Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions
Education Has Taken Steps to Improve Monitoring and Assistance, but Further Progress Is Needed Gao ID: GAO-07-926T June 4, 2007Institutions that may receive funding under Titles III and V include Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Alaska Native Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and other postsecondary institutions that serve low-income students. In fiscal year 2006, these programs provided $448 million in funding for over 500 grantees, nearly double fiscal year 1999 funding of $230 million. GAO 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 these institutions. This testimony updates a September 2004 report on these programs (GAO-04-961). To update our work, GAO reviewed Education policy and planning documents, and program materials and grantee performance reports; interviewed Education officials; and analyzed Education data on grantee characteristics.
In their performance reports, the six grantees we reviewed most commonly reported using Title III and Title V grant funds to strengthen academic quality; improve support for students and student success; and improve institutional management and reported a wide range of benefits. For example, Sinte Gleska, a tribal college in South Dakota, used part of its Title III grant to fund the school's distance learning department, to provide students access to academic and research resources otherwise not available in its rural isolated location. Our review of grant files found that institutions experienced challenges, such as staffing problems, which sometimes resulted in implementation delays. For example, one grantee reported delays in implementing its management information system due to the turn over of experienced staff. As a result of these implementation challenges, grantees sometimes need additional time to complete planned activities. Although Education has established outcome based objectives and performance measures, it needs to take steps to align some strategies and objectives, and develop additional performance measures. Education has established an overall strategy to improve the academic, administrative, and fiscal stability of grantees, along with objectives and performance measures focused on student outcomes, such as graduation rates. In 2004, we reported that Education's strategic planning efforts in were focused on program outputs that did not assess programmatic impacts, such as the percentage of goals that grantees met or exceeded, rather than outcomes. While Education has made progress in developing outcome based measures, we found insufficient links between its strategies for improving administrative and fiscal stability with its student outcome objective. To address challenges in measuring institutional progress in areas such as administrative and fiscal stability, Education is conducting a study of the financial health of low income and minority serving institutions supported by Title III and Title V. Education has made changes to better target monitoring and assistance in response to recommendations GAO made in 2004, however, additional study is needed to determine the effectiveness of these efforts. For example, Education uses risk indicators designed to better target grantees that may require site visits. While Education implemented an electronic monitoring system, it lacks the ability to systematically track grantee performance as designed. While Education provides technical assistance through various methods, its ability to target assistance remains limited in that its feedback mechanisms may not encourage open communication. Specifically, Education relies on grantee performance reports that are tied to funding decisions to solicit feedback.
GAO-07-926T, Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions: Education Has Taken Steps to Improve Monitoring and Assistance, but Further Progress Is Needed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-926T
entitled 'Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions: Education Has
Taken Steps to Improve Monitoring and Assistance, but Further Progress
Is Needed' which was released on June 4, 2007.
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.
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong
Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, House
of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Monday, June 4, 2007:
Low-Income And Minority Serving Institutions:
Education Has Taken Steps to Improve Monitoring and Assistance, but
Further Progress Is Needed:
Statement of George A. Scott, Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
GAO-07-926T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-926T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on
Education and Labor, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Institutions that may receive funding under Titles III and V include
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges,
Hispanic Serving Institutions, Alaska Native Serving Institutions,
Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and other postsecondary
institutions that serve low-income students. In fiscal year 2006, these
programs provided $448 million in funding for over 500 grantees, nearly
double fiscal year 1999 funding of $230 million. GAO 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 these
institutions. This testimony updates a September 2004 report on these
programs (GAO-04-961). To update our work, GAO reviewed Education
policy and planning documents, and program materials and grantee
performance reports; interviewed Education officials; and analyzed
Education data on grantee characteristics.
What GAO Found:
In their performance reports, the six grantees we reviewed most
commonly reported using Title III and Title V grant funds to strengthen
academic quality; improve support for students and student success; and
improve institutional management and reported a wide range of benefits.
For example, Sinte Gleska, a tribal college in South Dakota, used part
of its Title III grant to fund the school‘s distance learning
department, to provide students access to academic and research
resources otherwise not available in its rural isolated location. Our
review of grant files found that institutions experienced challenges,
such as staffing problems, which sometimes resulted in implementation
delays. For example, one grantee reported delays in implementing its
management information system due to the turn over of experienced
staff. As a result of these implementation challenges, grantees
sometimes need additional time to complete planned activities.
Although Education has established outcome based objectives and
performance measures, it needs to take steps to align some strategies
and objectives, and develop additional performance measures. Education
has established an overall strategy to improve the academic,
administrative, and fiscal stability of grantees, along with objectives
and performance measures focused on student outcomes, such as
graduation rates. In 2004, we reported that Education‘s strategic
planning efforts in were focused on program outputs that did not assess
programmatic impacts, such as the percentage of goals that grantees met
or exceeded, rather than outcomes. While Education has made progress in
developing outcome based measures, we found insufficient links between
its strategies for improving administrative and fiscal stability with
its student outcome objective. To address challenges in measuring
institutional progress in areas such as administrative and fiscal
stability, Education is conducting a study of the financial health of
low income and minority serving institutions supported by Title III and
Title V.
Education has made changes to better target monitoring and assistance
in response to recommendations GAO made in 2004, however, additional
study is needed to determine the effectiveness of these efforts. For
example, Education uses risk indicators designed to better target
grantees that may require site visits. While Education implemented an
electronic monitoring system, it lacks the ability to systematically
track grantee performance as designed. While Education provides
technical assistance through various methods, its ability to target
assistance remains limited in that its feedback mechanisms may not
encourage open communication. Specifically, Education relies on grantee
performance reports that are tied to funding decisions to solicit
feedback.
What GAO Recommends:
Education made changes to improve monitoring and assistance in response
to our 2004 recommendations, but further progress is needed.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-926T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact George Scott at (202) 512-
7215 or scottg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the federal government's
programs to support low-income and minority serving institutions
(MSIs). We previously reported on the Department of Education's efforts
to monitor and assist these institutions.[Footnote 1] Beginning in
1965, Congress created several programs under the Higher Education Act
(HEA) to strengthen and support developing postsecondary institutions.
In subsequent reauthorizations, Congress expanded the HEA to include
programs that support institutions that provide low-income and minority
students with access to higher education.[Footnote 2] These programs
are generally referred to as Titles III and V of the HEA. The amount of
federal funds available for these programs has nearly doubled from
about $230 million in fiscal year 1999 to about $448 million in fiscal
year 2007. Given the recent expansion of these programs and that HEA is
slated for reauthorization this year, this hearing presents a timely
opportunity to explore these grant programs. My testimony today focuses
on (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.
In summary, we found that grantees most commonly reported using Title
III and Title V grant funds to strengthen academic quality; improve
support for students and student success; and improve institutional
management and reported a wide range of benefits. For example, Sinte
Gleska, a tribal college in South Dakota, used part of its Title III
grant to fund the school's distance learning department, and to provide
students access to academic and research resources otherwise not
available at its rural isolated location.
However, our review of grant files found that institutions experienced
challenges, such as staffing problems, which sometimes resulted in
implementation delays. For example, one grantee reported delays in
implementing its management information system due to the turnover of
experienced staff. In addition, Education officials told us that common
problems include delays in construction of facilities and hiring of
staff. As a result of these implementation challenges, grantees
sometimes need additional time to complete planned activities.
Although Education has established outcome based objectives and
performance measures, it needs to take additional steps to align some
of its strategies and objectives, and develop additional performance
measures. Education has established an overall strategy to improve the
academic, administrative, and fiscal stability of HBCUs, HSIs, and
Tribal Colleges, along with objectives and performance measures focused
on maintaining or increasing student outcomes, such as graduation
rates. When we reported on Education's strategic planning efforts in
our 2004 report, its measures were focused on program outputs rather
than outcomes, which did not assess programmatic impacts. While
Education has made progress in developing more outcome based measures,
we found insufficient links between its strategies for improving
administrative and fiscal stability with its objectives to increase
student outcomes. To address challenges in measuring institutional
progress in areas such as administrative and fiscal stability,
Education is conducting a study of the financial health of low income
and minority serving institutions supported by Title III and Title V
programs.
Education has made changes to better target monitoring and assistance
in response to recommendations we made in our 2004 report, however,
additional study is needed to determine the effectiveness of these
efforts. For example, Education uses risk indicators designed to better
target at risk grantees that may require site visits, but a more
extensive review is required to determine the quality of these visits.
While Education implemented an electronic monitoring system, it lacks
the ability to systematically track grantee performance as designed.
Education has expanded its training specific to monitoring and
assistance by offering courses such as an overview of grant monitoring.
However, more information is needed to assess how well courses meet
staff needs because Education's new training recordkeeping system does
not contain information from prior systems. While Education provides
technical assistance through various methods, its ability to target
assistance remains limited in that its feedback mechanisms may not
encourage open communication.
To determine how institutions used Title III and Title V funds and the
resulting benefits, we reviewed Education's 2006 Annual Performance
Reports for six grantee institutions of Title III and Title V grant
programs to determine uses and benefits of grant funds, and challenges
associated with project implementation. Education selected these
institutions based on our request for examples of schools with typical
grant experience. The results from our review cannot be generalized to
all grantees, and we did not independently verify the accuracy of the
information that grantees reported. To determine the objectives,
strategies, and performance measures 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 officials and reviewed documents, including
program policies and guidance. We also reviewed applicable laws and
regulations, and analyzed data regarding the characteristics of fiscal
year 2006 grantee institutions as reported in the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). 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 identify missing or out-of-range values. On the
basis of these reviews and tests, we found the data sufficiently
reliable for our purposes. Our work was performed in May 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Background:
Postsecondary institutions that serve large proportions of economically
disadvantaged and minority students are eligible to receive grants from
Education through Title III and Title V of the Higher Education Act, as
amended, to improve academic and program quality, expand educational
opportunities, address institutional management issues, enhance
institutional stability, 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 institutions of higher education
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. I for characteristics of Title III and Title V institutions
and their students.) Title III and Title V statutory provisions
generally outline broad program goals for strengthening participating
institutions, but provide grantees with flexibility in deciding which
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
each applicant must submit with its grant application outlining its
strategy for achieving growth and self-sufficiency. The statutory and
regulatory eligibility criteria for all of the programs, with the
exception of the HBCU program, contain requirements that institutions
applying for grants serve a significant number of economically
disadvantaged students. See table 1 for additional information about
eligibility requirements.
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[B]: Up to 5 years;
Wait-out period[C]: 2 years;
Eligibility criteria: An institution of higher education which (1) has
an enrollment of needy students--at least 50 percent of students
receive need-based federal financial assistance or its percentage of
students receiving Pell Grants exceeds that of comparable institutions;
(2) has average educational and general expenditures that are low
compared with those of other institutions that offer similar
instruction; (3) is accredited or making reasonable progress toward
accreditation; and (4) is legally authorized by the state in which it
is located to be a junior college or award bachelor's degrees.
Grant program: Title III, Part A Tribal Colleges;
Type of grant[A]: Competitive;
Duration[B]: Up to 5 years;
Wait-out period[C]: 2 years;
Eligibility criteria: Must meet the same eligibility criteria as
required for the Strengthening Institutions program. Additionally, must
meet the statutory definition of "tribally controlled college or
university.".
Grant program: Title III, Part A Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian;
Type of grant[A]: Competitive;
Duration[B]: Up to 5 years;
Wait-out period[C]: 2 years;
Eligibility criteria: Must meet the same eligibility criteria as
required for the Strengthening Institutions program. Additionally, must
have an undergraduate enrollment that is at least 20 percent Alaska
Native or at least 10 percent Native Hawaiian, as applicable.
Grant program: Title III, Part B Historically Black Colleges and
Universities;
Type of grant[A]: Formulaic/ noncompetitive;
Duration[B]: Up to 5 years;
Wait-out period[C]: None;
Eligibility criteria: Any college or university that was established
prior to 1964, and whose principal mission was, and is, the education
of African Americans, that is accredited or is making reasonable
progress toward accreditation.
Grant program: Title V, Part A Hispanic Serving Institutions;
Type of grant[A]: Competitive;
Duration[B]: Up to 5 years;
Wait-out period[C]: 2 years;
Eligibility criteria: Must meet the same eligibility criteria as
required for the Strengthening Institutions program. Additionally, must
have an undergraduate enrollment of full-time equivalent students that
is at least 25 percent Hispanic, of which no less than 50 percent are
low-income individuals. Institutions receiving grant funds through
Title V may not simultaneously receive funds through Title III, Parts A
or B.
Source: The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended and the Department
of Education.
[A] Institutions that participate in the HBCU program receive grants
based on a formula that considers, in part, the amount of funds
appropriated, the number of Pell Grant recipients, the number of
graduates, and the number of students that enroll in graduate school in
degree programs in which African Americans are underrepresented within
5 years after earning an undergraduate degree. Institutions that
participate in all other programs receive grants based on a ranking of
applications from a competitive peer review evaluation, and may apply
for individual development or cooperative development grants.
Institutions that receive cooperative grants partner and share
resources with another postsecondary institution--which may or may not
be eligible for Title III or Title V funding--to achieve common goals
without costly duplication of effort.
[B] For some programs, institutions may apply for 1-year planning, 1-
year construction, and 1-year renovation grants.
[C] The minimum number of years institutions receiving an individual
development grant must wait before they are eligible to receive another
grant under the same program:
[End of table]
Historically, 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, in part, to remedy past discriminatory
action of the states and the federal government against black colleges
and universities. For a number of years, all institutions that serve
financially needy students--both minority serving and nonminority
serving--competed for funding under the Strengthening Institutions
Program, also under Title III. However, in 1998, the Higher Education
Act was amended to create new grant programs specifically designated to
provide financial support for Tribal Colleges, Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiian Institutions, and Hispanic Serving Institutions.[Footnote 3]
These programs have provided additional opportunities for Minority
Serving Institutions to compete for federal grant funding. In 1999, the
first year of funding for the expanded programs, 55 Hispanic Serving,
Tribal, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Institutions were awarded
grants, and as of fiscal year 2006, 197 such institutions had new or
continuation grants. (See table 2).
Table 2: Title III and Title V Funding by Program, Fiscal Years 1999
and 2006:
Type of grant: Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $60;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2006: $80;
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 180;
Number of institutions funded: 2006: 223.
Type of grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: 3;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2006: 24;
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 8;
Number of institutions funded: 2006: 27.
Type of grant: Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: 3;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2006: 12;
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 8;
Number of institutions funded: 2006: 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): 2006: 238;
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 98;
Number of institutions funded: 2006: 97.
Type of grant: Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: 28;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2006: 95;
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 39;
Number of institutions funded: 2006: 151a.
Type of grant: Total;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $229;
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2006: $448;
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 319;
Number of institutions funded: 2006: 517.
Source: Department of Education.
[A] In 2006, 151 Hispanic Serving Institutions received 172 grants.
Twenty-one of the institutions received two grants--an individual
development grant and a cooperative development grant.
[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, but are not limited
to, construction, maintenance, renovation or improvement of educational
facilities; purchase or rental of certain kinds of equipment or
services; support of faculty development; and purchase of library
books, periodicals, and other educational materials.
Grantees Reported a Range of Uses and Benefits for Title III and Title
V Grants but Cited Some Implementation Challenges:
In their grant performance reports, the six grantees we recently
reviewed most commonly reported using Title III and Title V grant funds
to strengthen academic quality; improve support for students and
student success; and improve institutional management and reported a
range of benefits. To a lesser extent, grantees also reported using
grant funds to improve their fiscal stability. However, our review of
grant files found that institutions experienced challenges, such as
staffing problems, which sometimes resulted in implementation delays.
* Efforts to Improve Academic Quality--Four of the six grantees we
reviewed 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 and to improve the learning
environment for students. For example, Ilisagvik College, an Alaska
Native Serving Institution, used part of its Title III, part A Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian grant to provide instruction and student
support services to prepare students for college-level math and English
courses. According to the institution, many of its students come to
college unprepared for math and English, and grant funds have helped
the school to increase completion rates in these courses by 14
percentage points.
* Efforts to Improve Support for Students and Student Success--Four of
the six grantees we reviewed reported focusing at least one of their
grant activities on improving support for students and student success.
This area includes, among other things, tutoring, counseling, and
student service programs designed to improve academic success. Sinte
Gleska, a tribal college in South Dakota, used part of its Title III
grant to fund the school's distance learning department. Sinte Gleska
reported that Title III has helped the school develop and extend its
programs, particularly in the area of course delivery through
technology. In addition, the school is able to offer its students
access to academic and research resources otherwise not available in
its rural isolated location.
* Efforts to Improve Institutional Management--Four of the six grantees
we reviewed reported focusing at least one of their grant activities on
improving institutional management. Examples in this area include
improving the technological infrastructure, constructing and renovating
facilities, and establishing or enhancing management systems, among
others. For example, Chaminade University, a Native Hawaiian Serving
Institution, used part of its Title III grant to enhance the school's
academic and administrative information system. According to Chaminade
University, the new system allows students to access class lists and
register on-line, and readily access their student financial accounts.
Additionally, the Title III grant has helped provide students with the
tools to explore course options and develop financial responsibility.
* Efforts to Improve Fiscal Stability at Grantee Institutions--Two of
the six institutions we reviewed reported focusing at least one of
their grant activities on improving its fiscal stability. Examples
include activities such as establishing or enhancing a development
office, establishing or improving an endowment fund, and increasing
research dollars. Development officers at Concordia College, a
historically black college in Alabama, reported using its Title III
grant to raise the visibility of the college with potential donors.
While grantees reported a range of uses and benefits, four of the six
grantees also reported challenges in implementing their projects. For
example, one grantee reported delays in implementing its management
information system due to the turn-over of experienced staff. Another
grantee reported project delays because needed software was not
delivered as scheduled. In addition, Education officials told us that
common problems for grantees include delays in constructing facilities
and hiring. As a result of these implementation challenges, grantees
sometimes need additional time to complete planned activities. For
example, 45 percent of the 49 grantees in the Title V, developing
Hispanic Serving Institutions program that ended their 5-year grant
period in September 2006 had an available balance greater than $1,000,
ranging from less than 1 percent (about $2,500) to 16 percent (about
$513,000) of the total grant. According to Education 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.
Education Has Developed New Objectives, Strategies, and Performance
Measures that Focus on Program Outcomes, but Challenges Remain:
Education has established a series of new objectives, strategies, and
performance measures that are focused on key student outcomes for Title
III and Title V programs. As part of Education's overall goal for
higher education within its 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, Education
established a supporting strategy to improve the academic,
administrative, and fiscal stability of HBCUs, HSIs, and Tribal
Colleges. Education has also established objectives in its annual
program performance plans to maintain or increase student enrollment,
persistence,[Footnote 4] and graduation rates at all Title III and
Title V institutions, and has developed corresponding performance
measures. When we reported on Education's strategic planning efforts in
our 2004 report, it measured its progress in achieving objectives by
measuring outputs, such as the percentage of institutional goals that
grantees had related to academic quality that were met or exceeded.
However, these measures did not assess the programmatic impact of its
efforts. Education's new objectives and performance measures are
designed to be more outcome focused. In addition, the targets for these
new performance measures were established based on an assessment of
Title III and Title V institutions' prior performance compared to
performance at all institutions that participate in federal student
financial assistance programs. Education officials told us that they
made these changes, in part, to address concerns identified by the
Office of Management and Budget that Education did not have specific
long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully
reflect the purpose of the program:
Education needs to take additional steps to align some of its
strategies and objectives, and develop additional performance measures.
GAO has previously reported that performance plans may be improved if
strategies are linked to specific performance goals and the plans
describe how the strategies will contribute to the achievement of those
goals.[Footnote 5] We found insufficient links between strategies and
objectives in Education's strategic plans and annual program
performance plans. Specifically, Education needs to better link its
strategies for improving administrative and fiscal stability with its
objectives to increase or maintain enrollment, persistence, and
graduation rates because it is unclear how these strategies impact
Education's chosen outcome measures.
In fact, GAO and other federal agencies have previously found Education
faces challenges in measuring institutional progress in areas such as
administrative and fiscal stability. To address part of this problem,
Education is conducting a study of the financial health of low-income
and minority serving institutions supported by Title III and Title V
funds to determine, among other things, the major factors influencing
financial health and whether the data Education collects on
institutions can be used to measure fiscal stability. Education
officials expect the study to be completed in 2008.
Education Has Made Some Changes Designed to Better Target Monitoring
and Assistance, but Its Efforts Remain Limited:
Education made changes designed to better target monitoring and
assistance in response to recommendations we made in our 2004 report;
however, additional work is needed to ensure the effectiveness of these
efforts. Specifically, we recommended 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. Education needed to take
several actions to implement this recommendation, including completing
its electronic 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.
Education has taken steps to better target at-risk grantees, but more
information is needed to determine its effectiveness. In assessing
risk, department staff are to use a variety of sources, including
expenditure of grant funds, review of performance reports, and
federally required audit reports. However, according to a 2007 report
issued by Education's Office of Inspector General, program staff did
not ensure grantees complied with federal audit reporting requirements.
As a result, Education lacks assurance that grantees are appropriately
managing federal funds, which increases the potential risk for waste,
fraud, and abuse.[Footnote 6] In addition to reviewing grantee fiscal,
performance, and compliance information, program staff are also
required to consider a number of factors affecting the ability of
grantees to manage their grants in the areas of project management and
implementation, funds management, communication, and performance
measurement. Education reports that identifying appropriate risk
factors have been a continuous process and that these factors are still
being refined. On the basis of results of the risk assessments, program
staff are to follow up with grantees to determine whether they are in
need of further monitoring and assistance. Follow-up can take many
forms, ranging from telephone calls and e-mails to on-site compliance
visits and technical assistance if issues cannot not be readily
addressed. In targeting grantees at risk, Education officials told us
that the department has recently changed its focus to improve the
quality of monitoring while making the best use of limited resources.
For example, Education officials said that risk criteria are being used
to target those grantees most in need of sites visits rather than
requiring staff to conduct a minimum number each year. Based on
information Education provided, program staff conducted site visits at
28 of the 517 institutions receiving Title III and Title V funding in
fiscal year 2006, but a more extensive review is required to determine
the nature and quality of them.
Education's ability to effectively target monitoring and assistance to
grantees may be hampered because of limitations in its electronic
monitoring system, which are currently being addressed. Education
implemented this system in December 2004 and all program staff were
required to use the system as part of their daily monitoring
activities. The system was 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. According to Education, further
refinements to its electronic monitoring system to systematically track
and monitor grantees. For example, the current system does not allow
users to identify the risk by institution. Education also plans to
automate and integrate the risk-based plan with their electronic
monitoring system. Education anticipates the completion of system
enhancements by the end of 2007. Because efforts are ongoing, Education
has limited ability to systematically track grantee performance and
fiscal information.
Regarding training, Education reports that it has expanded course
offerings to program staff specific to monitoring and assistance.
Education officials told us that the department has only a few mandated
courses, but noted that a number of training courses are offered, such
as grants monitoring overview and budget review and analysis, to help
program staff acquire needed skills for monitoring and assistance.
However, because Education recently moved to a new training
recordkeeping system that does not include information from prior
systems, we were unable to determine the extent to which program staff
participated in these offerings. We reported in 2004 that staff were
unaware of the guidelines for monitoring grantees and more information
is needed to determine the extent to which new courses are meeting the
needs of program staff.
While Education provides technical assistance through program
conferences, workshops, and routine interaction between program
officers and grantees, Education's ability to target assistance remains
limited, in that its feedback mechanisms may not encourage open
communication. Education officials told us that they primarily rely on
grantee feedback transmitted in annual performance reports and
communication between program officers and grantees. As we reported in
2004, Education stated that it was considering ways to collect feedback
separate from its reporting process for all its grant programs but no
such mechanisms have been developed.
Prior Recommendations and Agency Response:
We previously recommended 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.
Education agreed with our recommendation, and has taken actions to
target its monitoring and technical assistance to at-risk grantees.
However, additional study is needed to determine the effectiveness of
these efforts.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have at this time.
GAO Contacts:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
include Debra Prescott, Tranchau (Kris) Nguyen, Claudine Pauselli,
Christopher Lyons, Carlo Salerno, Sheila McCoy, and Susan Bernstein.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Characteristics of Fiscal Year 2006 Title III and Title V
Grantees:
Average undergraduate enrollment;
Title III, Part A Strengthening Institutions: 5,606;
Title III, Part A Tribal Colleges: 539;
Title III, Part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 2,644;
Title III, Part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 2,885;
Title V, Part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 10,152.
Gender.
Male;
Title III, Part A Strengthening Institutions: 42;
Title III, Part A Tribal Colleges: 34;
Title III, Part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 41;
Title III, Part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 39;
Title V, Part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 41.
Female;
Title III, Part A Strengthening Institutions: 58;
Title III, Part A Tribal Colleges: 66;
Title III, Part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 59;
Title III, Part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 61;
Title V, Part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 59.
Race/Ethnicity.
American Indian/Alaska Native;
Title III, Part A Strengthening Institutions: 2;
Title III, Part A Tribal Colleges: 83;
Title III, Part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 6;
Title III, Part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
