• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Credit: Fisk University R E S E A R C H T E C H N I C A L A S S I S T A N C E C E N T E R February 2021 Current Landscape of Engagement Between USAID and Historically Black Colleges and Universities Pearline Tyson and Shanelle Haile The Research Technical Assistance Center (RTAC) is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of contract no. 7200AA18C00057. This report was produced by Pearline Tyson and Shanelle Haile. The contents are the sole responsibility of RTAC and NORC at the University of Chicago, and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. Acknowledgments This study was conducted in collaboration with the MayaTech Corporation, whose survey design and analysis greatly contributed to the data and findings presented. We further acknowledge each participant who took part in this study, whether through interviews, surveys, or both. Participants include personnel at HBCUs, USAID, Michigan State University, and within a number of stakeholder organizations, all of whom gave their time and provided valuable information during the study. We would like to give a special thank you to the following HBCUs who provided rich insights during the interview portion of this study: Albany State University, Alcorn State University, Bennett College, Bluefield State, Bowie State University, Central State University, Clark Atlanta University, Coahoma Community College, Delaware State University, Florida A&M University, Hampton University, Howard University, Lincoln University, Morgan State University, Savannah State University, Shorter College, South Carolina State University, Spelman College, Tennessee State University, University of Arkansas Pine Bluff, West Virginia State University, Winston-Salem University and Xavier University of Louisiana. Research Technical Assistance Center The Research Technical Assistance Center is a network of academic researchers generating timely research for USAID to promote evidence-based policies and programs. The project is led by NORC at the University of Chicago in partnership with Arizona State University, Centro de Investigación de la Universidad del Pacifico (Lima, Peru), Davis Management Group, the DevLab@Duke University, Forum One, the Institute of International Education, the Notre Dame Pulte Institute for Global Development, Population Reference Bureau, the Resilient Africa Network at Makerere University (Kampala, Uganda), the United Negro College Fund, the University of Chicago, and the University of Illinois at Chicago. Suggested Citation Tyson and Haile. 2021. Current landscape of engagement between USAID and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Report Research Technical Assistance Center: Washington, DC. Executive Summary This report provides an analysis of the current landscape of USAID’s engagement with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Although HBCUs represent only three percent of all four-year nonprofit colleges and universities, they enroll 10 percent of all Black students nationwide, award 26 percent of all Black bachelor’s degrees, and 32 percent of all Black bachelor’s degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in the United States. HBCUs also employ 96 percent of Black faculty as professors. These percentages suggest that by increasing partnerships with HBCUs, USAID has the opportunity to engage underrepresented students in their hiring pipelines and underrepresented faculty in development and research projects. Project Background Researchers examined the barriers that limit USAID funding to HBCUs and explored internationalization efforts HBCUs have undertaken to enhance their eligibility for USAID funding. Thus, the primary aim of this study is not only to strengthen the partnership between USAID and HBCUs but also to assess the international and transnational partnerships HBCUs have established with governmental and nongovernmental entities around the world. Methods The Bronfenbrenner Ecological Systems Theory framework was used to analyze data collected during the desk review, interviews, and survey analyses. This framework analyzes barriers that exist across micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems. Fifty-eight out of 101 HBCUs participated in this study via surveys, interviews, or both. Additionally, 12 informational interviews were conducted with USAID staff. Through this multilayered analysis, researchers uncovered that both HBCUs and USAID have barriers (Table 1). Table 1. Barriers for Engagement HBCU Barriers USAID Barriers Capacity (Fiscal/Structural) Outreach to HBCUs International Experience Low Number of Applicants Knowledge of USAID Programs Knowledge of HBCUs Networks Results and Recommendations Though the Covid-19 pandemic presented limited access to HBCUs, the study yielded several insights into the barriers to partnering faced by both HBCU faculty and staff as well as USAID staff. The report finds that the impact of these barriers can be mitigated with a range of measures, delineated by theme (Table 2): Table 2. Recommendations Thematic Barrier Recommendation A HBCU Readiness 1a. Promote HBCU Tiers of Readiness B Communication, Outreach and 2a. Enhance MSI* International Cooperation Capacity Knowledge Sharing 2b. Enhance MSI Communication Capacity 2c. Enhance MSI-led Brown Bags for USAID 2d. Host MSI-led Info Sessions for HBCUs 2e. Pilot USAID-HBCU Leadership Convening 2f. Host Annual HEI* Conference C Benchmarks and Progress 3a. Set Short/Long-term Goals for HBCU Engagement 3b. Track (and Incentivize) M/B/IO Benchmarks D HBCU Capacity 4a. Examine Grant/CA Cost Share Requirements 4b. Target Solicitations to HBCUs 4c. Draw Upon Existing Mechanisms (Ex: New Partnerships Initiative) 4d. Encourage Legislative Engagement (Ex: CBC*) *MSI = Minority Serving Institution, HEI = Higher Education Institution, CBC = Congressional Black Caucus. Some of these barriers are structural (e.g., fiscal and policy constraints) and others are individual (e.g., competing personal and professional demands, faculty professional networks, USAID staff preferences). The report details the major findings from this study, along with a list of recommendations for USAID to consider as they attempt to increase engagement and improve the competitiveness of faculty, staff, and students at HBCUs. Future Research This study obtained rich data pertaining to HBCU experiences with USAID and vice versa. Future research should advance this study by comparing the barriers experienced by HBCUs with the barriers experienced by non-HBCUs. Additionally, an assessment of HBCU institutional capacity for USAID funding could entail campus visits and reviews of HBCU annual reports, strategic plans, mission statements, budget documents, staffing levels, and other documents. It is our hope that this study adds insights to the body of knowledge on HBCU barriers to federal funding opportunities, upon which future research can build. USAID has the opportunity to develop and harness the skills and expertise of HBCU faculty, staff, and students who can provide culturally competent practices to USAID Missions, Bureaus, or Independent Offices (M/B/IOs) as they become the next generation of USAID civil and Foreign Service employees. The benefits of partnering with these institutions are timely and boundless. Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 List of Tables 7 List of Figures 7 List of Acronyms 8 1. Introduction 9 Scope of Work .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Background ................................................................................................................................................................... 10 2. Literature Review 16 3. Methodology 18 Framework.................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Approach ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Site Selection ................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Desk Review ................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Interviews ...................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Surveys ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Limitations to Methodology...................................................................................................................................... 22 4. Results 23 Desk Review ................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Interviews ...................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Surveys ..........................................................................................................................................................................

Load more

  72

Copy Link