Tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) under the 1994 Land-Grant Act serve Indigenous communities and uphold unique cultural, educational, and community mandates (Phillips, 2003). The convergence of mainstream universities and TCUs in collaborative extension efforts presents both significant opportunities and notable challenges, particularly in the context of addressing food security, sustainable agriculture, and community development in Native American territories (Lee & Keys, 2013; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2025). Partnerships rely on trust and strong relationships, which should be actively developed at every level. The support of institutional leaders is especially crucial, as their involvement lends legitimacy to any collaboration. Practically, it’s important to recognize how authority, power, and influence are distributed among all parties. Clarifying the partnership’s terms and nurturing mutual respect for each party’s unique knowledge and input help strengthen authority structures by directly linking shared power to the partnership’s core goals (Martin & Guy, 2023; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2025).

OPPORTUNITIES AND PARTNERSHIPS

Collaboration between mainstream universities, tribal communities, and TCUs enables the pooling of resources, financial, technical, and human, to achieve shared goals. Mainstream institutions often possess advanced research infrastructure, grant-writing expertise, and broader extension networks, while TCUs offer deep-rooted community connections and culturally relevant approaches to extension. Joint initiatives can lead to more robust programming, improved access to funding, and the leveraging of complementary strengths (Mackey et al., 2021).

Partnerships also foster mutual learning and respect, allowing mainstream institutions to benefit from Indigenous knowledge systems, traditional ecological perspectives, and culturally sensitive methodologies. In turn, TCUs gain access to cutting-edge scientific research and innovative pedagogical tools. Such exchanges enrich both partners and can result in more effective and contextually appropriate extension programs (Riley et al., 2017).

Collaborative efforts can significantly expand the reach of extension services, particularly in Native American communities that have historically been underserved by mainstream institutions. By combining the outreach capacity of mainstream universities with the trust and credibility of TCUs, extension programs are more likely to engage community members, address local needs, and foster sustainable agricultural practices. Universities with Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) agents have been documented to have a direct positive impact on tribal communities, including TCUs, by their mere presence on American Indian reservations (Brewer et al., 2016).

CHALLENGES, DISPARITIES, AND BARRIERS

One of the most persistent challenges is the disparity in funding between mainstream universities and TCUs. The 1994 Land-Grant institutions receive substantially less federal and state support compared to their 1862 and 1890 counterparts, limiting their capacity to participate fully in collaborative projects (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2025). This imbalance can result in unequal partnerships and hinder the real­ization of shared objectives. As mentioned, funding disparities are across the board in tribal communities, not only for TCUs but for FRTEP agents as well.

Differences in institutional culture, values, and communication styles can also impede collaboration. Mainstream universities may inadvertently marginalize Indigenous perspectives or fail to recognize the importance of traditional knowledge, leading to misunderstandings and mistrust. Effective collaboration requires cultural humility, active listening, and the co-creation of extension approaches that honor both scientific and Indigenous ways of knowing.

Complex administrative requirements, differing governance structures, and mismatched timelines can further complicate joint projects. grant application processes, reporting protocols, and evaluation metrics may not align between institutions, creating additional burdens and potentially stalling progress. Building flexible, adaptive administrative frameworks is essential for successful collaboration. Land-Grant universities and TCUs compete for the same pool of funding provided by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). This can lead to animosity between Land-Grant universities and TCUs that at times may be serving the same tribe (Brewer et al., 2026).

CASE STUDIES

Case studies illuminate the opportunities and challenges of collab­orative efforts. FRTEP provides a model for effective partnership, supporting extension agents who work directly with Native American communities. Through joint appointments and shared programming, mainstream universities and TCUs have developed culturally tailored resources addressing topics such as food sovereignty, sustainable agriculture, and youth engagement. Evaluations indicate increased participation and positive out­comes in several tribal communities (Brewer et al., 2026). The Extension Foundation is a nonprofit organization that works to support and accelerate the efforts of the Cooperative Extension System across the United States. One of its key objectives is to foster collaboration between mainstream universities and tribal colleges, especially in areas of community development, education, and resource sharing (Weibe, 2019).

Similarly, the First Americans Land Grant Consortium (FALCON) connects 1994 TCUs with mainstream universities to support extension projects focused on community needs and agricultural develop­ment. By facilitating collaboration, sharing resources, and promoting best practices, FALCON helps TCUs strengthen their research and outreach, ensuring programs are culturally relevant. This partner­ship encourages mutual learning and respect for Indigenous knowl­edge, while joint initiatives and grants further enhance the impact of these efforts (First Americans Land Grant Consortium, 2026).

Collaborations between Arizona universities and tribal colleges on the other hand encounter substantial challenges, including pro­nounced funding disparities, low transfer rates in STEM disciplines, and cultural disconnects that impede student retention. Key concerns encompass inadequate academic preparation, instances of culture shock among students, and the need for genuine, trust-based part­nerships rather than transactional interactions. These inequities—in funding, academic readiness, and cross-cultural understanding—can adversely affect extension programs by constraining resources for collaborative projects, diminishing the effectiveness of outreach and educational initiatives and hindering the establishment of institutional trust.

Addressing food security, sustainable agriculture, and community development are central to any collaborative effort. Photo by Adrian Quijada

Collaborations between Arizona’s leading universities and TCUs, such as Diné College and Tohono O’odham Community College, currently operate within an environment characterized by signifi­cant federal funding reductions, enduring transfer obstacles, and ongoing cultural tension. Although institutions like the University of Arizona oversee substantial tribal research portfolios, structural inequities and the discontinuation of targeted grant programs con­tinue to limit the development of meaningful, trust-based collabora­tions. As of 2026, a notable disparity exists in the indirect cost of facil­ities and administrative rates applied to grants between Arizona’s major state universities and tribal colleges. State universities utilize federally negotiated rates, which enable them to recover over 50% of indirect costs to support their infrastructure. In contrast, tribal colleges typically operate with an average rate of 15%—or must negotiate much lower rates due to administrative barriers—resulting in significantly less funding for comparable research endeavors (Attain Partners, 2026). Similar disparities are anticipated to persist across other states.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Imagine collaboration as a tapestry, with each thread representing a key principle for connecting mainstream universities and TCUs in agricultural extension programs. At its core is a strong push for fair funding—advocates work for more equitable support for TCUs so every partner can contribute meaningfully to projects important to their communities. State funding for FRTEP agents strengthens this effort, ensuring these agents have what they need to serve Native communities well.

Another essential element is adjusting the NIFA funding formula for FRTEP agents. By removing competition between TCUs and university Land-Grant institutions, partnerships can flourish instead of rivalries, allowing both to work together harmoniously for the same tribe. The foundation of this collaboration is cultural competence; staff from all institutions receive training and ongoing support in cultural humility, Indigenous knowledge, and inclusive communication, helping every interaction honor both scientific and traditional perspectives.

Shared governance is integral, with joint advisory boards, co-leadership models, and open decision-making processes, ensuring collaboration draws on the collective insights and voices of all involved. Community engagement stands at the center, prioritizing tribal communities’ input at every stage—program design, implemen­tation, and evaluation—to ensure initiatives truly address local needs.

Lastly, streamlined administrative processes bring it all together. Coordinating grant management, reporting, and evaluation cuts down on bureaucracy and increases flexibility, helping the partner­ship grow stronger. Every thoughtfully woven thread tells a story of resilience and vibrant teamwork, where equity, cultural respect, shared leadership, community focus, and efficiency create lasting, sustainable extension programs.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration between mainstream universities and TCUs in agriculture extension programs holds significant promise for addressing persistent disparities in agricultural education, out­reach, and community development. While substantial opportunities exist in resource sharing, cultural exchange, and expanded challenges related to funding, culture, and administration must be proactively addressed. By implementing equitable, culturally informed, and community-centered strategies, stakeholders can build sustainable partnerships that benefit both institutions and the communities they serve.

When tribal colleges receive less support than mainstream univer­sities, they may struggle to fully participate in joint projects or to offer programs that are culturally relevant and responsive to their communities’ needs. Additionally, cultural disconnects and low transfer rates can result in fewer students pursuing or completing STEM degrees, which in turn affects the pool of qualified individuals who can contribute to or benefit from extension programs. Without authentic, trust-based partnerships, extension efforts risk being perceived as superficial or misaligned with the priorities of tribal communities, ultimately reducing their overall impact and sustainability.

Michael Kotutwa Johnson, PhD, is an assistant professor/extension specialist of Indigenous resilience at the University of Arizona’s School of Natural Resources and the Environment; Adrian Quijada, PhD, is the director of the Land-Grant Office of Sustainability at Tohono O’odham Community College.

REFERENCES

Attain Partners. (2026). Report on Indirect Cost Rates and Recovery. Association of American Universities.

Brewer II, J.P., Hiller, J.G., Burke, S., & Teegerstrom, T. (2016). A Primer: Extension, Indian Land Tenure, and Rangeland Limitations. Rangelands 38(1), 16-22.

Brewer II, J.P., & Stock, P.V. (2016). Beyond Extension: Strengthening the Federally Recognized Tribal Extension Program (FRTEP). Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 6(3), 91-101.

First Americans Land-grant Consortium. (2026). https://www.falcontribal college.org/

Lee, J.M., & Keys, S.W. (2013). Land-Grant But Unequal: State One-to-One Match Funding for 1890 Land-Grant Universities. (APLU Office of Access and Success Publication No. 3000-PB1-ES). Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities.

Mackey, H.J., Luecke D., Robinson J., Biggane E., & Rino, R. (2021) Partnership Through Story: Promising Practices for Meaningful Research. Tribal College: Journal of American Indian Higher Education, 33(2), 20-24.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2025). Fulfilling the Public Mission of the Land-Grant System: Building Platforms for Collaboration and Impact. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/ 10.17226/29092.

Martin, J. & Guy E. (2023). Securing a Sovereign Future: How Sustainable Partnerships Can Build Stronger Tribal Communities. Tribal College: Journal of American Indian Higher Education, 35(1), 40-45.

Phillips, J.L. (2003). A Tribal College Land Grant Perspective: Changing the Conversation. Journal of American Indian Education, 42(1), 22–35.

Riley, E.T.,Vadiee N., Ganguli, A.C. (2017). The Evolution of Research at Tribal Colleges and Universities. Tribal College: Journal of American Indian Higher Education, 29(2), 48-52.

Weibe, A. (2019). College of Menominee Nation and the University of Wisconsin- Madison Indigenous Food Sovereignty Initiative Partner With eXtension Through USDA-NIFA Cooperative Agreement. Extension Foundation Newsroom. https://extension.org/2019/12/18/college-of-menominee-nation-and-the-university-of-wisconsin-madison-indigenous-food-sover eignty-initiative-partner-with-extension-through-usda-nifa-cooperative agreement/