the case for many Tribal Colleges and Universities.
RECOMMENDATION 6: To identify HBCU/MIs with STEM research capabilities that are relevant to DoD research, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should compile a list of HBCU/MI institutions that have received STEM funding from other federal agencies, including, but not limited to, the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Institute of Standards and Technology), and Department of Education. This list should include data on HBCU/MIs’ graduate programs, majors offered, and research capabilities. The information should be updated regularly.
Incorporating Promising Practices and Programs
The committee examined programs related to HBCU/MIs at DoD and other federal agencies. DoD has a number of programs designed to attract and retain students specializing in STEM, including from HBCU/MIs. The SMART Scholarship-for-Service Program, for example, provides STEM students with full tuition, annual stipends, and employment with DoD.
Other government agencies, such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, have demonstrated success in workforce development and increased research capacity at HBCU/MIs. Practices from other government agencies may be suitable for adoption and/or adaptation by DoD.
In one example, DoD collaborates with the National Science Foundation on the Awards to Stimulate and Support Undergraduate Research Experiences (ASSURE) program, which offers two- and four-year HBCU/MIs a way to attract more students into graduate degree programs. DoD, in collaboration with the National Science Foundation, uses the ASSURE program to foster interest in science and engineering for undergraduates. However, HBCU/MIs have very limited participation.
DoD could increase the pool of undergraduate students from HBCU/MIs if it leveraged the ASSURE program, and other related programs, at HBCU/MIs. In particular, the ASSURE program could be used at Tribal Colleges and Universities and other smaller HBCU/MIs to garner interest and excite students in DoD STEM research areas. Students who participated in ASSURE would be candidates for graduate work at institutions of higher education throughout the United States encompassing both HBCU/MIs and non-HBCU/MIs.
RECOMMENDATION 7: By FY 2024, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, with the military departments and defense agencies, should review the programs and practices of other government agencies (e.g., National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health) relevant to increasing research capacity at HBCU/MIs. The results of the review should be shared widely within DoD, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Congress. In addition to examining the practices of other federal agencies, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should identify opportunities to strengthen collaboration with those agencies and seek interagency leveraging opportunities to build capacity at HBCU/MIs.
RECOMMENDATION 8: The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should immediately direct current workforce development programs, such as the SMART program and other scholarship and fellowship programs, to increase HBCU/MI representation in the DoD S&T workforce, with a goal to increase proportional representation in these programs by FY 2025. DoD should also examine opportunities through and in collaboration with other federal agencies to expand HBCU/MI representation in the federal STEM workforce. Specifically:
- The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should collaborate with the National Science Foundation to expand the DoD Awards to Stimulate and Support Undergraduate Research Experiences (ASSURE) program to two- and four-year HBCU/MIs in order to attract more students into graduate degree programs. The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and military departments should also expand the ASSURE program to make it possible for HBCU/MI principal investigators to obtain research supplement awards for adding undergraduate student researchers to current DoD grants.
- The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should examine opportunities to leverage or collaborate with the National Science Foundation to expand its Tribal Colleges and Universities
- Program (TCUP) to promote STEM research and accelerate capacity-building at these institutions.
A PATH FORWARD
Current DoD programs, practices, and investments (targeted to HBCU/MIs or otherwise) are insufficient to enhance the capacity and competitiveness of HBCU/MIs. New, additional investments in infrastructure support and research funding can increase these institutions’ effectiveness as performers. Simply allocating a larger share of the small and stagnant DoD S&T budget to HBCU/MI projects is not sufficient to gain relevant capacity. DoD has an opportunity to increase funding, strengthen capacity, and incentivize partnerships at HBCU/MIs. The recommendations in this report are offered to guide DoD, Congress, HBCU/MIs, and partnering entities in supporting and strengthening the role of these institutions in defense research. A strategic commitment to act on the above recommendations will translate into increased opportunities for HBCU/MIs to diversify the future U.S. academic, industrial, and government STEM workforce upon which DoD will depend.
This page intentionally left blank.
