Higher Education
Including Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Institutions in a Single Definition Is Unlikely to Immediately Affect Federal Spending, but Long-term Effects Are Unclear Gao ID: GAO-07-857 July 31, 2007The Higher Education Act (HEA) defines "institution of higher education" to include public, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions, allowing students at these institutions access to $83.1 billion in aid. However, the act also includes a second, narrower definition of institution of higher education specifically excluding for-profits from access to nearly $1.96 billion in other funding. During the 109th Congress, legislation proposed consolidating the two definitions. In response to a congressional request, this report examines the extent to which a single definition might affect federal spending, other aspects of applicable federal programs, as well as state-level programs and policies. To address these objectives, GAO searched the U.S. Code to identify federal statutes and programs potentially affected by a change in definition, conducted in-depth reviews of programs and policies, and interviewed relevant officials.
Given that GAO's review of references to the narrower HEA definition did not identify any mandatory spending or entitlement programs, it is unlikely that a single definition would immediately increase federal spending; however, more for-profit institutions may become eligible to compete for federal funds and participate in various aspects of certain federal programs. GAO's searches of the U.S. Code to identify federal statutes and related programs that could be affected by the adoption of a single definition yielded numerous federal statutes referring to the HEA definition that limits participation to public and nonprofit institutions. However, these references appear to be tied to discretionary programs funded through annual appropriations, not mandatory spending or entitlement programs. Accordingly, adopting a single definition will not immediately increase federal spending. Although a single definition could affect federal programs by allowing some for-profit institutions to apply for discretionary funds, many federal programs may be unlikely to witness greater competition because for-profit institutions generally lack the kinds of academic programs that would qualify for such grants. While federal spending is not likely to increase, some of the provisions GAO identified were funding-related and, as such, could also affect program administration or increase competition for program resources. For example, some of the provisions relate to forming partnerships to pursue funding, and under a single definition, for-profit institutions could become a potential partner. In a limited number of cases, the provisions GAO identified were not connected to federal funding, but under a single definition could expand the pool of eligible participants for some program activities. A single federal definition is unlikely to immediately affect state programs but could potentially affect state higher education programs and policies in the future. State statutes and regulations generally do not reference the federal definition when establishing eligibility criteria for state higher education programs, and officials in several states told GAO that an institution's for-profit status is less important than other factors when determining state program eligibility. State officials told GAO that the likely effects of a single definition were greater competition for funding and greater political influence for for-profit higher education institutions. The effects of a single definition on the American higher education system over a longer time frame are difficult to predict. For example, states might align their own policies to match the definition; for-profit institutions might expand their research programs; and Congress might decide to increase funding for existing discretionary programs. As policy makers address questions about access, they will want to remain aware of these diverse costs and benefits.
GAO-07-857, Higher Education: Including Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Institutions in a Single Definition Is Unlikely to Immediately Affect Federal Spending, but Long-term Effects Are Unclear
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-857
entitled 'Higher Education: Including Public, Nonprofit, and For-profit
Institutions in a Single Definition Is Unlikely to Immediately Affect
Federal Spending, but Long-term Effects Are Unclear' which was released
on August 1, 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2007:
Higher Education:
Including Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Institutions in a Single
Definition Is Unlikely to Immediately Affect Federal Spending, but Long-
term Effects Are Unclear:
GAO-07-857:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-857, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Higher Education Act (HEA) defines ’institution of higher
education“ to include public, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions,
allowing students at these institutions access to $83.1 billion in aid.
However, the act also includes a second, narrower definition of
institution of higher education specifically excluding for-profits from
access to nearly $1.96 billion in other funding.
During the 109th Congress, legislation proposed consolidating the two
definitions. In response to a congressional request, this report
examines the extent to which a single definition might affect federal
spending, other aspects of applicable federal programs, as well as
state-level programs and policies.
To address these objectives, GAO searched the U.S. Code to identify
federal statutes and programs potentially affected by a change in
definition, conducted in-depth reviews of programs and policies, and
interviewed relevant officials.
What GAO Found:
Given that GAO‘s review of references to the narrower HEA definition
did not identify any mandatory spending or entitlement programs, it is
unlikely that a single definition would immediately increase federal
spending; however, more for-profit institutions may become eligible to
compete for federal funds and participate in various aspects of certain
federal programs. GAO‘s searches of the U.S. Code to identify federal
statutes and related programs that could be affected by the adoption of
a single definition yielded numerous federal statutes referring to the
HEA definition that limits participation to public and nonprofit
institutions. However, these references appear to be tied to
discretionary programs funded through annual appropriations, not
mandatory spending or entitlement programs. Accordingly, adopting a
single definition will not immediately increase federal spending.
Although a single definition could affect federal programs by allowing
some for-profit institutions to apply for discretionary funds, many
federal programs may be unlikely to witness greater competition because
for-profit institutions generally lack the kinds of academic programs
that would qualify for such grants. While federal spending is not
likely to increase, some of the provisions GAO identified were funding-
related and, as such, could also affect program administration or
increase competition for program resources. For example, some of the
provisions relate to forming partnerships to pursue funding, and under
a single definition, for-profit institutions could become a potential
partner. In a limited number of cases, the provisions GAO identified
were not connected to federal funding, but under a single definition
could expand the pool of eligible participants for some program
activities.
A single federal definition is unlikely to immediately affect state
programs but could potentially affect state higher education programs
and policies in the future. State statutes and regulations generally do
not reference the federal definition when establishing eligibility
criteria for state higher education programs, and officials in several
states told GAO that an institution‘s for-profit status is less
important than other factors when determining state program
eligibility. State officials told GAO that the likely effects of a
single definition were greater competition for funding and greater
political influence for for-profit higher education institutions.
The effects of a single definition on the American higher education
system over a longer time frame are difficult to predict. For example,
states might align their own policies to match the definition; for-
profit institutions might expand their research programs; and Congress
might decide to increase funding for existing discretionary programs.
As policy makers address questions about access, they will want to
remain aware of these diverse costs and benefits.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO does not make recommendations in this report. The Department of
Education stated that a single definition could increase federal
spending by increasing access to some special postal rates and tax
benefits. GAO does not believe that the former is likely; the tax code
does not rely on the HEA definitions of institution of higher
education.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-857].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact George Scott at (202) 512-
5932 or ScottG@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
A Single Definition Is Unlikely to Immediately Increase Federal
Spending, but May Expand For-Profits' Ability to Compete for Funding
and to Participate in Other Aspects of Certain Programs:
A Change to a Single Definition of an Institution of Higher Education
Is Unlikely to Immediately Affect State Programs, but Could in the
Future:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Search of U.S. Code:
Review of Statutory References:
In-depth Reviews of States:
Appendix II: U.S. Code References to Institution of Higher Education:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Results of U.S. Code Search for References to Section 101
Definition of an Institution of Higher Education, by Title:
Abbreviations:
HEA: Higher Education Act:
IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Database System:
SMART: Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 31, 2007:
The Honorable George Miller:
Chairman:
The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Dale E. Kildee:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael N. Castle:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education:
Committee on Education and Labor:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John A. Boehner:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Raśl M. Grijalva:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Betty McCollum:
House of Representatives:
In recent years, the scale and scope of for-profit higher education in
the United States has changed considerably, prompting a reconsideration
of the role of for-profits in the nation's higher education system. In
1998, for-profits accounted for approximately 11 percent of all private
higher education enrollments. By 2004, that percentage had doubled and
included an industry of almost 2,600 for-profit institutions educating
some 1.24 million students. Full-time enrollment in 4-year for-profits
continues to increase, and one for-profit university now boasts that it
is the largest private university in the United States. The Higher
Education Act (HEA), the primary legislation authorizing most federal
student aid programs (Title IV), already defines institution of higher
education to include public, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions,
allowing all such institutions to share in the $83.1 billion of federal
grants and loans distributed as financial aid. However, an institution
of higher education is defined more narrowly for purposes of non Title
IV HEA programs--such as grants for infrastructure or to support
teacher training--to include only public and nonprofit institutions. As
a result, for-profit institutions are currently unable to access the
nearly $1.96 billion in federal funding for these programs.
There has been an ongoing debate about creating a single definition of
institution of higher education that would give for-profit institutions
greater access to non Title IV HEA programs. Proponents of this
approach have sought to repeal the existing statutory definitions and
replace them with a single definition that would include public,
nonprofit, and for-profit institutions as part of an effort to increase
college access and remove barriers for nontraditional
students.[Footnote 1] Proponents argued that the dual definitions in
the current law foster a tiered system where not all institutions share
the same standing in the nation's higher education system. During
deliberations to reauthorize the HEA, some members of Congress
expressed concerns that other federal statutes or state laws or
programs might explicitly or implicitly reference the existing narrower
federal definition and that a change to a single definition could have
unintended consequences, such as giving for-profit institutions access
to non HEA programs and increasing federal spending.
To provide you with the information about the potential impact of
adopting a single definition we examined the ways in which a single
definition of an institution of higher education might affect: 1)
federal spending and other aspects of federal programs across the
federal government and 2) state programs and policies.
To address our objectives, we conducted searches of the U.S. Code to
identify federal statutes and the related programs that could be
affected by the adoption of a single definition of an institution of
higher education. Our search was confined to statutory provisions
codified in or classified to the U.S. Code and, as such, does not
include appropriations acts. We did not search the Code of Federal
Regulations or other sources of federal policy, such as agency guidance
or other publications. In addition to searching the U.S. Code, we
analyzed data from the Department of Education's Integrated
Postsecondary Education Database System (IPEDS) to review the volume of
for-profit institutions' research expenditures and the major fields of
study of those enrolled. In addition, we conducted in-depth reviews of
applicable state higher education programs and policies in six states-
-California, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming--and
conducted approximately 35 interviews with officials and
representatives from federal, state, and private sector organizations
in the higher education field. In some cases, the interviews involved
multiple attendees who represented various state agencies and public
and private organizations. The six states were selected on the basis of
a variety of criteria, including the intensity of the state's higher
education regulatory environment, expert recommendations, recent
legislative activity in areas of for-profit school regulation or
oversight, and the percentage of total state-funded financial aid going
to students at for-profit higher education institutions. Appendix I
provides a more detailed description of our study's scope and
methodology. We conducted our review between March 2006 and April 2007
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Given that our review of references to the narrower HEA definition did
not identify any mandatory spending or entitlement programs, it is
unlikely that a single definition would immediately increase federal
spending; however, more institutions may become eligible to compete for
federal funds and participate in various aspects of certain federal
programs. Numerous federal statutes reference the definition limiting
the participation of for-profit institutions, but these references were
to programs involving discretionary spending. Under a single
definition, more institutions could become eligible to compete for
these programs, but given that most 4-year for-profits do not have the
kinds of academic programs that would qualify for grants, in the short
run it is unlikely that many federal programs would witness greater
competition. For example, many of the U.S. Code sections we reviewed
involve making grant awards to eligible institutions for research in
the physical and life sciences, fields in which few for-profits have
academic programs. While federal spending is not likely to increase,
some of the provisions we identified were funding-related and, as such,
could also affect program administration or increase competition for
program resources. For example, some of the provisions relate to the
formation of partnerships to pursue funding. Under a single definition,
for-profit institutions could be a potential partner. In a limited
number of cases, the provisions we identified were not connected to
federal funding, but under a single definition could expand the pool of
eligible participants for some program activities. For example, with a
single definition, representatives of for-profit institutions could
become eligible to sit on some federal advisory committees.
A single federal definition is unlikely to have an immediate impact on
state programs but could potentially affect state higher education
programs and policies in the future. There will likely be no immediate
impact on state financial aid programs because generally, state
statutes and regulations do not reference the federal definition of an
institution of higher education when establishing eligibility criteria.
According to officials in several states we reviewed, an institution's
profit-making status is less important than other factors in
determining eligibility for state programs. States generally rely more
on factors such as regional versus national accreditation and whether
institutions offer degrees and are based in that particular state. Even
though there is unlikely to be any immediate impact on state programs
and policies, state officials and representatives from other higher
education organizations we spoke with believe there could be future
implications. Although opinions of officials and representatives varied
widely, increased competition for funding and increased political
influence of the for-profit higher education industry were most often
cited as potential long-term effects of changing the federal
definition.
In response to a draft of this report, the Department of Education
(Education) offered technical comments suggesting that a single
definition could have an effect on federal spending by giving for-
profit institutions access to special postage rates and extending
certain tax benefits to for-profit institutions. We do not believe that
such consequences are likely. With regard to the first issue, the
Postal Service receives an appropriation to cover the costs of revenues
it foregoes as a result of some reduced mailing rates, but this
appropriation does not appear to cover the costs of the reduced rate
currently available to nonprofit and public institutions for mailing
course catalogs.[Footnote 2] However, according to Postal officials,
changing the definition of an institution of higher education could
result in some institutions seeking access to classes of postage that
they might not have had access to before. If they were to prevail, this
could affect Postal revenues. Regarding the second issue, our review of
the tax code, codified at Title 26, indicates that it does not rely on
the section 101 definition of "institution of higher education" for
purposes of determining the availability of tax benefits. In the
comments, Education also stated that the report should be explicit
regarding special eligibility requirements now contained in section 102
applicable to for-profit institutions. We have added language to
clarify this point.
Background:
The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), is administered by
the U.S. Department of Education and authorizes a range of programs and
activities, including federal student financial aid (also known as the
Title IV programs), aid to institutions, and aid to improve K-12
teacher training at postsecondary institutions. For the purpose of
determining postsecondary institutions' eligibility to participate in
HEA's various programs and activities, the HEA currently contains two
definitions of "institution of higher education." Section 101 defines
the term "institution of higher education" for the purposes of all
programs and activities of the HEA other than the Title IV student
federal financial aid programs.[Footnote 3] Under section 101, in order
to meet the definition of institution of higher education, the
institution must be either a public or nonprofit institution. For Title
IV programs, however, section 102 of the HEA[Footnote 4] defines
"institution of higher education" more broadly to include all
institutions recognized under the section 101 definition, as well as
proprietary (for-profit) institutions that meet certain additional
eligibility requirements.[Footnote 5] Because of this broader
definition, students at some for-profit institutions have access to and
may participate in Title IV financial aid programs. Legislative
proposals for a single definition of institution of higher education
for the HEA would repeal the existing statutory definitions and replace
them with a single definition that includes public, nonprofit, and for-
profit institutions, thereby giving all institutions, regardless of
their profit-making status, access to HEA programs and potentially to
other federal programs that use the section 101 definition.[Footnote 6]
For-profit education has become an increasingly larger component of
American higher education. Between 1998 and 2004, the percentage of
students enrolled in for-profits compared to all enrollments doubled.
In 1998, one in ten students enrolled in private institutions was at a
for-profit; by 2004, that ratio had dropped to one in five. For-
profits' offerings tend to be concentrated in a small number of applied
fields and range from non-degree-granting to doctoral programs, though
the former is more typical. In 2004, 2,186 of the 2,563 for-profit
institutions only offered programs leading to no more than a 2-year
degree, and at 4-year institutions, 98 percent of all enrollments were
either in business (85 percent) or education (13 percent) programs.
Demographically, such institutions tend to enroll large percentages of
women and minorities. Indeed, between 2000 and 2004 the percentage of
females at for-profits increased from 50 percent to 57 percent.
Regulation and oversight of the nonprofit and for-profit higher
education sectors is largely decentralized. Individual states develop
their own public higher education systems, establish and implement
rules governing the establishment of private nonprofit and for-profit
universities, and specify the minimum requirements that all
institutions operating in the state must meet in order to grant
academic degrees. Quality control is maintained largely through a
voluntary accreditation system, whereby privately run accrediting
agencies review the qualifications of member institutions. Though it is
possible to forego accreditation, the HEA stipulates that an
institution must be accredited by one of 61 nationally recognized
accrediting agencies designated by the U.S. Department of Education to
be eligible for Title IV federal financial aid programs.
A Single Definition Is Unlikely to Immediately Increase Federal
Spending, but May Expand For-Profits' Ability to Compete for Funding
and to Participate in Other Aspects of Certain Programs:
Given that our review of references to the narrower HEA definition did
not identify any mandatory spending or entitlement programs, it is
unlikely that a single definition would immediately increase federal
spending; however, more institutions may become eligible to compete for
federal funds and participate in various aspects of certain federal
programs. Although numerous federal statutory provisions reference the
section 101 definition that excludes for-profit institutions of higher
education, none of these provisions appears to implicate mandatory
spending programs. However, more institutions could become eligible to
compete for programs that are funded with discretionary spending. In
addition, some of the provisions we identified could affect program
administration or increase competition for program resources. For
example, some of the provisions relate to the formation of partnerships
to apply for federal funding. Under a single definition, for-profit
institutions could become a potential partner for some federal grant
programs. A single definition could also expand the pool of eligible
applicants for some federal activities. For example, faculty members of
for-profit institutions could become eligible to sit on some federal
advisory committees.
Numerous Federal Statutes Reference the Federal Definition That
Excludes For-Profit Institutions of Higher Education:
Section 101 of the Higher Education Act, which defines institutions of
higher education as public or nonprofit institutions, is frequently
referenced in federal laws, many of which pertain to subjects beyond
education. We identified references to the definition in more than
350[Footnote 7] statutes spread across 22 of the U.S. Code's 50
titles.[Footnote 8] Slightly more than half of these references were
located in Title 20, which pertains to education, and about 20 percent
were found in Title 42, which pertains to public health and welfare.
The remainder, scattered throughout the U.S. Code, deal with subjects
as varied as agriculture, national defense, and immigration. What is
more, the programs covered by statutes using this definition are
administered by a variety of federal agencies. Table 1 below lists the
number of sections we identified in our search arranged by applicable
U.S. Code Title. A complete listing of the statutory references to the
section 101 definition we identified can be found in appendix II.
Table 1: Results of U.S. Code Search for References to Section 101
Definition of an Institution of Higher Education, by Title:
Title: 20;
Subject matter: Education;
Total number of sections: 192.
Title: 42;
Subject matter: The public health and welfare;
Total number of sections: 77.
Title: 10;
Subject matter: Armed forces;
Total number of sections: 12.
Title: 29;
Subject matter: Labor;
Total number of sections: 12.
Title: 30;
Subject matter: Mineral lands and mining;
Total number of sections: 11.
Title: 15;
Subject matter: Commerce and trade;
Total number of sections: 10.
Title: 22; Subject matter: Foreign relations and intercourse; Total
number of sections: 9.
Title: 7;
Subject matter: Agriculture;
Total number of sections: 8.
Title: 25;
Subject matter: Indians;
Total number of sections: 4.
Title: 33;
Subject matter: Navigation and navigable waters;
Total number of sections: 4.
Title: 50;
Subject matter: War and national defense;
Total number of sections: 4.
Title: 8;
Subject matter: Aliens and nationality;
Total number of sections: 2.
Title: 5;
Subject matter: Government organization and employees;
Total number of sections: 1.
Title: 11;
Subject matter: Bankruptcy;
Total number of sections: 1.
Title: 14;
Subject matter: Coast Guard;
Total number of sections: 1.
Title: 16;
Subject matter: Conservation;
Total number of sections: 1.
Title: 18;
Subject matter: Crimes and criminal procedure;
Total number of sections: 1.
Title: 23;
Subject matter: Highways;
Total number of sections: 1.
Title: 37;
Subject matter: Pay and allowances of the uniformed services;
Total number of sections: 1.
Title: 39;
Subject matter: Postal Service;
Total number of sections: 1.
Title: 40;
Subject matter: Public buildings, property, and works;
Total number of sections: 1.
Title: 47;
Subject matter: Telegraphs, telephones, and radiotelegraphs;
Total number of sections: 1.
Title: Total;
Subject matter: [Empty];
Total number of sections: 355.
Source: GAO analysis of the United States Code.
[End of table]
A Single Definition Would Not Likely Increase Federal Spending
Immediately, but May Expand the Pool of Eligible Applicants for Some
Program Funding and Activities:
A single definition of institution of higher education is unlikely to
increase federal spending in the short term. Approximately 44 percent
of the references we identified relate to the provision of federal
program funds directly to students or institutions.[Footnote 9]
Our review of these provisions did not identify any mandatory or
entitlement programs that are not subject to spending caps.
Accordingly, the adoption of a single definition of an institution of
higher education will not immediately increase mandatory federal
spending. The funding-related references appear to be tied to
discretionary programs that are funded through the annual
appropriations process. Spending for these programs would increase only
if Congress elected to appropriate additional funds.
Although a single definition could affect federal programs by allowing
for-profit institutions to apply for discretionary funds, in the short
run, many federal programs may be unlikely to witness greater
competition. Many of the U.S. Code sections related to federal funds
were for research in the physical and life sciences.[Footnote 10]
However, academic programs at 4-year for-profits are largely
concentrated in the areas of business and education, and the dollar
volume of research such institutions do is small, suggesting limited
capacity for research in many of the areas where federal funds for
science research are available.[Footnote 11] We also identified a
number of U.S. Code sections addressing education-related training
programs that for-profit institutions could more readily qualify for,
such as the Teacher Institutes program or the Teacher Quality
Enhancement program.[Footnote 12] Additionally, for-profit institutions
operating in large urban areas and enrolling disproportionately more
minority students than nonprofit institutions may be more competitive
than such institutions for certain programs. One example is the Urban
Community Service program, which provides funds to urban academic
institutions to address problems in their communities.[Footnote 13] In
general though, the number of federal discretionary grant programs that
would be affected by greater competition appears to be limited.
Many of the statutory provisions we identified were funding-related and
could also have an effect on various aspects of program administration
or increase opportunities for for-profits to partner with other
entities for purposes of applying for grant funds. With a single
definition, for-profit institutions could become eligible for some
grants for which they could not previously apply, but as recipients,
for-profits may also be subjected to additional reporting obligations.
For example, some of these provisions require that grant recipients
report certain kinds of information to the administering agency, or
that institutions enrolling students who receive federal funds file
reports about those students.[Footnote 14] Other provisions in this
category state that only partnerships consisting of institutions of
higher education and other entities, such as school districts and state
education agencies, are eligible to apply.[Footnote 15] Accordingly,
with a single definition, entities desiring to apply for a grant could
collaborate with for-profit institutions as well as public and
nonprofit institutions.
In a limited number of cases, the provisions we identified were not
connected to federal funding, but under a single definition could
expand the pool of eligible applicants for some program activities. For
example, some provisions specify the qualifications individuals must
have to pursue employment supported by federal funds, such as a
provision related to the No Child Left Behind Act that requires certain
teachers' aides to complete at least 2 years of study at an institution
of higher education or meet other qualification requirements.[Footnote
16] Under a single definition this would include individuals who had
completed their studies at for-profit institutions as well. Other
provisions authorize federal agencies to form advisory committees for
particular purposes and specify that committee membership may include
representatives of institutions of higher education. For example, the
provision establishing the Advisory Council on Coal Research makes the
council's membership open to representatives of institutions of higher
education who are knowledgeable in the fields of coal research and
mining.[Footnote 17] To the extent that a faculty member at a for-
profit was recognized as holding the necessary qualifications, a single
definition could allow such individuals to become members of some
federal advisory committees.
For a small number of the provisions we analyzed, a single definition
is unlikely to have any effect on federal programs. These instances
generally involve statements related to program purposes or simply
encourage policy initiatives. For example, one provision[Footnote 18]
encourages eligible institutions to provide opportunities for students
to develop their knowledge and understanding of developing countries,
and another provision[Footnote 19] expresses Congress's sense that all
institutions should take certain specific measures to change the
culture of alcohol consumption on college campuses. With a single
definition, these policy statements would apply to both for-profit and
nonprofit institutions.
A Change to a Single Definition of an Institution of Higher Education
Is Unlikely to Immediately Affect State Programs, but Could in the
Future:
A single federal definition of an institution of higher education is
unlikely to have an immediate impact on state programs, but could
potentially affect state higher education programs and policies in the
future. There will likely be no immediate impact on state financial aid
programs because in general, state laws and regulations establishing
eligibility criteria for these programs do not directly reference the
federal definition. According to state officials, several institutional
characteristics, rather than the schools' profit-making status, are
most often employed to determine eligibility for state student aid
programs, including what agency accredits the institution, whether the
institution offers degrees, and where the institution is located. Even
though there is unlikely to be any immediate impact on state programs
and policies, state officials and representatives from other higher
education organizations with whom we spoke believe there could be
future implications. While perceptions varied widely, officials and
representatives suggested that the change in definition could
eventually affect state programs and policies by increasing competition
for federal grant programs and possibly giving the for-profit higher
education industry more influence in shaping relevant state policies.
States We Reviewed Rely Mainly on Several Institutional
Characteristics, Not the Federal Definition, to Determine Eligibility
for State-Funded Student Financial Aid Programs:
Having a single definition is unlikely to result in an immediate or
substantial impact at the state level. Our search of state statutory
and regulatory codes identified only a small number of direct
references to the HEA section 101 definition of institution of higher
education. According to state officials in all the states we reviewed,
state aid directed to institutions is only provided to public and
private nonprofit higher education institutions. None of the states we
reviewed provided state aid, such as grants supporting an institution's
core operations or research activities, directly to for-profit
institutions although in half of the states, students attending for-
profit institutions are eligible to receive state financial aid. For
state student financial aid, eligibility requirements emphasize one or
more factors like accreditation, types of programs offered, and
location, rather than institutions' profit-making status.
Three of the six states we reviewed make state financial aid available
to students at for-profit institutions: California, New York, and
Pennsylvania. These states ensure the integrity of the programs they
fund by requiring that participating institutions have qualifications
such as accreditation and degree-granting status, and participation in
federal programs. State higher education officials in these states told
us that they were more focused on the quality and type of programs
institutions offered rather than their profit-making status. For
example, officials in New York told us they limit state Tuition
Assistance Program funding to students at degree-granting institutions
only, regardless of their profit-making status. Similarly, an
institution of higher education in Pennsylvania must be accredited and
approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Education in order to be
eligible for the State Grant Program.[Footnote 20] California also
provides funding to students at for-profit institutions with Cal Grant
funds. For example, in California, any private institution that
participates in the Pell Grant program and any two of the three major
federal campus-based student aid programs may access student financial
aid funds,[Footnote 21] regardless of for-profit status.[Footnote 22]
Wyoming, Texas, and Oregon currently exclude for-profit institutions
from state student financial aid programs. However, officials in each
of these states told us that for-profit institutions may have been
excluded not simply because of their for-profit status but also because
of limited public resources, relevant state laws being created before
the growth in degree-granting for-profit institutions, or because of
state lawmakers' preference to limit public funds to public
institutions. For example, in Wyoming, the Hathaway Scholarship Program
funding is limited to students attending the University of Wyoming or a
Wyoming community college, even though a Wyoming official told us there
was some debate at the time of the program's inception about opening it
up to students attending other accredited, degree-granting private
institutions. Texas also limits state student aid funding through the
TEXAS Grant Program to the state's public institutions and private
nonprofit institutions accredited by Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools. One official indicated that these funds may be limited to
public and nonprofit institutions because of limited state funding or
because relevant state regulations were established long before the
rise in for-profit, degree-granting institutions. Oregon also excludes
for-profit institutions from its student financial aid program, the
Oregon Opportunity Grant, funding only accredited nonprofit, Oregon-
based schools, public institutions, and community colleges.
Officials and Representatives We Interviewed Predict Little or No
Immediate Impact on State Programs, but Views Vary on Long-Term Impact:
While many officials and representatives we spoke with believed the
single definition would not have an immediate impact on state programs
and policies, they did raise a number of potential long-term
consequences to consider. Opinions on the exact nature of the long-term
consequences, however, varied among and within states, indicating that
future impact is difficult to predict. In general, we found that those
representing the for-profit higher education industry were more likely
to note the potential benefits of a single definition while
representatives from nonprofit and public institutions, along with
state higher education officials, were more likely to identify the
possible problems. Of the potential consequences mentioned most often
by officials and representatives with whom we spoke, two main issues
emerged: (1) increased competition for federal grant program funds and
(2) increased political influence of the for-profit higher education
industry in state policymaking.
Increased Competition for Federal Grant Program Funds and Increased
Oversight Responsibility:
Many officials and representatives of nonprofit and for-profit
institutions with whom we spoke believed that the single definition
would increase competition for federal funding. Some representatives
and state officials believe that increased competition could, in
theory, provide postsecondary students access to a broader range of
programs and expand overall educational choice. On the other hand,
representatives from the public and nonprofit sectors suggested that
increased competition would reduce already scarce public funding for
nonprofit and public universities in their states. However, as we
stated earlier in this report, it may be unlikely that most for-profits
will be competitive for federal grant programs in the short term. Some
officials and representatives concurred with this point, stating that
they thought it unlikely that for-profit institutions that do not
already qualify for those funds for which they would be most
competitive--i.e., teacher training programs--would take the necessary
steps to meet the qualifications for federal grant programs in other
fields given the return on investment.
Some officials expressed concern that a single definition will cause a
strain on state agency resources. Assuming the single definition makes
more institutions eligible to apply for federal funds, several state
officials were worried about the administrative burden of monitoring
the increased number of institutions receiving federal funds. According
to officials, state agencies are already responsible for administering
federal grant programs in their respective states and providing
oversight for institutions that receive federal funds.[Footnote 23]
Additionally, since states rely heavily on institutions' accreditation
status in their oversight, some state officials we spoke with suggested
that quality control in the recognition of accrediting agencies would
become more important.
Increased Political Influence of For-Profit Institutions:
State officials and representatives from for-profit institutions we
spoke to believed that a single definition could potentially give the
for-profit sector added influence, allowing it to shape policy change
in individual states. For example, one official in Oregon, which
currently excludes for-profits from state financial aid funding, said
that pressure to open state programs to for-profit institutions already
exists in this state and believed that the single federal definition
could potentially increase that pressure on the state legislature.
While officials in several states we reviewed described their states'
higher education policies as largely independent of the federal
government's, some officials and representatives from other higher
education organizations with whom we spoke noted that states consider
federal policy when setting state policy and developing guidance. An
official in Pennsylvania, for example, told us that as a matter of
practice, administration of state financial aid generally parallels
federal guidelines in order to ease the administrative burden on the
state's program administrators. Indeed, several officials told us that
they believed states could eventually follow the federal lead on this
issue.
Additionally, some state officials and representatives from for-profit
institutions believed that for-profit institutions could use successful
passage of the single definition at the federal level to push for
policy changes on other related issues, such as transfer of credit
policy, although many for-profit representatives with whom we spoke
said they wanted only the symbolic recognition provided by a single
definition.[Footnote 24] Many traditional public and nonprofit
institutions currently only accept transfer credit from regionally
accredited institutions, and since for-profit institutions generally
lack such accreditation, their students face problems when trying to
transfer to traditional nonprofit schools. Representatives from several
for-profit institutions believed that a change in the federal
definition could help remove these barriers. Other representatives
believed that transfer-of-credit policy would remain tied to
accreditation rather than profit-making status, regardless of the
outcome of the single definition debate. At the same time, some
representatives with whom we spoke from the for-profit sector
maintained that they were not seeking eligibility for specific federal
and state grant programs or other policies. Rather, they stated that
the single definition provides symbolic recognition of their
institution's important and fundamental role in the American
postsecondary education system.
Concluding Observations:
A change in the federal definition of institution of higher education
is likely to have a limited impact in the short run. However, the
effects of a single definition on the American higher education system
over a longer time frame are difficult to predict yet important to keep
in mind. While states largely set their higher education policies
independently, future federal policy initiatives could provide states
with incentives to more closely align their own policies with those at
the federal level. Newfound eligibility to compete for federal
resources may or may not encourage for-profit institutions to invest in
education and research programs outside of their traditional domain,
and greater competition may encourage nonprofit institutions to expand
their own commercial activities. Furthermore, a larger pool of eligible
institutions may, in the future, increase pressure on the Congress to
increase the funding levels for existing discretionary programs.
Overall, while a single definition would grant for-profit institutions
greater parity, additional federal recognition would bring additional
oversight. As policy makers address questions about access, they will
want to remain aware of these diverse costs and benefits.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.
In response to a draft of this report, Education offered technical
comments about the effect that a single definition would have on
federal spending. Although Education suggests that giving for-profit
institutions access to special postage rates would result in immediate
budgetary consequences for the federal government, we do not believe
that such consequences are likely. This is, in part, because the Postal
Service receives an appropriation to cover the costs of revenues it
foregoes as a result of some reduced mailing rates, but this
appropriation does not appear to cover the costs of the reduced rate
currently available to nonprofit and public institutions for mailing
course catalogs. However, according to Postal officials, changing the
definition of an institution of higher education could result in some
institutions seeking access to classes of postage that they might not
have had access to before. If they were to prevail, this could affect
Postal revenues. Similarly, Education suggested that there could be
increased federal costs for extending certain tax benefits to for-
profit institutions. However, our review of the tax code, codified at
Title 26, indicates that it does not rely on the section 101 definition
of "institution of higher education" to determine the availability of
tax benefits, but rather relies on other criteria. As a result, we do
not anticipate that a single definition would, in itself, result in any
immediate tax consequences. Finally Education stated that the report
should be explicit regarding special eligibility requirements now
contained in section 102 and applicable to for-profit institutions. We
have added language to clarify this point and agree that Congress
should be aware of these additional eligibility rules as it considers
future legislative proposals for a single definition. Education's
comments have been reproduced in appendix III.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Education,
relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact George Scott at (202) 512-5932 if
you or your staff have any questions about this report. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Signed by:
Dayna K. Shah:
Managing Associate:
General Counsel, Office of General Counsel:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to examine ways in which a single definition of an
institution of higher education might affect: 1) federal spending and
other aspects of applicable federal programs, and 2) state programs and
policies. To answer these questions, we searched the U.S. Code to
identify federal statutes and the related programs that could be
affected by the adoption of a single definition of an institution of
higher education. We also analyzed data from the Department of
Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Database System (IPEDS)
to review both the volume of 4-year for-profit institutions' research
expenditures and the major fields of study of those enrolled. In
addition, we conducted interviews with federal, state, and private
sector organizations in the higher education field and contacted
selected states to obtain more information about the potential impact
of the single definition within these states. See below for more
detailed information on each of these aspects of our research. We
performed our work from March 2006 through April 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Search of U.S. Code:
In order to determine the number of references to the section 101
definition of "institution of higher education" in the U.S. Code, we
performed multiple searches of the commercial legal databases Westlaw
and Lexis. First, we searched these databases for explicit references
to section 101's definition in statutory text, for example, by
searching for occurrences of the phrases "section 101" or "institution
of higher education" in close proximity to "the Higher Education Act,"
or for references to the codified version of the section 101
definition, "20 U.S.C. § 1001." We reviewed these results carefully to
ensure that they referred to the section 101 definition of institution
of higher education and not to some other unrelated provision and in a
small number of cases, eliminated search results based upon this
review.
In conducting this preliminary review, we observed that a significant
number of the statutory provisions we identified contained definitions
that applied for purposes of various subdivisions of the U.S. Code,
such as a particular chapter or subchapter. Therefore, we performed a
second set of searches designed to identify implicit references to the
section 101 definition. For example, 10 U.S.C. § 2199 refers to the
section 101 definition of institution of higher education and specifies
that this definition applies for purposes of the entire chapter in
which the reference occurs. Accordingly, in order to identify the
implicit references to the section 101 definition in the relevant
chapter, we searched that chapter only for additional uses of the term
"institution of higher education." In this particular case, our search
revealed three additional code sections (§§ 2196 - 2198) that refer to
institutions of higher education, but incorporate the section 101
definition by reference, rather than by identifying it explicitly. We
repeated this process where appropriate to expand our search results.
Notably, this step generated approximately three times more search
results than the first, which indicates that the majority of statutory
provisions that rely on the section 101 definition do not do so
explicitly, but rather incorporate it by reference. Both of these
research steps were performed initially in March 2006 and were repeated
in January 2007 to ensure that our analysis reflects any legislative
changes that occurred in the course of our work. The full list of
search results is available in appendix II.
There are some limitations to our methodology that should be noted.
First, in some cases, we also observed that the term "institution of
higher education" is used to define another term (for example,
"postsecondary educational institution"), which is then used to
establish grant eligibility or other program requirements. However, we
did not conduct additional searches to identify statutory references to
these other terms. As a result, our analysis may overlook some
peripheral references to "institution of higher educations." Second, we
did not verify whether Congress has provided recent funding for
particular programs or provisions. Additionally, our search was
confined to statutory provisions codified in or classified to the U.S.
Code and as such does not include appropriations acts. We did not
search the Code of Federal Regulations or sources of federal policy,
such as agency guidance or other publications. To the extent that these
sources rely on the section 101 definition, there may also be
implications for a change to a single definition.
Although this approach enabled us to identify the number of provisions
that potentially would be affected by a single definition of
institution of higher education, we did not attempt to identify the
number of federal programs that would be affected. Our decision was
affected by multiple factors. First, given that numerous statutory
provisions together may form a single program, the number of statutes
is not indicative of the number of federal programs that would be
affected by a single definition.[Footnote 25] Second, some statutes are
free standing and cannot be identified as part of a larger program.
Additionally, in some cases, the statutes forming a particular program
are codified in places scattered throughout the U.S. code. However, in
some cases, the structure of the U.S. Code lends itself more easily to
identifying statutes that together form a program.[Footnote 26] As a
result, our analysis refers to both federal programs and particular
provisions.
Review of Statutory References:
In order to determine whether a change in the definition of an
institution of higher education will have a federal budgetary impact or
result in higher federal spending, our approach was to determine if any
of the identified references involved mandatory funding--programs whose
budget authority is provided in laws other than appropriations acts,
such as entitlement programs. To determine the budgetary impact, we
identified references that are related to programs that provide funds
directly to students or institutions and traced these direct-funding
references to readily available descriptive information. Such readily
available information included published program data, the President's
budget, agencies' budget justification documents, and/or other
information made publicly available by agencies administering the
programs. We also reviewed a list of mandatory accounts to determine if
these direct-funding references involved mandatory funding. To
determine the likely impact of a single definition on other aspects of
federal programs, we reviewed the statutory text of provisions not
directly related to federal funding to determine if the adoption of a
single definition would have any impact on these program activities.
In-depth Reviews of States:
To determine how a single definition might affect state programs and
policies, we conducted in-depth reviews of six states. We visited three
states: California, New York, and Oregon, and interviewed officials by
phone in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming.[Footnote 27] These states
were selected on the basis of a variety of criteria, including the
intensity of the state's regulatory environment, expert
recommendations, recent legislative activity in areas of private school
regulation or oversight, and the percentage of total state financial
aid going to students at for-profit higher education institutions.
During our interviews, we discussed each state's higher education
system with various state officials. These discussions included how it
is structured and regulated, the extent of state oversight, and the
eligibility criteria for states' higher education grant programs, such
as institutional aid and student financial aid. We also reviewed
documents obtained from higher education officials during these
meetings, including state laws or regulations outlining eligibility
criteria for states' student financial aid programs. To determine
perspectives on how the creation of a single definition of institution
of higher education may affect federal and state programs and policies,
we also spoke with representatives from nonprofit and for-profit higher
education institutions, and several higher education associations
representing the interests of the for-profit and nonprofit, private
higher education sectors nationwide. In total, we conducted
approximately 35 interviews that, in some cases, included multiple
attendees who represented various state agencies and public and private
institutions and organizations.
As part of our review of the six selected states, we conducted a
limited search of state statutory and administrative codes to help
determine if a single federal definition would have an immediate impact
on state policies or programs. We requested that state officials in our
six interview states provide us with relevant statutory language
defining institutional eligibility criteria for state student financial
aid programs. Based on the information they provided, we searched state
statutes and regulations to identify the appropriate institutional
eligibility requirements. In addition, we searched each of these
states' statutory codes and program regulations using key terms to
assess whether the federal definition of an institution of higher
education was used to determine institutional eligibility for other
higher-education-funding programs in our interview states.
[End of section]
Appendix II: U.S. Code References to Institution of Higher Education:
References in the U.S. Code to "Institution of Higher Education" as
defined by Section 101 of the Higher Education Act.
Title 5. Government Organization and Employees.
Part III. Employees.
Subpart I. Miscellaneous.
Chapter 98. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
§ 9809. Science and technology scholarship program.
Title 7. Agriculture.
Chapter 55. Department of Agriculture.
§ 2279. Outreach and assistance for socially disadvantaged farmers and
ranchers.
§ 2279c. student internship programs.
Chapter 64. Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching.
Subchapter III. Agricultural Research and Education Grants and
Fellowships.
§ 3152. Grants and fellowships for food and agricultural sciences
education.
Subchapter XIV. Institutions of Higher Education in Insular Areas.
§ 3361. Definition.
Chapter 103. Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform.
Subchapter III. Miscellaneous Provisions.
Part B. General.
§ 7657. Senior Scientific Research Service.
Chapter 107. Renewable Energy Research and Development.
§ 8103. Biorefinery development grants.
§ 8104. Biodiesel fuel education program.
§ 8105. Energy audit and renewable energy development program.
Title 8. Aliens and Nationality.
Chapter 12. Immigration and Nationality.
Subchapter II. Immigration.
Part II. Admission Qualifications for Aliens; Travel Control of Aliens
and Citizens.
§ 1182. Inadmissible Aliens.
§ 1184. Admission of nonimmigrants.
Title 10. Armed Forces.
Subtitle A. General Military Law.
Part II. Personnel.
Chapter 31. Enlistments.
§ 510. Enlistment incentives for pursuit of skills to facilitate
national service.
Part III. Training and Education.
Chapter 111. Support of Science, Mathematics, and Engineering
Education.
§ 2192a. Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART)
Defense Education Program.
§ 2193. Improvement of education in technical fields: grants for higher
education in science and mathematics.
§ 2196. Manufacturing engineering education: grant program.
§ 2197. Manufacturing experts in the classroom.
§ 2198. Management training program in Japanese language and culture.
§ 2199. Definitions.
Chapter 112. Information Security Scholarship Program.
§ 2200. Programs; purpose.
§ 2200a. Scholarship program.
§ 2200b. Grant program.
§ 2200e. Definitions.
Subtitle E. Reserve Components.
Part IV. Training for reserve components and Educational assistance
programs.
Chapter 1611. Other Educational assistance programs.
§ 16401. Marine Corps platoon leaders class: college tuition assistance
program.
Title 11. Bankruptcy.
Chapter 5. Creditors, The debtor, and the estate.
Subchapter II. Debtor's duties and benefits.
§ 522. Exemptions.
Title 14. Coast Guard.
Part II. Coast Guard Reserve and Auxiliary.
Chapter 21. Coast Guard Reserve.
Subchapter A. General.
References in the U.S. Code to "Institution of Higher Education" as
defined by Section 101 of the Higher Education Act: § 709a. Reserve
student precommissioning assistance program.
Title 15. Commerce and Trade.
Chapter 7. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
§ 278h. Research program on security of computer systems.
Chapter 40. Department of Commerce.
§ 1542. Establishment of the Ernest F. Hollings Scholarship Program.
Chapter 81. High- performance computing.
Subchapter III. Department of Energy high-end Computing Revitalization.
§ 5541. Definitions.
§ 5542. Department of Energy high-end computing research and
development program.
Chapter 92. Year 2000 Computer Date Change.
§6604. Punitive damages limitations.
Chapter 100. Cyber Security Research and Development.
§ 7402. Definitions.
§ 7403. National Science Foundation research.
§ 7404. National Science Foundation computer and network security
programs.
§ 7410. Grant eligibility requirements and compliance with immigration
laws.
§ 7411. Report on grant and fellowship programs.
Title 16. Conservation.
Chapter 6. Game and Bird Preserves; Protection.
§ 698u-5. Advisory committee.
Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
Part I. Crimes.
Chapter 11. Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of Interest.
§ 207. Restrictions on former officers, employees, and elected
officials of the executive and legislative branches.
Title 20. Education.
Chapter 28. Higher Education Resources and Student Assistance.
Subchapter I. General provisions.
Part A. Definitions.
§ 1001. General definition of institution of higher education.
§ 1003. Additional definitions.
Part B. Additional General Provisions.
§ 1011. Antidiscrimination.
§ 1011a. Protection of student speech and association rights.
§ 1011b. Treatment of territories and territorial student assistance.
§ 1011d. Student representation.
§ 1011e. Financial responsibility of foreign students.
§ 1011h. Binge drinking on college campuses.
§ 1011i. Drug and alcohol abuse prevention.
Part C. Cost of Higher Education.
§ 1015. Improvements in market information and public accountability in
higher education.
Part D. Administrative Provisions for Delivery of Student Financial
Assistance.
§ 1018. Performance-Based Organization for delivery of federal student
financial assistance.
Subchapter II. Teacher Quality Enhancement.
Part A. Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants for States and Partnerships.
§ 1021. Purposes; definitions.
§ 1022. State grants.
§ 1023. Partnership grants.
§ 1025. Administrative provisions.
§ 1027. Accountability for programs that prepare teachers.
§ 1028. State functions.
§ 1029. General provisions.
Part B. Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology.
§ 1041. Purpose and program authority.
§ 1042. Eligibility.
§ 1043. Use of funds.
Subchapter III. Institutional Aid.
§ 1051. Findings and Purpose.
Part A. Strengthening Institutions.
§ 1058. Definitions; eligibility.
§ 1059c. American Indian tribally controlled colleges and universities.
§ 1059d. Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions.
Part B. Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
§ 1060. Findings and purposes.
§ 1061. Definitions.
§ 1063. Allotments to institutions.
§ 1063b. Professional or graduate institutions.
Part C. Endowment Challenge Grants for Institutions Eligible for
Assistance under Part A or Part B.
§ 1065. Endowment Challenge Grants.
Part D. Historically Black College and University Capital Financing.
§ 1066c. Limitations on Federal insurance for bonds issued by
designated bonding authority.
Part E. Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program.
Subpart 1. Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program.
§ 1067. Findings.
§ 1067a. Purpose; authority.
Subpart 2. Administrative and General Provisions.
§ 1067g. Eligibility for grants.
§ 1067k. Definitions.
Part F. General Provisions.
§ 1068b. Application review process.
Subchapter IV. Student Assistance.
Part B. Federal Family Education Loan Program.
§ 1078-11. Loan forgiveness for child care providers.
Subchapter V. Developing Institutions.
Part A. Hispanic- Serving Institutions.
§ 1101. Findings; purpose; and program authority.
§ 1101a. Definitions; eligibility.
§ 1101b. Authorized activities.
Subchapter VI. International Education Programs.
Part A. International and Foreign Language Studies.
§ 1121. Findings and purposes.
§ 1122. Graduate and undergraduate language and area centers and
programs.
§ 1123. Language resource centers.
§ 1124. Undergraduate international studies and foreign language
programs.
§ 1125. Research; studies; annual report.
§ 1126. Technological innovation and cooperation for foreign
information access.
§ 1128a. American overseas research centers.
Part B. Business and International Education Programs.
§ 1130. Findings and purpose.
§ 1130-1. Centers for international business education.
§ 1130a. Education and training programs.
Part C. Institute for International Public Policy.
§ 1131. Minority foreign service professional development program.
§ 1131a. Study abroad program.
§ 1131c. Internships.
Part D. General Provisions.
§ 1132. Definitions.
Subchapter VII. Graduate and Post-Secondary Improvement Programs.
Part A. Graduate Education Programs.
Subpart 1. Jacob K. Javits Fellowship Program.
§ 1134. Award of Jacob K. Javits Fellowships.
§ 1134a. Allocation of fellowships.
§ 1134b. Stipends.
§ 1134c. Fellowship conditions.
Subpart 2. Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need.
§ 1135. Grants to academic departments and programs of institutions.
§ 1135a. Institutional eligibility.
§ 1135b. Criteria for applications.
§ 1135c. Awards to graduate students.
§ 1135d. Additional assistance for cost of education.
Subpart 3. Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program.
§ 1136. Legal Educational Opportunity Program.
Part B. Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.
§ 1138. Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education.
§ 1138c. Special projects.
Part C. Urban Community Service.
§ 1139c. Allowable activities.
§ 1139d. Peer review.
§ 1139f. Designation of urban grant institutions.
§ 1139g. Definitions.
Part D. Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students with Disabilities
Receive a Quality Higher Education.
§ 1140. Purposes.
§ 1140a. Grants authorized.
§ 1140b. Applications.
§ 1140c. Rule of construction.
Subchapter VIII. Miscellaneous.
§ 1153. Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program.
Chapter 31. General Provisions Concerning Education.
Subchapter II. Appropriations and Evaluations.
Part 2. Planning and Evaluation of Federal Education Activities.
§ 1228c. Disclosure requirements.
Chapter 33. Education of Individuals with Disabilities.
Subchapter I. General Provisions.
§ 1401. Definitions.
Subchapter II. Assistance for Education of All Children with
Disabilities.
§ 1412. State eligibility.
§ 1416. Monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement.
Subchapter IV. National Activities to Improve Education of Children
with Disabilities.
Part A. State Personnel Development Grants.
§ 1452. Eligibility and collaborative process.
§ 1454. Use of funds.
Part B. Personnel Preparation, Technical Assistance, Model
Demonstration Projects, and Dissemination of Information.
§ 1461. Purpose; definition of eligible entity.
§ 1462. Personnel development to improve services and results for
children with disabilities.
§ 1465. Interim alternative educational settings, behavioral supports,
and systemic school interventions.
Part C. Supports to Improve Results for Children with Disabilities.
§ 1471. Parent training and information centers.
Part D. General Provisions.
§ 1481. Comprehensive plan for parts B and C.
§ 1482. Administrative provisions.
Chapter 42. Harry S Truman Memorial Scholarships.
§ 2002. Definitions.
§ 2005. Truman scholars.
§ 2008. Scholarship conditions.
Chapter 44. Vocational Education.
§ 2302. Definitions.
Subchapter I. Career and Technical Education Assistance to the States.
Part A. Allotment and Allocation.
§ 2324. National activities.
§ 2325. Assistance for the outlying areas.
§ 2327. Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical
institutions.
Part B. State Provisions.
§ 2342. State plan.
§ 2344. State leadership activities.
Subchapter II. Tech Prep Education.
§ 2373. Tech prep education.
§ 2374. Consortium applications.
Chapter 52. Education for Economic Security.
§ 3902. Definitions.
Subchapter I. National Science Foundation Science and Engineering
Education.
§ 3913. Teacher institutes.
§ 3914. Materials development and methods research for mathematics,
science, and engineering.
§ 3916. Other functional activities.
Subchapter III. Partnerships in Education for Mathematics, Science, and
Engineering.
Part A. Higher Education Partnerships.
§ 3981. Statement of purpose.
§ 3982. Definitions.
§ 3984. Authorized activities.
§ 3985. Application.
§ 3986. Submission of applications.
Chapter 57. James Madison Memorial Fellowship Program.
§ 4505. Recipient's choice of institution.
§ 4506. Recipient's eligibility.
§ 4509. Fellowship conditions.
§ 4514. Definitions.
Chapter 59. Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education
Program.
§ 4702. Definitions.
§ 4706. Scholarship conditions.
Chapter 66. Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental Policy Foundation.
§ 5602. Definitions.
§ 5605. Authority of Foundation.
Chapter 70. Strengthening and Improvement of Elementary and Secondary
Schools.
Subchapter I. Improving The Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged.
Part A. Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational
Agencies.
Subpart 1. Basic Program Requirements.
§ 6316. Academic assessment and local educational agency and school
improvement.
§ 6317. School support and recognition.
§ 6319. Qualifications for teachers and paraprofessionals.
Part B. Student Reading Skills Improvement Grants.
Subpart 1. Reading First.
§ 6362. Formula grants to State educational agencies.
§ 6363. State formula grant applications.
Subpart 3. William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs.
§ 6381a. Program authorized.
§ 6381f. Applications.
Part C. Education of Migratory Children.
§ 6398. Coordination of migrant education activities.
Part D. Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who
Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk.
Subpart 1. State Agency Programs.
§ 6438. Transition services.
Part F. Comprehensive School Reform.
§ 6516. Local use of funds.
Subchapter II. Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality
Teachers and Principals.
Part A. Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund.
§ 6602. Definitions.
Subpart 2. Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.
§ 6623. Local use of funds.
Subpart 3. Subgrants to Eligible Partnerships.
§ 6631. Definitions.
§ 6634. Use of funds.
Subpart 5. National Activities.
§ 6651. National activities of demonstrated effectiveness.
Part B. Mathematics and Science Partnerships.
§ 6661. Purpose; definitions.
Part C. Innovation for Teacher Quality.
Subpart 1. Transitions to Teaching.
Division A. Troops- To-Teachers Program.
§ 6673. Recruitment and selection of program participants.
§ 6674. Participation agreement and financial assistance.
§ 6676. Support of innovative preretirement teacher certification
programs.
Division B. Transition to Teaching Program.
§ 6681. Purposes.
§ 6682. Definitions.
§ 6683. Grant program.
Subpart 2. National Writing Project.
§ 6702. National Writing Project.
Subpart 3. Civic Education.
§ 6715. Cooperative civic education and economic education exchange
programs.
Subpart 4. Teaching of Traditional American History.
§ 6721. Establishment of program.
Part D. Enhancing Education through Technology.
§ 6753. Definitions.
Subpart 1. State and Local Technology Grants.
§ 6764. Local applications.
Subchapter III. Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and
Immigrant Students.
Part A. English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and
Academic Achievement Act.
Subpart 1. Grants and Subgrants for English Language Acquisition and
Language Enhancement.
§ 6822. Native American and Alaska Native children in school.
§ 6825. Subgrants to eligible entities.
§ 6826. Local plans.
Subpart 3. National Activities.
§ 6861. National professional development project.
Subpart 4. Definitions.
§ 6871. Eligible entity.
Part B. Improving Language Instruction Educational Programs.
Subpart 1. Program Development and Enhancement.
§ 6911. Financial assistance for language instruction educational
programs.
§ 6912. Program enhancement activities.
§ 6913. Comprehensive school and systemwide improvement activities.
§ 6914. Applications.
Subpart 2. Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination.
§ 6931. Authority.
Subpart 3. Professional Development.
§ 6951. Professional development grants.
Subpart 4. Emergency Immigrant Education Program.
§ 6967. Uses of funds.
Part C. General Provisions.
§ 7011. Definitions.
Subchapter V. Promoting Informed Parental Choice and Innovative
Programs.
Part A. Innovative Programs.
Subpart 3. Local Innovative Education Programs.
§ 7215a. Administrative authority.
Part D. Fund for the Improvement of Education.
Subpart 1. Fund for the Improvement of Education.
§ 7243. Programs authorized.
Subpart 2. Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Programs.
§ 7245. Elementary and secondary school counseling programs.
Subpart 3. Partnerships in Character Education.
§ 7247. Partnerships in character education program.
Subpart 4. Smaller Learning Communities.
§ 7249. Smaller learning communities.
Subpart 6. Gifted and Talented Students.
§ 7253c. Authorized programs.
Subpart 7. Star Schools Program.
§ 7255c. Applications.
§ 7255f. Definitions.
Subpart 8. Ready to Teach.
§ 7257. Grants.
Subpart 11. Community Technology Centers.
§ 7263a. Eligibility and application requirements.
Subpart 13. Excellence in Economic Education.
§ 7267b. Grant program authorized.
Subpart 15. Arts in Education.
§ 7271. Assistance for arts education.
Subpart 16. Parental Assistance and Local Family Information Centers.
§ 7273e. Local family information centers.
Subpart 21. Women's Educational Equity Act.
§ 7283b. Programs authorized.
§ 7283c. Applications.
§ 7283d. Criteria and priorities.
Subchapter VI. Flexibility and Accountability.
Part A. Improving Academic Achievement.
Subpart 1. Accountability.
§ 7301a. Grants for enhanced assessment instruments.
Subchapter VII. Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education.
Part A. Indian Education.
Subpart 2. Special Programs and Projects to Improve Educational
Opportunities for Indian Children.
§ 7441. Improvement of educational opportunities for Indian children.
§ 7442. Professional development for teachers and education
professionals.
Subchapter VII. Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education.
Part A. Indian Education.
Subpart 3. National Activities.
§ 7451. National research activities.
§ 7452. In-service training for teachers of Indian children.
§ 7453. Fellowships for Indian students.
Subpart 4. Federal Administration.
§ 7473. Preference for Indian applicants.
Part B. Native Hawaiian Education.
§ 7512. Findings.
§ 7515. Program authorized.
Subchapter IX. General Provisions.
Part A. Definitions.
§ 7801. Definitions.
§ 7803. Applicability to Bureau of Indian Affairs operated schools.
Part E. Uniform Provisions.
Subpart 2. Other Provisions.
§ 7908. Armed Forces recruiter access to students and student
recruiting information.
Chapter 73. Adult Education and Literacy.
Subchapter I. Adult Education and Family Literacy.
§ 9202. Definitions.
Chapter 76. Education Research, Statistics, Evaluation, Information,
and Dissemination.
Subchapter I. Education Sciences Reform.
§ 9501. Definitions.
Part A. Institute of Education Sciences.
§ 9514. Office of the Director.
§ 9516. National Board for Education Sciences.
Part C. National Center for Education Statistics.
§ 9544. Performance of duties.
§ 9546. Dissemination.
Part D. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance.
§ 9562. Commissioner for education evaluation and regional assistance.
§ 9564. Regional educational laboratories for research, development,
dissemination, and technical assistance.
Part F. General Provisions.
§ 9579. Fellowships.
Title 22. Foreign Relations and Intercourse.
Chapter 33. Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Program.
§ 2460. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.
§ 2462. Establishment of grant program for foreign study by American
college students of limited financial means.
Chapter 55. Research and Training for Eastern Europe and the
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union.
§ 4502. "Institution of higher education" and "Advisory Committee"
defined.
§ 4504. Authority to make payments; purposes.
Chapter 57. United States Scholarship Program for Developing Countries.
§ 4701. Statement of purpose.
§ 4703. Scholarship program authority.
§ 4706. Policy regarding other international educational programs.
§ 4707. Establishment and maintenance of counseling services.
§ 4709. General authorities.
Title 23. Highways.
Chapter 5. Research, Technology, and Education.
§ 504. Training and education.
Title 25. Indians.
Chapter 1. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
§ 13. Expenditure of appropriations by Bureau.
Chapter 20. Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance.
§ 1801. Definitions.
Subchapter I. Tribally Controlled Colleges or Universities Grant
Program.
§ 1809. Effect on other programs.
Subchapter II. Tribally Controlled College or University Endowment
Program.
§ 1832. Establishment of program; program agreements.
[Empty].
Title 29. Labor.
Chapter 14. Age Discrimination in Employment.
§ 623. Prohibition of age discrimination.
Chapter 16. Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation
Services.
§ 705. Definitions.
§ 718. Traditionally underserved populations.
Subchapter I. Vocational Rehabilitation Services.
Part A. General Provisions.
§ 721. State plans.
§ 723. Vocational rehabilitation services.
Subchapter II. Research and Training.
§ 762. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
§ 764. Research and other covered activities.
Subchapter III. Professional Development and Special Projects and
Demonstrations.
§ 772. Training.
§ 773. Demonstration and training programs.
Chapter 31. Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities.
§ 3002. Definitions.
§ 3003. State grants for assistive technology.
§ 3005. National activities.
Title 30. Mineral Lands and Mining.
Chapter 25. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation.
Subchapter VII. Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions.
§ 1291. Definitions.
Subchapter VIII. University Coal Research Laboratories.
§ 1311. Establishment of university coal research laboratories.
§ 1312. Financial assistance.
§ 1313. Limitation on payments.
§ 1314. Payments; Federal share of operating expenses.
§ 1315. Advisory council on coal research.
Subchapter IX. Energy Resource Graduate Fellowships.
§ 1321. Fellowship awards.
§ 1322. Fellowship recipients.
§ 1323. Distribution of fellowships.
§ 1324. Stipends and allowances.
§ 1326. Fellowship conditions.
Title 33. Navigation and Navigable Waters.
Chapter 26. Water Pollution Prevention and Control.
Subchapter I. Research and Related Programs.
§ 1259. Training grants and contracts.
§ 1260. Applications; allocation.
§ 1261. Scholarships.
§ 1262. Definitions and authorizations.
Title 37. Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services.
Chapter 7. Allowances.
§ 430. Travel and transportation: dependent children of members
stationed overseas.
Title 39. Postal Service.
Part IV. Mail Matter.
Chapter 36. Postal Rates, Classes, and Services.
Subchapter I. Provisions Relating to Market-Dominant Products.
§ 3626. Reduced rates.
Title 40. Public Buildings, Property, and Works.
Subtitle I. Federal Property and Administrative Services.
Chapter 5. Property Management.
Subchapter I. Procurement and Warehousing.
§ 502. Services for other entities.
Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare.
Chapter 6A. Public Health Service.
Subchapter III-A. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration.
Part B. Centers and Programs.
Subpart 2. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.
§ 290bb-25b. Programs to reduce underage drinking.
Subpart 3. Center for Mental Health Services.
§ 290bb-36. Youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies.
§ 290bb-36b. Mental and behavioral health services on campus.
Chapter 16. National Science Foundation.
§ 1862i. Scientific and technical education.
§ 1869c. Low-income scholarship program.
Chapter 35. Programs for Older Americans.
Subchapter I. Declaration of Objectives and Definitions.
§ 3002. Definitions.
Subchapter II. Administration on Aging.
§ 3011. Establishment of Administration on Aging.
§ 3012. Functions of Assistant Secretary.
Subchapter IV. Activities for Health, Independence, and Longevity.
Part A. Grant Programs.
§ 3032. Program authorized.
§ 3032a. Career preparation for the field of aging.
§ 3032c. Health care service demonstration projects in rural areas.
§ 3032d. Computer training.
§ 3032g. Native American programs.
Subchapter XI. Allotments for Vulnerable Elder Rights Protection
Activities.
Part C. General Provisions.
§ 3058cc. Administration.
Chapter 46. Justice System Improvement.
Subchapter II. National Institute of Justice.
§ 3722. National Institute of Justice.
Subchapter III. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
§ 3732. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Subchapter IX. Definitions.
§ 3791. General provisions.
Chapter 77. Energy Conservation.
Subchapter III. Improving Energy Efficiency.
Part B. State Energy Conservation Plans.
§ 6322. State energy conservation plans.
Chapter 84. Department of Energy.
Subchapter VI. Administrative Provisions.
Part C. General Administrative Provisions.
§ 7274e. Scholarship and fellowship program for environmental
restoration and waste management.
Chapter 85. Air Pollution Prevention and Control.
Subchapter II. Emission Standards for Moving Sources.
Part A. Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards.
§ 7545. Regulation of fuels.
Chapter 105. Community Services Programs.
Subchapter II. Head Start Programs.
§ 9844. Research, demonstrations, and evaluation.
Subchapter IV. Grants to States for Planning and Development of
Dependent Care Programs and for Other Purposes.
§ 9874. Use of allotments.
§ 9877. Definitions.
Chapter 123. Drug Abuse Education and Prevention.
Subchapter IV. Miscellaneous.
§ 11851. Definitions.
Chapter 129. National and Community Service.
Subchapter I. National and Community Service State Grant Program.
Division A. General Provisions.
§ 12511. Definitions.
Division B. School- Based and Community-Based Service-Learning
Programs.
Part II. Higher Education Innovative Programs for Community Service.
§ 12561. Higher education innovative programs for community service.
Division C. National Service Trust Program.
Part I. Investment in National Service.
§ 12571. Authority to provide assistance and approved national service
positions.
§ 12572. Types of national service programs eligible for program
assistance.
§ 12573. Types of national service positions eligible for approval for
national service educational awards.
Part II. Application and Approval Process.
§ 12581. Provision of assistance and approved national service
positions by competitive and other means.
§ 12582. Application for assistance and approved national service
positions.
Part III. National Service Participants.
§ 12591. Description of participants.
§ 12592. Selection of national service participants.
Division D. National Service Trust and Provision of National Service
Educational Awards.
§ 12602. Individuals eligible to receive a national service educational
award from the Trust.
§ 12604. Disbursement of national service educational awards.
Division E. Civilian Community Corps.
§ 12626. Definitions.
Division G. Corporation for National and Community Service.
§ 12651f. Employees, consultants, and other personnel.
Division H. Investment for Quality and Innovation.
§ 12653. Additional Corporation activities to support national service.
Chapter 136. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
Subchapter VIII. Police Corps and Law Enforcement Officers Training and
Education.
Part A. Police Corps.
§ 14092. Definitions.
§ 14095. Scholarship assistance.
§ 14096. Selection of participants.
Part B. Law Enforcement Scholarship Program.
§ 14111. Definitions.
§ 14113. Establishment of program.
§ 14114. Scholarships.
§ 14116. State application.
Chapter 149. Energy Policy, 2005.
§ 15801. Definitions.
Subchapter IV. Coal.
Part A. Clean Coal Power Initiative.
§ 15964. Clean coal centers of excellence.
Part B. Clean Power Projects.
§ 15977. Department of Energy transportation fuels from Illinois basin
coal.
Subchapter VI. Nuclear Matters.
Part B. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project.
§ 16022. Project management.
Subchapter VII. Vehicles and Fuels.
Part A. Existing Programs.
§ 16051. Joint flexible fuel/hybrid vehicle commercialization
initiative.
Subchapter VIII. Hydrogen.
§ 16151. Purposes.
§ 16154. Programs.
§ 16161. Solar and wind technologies.
Subchapter IX. Research and Development.
§ 16181. Goals.
§ 16182. Definitions.
Part A. Energy Efficiency.
§ 16192. Next Generation Lighting Initiative.
Part B. Distributed Energy and Electric Energy Systems.
§ 16215. Electric transmission and distribution programs.
Part C. Renewable Energy.
§ 16232. Bioenergy program.
Part E. Nuclear Energy.
§ 16272. Nuclear Energy Research Programs.
Part F. Fossil Energy.
§ 16291. Fossil energy.
§ 16294. Research and development for coal mining technologies.
§ 16296. Low-volume oil and gas reservoir research program.
Part G. Science.
§ 16320. Spallation Neutron Source.
§ 16324. Energy research fellowships.
Part H. International Cooperation.
§ 16341. Western Hemisphere energy cooperation.
Part I. Research Administration and Operations.
§ 16353. Merit review of proposals.
Part J. Ultra- Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other
Petroleum Resources.
§ 16372. Ultra- deepwater and unconventional onshore natural gas and
other petroleum research and development program.
Subchapter X. Department of Energy Management.
§ 16392. Technology Infrastructure Program.
§ 16394. Outreach.
Subchapter XI. Personnel and Training.
§ 16414. National Power Plant Operations Technology and Educational
Center.
Subchapter XVI. Studies.
§ 16522. Low-volume gas reservoir study.
Chapter 150. National Aeronautics and Space Programs.
Subchapter III. Science.
Part B. Remote Sensing.
§ 16671. Definitions.
§ 16676. Education.
Subchapter IV. Aeronautics.
§ 16701. Definition.
Part B. High Priority Aeronautics Research and Development Programs.
§ 16721. Fundamental research program.
§ 16727. University-based Centers for Research on Aviation Training.
Part C. Scholarships.
§ 16741. NASA aeronautics scholarships.
Title 47. Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs.
Chapter 5. Wire or Radio Communication.
Subchapter II. Common Carriers.
Part I. Common Carrier Regulation.
§ 223. Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia
or in interstate or foreign communications.
Title 50. War and National Defense.
Chapter 15. National Security.
Subchapter VII-A. Education in Support of National Intelligence.
Part A. Science and Technology.
§ 441g-2. Intelligence Community Scholarship Program.
Chapter 37. National Security Scholarships, Fellowships, and Grants.
§ 1902. Scholarship, fellowship, and grant program.
§ 1903. National Security Education Board.
§ 1908. Definitions.
Source: GAO Analysis of the United States Code.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
Office Of Postsecondary Education:
The Assistant Secretary:
Jul 12 2007:
Mr. George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Scott:
The Department of Education (ED) appreciates the opportunity to review
the General Accounting Office's (GAO's) draft report, Higher Education:
Including Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Institutions In A Single
Definition Is Unlikely to Immediately Affect Federal Spending, but Long-
Term Consequences Are Unclear (GAO-07-857). GAO makes no recommendation
based on this report.
While ED has no substantive comments, below are three technical
comments:
* Current statute, 39 USC 3626, which governs special postage rates for
educational institutions, references the HEA Section 101 definition of
an institution of Higher Education (IHE). Thus, the change to a single
definition will likely have some immediate budgetary consequence for
the federal government.
* IHEs have tax benefits in addition to those that apply to regular
non- profits in terms of non-taxed tuition benefits that they can
provide to employees. In addition, they don't have to spend as much of
their endowments as do other non-profits. If the same tax benefits
apply to a for-profit IHE, this could be costly to the federal
government.
* The report incorporates by reference the single definition that was
included in the HEA reauthorization bill the House of Representatives
passed during the 109th Congress, which included a provision to
consolidate the two definitions into one. The House language retained
the unique requirements for some institutions within the combined
definition. The report should be explicit about the terms of these
requirements included in the House-passed language. Without this
information, the reader could be lead to believe that there would be no
impact from removing all of the special eligibility requirements
applicable to for-profit institutions that are now contained in Section
102. In the absence of these unique requirements, however, not only
would for-profit institutions now eligible under the Title IV programs
become eligible under other HEA programs (as the draft indicates), but
other for-profit institutions currently not eligible under both Title
IV and other HEA programs would gain eligibility.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Dottie
Kingsley, Director, Strategic Planning at (202) 502-7505 or by e-mail,
dottie.kingsley@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James F. Manning:
Acting Assistant Secretary:
Office of Postsecondary Education:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
George Scott, (202) 512-5932 or scottg@gao.gov:
Dayna Shah, (202) 512-8208 or shahd@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Jeff Appel and Patrick DiBattista, Assistant Directors; and Susan Chin,
Analyst-in-Charge; managed this assignment. Nora Boretti, Sheila McCoy,
and Carlo Salerno made significant contributions to this report. In
addition, Yumiko Jolly and Kathy Leavitt provided assistance in data
collection and analysis; Susannah Compton provided writing assistance;
and Richard Burkard provided legal assistance.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Legislation to reauthorize the HEA passed by the House of
Representatives during the 109th Congress included a provision to
consolidate the two definitions into a single definition of an
institution of higher education. College Access and Opportunity Act of
2006, H.R. 609, 109th Cong., § 101 (2006).
[2] 39 U.S.C. § 2401.
[3] 20 U.S.C. §1001.
[4] 20 U.S.C. §1002.
[5] For example, in order to participate in Title IV programs, for-
profit institutions must have been in existence for two years and must
obtain at least 10 percent of their revenues from non Title IV sources.
20 U.S.C. § 1002(b).
[6] However, such proposals may retain the additional requirements,
such as those mentioned above, applicable to for-profit institutions.
[7] There are also a significant number of provisions using the phrase
"institution of higher education," but not referring to the section 101
definition, that are not included in our analysis.
[8] The number of statutes is not indicative of the number of federal
programs that would be affected by a single definition. Numerous
statutory provisions together may form a single program. For example,
at least seven different U.S. Code sections are used to define and
authorize the Teacher Quality Enhancement program (20 U.S.C. § 1022).
[9] For purposes of this analysis, the term "institutions" includes
institutions of higher education but may also include state agencies
and local educational agencies.
[10] For example, 42 U.S.C. § 16721 offers grants to institutions of
higher education to conduct research in aeronautical sciences and
technologies, and 7 U.S.C. § 8103 awards grants to eligible entities,
including institutions of higher education, to help subsidize the
development and construction of biorefineries for carrying out projects
demonstrating the commercial viability of processes for converting
biomass to fuels or chemicals.
[11] Information based on the latest year available. More than 98
percent of enrollments at 4-year proprietary institutions were either
in business-oriented (85.3 percent) or education (13 percent) programs.
In addition, of the 367 four-year for-profits reporting expenditures
data through IPEDS in 2004, only 13 reported expenditures related to
research and public service. One institution reported just more than $2
million that year, and the mean expenditure was $10,715. Data was not
reported on the percentage of research expenditures related to science.
[12] The Teacher Quality Enhancement program under Title II of the HEA
provides grants to states for many purposes, including implementing
reforms that hold institutions of higher education with teacher
preparation programs accountable for preparing teachers who are highly
competent in the academic content areas in which the teachers plan to
teach. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1021 - 1030. The Teacher Institutes program
provides for the National Science Foundation to make competitive grants
to institutions and other entities to support teacher education and
training in the areas of mathematics and science. 20 U.S.C. § 3913.
[13] 20 U.S.C. §§ 1139c, 1139d, 1139f, and 1139g.
[14] See 20 U.S.C. § 4706.
[15] See 20 U.S.C. § 1452.
[16] 20 U.S.C. § 6319.
[17] 30 U.S.C. § 1315.
[18] 22 U.S.C. § 4709.
[19] 20 U.S.C. § 1011h.
[20] Out of state institutions are eligible only if they are
accredited, degree-granting, nonprofits.
[21] The three federal programs are the Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grant, Work-Study, and the Perkins Loan.
[22] Any institution--public, nonprofit, or for-profit--are eligible to
participate as long as they are accredited by Western Association of
School and Colleges, the regional accrediting body responsible for
California, and meet certain requirements.
[23] Examples of federal programs administered by states include
Teacher Training under HEA and the Adult Education and Literacy
Programs under the Workforce Investment Act.
[24] GAO, Transfer Students: Postsecondary Institutions Could Promote
More Consistent Consideration of Coursework by Not Basing
Determinations on Accreditation, GAO-06-22 (Washington, D.C.: October
2005).
[25] For example, at least seven different U.S. Code sections
identified in our search are used to define and authorize the Teacher
Quality Enhancement Grant Program (20 U.S.C. § 1022).
[26] See appendix II for examples of how the structure of the U.S. Code
can be used in some cases to identify programs. Title 10, for example,
deals generally with topics related to the armed forces. It is further
divided into subtitles, which are divided into parts, which are divided
into chapters. In this case, Chapter 112 pertains to the Information
Security Scholarship Program. For purposes of our work, the sections
within this program that are relevant are § 2200, § 2200a, § 2200b, and
§ 2200e.
[27] These officials, in general, included officials from the state
department of education, state student aid administrations, and state
legislative staff.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
