Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions
Department of Education Could Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance Gao ID: GAO-04-961 September 21, 2004Congress has expanded the number of low-income and minority serving institutions eligible for grants under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act and nearly doubled funding for these grants in the last 5 years to about $432 million in fiscal year 2004. Institutions eligible for funding under Titles III and V include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Alaska Native Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and other postsecondary institutions that serve low-income students. Given the recent expansion, we examined these programs to determine (1) how institutions used their Title III and Title V grants and the benefits they received from using these grant funds, (2) what objectives and strategies the Department of Education (Education) has developed for Title III and Title V programs, and (3) to what extent Education monitors and provides assistance to Title III and Title V institutions.
Grantees most commonly reported using Title III and Title V grant funds to strengthen academics, and they reported a wide range of benefits. Most grantees reported using their grants to fund efforts designed to strengthen academics, and we estimate that over three-quarters of the grantees reported initiatives that focused on improving student services (e.g., tutoring) and outcomes for students (e.g., course pass rates). The most commonly reported benefits were related to improvements in academic quality and student services and outcomes. While grantees reported a wide range of benefits, most also reported challenges in implementing their projects that sometimes resulted in the need for additional time at the end of the grant to complete their efforts. Education has developed objectives and strategies designed to strengthen Title III and Title V institutions by improving financial sustainability, technological capacity, academic quality, student services and outcomes, and institutional management. While Education has developed data to determine its progress in four of these areas, it is still in the process of developing data for measuring increased technological capacity. Education has developed plans and tools to enhance its monitoring of and assistance to Title III and Title V grantees, but it has made limited progress in implementing these initiatives. Specifically, Education has not fully implemented its monitoring plan or completed its new electronic monitoring tools, and a new training curriculum to enhance the monitoring skills of staff. We found that only one-quarter of staff conducted two required site visits, and most visits that were conducted were not selected based on the requisite risk criteria. Also, staff were not aware of updated department guidance and, as a result, did not always properly monitor grantees. We also found that Education's ability to provide technical assistance was limited. For example, Education has acknowledged that its failure to provide information on eligibility criteria has resulted in uncertainty about the eligibility of over three-quarters of Title V grantees.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-961, Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions: Department of Education Could Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-961
entitled 'Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions: Department of
Education Could Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance' which was
released on September 21, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Secretary of Education:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2004:
Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions:
Department of Education Could Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance:
GAO-04-961:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-961, a report to the Secretary of Education
Why GAO Did This Study:
Congress has expanded the number of low-income and minority serving
institutions eligible for grants under Titles III and V of the Higher
Education Act and nearly doubled funding for these grants in the last
5 years to about $432 million in fiscal year 2004. Institutions
eligible for funding under Titles III and V include Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, Alaska Native Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian
Serving Institutions, and other postsecondary institutions that serve
low-income students. Given the recent expansion, we examined these
programs to determine (1) how institutions used their Title III and
Title V grants and the benefits they received from using these grant
funds, (2) what objectives and strategies the Department of Education
(Education) has developed for Title III and Title V programs, and (3)
to what extent Education monitors and provides assistance to Title III
and Title V institutions.
What GAO Found:
Grantees most commonly reported using Title III and Title V grant
funds to strengthen academics, and they reported a wide range of
benefits. Most grantees reported using their grants to fund efforts
designed to strengthen academics, and we estimate that over three-
quarters of the grantees reported initiatives that focused on improving
student services (e.g., tutoring) and outcomes for students (e.g.,
course pass rates). The most commonly reported benefits were related
to improvements in academic quality and student services and outcomes.
While grantees reported a wide range of benefits, most also reported
challenges in implementing their projects that sometimes resulted in
the need for additional time at the end of the grant to complete their
efforts.
Percentage of Grantees Reporting Benefits, by Grant Program:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Education has developed objectives and strategies designed to
strengthen Title III and Title V institutions by improving financial
sustainability, technological capacity, academic quality, student
services and outcomes, and institutional management. While Education
has developed data to determine its progress in four of these areas,
it is still in the process of developing data for measuring increased
technological capacity.
Education has developed plans and tools to enhance its monitoring of
and assistance to Title III and Title V grantees, but it has made
limited progress in implementing these initiatives. Specifically,
Education has not fully implemented its monitoring plan or completed
its new electronic monitoring tools, and a new training curriculum to
enhance the monitoring skills of staff. We found that only one-quarter
of staff conducted two required site visits, and most visits that were
conducted were not selected based on the requisite risk criteria. Also,
staff were not aware of updated department guidance and, as a result,
did not always properly monitor grantees. We also found that
Education‘s ability to provide technical assistance was limited. For
example, Education has acknowledged that its failure to provide
information on eligibility criteria has resulted in uncertainty about
the eligibility of over three-quarters of Title V grantees.
What GAO Recommends:
We recommend that Education take steps to ensure that monitoring and
technical assistance plans are carried out and targeted to at-risk
grantees.
In commenting on a draft of this report, Education generally agreed
with GAO‘s findings and recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-961.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia M. Ashby, (202)
512-8403, ashbyc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Grantees Reported a Wide Range of Uses and Benefits for Title III and
Title V Grants but Cited Some Implementation Challenges:
Education Has Developed Objectives and Strategies to Strengthen
Institutions and Is Developing Corresponding Performance Information:
Education Has Not Fully Implemented Its Initiatives to Improve
Monitoring and Assistance, Resulting in Limited Monitoring and
Assistance:
Conclusions:
Recommendation:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Characteristics of Title III and Title V Grantees by
Program:
Appendix III: Overview of How Grants Have Been Used by Institutions We
Visited:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Characteristics and Eligibility Criteria of Title III and
Title V Grant Programs:
Table 2: Title III and Title V Funding by Program, Fiscal Years 1999
and 2003:
Table 3: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to
Improving Academic Quality:
Table 4: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to
Improving Student Services and Outcomes:
Table 5: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to
Improving Institutional Management:
Table 6: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to
Improving Fiscal Stability:
Table 7: Education's Risk Criteria for Title III and Title V Grantees:
Table 8: Grant Funding Cycles for Programs in Our Sample:
Figure:
Figure 1: Education's Plan to Track Progress in Meeting Objectives for
Title III and V Programs:
Abbreviations:
HBCU: Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
HEA: Higher Education Act:
HSI: Hispanic Serving Institutions:
IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 21, 2004:
The Honorable Rod Paige:
Secretary of Education:
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Beginning in 1965, Congress created several programs under the Higher
Education Act (HEA) to support postsecondary institutions that provide
low-income and minority students with access to higher education.
Congress reaffirmed its commitment by expanding the number of
assistance programs in reauthorizing HEA in 1998 and has steadily
increased funding since then.[Footnote 1] Appropriations for these
programs have nearly doubled from about $230 million in fiscal year
1999 to about $432 million in fiscal year 2004. Given the recent
expansion of these programs, we examined them to determine (1) how
institutions used their Title III and Title V grants and the benefits
they received from using these grant funds, (2) what objectives and
strategies the Department of Education (Education) has developed for
Title III and Title V programs, and (3) to what extent Education
monitors and provides assistance to Title III and Title V institutions.
To determine how institutions used Title III and Title V funds and the
resulting benefits, we developed a data collection instrument and
reviewed grant files for a stratified random sample of 104 of the 206
Title III and Title V grant recipients, including the grant
application, grant performance reports, and related
correspondence.[Footnote 2] Additionally, we conducted site visits to
nine of the postsecondary institutions included in our sample based on
type of program participation and geographic proximity to one another.
These institutions included four Historically Black Colleges and
Universities in Georgia, two Tribal colleges in North Dakota, and three
Hispanic Serving Institutions in Texas. To determine the objectives and
strategies Education has developed for Title III and Title V programs,
we talked with Education officials and reviewed program and planning
documents. To determine how Education monitors and provides assistance
to the Title III and Title V grantees, we interviewed Education and
postsecondary institution officials and reviewed documents, including
program policies and guidance. A more detailed explanation of our
methodology is included in appendix I. We conducted our work between
July 2003 and August 2004 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Grantees most commonly reported using Title III and Title V grant funds
to strengthen academic quality, and they reported a wide range of
benefits. An estimated 87 percent of grantees reported initiatives that
focused on strengthening academic quality by enhancing faculty
effectiveness and academic offerings, and we estimate that over three-
quarters of the grantees reported initiatives that focused on student
services (e.g., tutoring) and outcomes for students (e.g., course pass
rates). To a lesser extent, grantees reported using the funds to
improve the financial condition and management of their institutions.
Grantees reported benefits that related to each of these areas, but the
most commonly reported benefits were related to improvements in
academic quality and student services and outcomes. For example, one
Hispanic Serving Institution in Texas that used much of its Title V
grant to construct and renovate science facilities reported it was
better able to meet the growing demand for science courses resulting in
improvements in outcomes for science students, such as retention and
course completion. While grantees reported a wide range of benefits,
most grantees also reported challenges in implementing their projects.
As a result of implementation challenges, some grantees needed
additional time at the end of the grant period to complete planned
activities.
To fulfill its overall objective of strengthening Title III and Title V
institutions, Education has developed strategies--assisting grantees
in enhancing financial sustainability and increasing technological
capacity--and supporting objectives--improving academic quality,
fiscal stability and institutional management, and student services and
outcomes. To assess its progress in implementing the objectives and
strategies, Education has developed targets for five performance
measures. Education has developed performance data for four measures,
and is in the process of developing performance data for its measure of
increased technological capacity from grantee performance reports.
Regarding its strategy of enhancing financial sustainability, the
department reported that the percentage of institutions with a positive
fiscal balance decreased slightly from 71 percent in fiscal year 2001
to 69 percent in fiscal year 2002, thereby falling slightly below the
fiscal year 2002 target of 74 percent. Education attributes the decline
in performance to decreases in state contributions to higher education.
Education exceeded its fiscal year 2002 performance targets for
improving academic quality, fiscal stability and institutional
management, and student services and outcomes based on data taken from
its annual grantee performance reports.
Education has taken steps to enhance its monitoring of and assistance
to Title III and Title V grantees, but has made limited progress in
implementing its initiatives. Specifically, Education has developed
monitoring plans, partially developed electronic monitoring tools, and
created plans to provide additional training to enhance the monitoring
skills of staff. However, Education has not fully implemented its
monitoring plan or completed development of a new training curriculum
for program staff. We found that only one-quarter of program staff
conducted two site visits as required in the department's monitoring
plan, and with respect to those that were conducted, most of the sites
visited were not selected based on the risk criteria specified in the
plan. Additionally, because the department has not completed its
electronic monitoring tools, it has continued to rely on paper-based
monitoring systems that have not provided complete, consistent, and
timely information needed for monitoring. For example, during our
review of grant files, Education could not locate 3 of 112 files we
requested, and for another 11 files, documents critical to department
monitoring efforts were missing. We also found that department staff
were not aware of updated department guidance and as a result did not
always follow the guidance for monitoring grantees. For example,
program staff told us they did not conduct required site visits because
of a lack of preparation related to inadequate training. We also found
that Education's ability to provide technical assistance was limited.
For example, Education has acknowledged that its failure to provide
information on eligibility criteria has resulted in uncertainty about
the eligibility of over three-quarters of Title V grantees. Further,
Education did not readily use feedback it obtained from grantees to
target assistance, and some of the opportunities it provides grantees
to offer feedback may not encourage open communication.
In this report we are making a recommendation to the Secretary of
Education to take action to ensure that monitoring and assistance plans
are carried out, including completing its automated monitoring tools
and training programs.
In written comments on a draft of this report, Education generally
agreed with our findings and recommendation. Education's written
comments are in appendix IV.
Background:
Postsecondary institutions that serve large proportions of economically
disadvantaged students are eligible to receive grants from Education
through Title III and Title V of the Higher Education Act, as amended,
to improve academic quality, address institutional management issues,
and improve student services and outcomes. Institutions eligible for
funding under Titles III and V include Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges, Hispanic Serving Institutions
(HSIs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Institutions, and other
undergraduate postsecondary institutions that serve low-income
students. While these institutions differ in terms of the racial and
ethnic makeup of their students, they serve a disproportionate number
of financially needy students, and have limited financial resources,
such as endowment funds, with which to serve them. (See app. II for
characteristics of Title III and Title V institutions and their
students.) Title III and Title V legislation outlines broad program
goals for strengthening participating institutions, but provides
grantees with flexibility in deciding what approaches will best meet
their needs. An institution can use the grants to focus on one or more
activities that will help it achieve the goals articulated in its
comprehensive development plan--a plan that an applicant must submit
with its grant application outlining its strategy for achieving growth
and self-sufficiency. (See app. III for a description of how the
grantees we visited used the grants.) Table 1 briefly describes the
characteristics and eligibility criteria of Title III and Title V grant
programs.
Table 1: Characteristics and Eligibility Criteria of Title III and
Title V Grant Programs:
Grant program: Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions;
Type of grant[A]: Competitive;
Duration: 5 years;
Wait-out period[B]: 2 years;
Eligibility criteria: Average educational and general expenditures that
are low compared with those of other institutions that offer similar
instruction. An enrollment of needy students--at least 50 percent of
students receive need-based federal financial assistance or a
substantial percentage of students receive Pell Grants compared with
those in other institutions. Accredited or making reasonable progress
toward accreditation.
Grant program: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges;
Type of grant[A]: Competitive;
Duration: 5 years;
Wait-out period[B]: None;
Eligibility criteria: Must meet the same eligibility criteria as
required for Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions, and be
designated by law as a Tribal College or University.
Grant program: Title III, part A Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian;
Type of grant[A]: Competitive;
Duration: 5 years;
Wait-out period[B]: None;
Eligibility criteria: Must meet the same eligibility criteria as
required for Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions.
Additionally, must have an undergraduate enrollment that is at least
20 percent Alaska Native or at least 10 percent Native Hawaiian.
Grant program: Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and
Universities;
Type of grant[A]: Formulaic/ noncompetitive;
Duration: 5 years;
Wait-out period[B]: None;
Eligibility criteria: Designated by law as, among other things, any
college or university that was established prior to 1964, and whose
principal mission was, and is, the education of African Americans.
Grant program: Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions;
Type of grant[A]: Competitive;
Duration: 5 years;
Wait-out period[B]: 2 years;
Eligibility criteria: Must meet the same requirements as institutions
that qualify for Title III Part A. Additionally, must meet requirements
to be considered an Hispanic Serving Institution--at least 25 percent
of full-time equivalent students are Hispanic, of which no less than 50
percent are low-income individuals.
Source: The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and the
Department of Education:
[A] Institutions in Title III, part A, and Title V, part A, receive
grants based on a ranking of applications from a competitive peer
review evaluation. Institutions in Title III, part B, receive grants
based on a formula that considers, in part, the number of Pell Grant
recipients, the number of graduates, and the number of students that
enroll in graduate school within 5 years after earning an undergraduate
degree.
[B] The minimum number of years institutions must wait before they are
eligible to receive another grant under the same program.
[End of table]
Since its inception, one of the primary missions of Title III has been
to support Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which play a
significant role in providing postsecondary opportunities for African
American, low-income, and educationally disadvantaged students. These
institutions receive funding through Title III, part B, in part, to
remedy discriminatory action of the states and the federal government
against Black colleges and universities. Until the Higher Education Act
was amended in 1998, other institutions that serve financially needy
students--both minority serving and nonminority serving--competed for
funding under Title III, part A. In 1998, the Higher Education Act was
amended to create new grant programs designated for Tribal Colleges,
Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Institutions, and Hispanic Serving
Institutions. These programs have provided additional opportunities for
Minority Serving Institutions to compete for Title III and Title V
funding. Specifically, in 1999, 55 Hispanic Serving, Tribal, Alaska
Native, and Native Hawaiian Institutions were awarded new grants
through the expanded programs. Table 2 shows the increase in support
since the new programs were first funded in 1999.
Table 2: Title III and Title V Funding by Program, Fiscal Years 1999
and 2003:
Type of grant: Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $60;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2003: $81;
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 180;
Number of institutions funded: 2003: 257.
Type of grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $3;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2003: $23;
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 8;
Number of institutions funded: 2003: 29.
Type of grant: Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $3;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2003: $8;
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 8;
Number of institutions funded: 2003: 19.
Type of grant: Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and
Universities;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $136;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2003: $214;
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 98;
Number of institutions funded: 2003: 97.
Type of grant: Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $28;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2003: $92;
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 39;
Number of institutions funded: 2003: 188[A].
Total;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $230;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2003: $418;
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 333;
Number of institutions funded: 2003: 590.
Source: Department of Education.
[A] In 2003, 188 Hispanic Serving Institutions received 220 grants.
Thirty-two of the institutions received two grants--an individual grant
and a cooperative grant. Institutions that receive cooperative grants
partner and share resources with another postsecondary institution--
which may or may not be eligible for Title V funding--to achieve common
goals without costly duplication of effort.
[End of table]
The grant programs are designed to increase the self-sufficiency and
strengthen the capacity of eligible institutions. Congress has
identified many areas in which institutions may use funds for improving
their academic programs. Authorized uses include construction,
maintenance, or renovation of educational facilities; purchase or
rental of telecommunications equipment or services; support of faculty
development; and purchase of library books, periodicals, and other
educational materials.
Grantees Reported a Wide Range of Uses and Benefits for Title III and
Title V Grants but Cited Some Implementation Challenges:
In their grant performance reports, grantees most commonly reported
using Title III and Title V grant funds to strengthen academic quality
and reported a wide range of benefits. Specifically, we estimate that
87 percent of the grantees reported using their grant funds to improve
academic quality, and an estimated 77 percent reported using their
funds to improve student services (e.g., tutoring) and student outcomes
(e.g., course pass rates). We estimate that over half of the grantees
reported using their funds for initiatives that focused on improving
institutional management and fiscal stability. A majority of the
grantees cited benefits related to improvements in academic quality and
student services and outcomes, and we estimate that over half of
institutions reported benefits related to institutional management and
fiscal stability. However, our review of grant files revealed that many
institutions experienced challenges, such as staffing problems, which
resulted in implementation delays.
Efforts to Improve Academic Quality:
Most of the grantees--ranging from one-half of Title III, part A Tribal
program grantees to all grantees in the Title III, part A Alaska Native
and Native Hawaiian program--reported focusing at least one of their
grant activities on improving academic quality. The goal of these
efforts was to enhance faculty effectiveness in the classroom by
providing training and development opportunities for faculty and to
improve the learning environment for students by improving academic
offerings and providing appropriate educational materials, such as
laboratory equipment and library materials. Some examples include:
* Spelman College, a historically black women's college in Georgia,
used part of its Title III, part B grant to fund a two-semester course
that focused on the dispersion of Africans throughout the world. This
writing-intensive course introduced students to their cultural
background and how it relates to the experiences of others in order to
promote critical thinking and interdisciplinary research. Spelman
College has plans to develop a minor in this area.
* The University of the Incarnate Word, a Hispanic Serving Institution
in Texas, used most of its Title V grant to strengthen student learning
by focusing on four areas of faculty development: pedagogy, technology,
globalization, and mentoring. Specifically, the university conducted
technology workshops to promote the integration of technology into the
curriculum and provided funding for faculty to participate in summer
professional development programs and conduct international research.
Most of the grantees also reported that they derived benefits related
to their efforts to improve academic quality. An estimated 76 percent
reported enhancements to faculty development, including increased
faculty participation in professional development activities. We
estimate that 80 percent of the grantees reported improving academic
quality by making enhancements to academic programs, including revising
and developing courses, establishing new academic programs, receiving
new accreditations, and acquiring equipment, library books, and other
educational materials. Some examples of benefits derived include the
following:
* At the University of the Incarnate Word, where most of the faculty
have received intensive technology training, over 200 members of the
faculty are using an online course management system as a Web-based
resource for instruction. Faculty can create Web pages for the courses
they teach, allowing students to access course syllabi and assignments
as well as communicate with their professor and other students in the
class.
* The College of Southern Idaho, a Title III, part A Strengthening
Institutions grantee in Idaho, reported that with Title III funding it
was able to enhance more than 30 courses and develop a new accredited
health science program in radiologic technology. The college also
reported that two faculty members it provided fellowships had completed
advanced degrees by the end of the grant period.
Table 3 shows the distribution of uses and benefits related to
improving academic quality.
Table 3: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to
Improving Academic Quality:
Uses;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 82%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 50%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 100%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 96%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 78%;
Estimated total: 87%.
Benefits;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 91%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 75%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 100%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 100%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 89%;
Estimated total: 94%.
Benefits: Faculty development;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 73%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 38%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 25%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 82%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 81%;
Estimated total: 76%.
Benefits: Academic programs;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 70%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 100%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 96%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 56%;
Estimated total: 80%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Efforts to Improve Support for Students and Student Success:
We estimate that over three-quarters of the grantees--ranging from 55
percent of Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions grantees to
nearly all Title III, part B HBCU grantees--reported focusing at least
one initiative on improving student services and outcomes. This area
includes tutoring, counseling, and student service programs designed to
improve academic success, along with those efforts the primary focus of
which is increasing student outcomes such as retention and graduation
rates, academic achievement, and entering higher degree programs.
Examples of how grantees have focused their activities on improvements
in this area include:
* Morehouse College, a historically black college in Georgia, used part
of its Title III grant to fund a wellness center for its all-male
student body. The center provides individual and group counseling and
offers workshops and seminars on topics like depression and the skills
students need to achieve academic success. The center also offers
services to accommodate the increase in students documented with
learning disabilities.
* United Tribes Technical College, a tribal college in North Dakota,
focused on increasing retention and persistence of its students by
using its Title III grant to renovate a one-stop center for student
services, pay tutors, and equip a wired computer laboratory in the
facility.
* The University of Texas at San Antonio, a Hispanic Serving
Institution in Texas, used most of its Title V grant to establish
learning communities where students enroll in clusters of courses in
which the course content is linked. At the heart of the learning
communities is the Freshman Seminar, a course that introduces students
to resources that will help them succeed in college.
We estimate that 62 percent of the grantees reported that they derived
benefits related to their efforts to improve student services, and an
estimated 75 percent reported that they derived benefits related to
their efforts to increase student outcomes. In the area of student
services, grantees primarily reported increases in the numbers of
students using student services, such as counseling and tutoring.
Increase in student retention was the most commonly reported benefit in
the area of student outcomes. For example, Laredo Community College, an
HSI in Texas, used its Title V award to construct and renovate science
facilities to meet the growing demand for science courses. With state-
of-the-art laboratories, the college reported subsequent improvements
in outcomes for science students, such as increases in course pass
rates, retention, and enrollment in further postsecondary study. Table
4 shows the distribution of uses and benefits related to improving
student services and outcomes.
Table 4: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to
Improving Student Services and Outcomes:
Uses;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 55%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 75%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 96%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 67%;
Estimated total: 77%.
Benefits;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 82%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 100%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 96%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 63%;
Estimated total: 85%.
Benefits: Student services;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 33%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 38%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/ Native Hawaiian: 50%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 86%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 52%;
Estimated total: 62%.
Benefits: Student outcomes;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 79%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/ Native Hawaiian: 88%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 79%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 63%;
Estimated total: 75%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Efforts to Improve Institutional Management:
We estimate that 54 percent of the grantees reported focusing at least
one activity on improving institutional management, which comprises the
efforts to increase capacity and manage institutional operations.
Examples in this area include improving the technological
infrastructure, providing training and development opportunities for
noninstructional staff, constructing and renovating facilities,
establishing or enhancing management systems, and establishing an
institutional research office, among others. Nearly all grantees in the
Title III, part B HBCU program and half of the grantees from the Title
III, part A Tribal Colleges program indicated that at least one
activity focused on improving institutional management. For example,
* Stone Child College, a tribal college in Montana, reported that it
used part of its Title III grant to implement an institutional
assessment program that involves a comprehensive assessment of all
instructional programs and services.
* Tougaloo College, a historically black college in Mississippi,
reported that it used grant funds to support institutional research,
assessment, and planning activities, as well as repairing and
renovating facilities to enhance the appearance and safety of the
campus.
An estimated 84 percent of the grantees reported that they derived
benefits related to their efforts to improve institutional management,
primarily by enhancing technology. We estimate that two-thirds of
grantees reported technology-related benefits, including overall
improvements to the technological infrastructure, increases in the
number of classrooms wired for the Internet, and increases in Internet
access and the numbers of computers available to faculty and students.
Several of the grantees we visited credited Title III and Title V
programs with helping them to stay current technologically. For
example, Morehouse College credited Title III funding with helping the
institution establish a technological infrastructure. Title III paid
for the installation of high-speed Internet lines, wiring all buildings
on campus, including dormitories, and connecting all the buildings to a
common network. An official at Morehouse told us that the college's
emphasis on technology stems from the need to compete with other
institutions for the best students and to ensure that students graduate
with technology skills that are necessary for the workplace. Table 5
shows the distribution of uses and benefits related to improving
institutional management.
Table 5: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to
Improving Institutional Management:
Uses;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 15%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 50%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 25%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 96%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 11%;
Estimated total: 54%.
Benefits;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 64%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 88%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 96%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 85%;
Estimated total: 84%.
Technology;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 42%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 38%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 63%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 82%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 67%;
Estimated total: 66%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Efforts to Improve Fiscal Stability at Grantee Institutions:
We estimate that about one-half of the grantees reported focusing at
least one of their activities on improving fiscal stability, and there
was wide variation across programs.[Footnote 3] Examples of ways
grantees can use grant funds to improve fiscal stability include such
activities as establishing or enhancing a development office to improve
contributions from alumni and the private sector, establishing or
improving an endowment fund, and increasing research dollars. Seventy-
one percent of grantees in the Title III, part B program, and 63
percent of grantees in the Title III, part A Tribal Colleges program
reported at least one activity focused on improving fiscal stability.
Only one grantee from the Title III, part A Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiian program had an activity focused on improving fiscal stability,
which may be due to greater limitations on how Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiian institutions have been able to use funds in this area. For
example, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian institutions have not been
able to use grant funds to improve endowment funds, whereas grantees in
the other programs have.[Footnote 4] One example of how a grantee has
used funds to improve fiscal stability is:
* Sitting Bull College, a tribal college with campuses in North Dakota
and South Dakota, used grant funds to develop its fund-raising capacity
and to establish an endowment. Because the college does not receive any
state funding, it relies heavily on federal funding, primarily from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. College officials think that increasing
fiscal stability is central to becoming more self-sufficient.
An estimated 57 percent of the grantees reported that they derived
benefits related to their efforts to improve fiscal stability,
primarily through endowment building.[Footnote 5] Grantees from the
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges program and Title V, part A HSI
program reported increases in their endowments most frequently. Laredo
Community College, an HSI in Texas, was able to establish an endowment
that will provide scholarships for math and science students in
perpetuity. Over 5 years it matched $250,000 from its Title V grant
with private contributions. Officials said as a 2-year institution, the
college didn't have much experience with fund raising prior to the
grant, and having the ability to use federal funds to match private
donations energized both the campus and the community to raise funds.
These fund-raising efforts have led to endowments for other academic
programs, such as business and nursing. Table 6 shows the distribution
of uses and benefits related to improving fiscal stability.
Table 6: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to
Improving Fiscal Stability:
Uses;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 21%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 13%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 71%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 48%;
Estimated total: 51%.
Benefits;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 18%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 75%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 13%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 82%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 56%;
Estimated total: 57%.
Endowment;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 18%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 0%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 11%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 44%;
Estimated total: 21%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Grantees Cited Implementation Challenges:
While grantees reported a wide range of uses and benefits, most
grantees also reported challenges in implementing their projects. We
estimate that 80 percent of the grantees reported at least one
challenge related to the implementation of the grants. Difficulties
related to hiring and staffing were the most frequently cited, with an
estimated 46 percent of grantees indicating this had been a
problem.[Footnote 6] For example, officials from Sitting Bull College
told us that its remote location made it difficult to attract and
retain qualified personnel. To address this problem, the institution
has focused on providing training and education to faculty and staff to
develop talent from within the college. Other challenges were not cited
frequently but included construction delays, challenges implementing
technology and distance learning, and state budget shortages.
As a result of implementation challenges, grantees often needed
additional time to complete planned activities. According to department
regulations, grantees generally have the option of extending the grant
for 1 year after the 5-year grant cycle has ended to obligate remaining
funds. According to Education, for example, 45 percent of the 55
grantees in the Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions program
that ended their 5-year grant period in September 2003 had an available
balance greater than $1,000, ranging from 0.5 percent (about $8,000) to
19 percent (about $328,000) of the total grant. Sixteen of the 25
institutions that had carryover greater than $1,000 continued to draw
down funds in the year following the 5-year grant. In the Title III,
part B program, 80 percent of the 96 grantees that ended their 5-year
grant period in September 2002 had funds remaining at the end of the 5-
year period, ranging from 0.09 percent (about $12,000) of the total
grant to 40 percent (about $2.2 million) of the total grant. According
to department officials, all of these grantees indicated they would
take the additional time they are allowed to spend the funds.[Footnote
7] Department officials told us that unexpended funds are common among
HBCUs because they often use these funds to supplement large
construction projects, which take several years to complete. Education
Has Developed Objectives and Strategies to Strengthen Institutions and
Is Developing Corresponding Performance Information:
Education has developed objectives and strategies designed to
strengthen Title III and Title V institutions by improving financial
sustainability, technological capacity, academic quality, student
services and outcomes, and institutional management. Education has
developed five measures to assess its progress in achieving its
objectives and is still in the process of developing data for one of
these measures.
Education Developed Objectives and Strategies Designed to Strengthen
Institutions:
Education has established a series of objectives and strategies for its
Title III and Title V programs. In its 2002-2007 strategic plan,
Education established an objective to strengthen HBCUs, HSIs, and
Tribal Colleges. To achieve this objective, Education has developed
supporting strategies to assist grantees in enhancing financial
sustainability and increasing technological capacity. Education has
used annual meetings for grantees as a forum to provide technical
assistance to institutions on financial management issues and to
promote technological capacity. Education has also established
objectives in its annual program performance plans to improve academic
quality, fiscal stability and institutional management, along with
student services and outcomes.[Footnote 8]
To assess its progress in meeting the objectives it established in its
strategic and program performance plans, Education has developed five
performance measures. To determine its progress in its strategic
objective to strengthen HBCUs, HSIs, and Tribal Colleges, Education
established performance measures related to financial sustainability
and technological capacity. Specifically, Education established a
performance target that by fiscal year 2007 it will increase the
percentage of institutions with a positive fiscal balance--Education's
measure of financial sustainability--to 99 percent from the fiscal year
1999 baseline of 69 percent.[Footnote 9] Education also established a
performance target for increasing the percentage of institutions that
increase their investment in technology. To determine its progress in
meeting the objectives in its program performance plan, Education has
set a target that at least 75 percent of the goals grantees establish
related to (1) academic quality, (2) fiscal stability and institutional
management, and (3) student services and outcomes will be met or
exceeded.
Education Is Making Progress in Developing Performance Data:
Education has developed performance data for one of the two performance
targets established in its 2002-2007 strategic plan and has developed
performance data for its program performance plan targets.
Specifically, Education has developed performance data to determine its
impact in increasing financial sustainability and is in the process of
developing data to determine its impact on technological capacity at
institutions. Regarding its goal to increase financial sustainability,
the department reported that the percentage of institutions with a
positive fiscal balance decreased slightly from 71 percent in fiscal
year 2001 to 69 percent in fiscal year 2002, falling below the original
target that it established for fiscal year 2002 of 74 percent. In its
2002-2007 Strategic Plan, the department set a goal that 84 percent of
institutions have a positive fiscal balance by 2004. Education
subsequently lowered its target for 2004 to 70 percent to reflect
decreases in state contributions to higher education--a significant
source of funding for most Title III and Title V institutions--to which
it attributed the decline in fiscal balance performance. To measure its
progress in meeting its objective to strengthen HBCUs, HSIs, and Tribal
Colleges through improved technological capacity, Education expects to
report later in 2004 on the impact of its efforts in this area using
information on technology-related activities reported by grantees in
recently submitted annual grantee performance reports. Education has
developed data for the performance measures in its program performance
plan. Regarding its goals to improve academic quality, fiscal stability
and institutional management, and student services and outcomes,
Education exceeded its fiscal year 2002 performance targets for each of
the three measures based on data taken from its annual grantee
performance reports. Figure 1 illustrates the measures Education has
developed to measure progress in achieving its objectives, along with
its progress in developing data to determine whether it is meeting its
performance targets.
Figure 1: Education's Plan to Track Progress in Meeting Objectives for
Title III and V Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Education Has Not Fully Implemented Its Initiatives to Improve
Monitoring and Assistance, Resulting in Limited Monitoring and
Assistance:
Education has taken steps to enhance its monitoring of and assistance
to Title III and Title V grantees by developing monitoring plans;
creating electronic monitoring (e-monitoring) tools, such as the
performance reports submitted by grantees to document performance; and
providing additional training to department staff to develop their
monitoring skills. However, Education has yet to fully implement many
of these initiatives. We found that Education has not fully implemented
its monitoring plan, made full use of its new electronic monitoring
tools, or completed development of a new training curriculum for
program staff. Additionally, we found that Education's ability to
target assistance was limited and that it has not made full use of
grantee feedback for targeting assistance. As a result, Education's
monitoring and assistance have been limited.
Education Has Taken Some Steps to Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance
Activities:
Education has created monitoring plans, electronic monitoring tools
that document grantee progress, and training opportunities for staff.
Some of these steps have been undertaken in response to reports issued
by Education's Inspector General in 1996 and 2000, which identified the
need for systematic monitoring of the department's Title III and Title
V programs.[Footnote 10]
Created Monitoring Plans:
In 2002, Education's Deputy Secretary directed each program within the
agency to develop a monitoring plan to place greater emphasis on
performance monitoring for all grantees. In addition to asking whether
grantees were achieving results, program officials were also to
consider what assistance could be provided by Education to help
grantees accomplish program objectives and incorporate in their
planning an increased departmental emphasis on compliance with the law
and guarding against potential risks. In response to the Deputy
Secretary's directive, Education developed a monitoring plan for Title
III and Title V grantees that calls for department staff to (1) conduct
risk assessments, (2) perform a minimum number of site visits each
year, and (3) follow up with grantees regarding their performance
reports.
In assessing risk, department staff are to review a variety of sources,
including annual performance reports, and consider 19 factors affecting
the ability of the grantees to manage their grants in the areas of
project design, administration and implementation, funds management,
communication, and performance measurement. According to the
department's plan, on the basis of the results of risk assessments,
staff are to follow up with grantees that have issues and select at
least two for site visits. Follow-up can take many forms, ranging from
telephone calls and e-mails to on-site compliance visits and technical
assistance. Technical assistance can involve many activities designed
to aid the institution in its administration of the grant. Although
Education's preferred approach is to try to inform grantees of steps
they can take to address grant administration issues, grantees can also
be subject to some restrictions based on risk assessments. For
instance, if a grantee is designated as "high risk," Education can
impose conditions on the grantee's ability to access grant funds. The
risk factors used by Education to identify high-risk grantees are
listed in Table 7.
Table 7: Education's Risk Criteria for Title III and Title V Grantees:
Risk categories: Project design;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
1. Grant lacks support on campus. Grantee develops and writes
application without significant participation of the college community.
Risk categories: Project design;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
2. Grant design is problematic. Proposed project objectives and
timelines are unrealistic, unclear, or lack appropriate baseline data.
Risk categories: Project design;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
3. Evaluation is not a focus of the grant. Proposed evaluation plan is
not complete and will not provide adequate data to evaluate project.
Risk categories: Project design;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
4. Grantee roles are not clear. Lines of authority and responsibility
are not clear within the project and in relation to the president's
office.
Risk categories: Administration and implementation;
Criteria for high- risk determination: 5. Grant lacks key personnel.
Key personnel had not been hired halfway into the grant's first year.
Risk categories: Administration and implementation;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
6. Grant cannot retain key personnel. Frequent turnover in project
administration.
Risk categories: Administration and implementation;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
7. Grantee lack of knowledge about the grant. College president/CEO is
not knowledgeable about grant.
Risk categories: Administration and implementation;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
8. Grant administrators do not participate in program activities.
College does not send representatives to scheduled workshops/meetings
and remains distant from program office.
Risk categories: Administration and implementation;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
9. Institution cannot or does not maintain proposed commitments.
Institution fails to honor space and resource commitments halfway into
the grant's first year.
Risk categories: Administration and implementation;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
10. Grantee administrators disagree and cannot resolve issues.
Cooperative arrangement partners lose focus on common objectives, and
have not established an administrative mechanism to handle conflict.
Risk categories: Administration and implementation;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
11. Other institutional problems exist that put grant funds at risk.
Institution is facing significant problems that go beyond grant
administration, such as finances or accreditation.
Risk categories: Funds management;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
12. Grantee has slow or fast drawdowns. Funds are not being expended
at the rate expected by project activities and timelines.
Risk categories: Funds management;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
13. Grantee has difficulty expending awarded funds. Significant
carryover of funds from one year to the next without adequate
explanation.
Risk categories: Funds management;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
14. Inconsistencies with reported grant information. Discrepancies
exist between expenditures reported and funds drawn upon in
Education's payment system.
Risk categories: Funds management;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
15. Institution has problems managing other federal grants/funds.
Other government audits reflect problems with managing other federal
funds.
Risk categories: Project communication issues;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
16. Grantee requests assistance from Education to resolve problems.
Institution asks for assistance or intervention to deal with a
problem.
Risk categories: Project communication issues;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
17. Grantee cannot readily provide project information. Project
administrators do not respond to requests for updated or revised
project information by program office.
Risk categories: Performance measurement;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
18. Institutional reports indicate problems. Performance reports
indicate the existence of problems or significant delays.
Risk categories: Performance measurement;
Criteria for high-risk determination:
19. Grantee does not follow through on proposal. Performance reports
do not correlate with project activities outlined in application.
Source: Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2003 Institutional
Development for Undergraduate Programs' Monitoring Plan.
[End of table]
Developed and Piloted E-Monitoring Tools:
In response to a 2000 Inspector General report that found Education
needed a systematic approach to monitor Title III grantees, including
resolving and enforcing compliance issues, Education developed and
piloted electronic monitoring tools designed to enable department staff
to standardize monitoring practices and better track performance and
fiscal problems. These tools include (1) an e-monitoring system that
maintains and tracks daily interactions with grantees, (2) an online
institutional performance reporting system, (3) an improved automated
payment tracking system, and (4) an electronic on-site monitoring
report. Education has implemented its online institutional performance
reporting system and intends to begin implementing the other tools
across its programs by the end of fiscal year 2004. Officials we spoke
to indicated that some of these actions were either in the final stages
of development or being piloted with other grant programs.
The department's e-monitoring system is designed to access funding
information from existing systems, such as its automated payment
system, as well as to access information from a departmental database
that contains institutional performance reports. Education anticipates
that the system will improve its monitoring process by providing staff
ready access to such important information as regulatory citations and
alerting staff to needed monitoring actions. Officials think moving to
electronic monitoring from a paper-based process will improve
recordkeeping and documentation, enhancing the ability to identify and
track areas of concern for individual grantees and across the programs.
Also, as a key component of its e-monitoring system, Education has
developed the online institutional performance reporting process.
Specifically, Education implemented an annual reporting process in
fiscal year 2003 that requires grantees to submit standardized
information about their performance electronically. As a result, the
new performance reports were designed to allow department staff to more
quickly and systematically identify and follow up with grantees on
difficulties they are facing regarding their grants. Also, department
staff are required to review these reports to assess whether adequate
progress has been made to justify continued funding.
Education is also in the process of redesigning its automated grant
payment system to provide information staff need to monitor grantee
transactions and to connect it with its e-monitoring system. In a 2003
report on its monitoring efforts, Education indicated that program
staff would be heavily engaged in the redesign of its automated payment
system to identify problems and necessary modifications associated with
the system's usage. Additionally, because the system was designed to
reflect mostly financial information about grantees and not as a
performance monitoring system, Education plans to make information from
its automated payment system accessible through its e-monitoring system
to eliminate the number of systems program staff have to access to
monitor grantees.[Footnote 11]
Education also plans to launch an electronic on-site review report to
better target its assistance and increase Education's ability to track
and resolve findings identified during on-site reviews. This tool is
designed to reinforce adherence to the department's standardized
reporting format that is to be used during on-site reviews. The
electronic report will be integrated with the e-monitoring system.
Plans to Expand Training:
To improve its training program, Education has developed a corrective
action plan to provide courses over the next 3 years to address the
training needs of its staff. In its fiscal year 2004 monitoring plan,
Education reported that there is a need to move beyond the generic
training that is traditionally offered to staff toward training that
has both real world applications and a programmatic context.
Consequently, Education's training plan called for training to provide
specific guidance on its new monitoring procedures.
Lack of Progress Implementing Initiatives Has Resulted in Uneven
Monitoring and Assistance:
We found that the department's lack of progress in implementing its
plans to improve monitoring activities, automate related processes, and
train its staff has resulted in uneven monitoring and assistance for
Title III and Title V grantees. For example, we found that Education
has yet to make full use of its risk-based plan to select grantees for
its monitoring visits and technical assistance. In fact, our review of
site visit documentation showed that risk factors were only employed to
select 5 out of 26 grantees visited in fiscal year 2003. Of these 26
institutions, most had been selected according to other factors such as
geographic proximity to another grantee.[Footnote 12] Staff we met with
acknowledged that they had not conducted risk assessments for their
grantees, and most were unaware of the new requirement to do so. We
also found that only one-quarter of department staff completed two site
visits in fiscal year 2003, as required.
Because the department had not completed its e-monitoring efforts, it
has continued to rely on paper-based monitoring systems, which have not
provided complete, consistent, and timely information used in
monitoring. For example, during our review of grantee program files,
Education could not locate 3 of 112 files we requested. Additionally,
another 11 files did not contain all required materials, such as
institutional performance reports. Further, the department could not
fully account for and provide documentation of completed site visits.
These files are the primary resource used by department staff to inform
monitoring and assistance efforts.
Finally, because the department has not yet implemented its new
training curriculum, its staff were not aware of updated department
guidance and as a result did not always follow department guidelines
for monitoring grantees. For example, department staff told us they did
not conduct required site visits because of a lack of preparation
related to inadequate training. One senior department official we spoke
with agreed that existing training was inadequate, adding that the
training could not translate the art of monitoring to inexperienced
department staff.
Education's Ability to Target Assistance Has Been Limited:
While Education provides technical assistance through conferences, pre-
application workshops, and routine interaction between program officers
and grantees, a senior department official acknowledged that Education
needs to do more to target technical assistance. He said that one of
the department's goals is to move from focusing on the process of
awarding grants to a more programmatic emphasis where the needs of the
grantees guide the services that are offered. One of the key areas of
technical assistance that Education is targeting for improvement is
educating grantees about eligibility criteria. In response to concerns
Education's Inspector General raised about awards made in the Title V,
part A Developing Hispanic Institutions program, earlier this year
Education completed a review of all Title V grantee files to determine
whether grantees were eligible for the awards. On the basis of this
review, Education concluded that there were questions surrounding the
eligibility of more than three-quarters of the 220 grantees that have
received funds through the program. Education found that 12
institutions should not have received grants because their percentages
of low-income Hispanic students were below the required 50 percent. In
other cases, the department indicated that it could not determine
eligibility because institutions made calculation errors, institutions
did not report percentages, or the institutions' calculation methods
could not be determined. The department concluded that 47 of the
grantees used the correct calculation method and met the eligibility
assurance requirement that at least half of its Hispanic students are
low-income but noted that there were still concerns that some of these
institutions may have had documentation problems. Education has
attributed these irregularities to confusion about how to meet
eligibility requirements stemming from insufficient guidance it
provided to applicants as well as an institutional lack of systematic
data collection. As a result, Education decided that it would not take
action in this specific instance against any of the grantees with
eligibility concerns. Education has taken steps to address the problem,
including developing new guidance for applicants and verifying all
eligibility assurances that applicants submit. Education plans to
assist grantees with the eligibility process at pre-application
workshops.
Education's ability to target assistance is limited in two ways: it
does not readily use the feedback it obtains from grantees, and its
feedback mechanisms may not encourage open communication. For example,
a senior official told us that feedback Education collected via surveys
from grantees at conferences has not been used in planning assistance
efforts. Additionally, one of Education's feedback mechanisms may limit
communication because it identifies grantees and is tied to funding
decisions. Specifically, Education provided grantees with the
opportunity to comment on ways to improve the services the department
provides in their annual performance reports, which department staff
review to determine whether sufficient progress has been made to
continue funding. Department officials told us that Education is
considering ways to collect feedback from grantees separate from the
performance reporting process for all its grant programs.
Conclusions:
Congress has demonstrated its support for Title III and Title V
programs by expanding the number of institutions covered and by nearly
doubling funding to these programs since 1999. Title III and Title V
programs are designed to provide additional resources to institutions
that face challenges providing a quality education to low-income and
minority students who are typically underrepresented in postsecondary
education. While Title III and Title V programs provide important
resources to address some of the most critical needs of these
institutions, the need for monitoring and assistance does not end with
the award of a grant. These institutions, because they have limited
resources, sometimes need additional assistance to help them implement
their projects. Consequently, Education's role in monitoring and
providing assistance to Title III and Title V grantees is critical to
the success of these programs. Education has taken steps to enhance its
monitoring and assistance efforts. However, by failing to carry out an
effective process to identify and target oversight and assistance to
at-risk grantees, Education has fallen short of ensuring that these
institutions have all the tools they need to fulfill the programs'
objectives. Education recognizes that it must work in partnership with
its grantees to enhance the quality of and access to postsecondary
education and has put in place plans that would allow it to better
monitor and assist grantees. Education needs to fully implement these
plans to provide oversight and assistance to those institutions most in
need.
Recommendation:
We recommend that the Secretary of Education take steps to ensure that
monitoring and technical assistance plans are carried out and targeted
to at-risk grantees and the needs of grantees guide the technical
assistance offered. These steps should include completing its automated
monitoring tools and training programs to ensure that department staff
are adequately prepared to monitor and assist grantees and using
appropriately collected feedback from grantees to target assistance.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for
review and comment. In written comments on a draft of this report, the
Department of Education agreed with our recommendation to carry out and
target its monitoring and technical assistance plans to at-risk
grantees. Education has made a commitment to complete the
implementation of its monitoring, training, and technical assistance
efforts in a timely manner. Education also provided technical comments,
which we incorporated where appropriate. Education's comments appear in
appendix IV.
Copies of this report will be sent to the congressional committees and
subcommittees responsible for the Higher Education Act; the Honorable
Joshua Bolten, Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other
interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon
request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202)
512-8403 or Bryon Gordon at (202) 512-9207. Other contacts and
acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We reviewed Title III and Title V grant programs to determine (1) how
Title III and Title V institutions are using the grants and the
benefits they have derived, (2) what objectives and strategies the
Department of Education (Education) has developed for Title III and
Title V programs, and (3) to what extent Education monitors and
provides assistance to Title III and Title V institutions.
To determine how institutions used the funds and the benefits derived,
we reviewed grant files for a stratified random sample of 104 of the
206 Title III and Title V individual development grant
recipients.[Footnote 13] We reviewed grant applications and grantee
performance reports to develop a standardized data collection
instrument. We completed the data collection instrument for each
grantee in our sample, and each record was independently reviewed by
another staff person for clarity and accuracy.
To identify these recipients, we obtained from Education a list of
grantees for specific grant cycles. The grant cycles were chosen to
allow us to review documentation from as many years of the 5-year grant
cycle as possible or to allow for the review of comparable information.
For example, we selected 1999-2004 as the grant cycle for grantees from
three of the programs in our review because 1999 was the first year
awards were made in these programs. For the Title III, part B program,
we looked at available data from the 2002-2007 grant cycle because
performance reports comparable to those provided by grantees in other
programs were not available from a previous grant cycle. The grant
cycles are shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Grant Funding Cycles for Programs in Our Sample:
Program: Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions;
Grant cycle: 10/ 1998-9/2003;
Total number of grantees: 55;
Sample size: 35;
Final number of cases reviewed: 33.
Program: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges;
Grant cycle: 10/1999-9/ 2004;
Total number of grantees: 8;
Sample size: 8;
Final number of cases reviewed: 8.
Program: Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions;
Grant cycle: 10/1999-9/2004;
Total number of grantees: 8;
Sample size: 8;
Final number of cases reviewed: 8.
Program: Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and
Universities;
Grant cycle: 10/2002-9/2007;
Total number of grantees: 96;
Sample size: 33;
Final number of cases reviewed: 28.
Program: Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions;
Grant cycle: 10/1999-9/2004;
Total number of grantees: 39;
Sample size: 28;
Final number of cases reviewed: 27.
Source: GAO calculations based on Education data.
[End of table]
We stratified our sample by the five programs and within these strata
randomly selected grantees. Our sample was statistically drawn and
weighted so that we could generalize the results of our review across
programs. As with all samples, our review of grant files is subject to
sampling errors. The effects of sampling errors, due to the selection
of a sample from a larger population, can be expressed as confidence
intervals based on statistical theory. Sampling errors occur because we
use a sample to draw conclusions about a larger population. If a
different sample had been taken, the results might have been different.
To recognize the possibility that other samples might have yielded
other results, we express our confidence in the precision of our
particular sample's results as a 95 percent confidence interval. The 95
percent confidence interval is expected to include the actual results
for 95 percent of samples of this type. Our sample sizes were selected
to give us results within +/-10 percentage points of what we would have
obtained if we had surveyed the entire study population within each
program. Because we included the entire population for the Title III,
part A programs that cover Tribal Colleges, Alaska Native Institutions,
and Native Hawaiian Institutions, there is no sampling error associated
with the results presented for these programs. Each sample element was
subsequently weighted in the analysis to account for all members of the
population, including those that were not selected. When we make
estimates to the entire population of grantees, we are 95 percent
confident that the results we obtained are within +/-7 percentage
points of what we would have obtained if we had included the entire
population within our review unless otherwise noted.
We analyzed data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS) to better understand the kinds of students they
serve.[Footnote 14] To assess the completeness of the IPEDS data, we
reviewed the National Center for Education Statistics' documentation on
how the data were collected and performed electronic tests to look for
missing or out-of-range values. On the basis of these reviews and
tests, we found the data sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
Additionally, we conducted site visits to nine of the postsecondary
institutions included in our sample based on type of program
participation and geographic proximity to each other. These
institutions included four Historically Black Colleges and Universities
in Georgia, two Tribal colleges in North Dakota, and three Hispanic
Serving Institutions in Texas.
To determine what objectives and strategies Education has developed for
Title III and Title V programs, we talked with Education officials and
reviewed program and planning documents. To determine how Education
monitors and provides assistance to the Title III and Title V grantees,
we talked with Education officials and reviewed program policies and
guidance.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Characteristics of Title III and Title V Grantees by
Program:
Average undergraduate enrollment;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 6,391;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 286;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 3,388;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 2,692;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 12,643.
Gender: Male;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 43%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 32%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 40%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 38%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 41%.
Gender: Female;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 57%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 68%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 60%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 62%;
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 59%.
Race/ethnicity: American Indian/Alaska Native;
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 1%;
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 88%;
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 6%;
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
