Historic Assessment Underscores HBCU Contributions to National Research Enterprise
The Thurgood Marshall College Fund’s Dr. N. Joyce Payne Research Center has released a landmark study that provides the first comprehensive look at research infrastructure, faculty capacity, and federal funding competitiveness across 47 historically Black colleges and universities and predominantly Black institutions. Titled “Advancing America’s Research Enterprise: A National Assessment of Research Capacity and Future Readiness at Historically Black Colleges and Universities,” the NSF-funded report arrives at a pivotal moment for U.S. higher education and scientific innovation.
These 47 institutions, spanning 22 states, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands, already deliver substantial returns to the nation. Together they secure more than $843 million in annual federal research funding, with at least $143 million coming from the National Science Foundation alone. The study reveals both remarkable strengths and persistent structural barriers that, if addressed, could significantly expand America’s overall research output.
Background on HBCUs and Their Research Role
Historically Black colleges and universities have long served as engines of economic mobility and innovation for underrepresented communities. Public HBCUs in particular account for a disproportionate share of certain STEM programs, including 80 percent of ABET-accredited engineering programs at HBCUs and 85 percent of high-research-activity HBCUs. Despite these contributions, federal research and development funding has remained disproportionately low. In fiscal year 2023, HBCUs received just 0.91 percent of federal R&D expenditures even though they represent 3.2 percent of all four-year degree-granting institutions.
The new report builds on an earlier 2025 TMCF publication, “The American Dividend: Public HBCUs Powering National Strength and Opportunity,” which documented the outsized impact of these institutions on talent pipelines and economic mobility. The 2026 assessment shifts focus squarely to research readiness and future potential.
Key Findings from the National Assessment
The study surveyed institutions that include one R1 and 13 R2 Carnegie-classified research universities, with 74.5 percent classified as research colleges and universities or above. Funding is highly concentrated: the top seven institutions account for approximately 50 percent of the total federal research dollars secured by the group.
Among the surveyed schools, engagement with federal agencies is broad. Institutions hold active grants or contracts from multiple agencies, though the National Science Foundation remains a central partner. The report notes significant unmet demand for the NSF’s Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology program, with nearly half of surveyed institutions having applied and been denied—not because of weak proposals, but due to insufficient proposal-development infrastructure.
Structural Barriers Limiting Growth
The most urgent challenge identified is research administration infrastructure. Some 87 percent of the institutions operate with three or fewer pre-award full-time employees in their Offices of Sponsored Programs. Many also report limited post-award and compliance staffing, with 93.6 percent having three or fewer full-time compliance staff. These constraints reduce the ability to identify funding opportunities, prepare competitive proposals, and manage awards effectively.
Faculty workload presents another major constraint. Over 87 percent of STEM faculty at the analyzed institutions teach between six and eight courses per year. By comparison, STEM faculty at research-intensive universities typically carry loads of three or four courses annually. This heavy teaching burden leaves limited time for proposal writing and research activities.
Infrastructure gaps further hinder competitiveness. While most institutions have laboratory and research space, specialized instrumentation, high-performance computing resources, and facility modernization remain limited. Only about 11 percent possess Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility capabilities required for many defense-related research projects.
Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash
Perspectives from Institutional and National Leaders
Dr. M.C. Brown II, executive director and research scientist at the Payne Center, emphasized that the findings dismantle any false choice between equity and excellence. “These 47 institutions are already research powers—they are generating an $843 million annual return for the nation under conditions of chronic under-investment,” he stated. Dr. Harry L. Williams, president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, added that strategic investment in these institutions represents the most direct, high-return path to expanding American scientific leadership.
Leaders at the institutions themselves note that the barriers are addressable with targeted support. Many express readiness to scale research activity once administrative capacity and faculty workload issues are mitigated.
Implications for U.S. Higher Education and National Competitiveness
The report positions HBCUs and PBIs as strategic national assets capable of broadening the geographic and demographic base of American research. Expanding their capacity aligns with broader federal priorities around workforce development, innovation, and inclusive excellence. Increased investment could also strengthen the nation’s position in critical areas such as defense research, STEM education, and emerging technologies.
Broader higher-education stakeholders recognize that underutilizing this segment of institutions represents a missed opportunity. The concentration of research funding among a small number of elite universities has long drawn scrutiny; the TMCF assessment provides concrete data on institutions ready to absorb additional resources productively.
Recommendations for Capacity Building
The report outlines several actionable pathways. Federal agencies are encouraged to create dedicated funding streams for research administration capacity-building, including pre-award, post-award, and compliance support. Expanding the CREST program with targeted proposal-development assistance could address the nearly 50 percent denial rate stemming from infrastructure limitations rather than scientific merit.
Additional recommendations include funding SCIF development at strategically positioned campuses to unlock defense and intelligence community opportunities, and supporting policies that reduce teaching loads for research-active faculty. Collaboration models between HBCUs and EPSCoR jurisdictions—such as co-led proposals and shared research administration hubs—are also proposed.
Future Outlook and Actionable Steps
With the right investments, the institutions profiled in the report are positioned for rapid gains in research output and competitiveness. The assessment serves as both a baseline and a roadmap, offering policymakers, philanthropies, and institutional leaders clear priorities for the coming years.
Stakeholders across the higher-education sector can begin by reviewing the full report and identifying partnership opportunities. University administrators may consider benchmarking their own sponsored-programs staffing against the data, while faculty development offices can explore workload policies that better support research productivity.
Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash
Conclusion: Investing in Strategic National Assets
The Thurgood Marshall College Fund report makes a compelling, evidence-based case that HBCUs and PBIs are already delivering substantial value to the U.S. research enterprise. Addressing the identified barriers would not only strengthen these institutions but also enhance the nation’s overall scientific capacity and competitiveness. As federal and philanthropic leaders consider next steps, the data presented here provide a clear foundation for strategic, high-impact investment.