Order Code RL34435
Federal Research and Development Funding at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Updated September 26, 2008
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist, Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Federal Research and Development Funding at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Summary
The historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), which have
traditionally educated a significant number of the nation’s blacks, have faced, and
continue to face, substantial challenges in attempting to enhance their academic and
research capabilities. Some of these institutions have a myriad of problems — aging
infrastructures, limited access to digital and wireless networking technology, absence
of state-of-the-art equipment, low salary structures, small endowments, and limited
funds for faculty development and new academic programs for students. While many
of these problems exist in other institutions, they appear to be considerably more
serious in HBCUs. In addition, those HBCUs damaged by Hurricane Katrina have
the added costs in the millions of replacing facilities, research equipment, and
rebuilding their infrastructure. This is an issue for Congress because the distribution
of federal funding for HBCUs is one of the critical issues facing these institutions.
HBCUs comprise approximately 2.3% of all institutions of higher education,
and enroll approximately 11.6% of all black students attending post-secondary
institutions. Approximately 33.0% of the undergraduate degrees in science and
engineering earned by blacks were awarded at HBCUs. Some of the most successful
programs designed to attract and retain underrepresented minorities into the sciences
and in research careers have been initiated at HBCUs. Data indicate that in 2004,
HBCUs provided the education for approximately 20.2% of blacks earning bachelor
degrees in engineering, 39.5% in the physical sciences, 26.3% in computer science,
37.0% in mathematics, 36.1% in the biological sciences, 47.0% in agricultural
sciences, 16.4% in social sciences, and 21.4% in psychology.
On August 14, 2008, the President signed into law P.L. 110-315, the Higher
Education Opportunity Act (HEOA). The HEOA provides authority for loans for
repair and renovation of academic research facilities, among other facilities.
Language in Title III, Part B, provides formula grants to eligible institutions. The
percentage of funds allocated to each institution is based on several factors, and no
institution can receive less that $250,000. Title III, Part D of the HEOA establishes
a bonding authority to raise capital to be lent to HBCUs for repair and renovation of
facilities. The total amount that would be available for financing is $1.1 billion. The
aggregate authority principal and unpaid accrued interest on these loans cannot be
more than $733.3 million for private HBCUs and no more than $366.7 million for
public HBCUs. Title III, Part E of the HEOA provides funding for two new minority
science and engineering improvement programs. A partnership grant program is
directed at increasing the participation of underrepresented minority youth or low-
income youth in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education.
Activities to be supported include outreach, hands-on, and experiential-based
learning projects. Another program will focus on encouraging minorities to pursue
careers in the scientific and technical disciplines.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Classification of HBCUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Federal Research and Development Support at HBCUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Research Funding at HBCUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Research Facilities at HBCUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Various Agency Programs to Enhance Support of Research at HBCUs . . . . . . . 15
Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Congressional Action in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
List of Tables
Table 1. Federal R&D Support and Total Academic S&E Funding to the
Top 20 HBCUs in FY2005, Ranked by R&D Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 2. Source of Funds for Science/Engineering Research Facilities at the
Original 29 HBCUs: 1986-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Federal Research and Development
Funding at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities
Introduction
The historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), which have
traditionally educated a significant number of the nation’s blacks, have faced and
continue to face substantial challenges in attempting to enhance their academic and
research capabilities and develop programs to compete with other institutions of
higher education. Some of these black institutions have a myriad of problems —
aging infrastructures, limited access to computer resources and digital network
technology, absence of state-of-the-art equipment, low salary structures, small
endowments, and limited funds for faculty development and new academic programs
for students.1 While many of these problems exist in other institutions, they appear
to be considerably more serious in HBCUs.2 In addition, those HBCUs damaged by
Hurricane Katrina have the added costs in the millions for replacing facilities,
research equipment, and rebuilding their infrastructure.3
The changing external environment (increasing public demand for institutional
accountability and effectiveness) and new competitive conditions in higher education
(varying levels of state support coupled with spiraling costs of research) have made
1 House Committee on Education and Labor, America’s Black Colleges and Universities:
Models of Excellence and Challenges for the Future, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 13, 2008,
Written testimonies of Hazel O’Leary, President, Fisk University and Earl S. Richardson,
President, Morgan State University. See also Chalokwu, Christopher I., “A Rationale for
Increasing Funding for HBCUs,” Black Issues in Higher Education, v. 20, January 1, 2004,
p. 98, Frazier, Matt, “Survival Is Evolving Struggle for Black Colleges,” Fort-Worth Star-
Telegram, February 2, 2003, Metro, p. 1.
2 See for example Powell, Tracie, “Surviving Tough Times: From Administrative
Reorganizations to Finding New Streams of Revenue, Some Historically Black Colleges and
Universities are Determined to Stay Afloat,” Black Issues in Higher Education, v. 20,
January 1, 2004, pp. 34 -37.
3 See for example Minor, James T., Contemporary HBCUs: Considering Institutional
Capacity and State Priorities, Michigan State University, College of Education, January
2008, 37 pp., Southern Education Foundation, “Education After Katrina: Time for a New
Federal Response,” Atlanta, GA, August 2007, 35 pp., Hamilton, Kendra, “Restructuring,
Restoring and Rebuilding,” Diverse Issues in Higher Education, v. 23, March 23, 2006, pp.
24-27, and Schuman, Jamie, “Southern U. At New Orleans May Have to Rebuild From
Scratch, at a Cost of $300-Million or More,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 52,
September 23, 2005, p. A16.
CRS-2
it increasingly harder for HBCUs to develop and expand their research programs.4
Because of their level of financial support (federal, state, and private), some believe
many HBCUs are unable to engage in the level of cutting-edge scientific research
conducted by many non-HBCUs.5 Many HBCUs face difficulty competing for
federal research dollars with other research-performing universities.6 Coupled with
limited federal support, HBCUs have very small endowments. A 2005 report of the
Southern Education Foundation found that HBCUs have received attention and
support from only a few foundations.7
Amid criticism by officials and representatives of HBCUs concerning the
disparity in their receipt of federal science and engineering support, several executive
orders were issued between 1980 to 2002, designed to strengthen and increase the
participation of the HBCUs in federally sponsored programs and to improve the
administrative infrastructure of the institutions.8 The most recent executive order
was released on February 12, 2002, and states that:
In developing its annual plan, each executive department and agency identified
by the Secretary shall emphasize programs and activities that develop the
capacity of historically black colleges and universities to contribute to the
development of human capital and to strengthen America’s economic and
technological base through: (1) infrastructure development and acquisitions for
instruction and research; (2) student and faculty doctoral fellowships and faculty
development: (3) domestic and international faculty and student exchanges and
4 Educational Testing Service, A Culture of Evidence III: An Evidence-Centered Approach
to Accountability for Student Learning Outcomes, Princeton, NJ, February 2008, 24 pp.,
Department of Education, A Test of Leadership, Charting the Future of U.S. Higher
Education, A Report of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, September
2006, 76 pp., Carey, Kevin, “Make Universities Accountable for What Matters,” Education
Sector, November 2007, Redden, Elizabeth, “Explaining State Spending on Higher Ed,”
Inside Higher Ed, October 11, 2007, [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/11/
spending], and National Science Foundation, “Universities Report Stalled Growth in Federal
R&D Funding in FY2006,” InfoBrief, NSF07-336, Rhonda Britt, Arlington, VA, September
2007, 6 pp.
5 Chalokwu, Christopher I., “A Rationale for Increasing Funding for HBCUs,” and House
Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Research, Preparing a 21st
Century Workforce: Strengthening and Improving K-12 and Undergraduate Science, Math,
and Engineering Education, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 22, 2002, Testimony of Sebetha
Jenkins, President, Jarvis Christina College.
6 See for example The Southern Education Foundation, Igniting Potential, Historically
Black Colleges and Universities and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics,
Summer 2005, 36 pp.
7 The Southern Education Foundation, Igniting Potential, Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, pp. 22-23.
8 The various executive orders include Executive Order 12232, August 1980; Executive
Order 12320, September 1981; Executive Order 12677, April 1989; Executive Order 12876,
November 1993, and Executive Order 13256, February 2002.
CRS-3
study-abroad opportunities; (4) undergraduate and graduate student internships;
and (5) summer, part-time, and permanent employment opportunities.9
An August 2008 report of the NSF reveals that for the academic year 2006,
approximately 33.0% of the black science and engineering doctorate recipients had
earned their bachelor degrees at an HBCU.10 While HBCUs have played an
important role in providing the undergraduate preparation for many of those black
students entering highly specialized science and engineering disciplines, forecasts
indicate that their efforts at attracting, retaining, preparing, and graduating students
in the sciences and engineering may need to be expanded in order to respond to
changing demographics.11 A September 2006 report of the Department of Education
(ED) states that between 2004 and 2015, enrollment in degree-granting institutions
is projected to increase 27% for black, non-Hispanic students, 42% for Hispanic
students, 30% for Native American/Alaskan Natives, 28% for Asian/Pacific
Islanders, and 6% for white, non-Hispanic students.12 These groups, the “new
majority,”13 on which the economy must increasingly rely, have traditionally been
underrepresented in the sciences compared to their fraction of the total population.14
9 The White House, Executive Order 13256, Advisors for Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, February 2002, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020212-
3.html].
10 National Science Foundation, “Role of HBCUs as Baccalaureate-Origin Institutions of
Black S&E Doctorate Recipients, “ InfoBrief, NSF08-319, Joan Burrelli and Alan Rapoport,
Arlington, VA, August 2008, 8 pp.
11 Lomax, Michael, “The HBCU Mission: A Fresh Look for a New Congress,” Diverse
Issues in Higher Education, v. 24, February 22, 2007, p. 51, Allen, Walter R., Joseph O.
Jewell, Kimberly A. Griffin, and De’Sha S. Wolf, “Historically Black Colleges and
Universities: Honoring the Past, Engaging the Present, Touching the Future,” Journal of
Negro Education, Summer 2007, pp. 263-281, and Igniting Potential, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, 36 pp.
12 Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Projections of
Education Statistics to 2015, NCES2006-084, September 2006, p. 10. Note: Demographic
data indicate that blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans/Alaskan Natives, and Asians/Pacific
Islanders will comprise more than 52% of the undergraduate population (18-24 years old)
of the United States by 2050, an increase from the recorded 34% in 1999. National Science
Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and
Engineering:2007, NSF07-315, Arlington, VA, February 2007, p.4. See also National
Science Board, America’s Pressing Challenge — Building a Stronger Foundation, NSB06-
02, Arlington, VA, January 2006, p. 3.
13 The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 303 counties in the nation, out of a total of 3,141,
have a “majority-minority” population — more than 50% racial/ethnic minority. U.S.
Census Press Releases, August 9, 2007.
14 For discussion of the participation of underrepresented groups in the sciences see for
example Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering:
2007, 304 pp., Johnson, Angela, “Graduating Underrepresented African Americans, Latino,
and American Indian Students in Science,” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, v. 13, 2007, pp. 1-21, White, Jeffrey L., James W. Altschuld, and Yi-Fang Lee,
“Persistence of Interest in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: A Minority
Retention Study,” The Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, v. 12,
(continued...)
CRS-4
There are those observers who believe that the problem of underrepresented
minorities in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology could compromise
the United States’ ability to develop and advance its traditional industrial base and
to compete in international marketplaces.15 Freeman A. Hrabowski, President,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, states that : “... [T]he paucity of minority
scientists is not simply a minority issue; it is an American issue.”16
Historical Background17
HBCUs are defined as those institutions that were established prior to 1964,
with the principal mission of educating black Americans.18 While three HBCUs were
established prior to the Civil War, the majority of these institutions were established
after the War, several with the public support of land grants through the Freedman’s
Bureau.19 The National Land-Grant Colleges Act of 1862 (P.L. 37-108), otherwise
known as the 1862 Morrill Act, provided public lands to various states for the
purpose of constructing educational institutions.20 Funds appropriated under this act
were distributed to the states “with the intention that they would foster equal
educational opportunities for all students, especially newly freed Blacks.”21
However, the land-grant higher education system resulting from the 1862 Morrill Act
14 (...continued)
2006, pp. 47-64, and CRS Report 98-871, Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
Education: Status and Issues, by Christine M. Matthews.
15 See for example Heriot, Gail, “Civil Rights Commission to Explore Ways to Encourage
More Minorities to Enter Science, Technology, Engineering & Math,” The Right Coast,
September 4, 2008, [http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2008/09/civil-rights-co.html],
The National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
Policy, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2007, pp. 165-168, and Commission on
the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology
Development, Land of Plenty - Diversity as America’s Competitive Edge in Science,
Engineering and Technology, September 2000, 91 pp.
16 Pluviose, David, “The Meyerhoff Model,” Diverse Issues in Higher Education, v. 25,
July 10, 2008, pp.18-19.
17 For an expanded history of HBCUs see for example Jackson, Cynthia L. and Eleanor F.
Nunn, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, A Reference Handbook, Santa Barbara,
California, 2003, 253 pp, and Peltak, Jennifer, History of African-American Colleges &
Universities, Philadelphia, 2003, 120 pp.
18 Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Snyder, Thomas D.,
Stephen Provasnik, and Linda L. Shafer, Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 1976
to 2001, NCES2004-062, Washington, DC, September 2004, p. 1.
19 The Freedman’s Bureau operated from 1865-1873 to provide assistance for newly freed
slaves. Ibid., p. 2.
20 The establishment of a public land-grant system is considered to be one of the most
significant developments in U.S. higher education. Prior to the First Morrill Act, higher
education opportunities were limited to the very elite.
21 Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 1976 to 2001, op. cit., p. 1.
CRS-5
failed to provide equal educational opportunities. Black students were excluded from
enrolling in traditionally white institutions.
Funds from the Morrill Act began to flow systemically to schools offering only
all-white education. Congress attempted by various legislation to force racial
equality, including equality of educational opportunity. However, the U.S.
Supreme Court initiated a series of interpretations of the post-Civil War
constitutional amendments which ultimately defeated these various legislative
efforts. Culminating with its landmark 1882 decision finding the first Civil
Rights Act [1866] unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held that the 14th
amendment only protected against direct discriminatory action by a State
government.22
A Second Morrill Act was passed in 1890, which included language mandating
States with dual systems of higher education to provide land-grant institutions for
both systems. As a result, 19 institutions were established as black land-grant
institutions, enrolling those black students who had been excluded under the 1862
legislation. While there was the creation of two land-grant systems — one
established under the 1862 Land-Grant Act (1862 Morrill Act) and the other under
the 1890 Land-Grant Act (Second Morrill Act) — the level of support for the 1890
institutions (both federal and state) never approximated the level received by the
1862 land-grant institutions.23 In particular, during the expansion of program
offerings and disciplines at the 1890 institutions, the disparity in funding for research
infrastructure between them and the earlier established institutions severely limited
their efforts to support basic and applied research.24 In written testimony before the
House Committee on Agriculture in support of legislation providing assistance to
1890 institutions, the Honorable Harold E. Ford noted that:
The 1890 institutions were never adequately funded the way they should have
been by the various states. With assistance from the various states and Federal
Government, the 1862 institutions were permitted to thrive and expand, while the
1890 institutions received meager funding from both their respective state and
Federal Government.
Furthermore, the 1890 institutions were not eligible to participate in the facilities
programs provided in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the Federal Government.
Under the Research Facilities Act of 1963, only the 1862 land-grant institutions
were permitted to participate in this program. Not until 1967 did the Federal
22 Ibid.
23 For a discussion of the history of land-grant institutions, see McDowell, George R.,
“Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture: Renegotiating or Abandoning A Social Contract”,
Choices, Second Quarter 1988, p. 18-21, Schuh, G. Edward, “Revitalizing Land-Grant
Universities,” Choices, Second Quarter 1986, p. 6-10, National Research Council, Board on
Agriculture, Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile, Washington,
DC, 1995, and Bonnen, James T, “Land Grant Universities Are Changing,” November 1996,
[http://www.adec.edu/clemson/papers/bonnen1.html].
24 Most HBCUs began as “normal” schools — with the fundamental mission to train
teachers. Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a shift in that focus to other
professions. HBCUs do, however, continue to graduate and award a large number of
degrees in the field of education.
CRS-6
Government start to provide research funds to the 1890 programs. These funds
were for research projects, and not for constructing research facilities.25
Classification of HBCUs
The diversity of HBCUs parallels that of other institutions of higher education.
HBCUs are composed of public and private institutions, single-sex and
coeducational, predominantly black and predominantly white,26 two-year and
four-year institutions, research universities, liberal arts colleges, professional schools,
and community colleges. A March 2008 report of ED provides statistical data on
100 HBCUs — 41 public four-year colleges, 11 public two-year colleges, 46 private
four-year colleges, and 2 private two-year colleges.27
HBCUs comprise almost 2.3% of all institutions of higher education and enroll
approximately 11.6% of black students attending post-secondary institutions.28
Approximately 33.0%, on average, of the undergraduate degrees in science and
engineering earned by blacks were awarded by HBCUs. In addition, some of the
most successful programs designed to attract underrepresented minorities into the
25 In 1967, the federal government provided $285,000 to be divided among 16 1890 land-
grant institutions (approximately $17,812.50 per institution). House Committee on
Agriculture, Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture,
Hearing on H.R. 1309, 1890 Land-Grant Colleges Facilities, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., June 4,
1981, p. 13-15.
26 Fall 2005 enrollment data reveal that three HBCUs have predominantly white student
populations — Bluefield State College (88.5%), West Virginia State College (84.5%), and
Lincoln University, Missouri (60.4%). In addition, St. Phillip’s College, San Antonio, a
two-year institution, has a large Hispanic enrollment — 47.7%. St. Phillip’s College is the
only institution with the dual designation of being both an HBCU and a Hispanic-serving
institution. The black student enrollment at St. Phillip’s is 16.2%, and the white student
enrollment is 33.8%. See also Goldman, Russell, ABC News, “Changing Face of
Historically Black Colleges,” May 19, 2008, [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4874870].
27 Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics 2007, NCES2008-022,
Washington, DC, March 2008, Table 230, pp. 348-349. Documents provided by the White
House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities list, as of September 2008,
a total of 105 HBCUs. The list of the 100 institutions detailed in the Digest of Education
Statistics, excludes those HBCUs that are not participating in Title IV programs (Higher
Education Act). Title IV eligible institutions are required to meet certain criteria in order
to receive federal student financial aid. A Title IV eligible institutions must have, among
other things, “acceptable accreditation and admission standards, eligible academic
program(s), administrative capability, and financial responsibility.” Digest of Education
Statistics 2007, p. 666.
28 Digest of Education Statistics 2007, Tables 218 and 231, pp. 314, 350. ED data reveal
that for the academic school year 2006-2007, there were 2,629 four-year institutions, and
1,685 two-year institutions. Disaggregated data show that HBCUs are approximately 3.3%
of all four-year institutions and less than 1.0% of all two-year institutions.
CRS-7
sciences and in research careers have been initiated at HBCUs.29 An analysis of ED
2006-2007 preliminary data shows that Xavier University, an HBCU, ranks first
nationally in the number of blacks earning undergraduate degrees in the biological
and biomedical sciences.30 The institution has received national recognition for its
model science program and has participated in NSF’s Model Institutions for
Excellence program. North Carolina A&T State University, also an HBCU, ranks
first in the number of blacks earning undergraduate degrees in engineering.31 Data
compiled by the NSF reveal that in 2004, HBCUs provided the education for
approximately 20.2% of blacks earning bachelor degrees in engineering, 39.5% in the
physical sciences, 26.3% in computer sciences, 37.0% in mathematics, 36.1% in the
biological sciences, 42.0% in agricultural sciences, 16.4% in social sciences, and
21.4% in psychology.32
Federal Research and Development Support at
HBCUs
The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides data on federal academic
science and engineering support to colleges and universities in six categories:
research and development (R&D); fellowships, traineeships, and training grants;
R&D plant; facilities and equipment for instruction; general support for science and
engineering; and other science and engineering activities.33 An important issue in the
academic community, and in science and technology policy in general, is the
distribution of federal R&D funds to colleges and universities. A major criticism of
federal R&D funding patterns is that there is concentration in certain colleges and
universities, restricting the development and expansion of scientific and technical
29 The underrepresented minorities include blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and
women. Asian Americans are excluded because they are not statistically underrepresented
in science, mathematics, and engineering. See for example National Science Foundation,
Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, Figure D-2,
p. 10, and Wyer, Mary, “Intending to Stay: Images of Scientists, Attitudes Toward Women,
and Gender as Influences on Persistence Among Science and Engineering Majors,” Journal
of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, vol. 9, 2003, pp. 1-16.
30 Borden, Victor M. H.,”Top 100 Undergraduate Degree Producers — Interpreting the
Data,” Diverse Issues in Higher Education, v. 25, June 12, 2008, p. 28.
31 Ibid., p. 34.
32 National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Degrees, by Race/Ethnicity of
Recipients: 1995-2004, NSF07-308, Arlington, VA, January 2007, Table 13. Note: An
expanded discussion of HBCUs is contained in Department of Education, Characteristics
of Minority-Serving Institutions and Minority Undergraduates Enrolled in These
Institutions, NCES2008-156, November 2007, 196 pp.
33 Other science and engineering activities are defined as “... technical conferences, teacher
institutes, and programs geared to increase the scientific knowledge of precollege and
undergraduate students. Such activities comprise some of the building blocks of science
education and future research capability.” National Science Foundation, “The Extent of
Federal S&E Funding to Minority-Serving Institutions,” InfoBrief, NSF04-325, Richard J.
Bennof, Arlington, VA, June 2004, p. 2.
CRS-8
capabilities in other institutions. In an analysis of 650 research-performing
institutions, NSF found that the top 100 institutions accounted for approximately
80% of all academic R&D funding in FY2006. Those institutions falling in the top
100 category showed only minimal changes in more than 20 years.34 The charge is
that the elite institutions (“haves”) continue in their status, and the less-prestigious
research institutions (“have-nots”) continue to struggle for research funding.35 While
various measures of equity can be calculated based on the number of institutions,
geographic distribution, student enrollments, science and engineering students,
graduate students, and so forth — the following analysis will examine federal
obligations for R&D to HBCUs as a percentage of all institutions receiving R&D
expenditures.
An October 2007 report of the NSF reveals that in FY2005, 908 U.S. colleges
and universities received R&D support.36 Of that total, 72 are HBCUs.37 Trend data
reveal that these research-performing HBCUs have not shared proportionately in the
distribution of federal R&D obligations to colleges and universities.38 Although
funding to HBCUs has increased in the past 10 years in absolute terms, it remains
only a small fraction of the total awarded to all U.S. colleges and universities. A
2007 report of the NSF, Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities,
Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2005, reveals that for FY2005,
HBCUs received approximately $294.2 million for R&D, an increase of $19.4
million (7.1%) over the FY2004 level of $274.8 million.39 Data from FY1996-
34 National Science Foundation, “Universities Report Stalled Growth in Federal R&D
Funding in FY2006,” NSF07-336, InfoBrief, September 2007, 6 pp.
35 In 1990, the first Bush Administration proposed to categorize and classify HBCUs based
on their missions and programs. The premise was that it would allow federal agencies to
select the appropriate group for developing linkages, rather than having them work with the
various programs in all the institutions. Considerable criticism voiced by presidents and
department chairs of HBCUs contributed to the withdrawal of the proposal. Opposition was
based on the concern that only a small group of the institutions would receive funding —
those that were already considered to be the research “elite.” It was believed that the
remainder would be abandoned. Mercer, Joye, “ White House Scraps Classification Plan
for Black Institutions,” Black Issues in Higher Education, v. 8, May 23, 1991, p. 7.
36 National Science Foundation, “FY2005 Federal S&E Obligations Reach Over 2,400
Academic and Nonprofit Institutions; Data Presented on Minority-Serving Institutions,”
NSF07-326 (Revised), InfoBrief, Richard J. Bennof, October 2007, p. 2. A total of 1,227
academic institutions received federal S&E support in FY2005 (with R&D being one of the
six categories of S&E support).
37 National Science Foundation, Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities,
Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions: FY2005, Table 24.
38 See for example Anderson, Lauren Bayne, “Black Colleges Continue Fighting for Federal
Funds,” The Wall Street Journal, October 29, 2003, p. B.4J, “Pork Barrel Grants: Tidbits
for Black Colleges,” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Autumn 2003, pp. 68-69,
and Salandy, Anthony, “Correcting the Inequities in Federal Research Funding,” Black
Issues in Higher Education, v. 19, May 23, 2002, p. 42.
39 The data on federal support to academic R&D result from a compilation of 19 agencies.
R&D includes all research activities, both basic and applied, and all development activities
(continued...)
CRS-9
FY2005 show that while research-performing HBCUs are approximately 5.9% of all
U.S. institutions conducting R&D, they receive approximately 1.2%, on average, of
all federal academic R&D support.40
Research Funding at HBCUs
An analysis of federal academic R&D support finds that funding is concentrated
at selected institutions. Funding for non-HBCUs also is concentrated at selected
institutions.41 In FY2005, the top 10 HBCUs (in terms of receipt of federal R&D to
HBCUs) accounted for approximately 52.7% of total federal R&D support, and the
top 20 HBCUs accounted for approximately 72.3% of total R&D support. (In
FY1996, the top 10 HBCUs received 61.2% of funding to these institutions, and the
top 20 institutions received 82.7% of funding.)
Table 1 below provides a listing of the top 20 HBCUs and their level of total
academic science and engineering support.42 The rankings (by R&D amounts
received in FY2005) reveal that there has been only relative change in the
concentration of federal R&D support among the top 20 HBCUs since FY1996. Eight
of the top 10 HBCUs in FY2005 for R&D support also were ranked in the top 10 for
FY1996 (in different ordinal positions). In addition, 15 of the top 20 institutions for
R&D support in FY2005, also were among the top 20 institutions in FY1996.
However, a few institutions have received increased support so as to change their
ranking. In FY2005, Jackson State University ranked sixth in R&D support; in
FY1996, it had ranked fifteenth. Lincoln University (Jefferson City) ranked fifteenth
39 (...continued)
that are supported at colleges and universities. Obligations reported do not include funds
to federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs). The institutions compiling
this population are those receiving current year obligations. Caution should be exercised
in reviewing the data. Because of the relatively small number of HBCUs, data from a few
institutions can skew the quantitative findings and have a marked effect on the resulting
analysis. National Science Foundation, Federal Science and Engineering Support to
Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2001, Detailed Statistical
Tables, NSF 02-319, Arlington, VA, August 2003, Table B-22, pp. 173-174.
40 National Science Foundation, Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities,
Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2005, NSF07-333, Arlington, VA, October
2007, Tables 1 and 24, and Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities,
Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 2003, NSF06-309, Arlington, VA, June
2006, Table 22.
41 In FY2005, approximately 30% of the total federal academic R&D expenditures in science
and engineering went to the leading 20 institutions. National Science Foundation,
“Universities Report Stalled Growth in Federal R&D Funding in FY2006,” InfoBrief,
NSF07-336, Richard J. Bennof, Arlington, VA, September 2007, p. 4.
42 NSF reports that federal academic science and engineering support for HBCUs, and
minority institutions as a whole (includes Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges),
is “allocated relatively less for R&D and relatively more for S&E capacity building
activities when compared to non-minority-serving institutions. National Science Foundation,
“The Extent of Federal S&E Funding to Minority-Serving Institutions,” p. 1.
CRS-10
in FY2005. It had ranked twenty-fifth in FY1996. South Carolina State University,
which ranked sixteenth in FY2005, ranked twenty-third in FY1996. North Carolina
Central University ranked nineteenth in FY2005, and had ranked forty-fourth in
FY1996. The Hampton University ranked first in R&D support for FY2005; it had
ranked eighth in FY1996.43
43 Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Selected
Nonprofit Institutions, Fiscal Year 2005, Table 21, and Federal Science and Engineering
Support to Universities, Colleges, and Selected Nonprofit Institutions, Fiscal Year 1996,
Table B-22. Howard University had consistently ranked number one in R&D support to
HBCUs for several decades. In FY2003, Howard University ranked number two, fell to
number three in FY2004, and again regained the ranking of number two in FY2005. For
expanded discussion of academic support to HBCUs see National Science Foundation,
“FY2005 Federal S&E Obligations Reach Over 2,400 Academic and Nonprofit Institutions;
Data Presented on Minority-Serving Institutions,” 8 pp.
CRS-11
Table 1. Federal R&D Support and Total Academic S&E
Funding to the Top 20 HBCUs in FY2005, Ranked by R&D
Support
(dollars in millions)
Total
Institutions
R&D
S&E
All HBCUs
$294.2
$479.2
Top 20 HBCUs
1.
Hampton University
40.1
44.1
2.
Howard University
24.1
32.2
3.
Morehouse School of Medicine
20.9
28.7
4.
Florida A&M University
18.2
23.2
5.
Meharry Medical College
18.1
30.7
6.
Jackson State University
16.5
22.1
7.
Morgan State University
10.8
12.8
8.
North Carolina A&T State University
10.8
21.4
9.
Tennessee State University
9.3
16.9
10.
Tuskegee University
8.1
20.5
11.
Alabama A&M University
7.5
11.7
12.
Lincoln University (Jefferson City, MO)
6
9.4
13.
North Carolina Central University
5.9
8
14.
Prairie View A&M University
5.5
10.1
15.
Southern University A&M College (all campuses)
5.4
11.6
16.
Fort Valley State University
4.4
8.4
17.
South Carolina State University
3.8
8.5
18.
Fisk University
3.7
4.9
19.
Clark Atlanta University
3.7
5.4
20.
Virginia State University
3.7
8.3
Source: National Science Foundation, Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities,
Colleges, and Selected Nonprofit Institutions, Fiscal Year 2005, Detailed Statistical Tables, NSF07-
333, Arlington, VA, October 2007, Table 24. Total academic S&E includes R&D; R&D plant;
facilities for instruction in S&E; fellowships, traineeships, and training grants; general support for
S&E; and other S&E activities. See footnote 42.
Research Facilities at HBCUs
Facility construction/modernization/maintenance probably represents the largest
capital investment for institutions of higher education. Many in academia contend
that the quality of an institution’s facilities is directly linked to the quality of
education offered. While estimates vary on the level of deferred research facilities
CRS-12
expenditures at all institutions of higher education, the amount of deteriorating
physical plant and backlog of maintenance at HBCUs may be more pronounced.44
Approximately 70% of the HBCUs were established prior to 1900 (55% date from
before 1890). Some have aging facilities with electrical systems that are inadequate
for the loads that complex computer systems and other state-of-the-art equipment (if
available) would require.
In the mid-1980s, hearings were held in both the House and the Senate to
examine the condition of the nation’s scientific and engineering research facilities.45
In addition to congressional interest, there was particular concern by those in the
academic and scientific community about the quantity and quality of research space
at nondoctorate-granting institutions, minority-serving institutions, and biomedical
institutions. As a result of the hearings, NSF was directed to collect and analyze data
on a range of academic research facilities issues (How much space is there for
conducting scientific research?, What is the condition of the existing space?, How
much of the space requires renovation or repair?, Is there enough space to meet the
Nation’s scientific research needs?, How do colleges and universities fund their
research projects?, etc.). In October 2000, the NSF released a topical report on the
needs and requirements of academic research facilities.46 This particular survey and
analysis included 660 research-performing institutions, of which 57 were HBCUs.47
In a 1998 survey of 57 research-performing HBCUs, the institutions reported
having approximately 2.3 million net assignable square feet (NASF) of science and
engineering research space.48 The majority of the space was in the biological
44 House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Research, H.R. 2183, the Minority
Serving Institutions Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act, 108th Cong., 1st
Sess., July 9, 2003, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on
Select Education and the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Responding to the
Needs of Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the 21st Century, 107th Cong., 1st
Sess., April 23, 2001, pp. 69-98, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess., February 13, 2002, pp. 77-94, and
107th Cong., 2nd Sess., September 19, 2002, pp. 51-60.
45 See for example House Committee on Science and Technology, Improving the Research
Infrastructure at U.S. Universities and Colleges, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess., May 8, 1984.
46 National Science Foundation, Scientific and Engineering Research Facilities at Colleges
and Universities, 1998, Topical Report, NSF01-301, Arlington, VA, October 2000. For this
particular survey and analysis, research-performing institutions were defined as (1) those
institutions that offer a master’s or a doctorate degree in science and engineering; (2) report
in excess of $50,000 expenditures in 1993 academic R&D survey; and (3) all HBCUs, non-
HBCU-black institutions, and Hispanic-serving institutions with any research expenditures.
47 The other minority institutions in the survey included 13 non-HBCU-black institutions,
and 9 Hispanic-serving institutions. Non-HBCU-black institutions are those colleges and
universities with at least a 25% black student enrollment according to the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System, but do not have the designation as HBCUs.
48 National Science Foundation, Scientific and Engineering Research Facilities at Colleges
and Universities, 1998, NSF01-301, Arlington, VA, October 2000, 232 pp. Since 1986, the
NSF has collected, on a biennial basis, data on scientific and engineering research facilities
in higher education. Different analyses and various reports are released. This topical report
(continued...)
CRS-13
sciences, agricultural sciences, and engineering. However, 88% of the institutions
reported that the amount of existing science and engineering research space was
insufficient for meeting current research efforts. When asked to evaluate the
condition of the existing space, 48% of the HBCUs indicated that their existing
research space was effective for most levels of research, but required limited
repair/renovation. An additional 15% determined that their institutions’ existing
space required major renovation in order to be used effectively for research in the
science and engineering disciplines.
The NSF survey revealed that for FY1996 and FY1997, approximately 15% of
HBCUs initiated repair/renovation projects, and 14% began major construction
projects. In the 1998 survey, HBCUs reported $331.0 million in construction and
repair/renovation projects and campus infrastructure projects that had to be deferred
due to lack of funding.49 This constitutes 2.4% of all deferred projects reported by
research-performing institutions.
Aggregate data were collected from a reduced sample of 29 institutions in order
to compare research facility construction with similar surveys beginning in 1988.50
This separate analysis of 29 HBCUs revealed that the amount of science and
engineering research space increased from 1.1 million NASF in 1988 to 1.9 million
in 1998 (72.7%). Between the 1996 survey and the 1998 survey, research space at
the original 29 HBCUs increased by 88 thousand NASF (4.9%). The amount of
research space increased the most in engineering and the agricultural sciences.
During the period 1988 to 1998, research space increased in every field except the
medical sciences in medical schools and computer science.
An additional analysis of the 29 HBCUs revealed that in 1996 and 1997, 11 of
the 29 HBCUs initiated research facility construction projects, the same number of
institutions that began construction startups in the 1988 survey. During the
intervening years, specifically 1992-1995, only 4 of the 29 HBCUs initiated science
and engineering research construction projects on their campuses. In the 1998 survey,
FY1996 to FY1997, the 29 HBCUs provided $64.3 million in support of new
construction projects. (The projects cost in excess of $100,000.) It was anticipated
that the new projects would translate into 335 thousand NASF of new research space,
18% above the current available space.51
48 (...continued)
contains data from the 1998 survey that included a total of 80 research-performing,
minority-serving institutions — 57, HBCUs; 13, non-HBCU-black institutions; and 10,
Hispanic serving institutions. (This is the most current published data available for an
analysis of this type.) Note: “Net assignable square feet (NASF) is defined as the sum of all
area, in square feet, on all floors of a building assigned to, or available to be assigned to, an
occupant for specific use.” p. 2.
49 Ibid., p. 79.
50 These were the “original” HBCUs that reported separately budgeted R&D expenditures
and science and engineering research space in the 1988 survey (FY1986 and FY1987).
51 Ibid., p. 81.
CRS-14
For the periods 1986-87 and 1992-93, the federal government was the largest
source of funding for science and engineering research construction projects at the
29 HBCUs. The primary source of funding changed, and during 1994-95 and 1996-
97, state and local governments provided the bulk of funding to these institutions for
construction projects. Federal support to the 29 institutions did increase from 1994
to 1997, but the increase had slowed relative to other funding sources. Table 2 below
details the source for research facility funding (in constant dollars) for the sample of
29 HBCUs.
Table 2. Source of Funds for Science/Engineering Research
Facilities at the Original 29 HBCUs: 1986-97
(in millions of constant 1997 dollars)
Funding
Construction
Repair/Renovation
Source
1986-87
1990-91
1996-97
1986-87
1990-91
1996-97
Federal
Government
43.5
14.5
4.6
11.6
4.2
2.2
State/Local
Government
34.3
7.6
50.5
6.5
9.6
1.8
Private
Donations
14.8
0.0
3.0
0.7
0.1
0.0
Institutional
Funds/Other
3.1
5.0
6.1
0.0
0.1
3.6
Total
95.5
27.0
64.3
18.8
14.0
7.6
Source: Scientific and Engineering Research Facilities at Universities and Colleges: 1998, op. cit.,
pp. 83-84. Components may not add to totals due to rounding.
CRS-15
Various Agency Programs to Enhance Support of
Research at HBCUs52
The NSF has several programs supporting HBCUs and other minority
institutions. The Historically Black Colleges and Universities-Undergraduate
Program (HBCU-UP) funds projects to improve the quality of undergraduate
scientific and technical programs through curricular reform and enhancement, faculty
development, upgrading of scientific instrumentation, and improvement of research
infrastructure.53 The FY2008 estimate is $16.1 million. Centers of Research
Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST) seeks to upgrade the research
capabilities of the most productive minority institutions. HBCUs and other minority-
serving institutions develop alliances with other universities, laboratories, and centers
in order to provide their students with direct experience in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. The FY2008 enacted level for CREST is $14.9
million.54
In January 2008, NSF announced a collaborative project involving eight HBCUs
and seven major research institutions to encourage black students to pursue degrees
in robotics and computer science.55 The Advancing Robotics Technology for
Societal Impact (ARTSI) initiative would offer outreach programs at the K-12 and
college levels and support research activities at HBCUs, internships for minority
students in university laboratories, and provide mentoring programs for
undergraduates. ARTSI would be funded at $2.0 million for a period of three years.
The Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service (CSREES), administers a Capacity Building Grants Program to
assist the 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University strengthen their
research and teaching capabilities in high priority areas of the food and agricultural
sciences. These activities include obtaining state-of-the-art scientific instrumentation
52 This is not a complete compilation of federal agency support, but illustrates the various
efforts to address the support of research infrastructure at HBCUs. Many of the programs
in the various agencies are an outgrowth of Executive Orders 12232 and 12320. Note: For
an expanded discussion of federal support to HBCUs see Department of Education, White
House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Office of Postsecondary
Education, Fulfilling the Covenant — The Way Forward 2004-05 Annual Report to the
President on the Results of Participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities in
Federal Programs, by the President’s Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, November 2007, 53 pp.
53 Since 2001, the HBCU-UP has provided funding for science and mathematics education
and research programs at 80 HBCUs. This includes support of programs at 82.0% of four-
year HBCUs and to 46.0% at two-year HBCUs.
54 See also Robinson, Natasha, “NC Historically Black College 1st to Get NSF Grant,”
September 8, 2008, [http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/state]. North Carolina A&T State
University will receive approximately $18.0 million over a period of five years to develop
and operate the Engineering Research Center for Revolutionizing Metallic Biomaterials.
55 Currently, approximately 2 million computer and information scientists are in the United
States, of which 4.8% are black.
CRS-16
for laboratories. For FY2008, $13.7 million will be made available for this program.56
In addition to the Capacity Building Grants Program, the CSREES provides funding
for research at the 1890 institutions through the Evans-Allen formula. The FY2008
enacted level for this program is $41.3 million.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has established
a University Research Centers (URC) program to fund research projects in space
science and applications, advanced space technology, and advanced astronautics
technology. Currently, the URC provides $1.0 million a year for five years to seven
HBCUs. The Curriculum Improvement Partnership Award (CIPA) is designed to
improve and strengthen the scientific and technical undergraduate curricula at
minority institutions. CIPA provides $125,000 per year for three years. CIPA
currently supports nine minority-serving institutions, of which three are HBCUs.
FY2008 is the final year of funding for this program. CIPA was restructured and
combined with the Partnership Award for the Integration of Research into the
Undergraduate STEM Curriculum (PAIR) to form the Curriculum Improvements
Partnership Award for the Integration of Research (CIPAIR). CIPAIR will
strategically enhance teaching and education strategies across academic programs.
CIPAIR is effective beginning in FY2008, and will provide $100,000 to $200,000 per
year for three years.57 NASA Science and Technology Institute for Minority
Institutions (NSTI-MI) has two main components — student internships and research
clusters. Underrepresented and underserved students from minority institutions
compete to conduct research with NASA scientists and engineers. Clusters of
minority institutions also engage in specific NASA-related research at one of the 10
NASA Centers. Funding for NSTI-MI in FY2008 is $2.0 million.58
P.L. 109-364, The National Defense Authorization Act, FY2006 provides
approximately $11,662.5 million for science and technology programs. Contained
in that funding is support for, among other things, the University Research Initiative
(URI) and HBCUs. It is anticipated that participating HBCUs will increase their
involvement in the performance of defense research and in the scientific disciplines
critical to the national security functions of the Department of Defense (DOD). P.L.
110-116, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, FY2008 provides $20.0
million for HBCUs and other minority institutions to enhance their R&D activity,
develop approaches to inter-university research in the DOD critical technology and
homeland security areas, and to increase their personnel in these areas.
Policy Options
In testimony before the House Science Committee, Sebetha Jenkins, President,
Jarvis Christian College, stated that: “[G]iven the demographic changes taking place
56 Some matching funds are required.
57 The CIPAIR budget for FY2008 is $2.8 million. This amount is for new project
solicitation and for completion of those grants awarded within the CIPA structure.
58 See also “NASA Awards Education Research Grants to Minority Universities,” September
16, 2008, [http://blackengineer.com/artman/publish/printer_871.shtml].
CRS-17
in this nation, investing more in HBCUs is, in actuality, about the future prosperity
of this nation.”59 Jenkins proposed the establishment of a program for minority
institutions that is similar to the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR). EPSCoR is designed for those states and institutions that are
perceived as being the “have-nots” and are in the most need of R&D support.60 This
proposed EPSCoR-like program would build new and expanded capacity and
capability for minority-serving institutions. Key elements of the EPSCoR-like
program would be technical assistance and the development of partnerships between
major research institutions and minority-serving institutions. This initiative would
support also an HBCU centers program for the education and training of
professionals in the scientific and technical disciplines. Jenkins, and others in the
academic community, believe that an EPSCoR-like program would stimulate the
competitive R&D capacity of HBCUs. Success of the HBCU centers would be
dependent on unfettered resources, with funding being provided until the centers
were self-sustaining.
The viability of any academic institution is a function of its ability to provide
a quality education for its student population. Data reveal that many HBCUs have
provided their black student population with a quality education, especially in the
scientific and technical disciplines. In testimony before the House Committee on
Education and Labor, Dorothy Cowser Yancy, President, Johnson C. Smith
University, stated that:
HBCUs today represent only 4% of all higher education institutions, but they
graduate approximately 30% of all African-American students, 40% of African
American students receiving a four-year degree in [science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics], and 50% of African American teachers.... The
successes were achieved despite the fact that in recent year’s federal support for
HBCUs has only increased in very modest amounts; and in spite of the fact that
HBCUs continue to receive significantly less funding for research, facilities, and
programs than their historically white counterparts.61
However, these institutions are faced with an increased challenge of attracting and
preparing an increasingly larger number of blacks in the scientific and technical
disciplines. Demographic data show a student population and workforce increasingly
composed of minority groups that have been historically underrepresented in science,
mathematics, and engineering. Shirley Ann Jackson, President, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, contends that this demographic pattern may affect the
development of the scientific and engineering workforce and, consequently, the
59 House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Research, Preparing a
21st Century Workforce: Strengthening and Improving K-12 and Undergraduate Science,
Math, and Engineering Education, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 22, 2002, Written statement
of Sebetha Jenkins, President, Jarvis Christian College.
60 CRS Report RL30930, U.S. National Science Foundation: Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research, by Christine M. Matthews.
61 House Committee on Education and Labor, America’s Black Colleges and Universities:
Models of Excellence and Challenges for the Future, Written statement of Dorothy Cowser
Yancy, President, Johnson C. Smith University, p. 3.
CRS-18
conduct of R&D during the 21st century.62 The success of research programs at
HBCUs is inextricably linked to their ability to provide an environment for fostering
additional scientific talent.63 The National Academies report, Rising Above the
Gathering Storm, states:
Increasing participation of underrepresented minorities is critical to ensuring a
high-quality supply of scientists and engineers in the United States over the long
term. As minority groups increase as a percentage of the US population,
increasing their participation rate in science and engineering is critical if we are
just to maintain the overall participation rate in science among the US
population. Perhaps even more important, if some groups are underrepresented
in science and engineering in our society, we are not attracting as many of the
most talented people to an important segment of our knowledge economy.64
The distribution of federal funding for HBCUs is one of the critical issues facing
these institutions. Some say that past and current policies have not provided effective
remedies for their problems of infrastructure necessary to develop strong scientific
programs. Many HBCUs are attempting to expand their research capacity by
developing expertise in areas such as homeland security and national defense,
cyberinfrastructure, environmental observatories, food security, energy expenditures,
genomics, and material science. They contend that improved funding for facilities
and instrumentation is needed to strengthen the capability of these colleges and
universities to contribute to the nation’s long-term economic vitality. While many
HBCUs have engaged in strategic planning in order to obtain a more competitive
research base, Congress may continue to consider options that would bring HBCUs
closer to an equal footing with other institutions and enable them to move toward full
partnerships in conducting research. This issue may be examined when assessing the
capacity of HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions to contribute to the health
of the nation’s higher education system, and in producing an increasingly larger
number of trained scientific and technical personnel needed to meet the challenge of
a highly competitive international economy.65
62 Jackson, Shirley Ann, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, “The Quiet Crisis and
the Future of American Competitiveness,” Speech before the American Chemical Society,
August 29, 2005.
63 Roach, Ronald, “The Journey for Jackson State,” Diverse Issues in Higher Education, v.
23, February 8, 2007, pp. 22-27, and Suitts, Steve, “Fueling Education Reform: Historically
Black Colleges are Meeting a National Science Imperative,”Cell Biology Education, v. 2,
July 2, 2003, pp. 205-206.
64 The National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Future, pp.166-167.
65 P.L. 110-84, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, added a program entitled
“Predominantly Black Institutions.” Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs) are defined as
those institutions with at least 1,000 undergraduates in which blacks comprise 40% or more
of the total enrollment. In addition, 50% of the enrollment must be either low-income or
first-generation students. Grants of at least $250,000 would be provided for the eligible
institutions. In introducing the measure, Senator Barack Obama stated that: “To restore
America’s competitiveness, we must invest in the success of traditionally underrepresented
groups.” (Press Release, May 29, 2007). For discussion of this proposal for PBIs see CRS
(continued...)
CRS-19
Congressional Action in the 110th Congress
On August 14, 2008, the President signed into law P.L. 110-315, the Higher
Education Opportunity Act (HEOA).66 The HEOA establishes a new program in
Title III, Section A to provide federal support to Predominantly Black Institutions
(PBIs). These PBIs that qualify for funding fall outside of the definition of an
HBCU.67 To be eligible as a PBI, the institution must have, among other things, an
enrollment of undergraduate students that is at least 40.0% black, and must have a
total enrollment of at least 1,000 undergraduates, with half of them being in degree
programs. Grant proposals for PBIs can be in the areas of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, in addition to teacher preparation, health education,
and international issues. Title III, Part E of the HEOA provides funding for two new
minority science and engineering improvement programs. A partnership grant
program is directed at increasing the participation of underrepresented minority youth
or low-income youth in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.
Activities to be supported include outreach, hands-on, and experiential-based
learning projects. Partnership grants to be awarded are for a period of five years in
an amount not less than $500,000. Non-federal matching funds are required. An
additional program will be directed at encouraging minorities to pursue careers in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology.
The HEOA provides authority for loans for repair and renovation of academic
research facilities, among other facilities. Language in Title III, Part B, Investing in
HBCUs and Other Minority Institutions, provides formula grants to eligible
institutions. The percentage of funds allocated to each institution is based on several
factors, and no institution can receive less than $250,000.68 Also under Title III, Part
B, the HEOA provides assistance to Historically Black Graduate Institutions to
increase the number of blacks in certain professional disciplines.69 Title III, Part D,
65 (...continued)
Report RL34283, Higher Education Act Reauthorization in the 110th Congress: A
Comparison of Major Proposals, by Blake Alan Naughton, Rebecca R. Skinner, David P.
Smole, Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, and Richard N. Apling.
66 Signed into law on August 14, 2008, P.L. 110-315 authorizes, amends, and establishes
programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. (See H.R. 4137, Conf. Report 110-803.)
The Higher Education Opportunities Act, also known as the College Opportunity and
Affordability Act, was last fully authorized by P.L. 105-244. During that period of time,
there were 14 extensions to the Higher Education Act. For expanded discussion of the
legislation see CRS Report RL34654, The Higher Education Opportunity Act:
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, by David P. Smole, Blake Alan Naughton,
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, and Rebecca R. Skinner.
67 An HBCU is defined as an institution established prior to 1964 and have as its primary
mission the education of blacks. Please see footnote 24.
68 Previous Higher Education Act amendments set the minimum award for institutions at
$500,000.
69 The Act adds six institutions to the list of eligible institutions, with restrictions. The six
institutions are Alabama State University, Prairie View A&M University, Delaware State
(continued...)
CRS-20
HBCU Capital Financing, establishes a bonding authority to raise capital to be lent
to HBCUs for repair and renovation of facilities. The total amount that would be
available for financing is $1.1 billion.70 The aggregate authority principal and unpaid
accrued interest on these loans are to be made for two types of institutions in the
amounts of $733.3 million and $366.7 million.71
On September 4, 2007, the House passed, as amended, H.R. 694, Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act. The bill
would provide, among other things, funding to acquire equipment, instrumentation,
networking capability, hardware and software, digital and wireless networking
technology, and infrastructure to improve the quality and delivery of educational
services of these institutions. The institutions eligible for participation include (1)
HBCUs; (2) Hispanic-, Alaskan Native-, or Native Hawaiian-serving institutions; (3)
tribally controlled colleges and universities; and (4) institutions with a sufficient
enrollment of needy students as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Support also would enable these institutions to obtain capacity-building technical
assistance through remote technical support and technical assistance workshops, and
to advance the use of wireless networking technology in an effort to improve research
and education, including scientific, engineering, mathematics, and technology
instructions. Funding would be available through grants, cooperative agreements, or
contracts. Non-federal matching requirements would be required in the amount equal
to one-quarter of the award, or $500,000, whichever is the lesser amount. Matching
requirements could be waived for an institution with little or no endowment. The bill
would authorize $250.0 million for FY2008 and such sums as may be necessary for
each of FY2009 through FY2012.72
On January 8, 2008, similar legislation, S. 1650, Max Cleland Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2007, was reported
in the Senate (S.Rept. 110-257). S. 1650 would authorize, also, $250.0 million
annually for each of FY2008 through FY2012. The bill would strengthen the ability
of minority institutions to provide course offerings, faculty development, and
capacity-building technical assistance in digital and wireless network technologies.
S. 1650 is designed to narrow the “economic opportunity divide” that currently exists
between students in minority serving institutions and their counterparts in other
institutions.73 Similar to H.R. 694, funding would be awarded through a peer-review
69 (...continued)
University, Langston University, Bowie State University, and the University of the District
of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law.
70 Previous Higher Education Act amendments set the level of funding at $375.0 million.
71 Previous Higher Education Act amendments set the awards at $250.0 million and $125.0
million.
72 Authorizations are to be appropriated to the Technology Administration of the Department
of Commerce to carry out section 5(c) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act
of 1980.
73 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Max Cleland Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act, S.Rept. 110-257,
(continued...)
CRS-21
process in the form of grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements. An eligible
institution could receive as much as $2.5 million annually. The Senate committee
bill would also establish an office in the Department of Commerce and there would
be cost sharing requirements from grant recipients similar to that contained in H.R.
694. Cost sharing would be waived for those institutions with no endowment or an
endowment valued at less than $50.0 million.74
73 (...continued)
Report to accompany S. 1650, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess., January 8, 2008, p. 1.
74 See also Schmidt, Peter, “New Congressional Caucus Formed to Fight for Black
Colleges,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 55, September 19, 2008, p. A16.