This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-961 
entitled 'Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions: Department of 
Education Could Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance' which was 
released on September 21, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to the Secretary of Education:

United States Government Accountability Office:

GAO:

September 2004:

Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions:

Department of Education Could Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance:

GAO-04-961:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-961, a report to the Secretary of Education

Why GAO Did This Study:

Congress has expanded the number of low-income and minority serving 
institutions eligible for grants under Titles III and V of the Higher 
Education Act and nearly doubled funding for these grants in the last 
5 years to about $432 million in fiscal year 2004. Institutions 
eligible for funding under Titles III and V include Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, Alaska Native Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian 
Serving Institutions, and other postsecondary institutions that serve 
low-income students. Given the recent expansion, we examined these 
programs to determine (1) how institutions used their Title III and 
Title V grants and the benefits they received from using these grant 
funds, (2) what objectives and strategies the Department of Education 
(Education) has developed for Title III and Title V programs, and (3) 
to what extent Education monitors and provides assistance to Title III 
and Title V institutions.

What GAO Found:

Grantees most commonly reported using Title III and Title V grant 
funds to strengthen academics, and they reported a wide range of 
benefits. Most grantees reported using their grants to fund efforts 
designed to strengthen academics, and we estimate that over three-
quarters of the grantees reported initiatives that focused on improving 
student services (e.g., tutoring) and outcomes for students (e.g., 
course pass rates). The most commonly reported benefits were related 
to improvements in academic quality and student services and outcomes. 
While grantees reported a wide range of benefits, most also reported 
challenges in implementing their projects that sometimes resulted in 
the need for additional time at the end of the grant to complete their 
efforts.

Percentage of Grantees Reporting Benefits, by Grant Program: 

[See PDF for image]
 
Source: GAO analysis.

[End of table]

Education has developed objectives and strategies designed to 
strengthen Title III and Title V institutions by improving financial 
sustainability, technological capacity, academic quality, student 
services and outcomes, and institutional management. While Education 
has developed data to determine its progress in four of these areas, 
it is still in the process of developing data for measuring increased 
technological capacity.

Education has developed plans and tools to enhance its monitoring of 
and assistance to Title III and Title V grantees, but it has made 
limited progress in implementing these initiatives. Specifically, 
Education has not fully implemented its monitoring plan or completed 
its new electronic monitoring tools, and a new training curriculum to 
enhance the monitoring skills of staff. We found that only one-quarter 
of staff conducted two required site visits, and most visits that were 
conducted were not selected based on the requisite risk criteria. Also,
staff were not aware of updated department guidance and, as a result, 
did not always properly monitor grantees. We also found that 
Education’s ability to provide technical assistance was limited. For 
example, Education has acknowledged that its failure to provide 
information on eligibility criteria has resulted in uncertainty about 
the eligibility of over three-quarters of Title V grantees. 

What GAO Recommends:

We recommend that Education take steps to ensure that monitoring and 
technical assistance plans are carried out and targeted to at-risk 
grantees. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, Education generally agreed 
with GAO’s findings and recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-961.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia M. Ashby, (202) 
512-8403, ashbyc@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Grantees Reported a Wide Range of Uses and Benefits for Title III and 
Title V Grants but Cited Some Implementation Challenges:

Education Has Developed Objectives and Strategies to Strengthen 
Institutions and Is Developing Corresponding Performance Information:

Education Has Not Fully Implemented Its Initiatives to Improve 
Monitoring and Assistance, Resulting in Limited Monitoring and 
Assistance:

Conclusions:

Recommendation:

Agency Comments:

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Appendix II: Characteristics of Title III and Title V Grantees by 
Program:

Appendix III: Overview of How Grants Have Been Used by Institutions We 
Visited:

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education:

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

Contacts:

Acknowledgments:

Tables:

Table 1: Characteristics and Eligibility Criteria of Title III and 
Title V Grant Programs:

Table 2: Title III and Title V Funding by Program, Fiscal Years 1999 
and 2003:

Table 3: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to 
Improving Academic Quality:

Table 4: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to 
Improving Student Services and Outcomes:

Table 5: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to 
Improving Institutional Management:

Table 6: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to 
Improving Fiscal Stability:

Table 7: Education's Risk Criteria for Title III and Title V Grantees:

Table 8: Grant Funding Cycles for Programs in Our Sample:

Figure:

Figure 1: Education's Plan to Track Progress in Meeting Objectives for 
Title III and V Programs:

Abbreviations:

HBCU: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 
HEA: Higher Education Act: 
HSI: Hispanic Serving Institutions: 
IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System:

United States Government Accountability Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

September 21, 2004:

The Honorable Rod Paige: 
Secretary of Education:

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Beginning in 1965, Congress created several programs under the Higher 
Education Act (HEA) to support postsecondary institutions that provide 
low-income and minority students with access to higher education. 
Congress reaffirmed its commitment by expanding the number of 
assistance programs in reauthorizing HEA in 1998 and has steadily 
increased funding since then.[Footnote 1] Appropriations for these 
programs have nearly doubled from about $230 million in fiscal year 
1999 to about $432 million in fiscal year 2004. Given the recent 
expansion of these programs, we examined them to determine (1) how 
institutions used their Title III and Title V grants and the benefits 
they received from using these grant funds, (2) what objectives and 
strategies the Department of Education (Education) has developed for 
Title III and Title V programs, and (3) to what extent Education 
monitors and provides assistance to Title III and Title V institutions.

To determine how institutions used Title III and Title V funds and the 
resulting benefits, we developed a data collection instrument and 
reviewed grant files for a stratified random sample of 104 of the 206 
Title III and Title V grant recipients, including the grant 
application, grant performance reports, and related 
correspondence.[Footnote 2] Additionally, we conducted site visits to 
nine of the postsecondary institutions included in our sample based on 
type of program participation and geographic proximity to one another. 
These institutions included four Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities in Georgia, two Tribal colleges in North Dakota, and three 
Hispanic Serving Institutions in Texas. To determine the objectives and 
strategies Education has developed for Title III and Title V programs, 
we talked with Education officials and reviewed program and planning 
documents. To determine how Education monitors and provides assistance 
to the Title III and Title V grantees, we interviewed Education and 
postsecondary institution officials and reviewed documents, including 
program policies and guidance. A more detailed explanation of our 
methodology is included in appendix I. We conducted our work between 
July 2003 and August 2004 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

Grantees most commonly reported using Title III and Title V grant funds 
to strengthen academic quality, and they reported a wide range of 
benefits. An estimated 87 percent of grantees reported initiatives that 
focused on strengthening academic quality by enhancing faculty 
effectiveness and academic offerings, and we estimate that over three-
quarters of the grantees reported initiatives that focused on student 
services (e.g., tutoring) and outcomes for students (e.g., course pass 
rates). To a lesser extent, grantees reported using the funds to 
improve the financial condition and management of their institutions. 
Grantees reported benefits that related to each of these areas, but the 
most commonly reported benefits were related to improvements in 
academic quality and student services and outcomes. For example, one 
Hispanic Serving Institution in Texas that used much of its Title V 
grant to construct and renovate science facilities reported it was 
better able to meet the growing demand for science courses resulting in 
improvements in outcomes for science students, such as retention and 
course completion. While grantees reported a wide range of benefits, 
most grantees also reported challenges in implementing their projects. 
As a result of implementation challenges, some grantees needed 
additional time at the end of the grant period to complete planned 
activities.

To fulfill its overall objective of strengthening Title III and Title V 
institutions, Education has developed strategies--assisting grantees 
in enhancing financial sustainability and increasing technological 
capacity--and supporting objectives--improving academic quality, 
fiscal stability and institutional management, and student services and 
outcomes. To assess its progress in implementing the objectives and 
strategies, Education has developed targets for five performance 
measures. Education has developed performance data for four measures, 
and is in the process of developing performance data for its measure of 
increased technological capacity from grantee performance reports. 
Regarding its strategy of enhancing financial sustainability, the 
department reported that the percentage of institutions with a positive 
fiscal balance decreased slightly from 71 percent in fiscal year 2001 
to 69 percent in fiscal year 2002, thereby falling slightly below the 
fiscal year 2002 target of 74 percent. Education attributes the decline 
in performance to decreases in state contributions to higher education. 
Education exceeded its fiscal year 2002 performance targets for 
improving academic quality, fiscal stability and institutional 
management, and student services and outcomes based on data taken from 
its annual grantee performance reports.

Education has taken steps to enhance its monitoring of and assistance 
to Title III and Title V grantees, but has made limited progress in 
implementing its initiatives. Specifically, Education has developed 
monitoring plans, partially developed electronic monitoring tools, and 
created plans to provide additional training to enhance the monitoring 
skills of staff. However, Education has not fully implemented its 
monitoring plan or completed development of a new training curriculum 
for program staff. We found that only one-quarter of program staff 
conducted two site visits as required in the department's monitoring 
plan, and with respect to those that were conducted, most of the sites 
visited were not selected based on the risk criteria specified in the 
plan. Additionally, because the department has not completed its 
electronic monitoring tools, it has continued to rely on paper-based 
monitoring systems that have not provided complete, consistent, and 
timely information needed for monitoring. For example, during our 
review of grant files, Education could not locate 3 of 112 files we 
requested, and for another 11 files, documents critical to department 
monitoring efforts were missing. We also found that department staff 
were not aware of updated department guidance and as a result did not 
always follow the guidance for monitoring grantees. For example, 
program staff told us they did not conduct required site visits because 
of a lack of preparation related to inadequate training. We also found 
that Education's ability to provide technical assistance was limited. 
For example, Education has acknowledged that its failure to provide 
information on eligibility criteria has resulted in uncertainty about 
the eligibility of over three-quarters of Title V grantees. Further, 
Education did not readily use feedback it obtained from grantees to 
target assistance, and some of the opportunities it provides grantees 
to offer feedback may not encourage open communication.

In this report we are making a recommendation to the Secretary of 
Education to take action to ensure that monitoring and assistance plans 
are carried out, including completing its automated monitoring tools 
and training programs.

In written comments on a draft of this report, Education generally 
agreed with our findings and recommendation. Education's written 
comments are in appendix IV.

Background:

Postsecondary institutions that serve large proportions of economically 
disadvantaged students are eligible to receive grants from Education 
through Title III and Title V of the Higher Education Act, as amended, 
to improve academic quality, address institutional management issues, 
and improve student services and outcomes. Institutions eligible for 
funding under Titles III and V include Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges, Hispanic Serving Institutions 
(HSIs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Institutions, and other 
undergraduate postsecondary institutions that serve low-income 
students. While these institutions differ in terms of the racial and 
ethnic makeup of their students, they serve a disproportionate number 
of financially needy students, and have limited financial resources, 
such as endowment funds, with which to serve them. (See app. II for 
characteristics of Title III and Title V institutions and their 
students.) Title III and Title V legislation outlines broad program 
goals for strengthening participating institutions, but provides 
grantees with flexibility in deciding what approaches will best meet 
their needs. An institution can use the grants to focus on one or more 
activities that will help it achieve the goals articulated in its 
comprehensive development plan--a plan that an applicant must submit 
with its grant application outlining its strategy for achieving growth 
and self-sufficiency. (See app. III for a description of how the 
grantees we visited used the grants.) Table 1 briefly describes the 
characteristics and eligibility criteria of Title III and Title V grant 
programs.

Table 1: Characteristics and Eligibility Criteria of Title III and 
Title V Grant Programs:

Grant program: Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions; 
Type of grant[A]: Competitive; 
Duration: 5 years; 
Wait-out period[B]: 2 years; 
Eligibility criteria: Average educational and general expenditures that 
are low compared with those of other institutions that offer similar 
instruction. An enrollment of needy students--at least 50 percent of 
students receive need-based federal financial assistance or a 
substantial percentage of students receive Pell Grants compared with 
those in other institutions. Accredited or making reasonable progress 
toward accreditation.

Grant program: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges; 
Type of grant[A]: Competitive; 
Duration: 5 years; 
Wait-out period[B]: None; 
Eligibility criteria: Must meet the same eligibility criteria as 
required for Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions, and be 
designated by law as a Tribal College or University.

Grant program: Title III, part A Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian; 
Type of grant[A]: Competitive; 
Duration: 5 years; 
Wait-out period[B]: None; 
Eligibility criteria: Must meet the same eligibility criteria as 
required for Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions. 
Additionally, must have an undergraduate enrollment that is at least 
20 percent Alaska Native or at least 10 percent Native Hawaiian.

Grant program: Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities; 
Type of grant[A]: Formulaic/ noncompetitive; 
Duration: 5 years; 
Wait-out period[B]: None; 
Eligibility criteria: Designated by law as, among other things, any 
college or university that was established prior to 1964, and whose 
principal mission was, and is, the education of African Americans.

Grant program: Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions; 
Type of grant[A]: Competitive; 
Duration: 5 years; 
Wait-out period[B]: 2 years; 
Eligibility criteria: Must meet the same requirements as institutions 
that qualify for Title III Part A. Additionally, must meet requirements 
to be considered an Hispanic Serving Institution--at least 25 percent 
of full-time equivalent students are Hispanic, of which no less than 50 
percent are low-income individuals. 

Source: The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and the 
Department of Education:

[A] Institutions in Title III, part A, and Title V, part A, receive 
grants based on a ranking of applications from a competitive peer 
review evaluation. Institutions in Title III, part B, receive grants 
based on a formula that considers, in part, the number of Pell Grant 
recipients, the number of graduates, and the number of students that 
enroll in graduate school within 5 years after earning an undergraduate 
degree.

[B] The minimum number of years institutions must wait before they are 
eligible to receive another grant under the same program.

[End of table]

Since its inception, one of the primary missions of Title III has been 
to support Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which play a 
significant role in providing postsecondary opportunities for African 
American, low-income, and educationally disadvantaged students. These 
institutions receive funding through Title III, part B, in part, to 
remedy discriminatory action of the states and the federal government 
against Black colleges and universities. Until the Higher Education Act 
was amended in 1998, other institutions that serve financially needy 
students--both minority serving and nonminority serving--competed for 
funding under Title III, part A. In 1998, the Higher Education Act was 
amended to create new grant programs designated for Tribal Colleges, 
Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Institutions, and Hispanic Serving 
Institutions. These programs have provided additional opportunities for 
Minority Serving Institutions to compete for Title III and Title V 
funding. Specifically, in 1999, 55 Hispanic Serving, Tribal, Alaska 
Native, and Native Hawaiian Institutions were awarded new grants 
through the expanded programs. Table 2 shows the increase in support 
since the new programs were first funded in 1999.

Table 2: Title III and Title V Funding by Program, Fiscal Years 1999 
and 2003:

Type of grant: Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions; 
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $60; 
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2003: $81; 
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 180; 
Number of institutions funded: 2003: 257.

Type of grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges; 
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $3; 
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2003: $23; 
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 8; 
Number of institutions funded: 2003: 29.

Type of grant: Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian; 
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $3; 
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2003: $8; 
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 8; 
Number of institutions funded: 2003: 19.

Type of grant: Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities; 
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $136; 
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2003: $214; 
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 98; 
Number of institutions funded: 2003: 97.

Type of grant: Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions; 
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $28; 
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2003: $92; 
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 39; 
Number of institutions funded: 2003: 188[A].

Total; 
Funding (in millions of dollars): 1999: $230; 
Funding (in millions of dollars): 2003: $418; 
Number of institutions funded: 1999: 333; 
Number of institutions funded: 2003: 590. 

Source: Department of Education.

[A] In 2003, 188 Hispanic Serving Institutions received 220 grants. 
Thirty-two of the institutions received two grants--an individual grant 
and a cooperative grant. Institutions that receive cooperative grants 
partner and share resources with another postsecondary institution--
which may or may not be eligible for Title V funding--to achieve common 
goals without costly duplication of effort.

[End of table]

The grant programs are designed to increase the self-sufficiency and 
strengthen the capacity of eligible institutions. Congress has 
identified many areas in which institutions may use funds for improving 
their academic programs. Authorized uses include construction, 
maintenance, or renovation of educational facilities; purchase or 
rental of telecommunications equipment or services; support of faculty 
development; and purchase of library books, periodicals, and other 
educational materials.

Grantees Reported a Wide Range of Uses and Benefits for Title III and 
Title V Grants but Cited Some Implementation Challenges:

In their grant performance reports, grantees most commonly reported 
using Title III and Title V grant funds to strengthen academic quality 
and reported a wide range of benefits. Specifically, we estimate that 
87 percent of the grantees reported using their grant funds to improve 
academic quality, and an estimated 77 percent reported using their 
funds to improve student services (e.g., tutoring) and student outcomes 
(e.g., course pass rates). We estimate that over half of the grantees 
reported using their funds for initiatives that focused on improving 
institutional management and fiscal stability. A majority of the 
grantees cited benefits related to improvements in academic quality and 
student services and outcomes, and we estimate that over half of 
institutions reported benefits related to institutional management and 
fiscal stability. However, our review of grant files revealed that many 
institutions experienced challenges, such as staffing problems, which 
resulted in implementation delays.

Efforts to Improve Academic Quality:

Most of the grantees--ranging from one-half of Title III, part A Tribal 
program grantees to all grantees in the Title III, part A Alaska Native 
and Native Hawaiian program--reported focusing at least one of their 
grant activities on improving academic quality. The goal of these 
efforts was to enhance faculty effectiveness in the classroom by 
providing training and development opportunities for faculty and to 
improve the learning environment for students by improving academic 
offerings and providing appropriate educational materials, such as 
laboratory equipment and library materials. Some examples include:

* Spelman College, a historically black women's college in Georgia, 
used part of its Title III, part B grant to fund a two-semester course 
that focused on the dispersion of Africans throughout the world. This 
writing-intensive course introduced students to their cultural 
background and how it relates to the experiences of others in order to 
promote critical thinking and interdisciplinary research. Spelman 
College has plans to develop a minor in this area.

* The University of the Incarnate Word, a Hispanic Serving Institution 
in Texas, used most of its Title V grant to strengthen student learning 
by focusing on four areas of faculty development: pedagogy, technology, 
globalization, and mentoring. Specifically, the university conducted 
technology workshops to promote the integration of technology into the 
curriculum and provided funding for faculty to participate in summer 
professional development programs and conduct international research.

Most of the grantees also reported that they derived benefits related 
to their efforts to improve academic quality. An estimated 76 percent 
reported enhancements to faculty development, including increased 
faculty participation in professional development activities. We 
estimate that 80 percent of the grantees reported improving academic 
quality by making enhancements to academic programs, including revising 
and developing courses, establishing new academic programs, receiving 
new accreditations, and acquiring equipment, library books, and other 
educational materials. Some examples of benefits derived include the 
following:

* At the University of the Incarnate Word, where most of the faculty 
have received intensive technology training, over 200 members of the 
faculty are using an online course management system as a Web-based 
resource for instruction. Faculty can create Web pages for the courses 
they teach, allowing students to access course syllabi and assignments 
as well as communicate with their professor and other students in the 
class.

* The College of Southern Idaho, a Title III, part A Strengthening 
Institutions grantee in Idaho, reported that with Title III funding it 
was able to enhance more than 30 courses and develop a new accredited 
health science program in radiologic technology. The college also 
reported that two faculty members it provided fellowships had completed 
advanced degrees by the end of the grant period.

Table 3 shows the distribution of uses and benefits related to 
improving academic quality.

Table 3: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to 
Improving Academic Quality:

Uses; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 82%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 50%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 100%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 96%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 78%; 
Estimated total: 87%.

Benefits; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 91%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 75%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 100%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 100%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 89%; 
Estimated total: 94%.

Benefits: Faculty development; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 73%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 38%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 25%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 82%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 81%; 
Estimated total: 76%.

Benefits: Academic programs; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 70%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 100%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 96%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 56%; 
Estimated total: 80%. 

Source: GAO analysis.

[End of table]

Efforts to Improve Support for Students and Student Success:

We estimate that over three-quarters of the grantees--ranging from 55 
percent of Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions grantees to 
nearly all Title III, part B HBCU grantees--reported focusing at least 
one initiative on improving student services and outcomes. This area 
includes tutoring, counseling, and student service programs designed to 
improve academic success, along with those efforts the primary focus of 
which is increasing student outcomes such as retention and graduation 
rates, academic achievement, and entering higher degree programs. 
Examples of how grantees have focused their activities on improvements 
in this area include:

* Morehouse College, a historically black college in Georgia, used part 
of its Title III grant to fund a wellness center for its all-male 
student body. The center provides individual and group counseling and 
offers workshops and seminars on topics like depression and the skills 
students need to achieve academic success. The center also offers 
services to accommodate the increase in students documented with 
learning disabilities.

* United Tribes Technical College, a tribal college in North Dakota, 
focused on increasing retention and persistence of its students by 
using its Title III grant to renovate a one-stop center for student 
services, pay tutors, and equip a wired computer laboratory in the 
facility.

* The University of Texas at San Antonio, a Hispanic Serving 
Institution in Texas, used most of its Title V grant to establish 
learning communities where students enroll in clusters of courses in 
which the course content is linked. At the heart of the learning 
communities is the Freshman Seminar, a course that introduces students 
to resources that will help them succeed in college.

We estimate that 62 percent of the grantees reported that they derived 
benefits related to their efforts to improve student services, and an 
estimated 75 percent reported that they derived benefits related to 
their efforts to increase student outcomes. In the area of student 
services, grantees primarily reported increases in the numbers of 
students using student services, such as counseling and tutoring. 
Increase in student retention was the most commonly reported benefit in 
the area of student outcomes. For example, Laredo Community College, an 
HSI in Texas, used its Title V award to construct and renovate science 
facilities to meet the growing demand for science courses. With state-
of-the-art laboratories, the college reported subsequent improvements 
in outcomes for science students, such as increases in course pass 
rates, retention, and enrollment in further postsecondary study. Table 
4 shows the distribution of uses and benefits related to improving 
student services and outcomes.

Table 4: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to 
Improving Student Services and Outcomes:

Uses; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 55%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 75%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 96%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 67%; 
Estimated total: 77%. 

Benefits; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 82%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 100%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 96%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 63%; 
Estimated total: 85%. 

Benefits: Student services; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 33%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 38%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/ Native Hawaiian: 50%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 86%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 52%; 
Estimated total: 62%. 

Benefits: Student outcomes; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 79%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/ Native Hawaiian: 88%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 79%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 63%; 
Estimated total: 75%. 

Source: GAO analysis.

[End of table]

Efforts to Improve Institutional Management:

We estimate that 54 percent of the grantees reported focusing at least 
one activity on improving institutional management, which comprises the 
efforts to increase capacity and manage institutional operations. 
Examples in this area include improving the technological 
infrastructure, providing training and development opportunities for 
noninstructional staff, constructing and renovating facilities, 
establishing or enhancing management systems, and establishing an 
institutional research office, among others. Nearly all grantees in the 
Title III, part B HBCU program and half of the grantees from the Title 
III, part A Tribal Colleges program indicated that at least one 
activity focused on improving institutional management. For example,

* Stone Child College, a tribal college in Montana, reported that it 
used part of its Title III grant to implement an institutional 
assessment program that involves a comprehensive assessment of all 
instructional programs and services.

* Tougaloo College, a historically black college in Mississippi, 
reported that it used grant funds to support institutional research, 
assessment, and planning activities, as well as repairing and 
renovating facilities to enhance the appearance and safety of the 
campus.

An estimated 84 percent of the grantees reported that they derived 
benefits related to their efforts to improve institutional management, 
primarily by enhancing technology. We estimate that two-thirds of 
grantees reported technology-related benefits, including overall 
improvements to the technological infrastructure, increases in the 
number of classrooms wired for the Internet, and increases in Internet 
access and the numbers of computers available to faculty and students. 
Several of the grantees we visited credited Title III and Title V 
programs with helping them to stay current technologically. For 
example, Morehouse College credited Title III funding with helping the 
institution establish a technological infrastructure. Title III paid 
for the installation of high-speed Internet lines, wiring all buildings 
on campus, including dormitories, and connecting all the buildings to a 
common network. An official at Morehouse told us that the college's 
emphasis on technology stems from the need to compete with other 
institutions for the best students and to ensure that students graduate 
with technology skills that are necessary for the workplace. Table 5 
shows the distribution of uses and benefits related to improving 
institutional management.

Table 5: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to 
Improving Institutional Management:

Uses; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 15%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 50%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 25%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 96%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 11%; 
Estimated total: 54%.

Benefits; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 64%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 88%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 96%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 85%; 
Estimated total: 84%.

Technology; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 42%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 38%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 63%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 82%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 67%; 
Estimated total: 66%. 

Source: GAO analysis.

[End of table]

Efforts to Improve Fiscal Stability at Grantee Institutions:

We estimate that about one-half of the grantees reported focusing at 
least one of their activities on improving fiscal stability, and there 
was wide variation across programs.[Footnote 3] Examples of ways 
grantees can use grant funds to improve fiscal stability include such 
activities as establishing or enhancing a development office to improve 
contributions from alumni and the private sector, establishing or 
improving an endowment fund, and increasing research dollars. Seventy-
one percent of grantees in the Title III, part B program, and 63 
percent of grantees in the Title III, part A Tribal Colleges program 
reported at least one activity focused on improving fiscal stability. 
Only one grantee from the Title III, part A Alaska Native and Native 
Hawaiian program had an activity focused on improving fiscal stability, 
which may be due to greater limitations on how Alaska Native and Native 
Hawaiian institutions have been able to use funds in this area. For 
example, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian institutions have not been 
able to use grant funds to improve endowment funds, whereas grantees in 
the other programs have.[Footnote 4] One example of how a grantee has 
used funds to improve fiscal stability is:

* Sitting Bull College, a tribal college with campuses in North Dakota 
and South Dakota, used grant funds to develop its fund-raising capacity 
and to establish an endowment. Because the college does not receive any 
state funding, it relies heavily on federal funding, primarily from the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs. College officials think that increasing 
fiscal stability is central to becoming more self-sufficient.

An estimated 57 percent of the grantees reported that they derived 
benefits related to their efforts to improve fiscal stability, 
primarily through endowment building.[Footnote 5] Grantees from the 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges program and Title V, part A HSI 
program reported increases in their endowments most frequently. Laredo 
Community College, an HSI in Texas, was able to establish an endowment 
that will provide scholarships for math and science students in 
perpetuity. Over 5 years it matched $250,000 from its Title V grant 
with private contributions. Officials said as a 2-year institution, the 
college didn't have much experience with fund raising prior to the 
grant, and having the ability to use federal funds to match private 
donations energized both the campus and the community to raise funds. 
These fund-raising efforts have led to endowments for other academic 
programs, such as business and nursing. Table 6 shows the distribution 
of uses and benefits related to improving fiscal stability.

Table 6: Percentage of Grantees Reporting Uses and Benefits Related to 
Improving Fiscal Stability:

Uses; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 21%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 13%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 71%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 48%; 
Estimated total: 51%.

Benefits; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 18%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 75%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 13%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 82%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 56%; 
Estimated total: 57%.

Endowment; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 18%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 63%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian: 0%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 11%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 44%; 
Estimated total: 21%. 

Source: GAO analysis.

[End of table]

Grantees Cited Implementation Challenges:

While grantees reported a wide range of uses and benefits, most 
grantees also reported challenges in implementing their projects. We 
estimate that 80 percent of the grantees reported at least one 
challenge related to the implementation of the grants. Difficulties 
related to hiring and staffing were the most frequently cited, with an 
estimated 46 percent of grantees indicating this had been a 
problem.[Footnote 6] For example, officials from Sitting Bull College 
told us that its remote location made it difficult to attract and 
retain qualified personnel. To address this problem, the institution 
has focused on providing training and education to faculty and staff to 
develop talent from within the college. Other challenges were not cited 
frequently but included construction delays, challenges implementing 
technology and distance learning, and state budget shortages.

As a result of implementation challenges, grantees often needed 
additional time to complete planned activities. According to department 
regulations, grantees generally have the option of extending the grant 
for 1 year after the 5-year grant cycle has ended to obligate remaining 
funds. According to Education, for example, 45 percent of the 55 
grantees in the Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions program 
that ended their 5-year grant period in September 2003 had an available 
balance greater than $1,000, ranging from 0.5 percent (about $8,000) to 
19 percent (about $328,000) of the total grant. Sixteen of the 25 
institutions that had carryover greater than $1,000 continued to draw 
down funds in the year following the 5-year grant. In the Title III, 
part B program, 80 percent of the 96 grantees that ended their 5-year 
grant period in September 2002 had funds remaining at the end of the 5-
year period, ranging from 0.09 percent (about $12,000) of the total 
grant to 40 percent (about $2.2 million) of the total grant. According 
to department officials, all of these grantees indicated they would 
take the additional time they are allowed to spend the funds.[Footnote 
7] Department officials told us that unexpended funds are common among 
HBCUs because they often use these funds to supplement large 
construction projects, which take several years to complete. Education 
Has Developed Objectives and Strategies to Strengthen Institutions and 
Is Developing Corresponding Performance Information:

Education has developed objectives and strategies designed to 
strengthen Title III and Title V institutions by improving financial 
sustainability, technological capacity, academic quality, student 
services and outcomes, and institutional management. Education has 
developed five measures to assess its progress in achieving its 
objectives and is still in the process of developing data for one of 
these measures.

Education Developed Objectives and Strategies Designed to Strengthen 
Institutions:

Education has established a series of objectives and strategies for its 
Title III and Title V programs. In its 2002-2007 strategic plan, 
Education established an objective to strengthen HBCUs, HSIs, and 
Tribal Colleges. To achieve this objective, Education has developed 
supporting strategies to assist grantees in enhancing financial 
sustainability and increasing technological capacity. Education has 
used annual meetings for grantees as a forum to provide technical 
assistance to institutions on financial management issues and to 
promote technological capacity. Education has also established 
objectives in its annual program performance plans to improve academic 
quality, fiscal stability and institutional management, along with 
student services and outcomes.[Footnote 8]

To assess its progress in meeting the objectives it established in its 
strategic and program performance plans, Education has developed five 
performance measures. To determine its progress in its strategic 
objective to strengthen HBCUs, HSIs, and Tribal Colleges, Education 
established performance measures related to financial sustainability 
and technological capacity. Specifically, Education established a 
performance target that by fiscal year 2007 it will increase the 
percentage of institutions with a positive fiscal balance--Education's 
measure of financial sustainability--to 99 percent from the fiscal year 
1999 baseline of 69 percent.[Footnote 9] Education also established a 
performance target for increasing the percentage of institutions that 
increase their investment in technology. To determine its progress in 
meeting the objectives in its program performance plan, Education has 
set a target that at least 75 percent of the goals grantees establish 
related to (1) academic quality, (2) fiscal stability and institutional 
management, and (3) student services and outcomes will be met or 
exceeded.

Education Is Making Progress in Developing Performance Data:

Education has developed performance data for one of the two performance 
targets established in its 2002-2007 strategic plan and has developed 
performance data for its program performance plan targets. 
Specifically, Education has developed performance data to determine its 
impact in increasing financial sustainability and is in the process of 
developing data to determine its impact on technological capacity at 
institutions. Regarding its goal to increase financial sustainability, 
the department reported that the percentage of institutions with a 
positive fiscal balance decreased slightly from 71 percent in fiscal 
year 2001 to 69 percent in fiscal year 2002, falling below the original 
target that it established for fiscal year 2002 of 74 percent. In its 
2002-2007 Strategic Plan, the department set a goal that 84 percent of 
institutions have a positive fiscal balance by 2004. Education 
subsequently lowered its target for 2004 to 70 percent to reflect 
decreases in state contributions to higher education--a significant 
source of funding for most Title III and Title V institutions--to which 
it attributed the decline in fiscal balance performance. To measure its 
progress in meeting its objective to strengthen HBCUs, HSIs, and Tribal 
Colleges through improved technological capacity, Education expects to 
report later in 2004 on the impact of its efforts in this area using 
information on technology-related activities reported by grantees in 
recently submitted annual grantee performance reports. Education has 
developed data for the performance measures in its program performance 
plan. Regarding its goals to improve academic quality, fiscal stability 
and institutional management, and student services and outcomes, 
Education exceeded its fiscal year 2002 performance targets for each of 
the three measures based on data taken from its annual grantee 
performance reports. Figure 1 illustrates the measures Education has 
developed to measure progress in achieving its objectives, along with 
its progress in developing data to determine whether it is meeting its 
performance targets.

Figure 1: Education's Plan to Track Progress in Meeting Objectives for 
Title III and V Programs:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Education Has Not Fully Implemented Its Initiatives to Improve 
Monitoring and Assistance, Resulting in Limited Monitoring and 
Assistance:

Education has taken steps to enhance its monitoring of and assistance 
to Title III and Title V grantees by developing monitoring plans; 
creating electronic monitoring (e-monitoring) tools, such as the 
performance reports submitted by grantees to document performance; and 
providing additional training to department staff to develop their 
monitoring skills. However, Education has yet to fully implement many 
of these initiatives. We found that Education has not fully implemented 
its monitoring plan, made full use of its new electronic monitoring 
tools, or completed development of a new training curriculum for 
program staff. Additionally, we found that Education's ability to 
target assistance was limited and that it has not made full use of 
grantee feedback for targeting assistance. As a result, Education's 
monitoring and assistance have been limited.

Education Has Taken Some Steps to Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance 
Activities:

Education has created monitoring plans, electronic monitoring tools 
that document grantee progress, and training opportunities for staff. 
Some of these steps have been undertaken in response to reports issued 
by Education's Inspector General in 1996 and 2000, which identified the 
need for systematic monitoring of the department's Title III and Title 
V programs.[Footnote 10]

Created Monitoring Plans:

In 2002, Education's Deputy Secretary directed each program within the 
agency to develop a monitoring plan to place greater emphasis on 
performance monitoring for all grantees. In addition to asking whether 
grantees were achieving results, program officials were also to 
consider what assistance could be provided by Education to help 
grantees accomplish program objectives and incorporate in their 
planning an increased departmental emphasis on compliance with the law 
and guarding against potential risks. In response to the Deputy 
Secretary's directive, Education developed a monitoring plan for Title 
III and Title V grantees that calls for department staff to (1) conduct 
risk assessments, (2) perform a minimum number of site visits each 
year, and (3) follow up with grantees regarding their performance 
reports.

In assessing risk, department staff are to review a variety of sources, 
including annual performance reports, and consider 19 factors affecting 
the ability of the grantees to manage their grants in the areas of 
project design, administration and implementation, funds management, 
communication, and performance measurement. According to the 
department's plan, on the basis of the results of risk assessments, 
staff are to follow up with grantees that have issues and select at 
least two for site visits. Follow-up can take many forms, ranging from 
telephone calls and e-mails to on-site compliance visits and technical 
assistance. Technical assistance can involve many activities designed 
to aid the institution in its administration of the grant. Although 
Education's preferred approach is to try to inform grantees of steps 
they can take to address grant administration issues, grantees can also 
be subject to some restrictions based on risk assessments. For 
instance, if a grantee is designated as "high risk," Education can 
impose conditions on the grantee's ability to access grant funds. The 
risk factors used by Education to identify high-risk grantees are 
listed in Table 7.

Table 7: Education's Risk Criteria for Title III and Title V Grantees:

Risk categories: Project design; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
1. Grant lacks support on campus. Grantee develops and writes 
application without significant participation of the college community.

Risk categories: Project design; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
2. Grant design is problematic. Proposed project objectives and 
timelines are unrealistic, unclear, or lack appropriate baseline data.

Risk categories: Project design; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
3. Evaluation is not a focus of the grant. Proposed evaluation plan is 
not complete and will not provide adequate data to evaluate project.

Risk categories: Project design; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
4. Grantee roles are not clear. Lines of authority and responsibility 
are not clear within the project and in relation to the president's 
office.

Risk categories: Administration and implementation; 
Criteria for high- risk determination: 5. Grant lacks key personnel. 
Key personnel had not been hired halfway into the grant's first year.

Risk categories: Administration and implementation; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
6. Grant cannot retain key personnel. Frequent turnover in project 
administration.

Risk categories: Administration and implementation; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
7. Grantee lack of knowledge about the grant. College president/CEO is 
not knowledgeable about grant.

Risk categories: Administration and implementation; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
8. Grant administrators do not participate in program activities. 
College does not send representatives to scheduled workshops/meetings 
and remains distant from program office.

Risk categories: Administration and implementation; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
9. Institution cannot or does not maintain proposed commitments. 
Institution fails to honor space and resource commitments halfway into 
the grant's first year.

Risk categories: Administration and implementation; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
10. Grantee administrators disagree and cannot resolve issues. 
Cooperative arrangement partners lose focus on common objectives, and 
have not established an administrative mechanism to handle conflict.

Risk categories: Administration and implementation; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
11. Other institutional problems exist that put grant funds at risk. 
Institution is facing significant problems that go beyond grant 
administration, such as finances or accreditation.

Risk categories: Funds management; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
12. Grantee has slow or fast drawdowns. Funds are not being expended 
at the rate expected by project activities and timelines.

Risk categories: Funds management; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
13. Grantee has difficulty expending awarded funds. Significant 
carryover of funds from one year to the next without adequate 
explanation.

Risk categories: Funds management; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
14. Inconsistencies with reported grant information. Discrepancies 
exist between expenditures reported and funds drawn upon in 
Education's payment system.

Risk categories: Funds management; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
15. Institution has problems managing other federal grants/funds. 
Other government audits reflect problems with managing other federal 
funds.

Risk categories: Project communication issues; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
16. Grantee requests assistance from Education to resolve problems. 
Institution asks for assistance or intervention to deal with a 
problem.

Risk categories: Project communication issues; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
17. Grantee cannot readily provide project information. Project 
administrators do not respond to requests for updated or revised 
project information by program office.

Risk categories: Performance measurement; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
18. Institutional reports indicate problems. Performance reports 
indicate the existence of problems or significant delays.

Risk categories: Performance measurement; 
Criteria for high-risk determination: 
19. Grantee does not follow through on proposal. Performance reports 
do not correlate with project activities outlined in application. 

Source: Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2003 Institutional 
Development for Undergraduate Programs' Monitoring Plan.

[End of table]

Developed and Piloted E-Monitoring Tools:

In response to a 2000 Inspector General report that found Education 
needed a systematic approach to monitor Title III grantees, including 
resolving and enforcing compliance issues, Education developed and 
piloted electronic monitoring tools designed to enable department staff 
to standardize monitoring practices and better track performance and 
fiscal problems. These tools include (1) an e-monitoring system that 
maintains and tracks daily interactions with grantees, (2) an online 
institutional performance reporting system, (3) an improved automated 
payment tracking system, and (4) an electronic on-site monitoring 
report. Education has implemented its online institutional performance 
reporting system and intends to begin implementing the other tools 
across its programs by the end of fiscal year 2004. Officials we spoke 
to indicated that some of these actions were either in the final stages 
of development or being piloted with other grant programs.

The department's e-monitoring system is designed to access funding 
information from existing systems, such as its automated payment 
system, as well as to access information from a departmental database 
that contains institutional performance reports. Education anticipates 
that the system will improve its monitoring process by providing staff 
ready access to such important information as regulatory citations and 
alerting staff to needed monitoring actions. Officials think moving to 
electronic monitoring from a paper-based process will improve 
recordkeeping and documentation, enhancing the ability to identify and 
track areas of concern for individual grantees and across the programs.

Also, as a key component of its e-monitoring system, Education has 
developed the online institutional performance reporting process. 
Specifically, Education implemented an annual reporting process in 
fiscal year 2003 that requires grantees to submit standardized 
information about their performance electronically. As a result, the 
new performance reports were designed to allow department staff to more 
quickly and systematically identify and follow up with grantees on 
difficulties they are facing regarding their grants. Also, department 
staff are required to review these reports to assess whether adequate 
progress has been made to justify continued funding.

Education is also in the process of redesigning its automated grant 
payment system to provide information staff need to monitor grantee 
transactions and to connect it with its e-monitoring system. In a 2003 
report on its monitoring efforts, Education indicated that program 
staff would be heavily engaged in the redesign of its automated payment 
system to identify problems and necessary modifications associated with 
the system's usage. Additionally, because the system was designed to 
reflect mostly financial information about grantees and not as a 
performance monitoring system, Education plans to make information from 
its automated payment system accessible through its e-monitoring system 
to eliminate the number of systems program staff have to access to 
monitor grantees.[Footnote 11]

Education also plans to launch an electronic on-site review report to 
better target its assistance and increase Education's ability to track 
and resolve findings identified during on-site reviews. This tool is 
designed to reinforce adherence to the department's standardized 
reporting format that is to be used during on-site reviews. The 
electronic report will be integrated with the e-monitoring system.

Plans to Expand Training:

To improve its training program, Education has developed a corrective 
action plan to provide courses over the next 3 years to address the 
training needs of its staff. In its fiscal year 2004 monitoring plan, 
Education reported that there is a need to move beyond the generic 
training that is traditionally offered to staff toward training that 
has both real world applications and a programmatic context. 
Consequently, Education's training plan called for training to provide 
specific guidance on its new monitoring procedures.

Lack of Progress Implementing Initiatives Has Resulted in Uneven 
Monitoring and Assistance:

We found that the department's lack of progress in implementing its 
plans to improve monitoring activities, automate related processes, and 
train its staff has resulted in uneven monitoring and assistance for 
Title III and Title V grantees. For example, we found that Education 
has yet to make full use of its risk-based plan to select grantees for 
its monitoring visits and technical assistance. In fact, our review of 
site visit documentation showed that risk factors were only employed to 
select 5 out of 26 grantees visited in fiscal year 2003. Of these 26 
institutions, most had been selected according to other factors such as 
geographic proximity to another grantee.[Footnote 12] Staff we met with 
acknowledged that they had not conducted risk assessments for their 
grantees, and most were unaware of the new requirement to do so. We 
also found that only one-quarter of department staff completed two site 
visits in fiscal year 2003, as required.

Because the department had not completed its e-monitoring efforts, it 
has continued to rely on paper-based monitoring systems, which have not 
provided complete, consistent, and timely information used in 
monitoring. For example, during our review of grantee program files, 
Education could not locate 3 of 112 files we requested. Additionally, 
another 11 files did not contain all required materials, such as 
institutional performance reports. Further, the department could not 
fully account for and provide documentation of completed site visits. 
These files are the primary resource used by department staff to inform 
monitoring and assistance efforts.

Finally, because the department has not yet implemented its new 
training curriculum, its staff were not aware of updated department 
guidance and as a result did not always follow department guidelines 
for monitoring grantees. For example, department staff told us they did 
not conduct required site visits because of a lack of preparation 
related to inadequate training. One senior department official we spoke 
with agreed that existing training was inadequate, adding that the 
training could not translate the art of monitoring to inexperienced 
department staff.

Education's Ability to Target Assistance Has Been Limited:

While Education provides technical assistance through conferences, pre-
application workshops, and routine interaction between program officers 
and grantees, a senior department official acknowledged that Education 
needs to do more to target technical assistance. He said that one of 
the department's goals is to move from focusing on the process of 
awarding grants to a more programmatic emphasis where the needs of the 
grantees guide the services that are offered. One of the key areas of 
technical assistance that Education is targeting for improvement is 
educating grantees about eligibility criteria. In response to concerns 
Education's Inspector General raised about awards made in the Title V, 
part A Developing Hispanic Institutions program, earlier this year 
Education completed a review of all Title V grantee files to determine 
whether grantees were eligible for the awards. On the basis of this 
review, Education concluded that there were questions surrounding the 
eligibility of more than three-quarters of the 220 grantees that have 
received funds through the program. Education found that 12 
institutions should not have received grants because their percentages 
of low-income Hispanic students were below the required 50 percent. In 
other cases, the department indicated that it could not determine 
eligibility because institutions made calculation errors, institutions 
did not report percentages, or the institutions' calculation methods 
could not be determined. The department concluded that 47 of the 
grantees used the correct calculation method and met the eligibility 
assurance requirement that at least half of its Hispanic students are 
low-income but noted that there were still concerns that some of these 
institutions may have had documentation problems. Education has 
attributed these irregularities to confusion about how to meet 
eligibility requirements stemming from insufficient guidance it 
provided to applicants as well as an institutional lack of systematic 
data collection. As a result, Education decided that it would not take 
action in this specific instance against any of the grantees with 
eligibility concerns. Education has taken steps to address the problem, 
including developing new guidance for applicants and verifying all 
eligibility assurances that applicants submit. Education plans to 
assist grantees with the eligibility process at pre-application 
workshops.

Education's ability to target assistance is limited in two ways: it 
does not readily use the feedback it obtains from grantees, and its 
feedback mechanisms may not encourage open communication. For example, 
a senior official told us that feedback Education collected via surveys 
from grantees at conferences has not been used in planning assistance 
efforts. Additionally, one of Education's feedback mechanisms may limit 
communication because it identifies grantees and is tied to funding 
decisions. Specifically, Education provided grantees with the 
opportunity to comment on ways to improve the services the department 
provides in their annual performance reports, which department staff 
review to determine whether sufficient progress has been made to 
continue funding. Department officials told us that Education is 
considering ways to collect feedback from grantees separate from the 
performance reporting process for all its grant programs.

Conclusions:

Congress has demonstrated its support for Title III and Title V 
programs by expanding the number of institutions covered and by nearly 
doubling funding to these programs since 1999. Title III and Title V 
programs are designed to provide additional resources to institutions 
that face challenges providing a quality education to low-income and 
minority students who are typically underrepresented in postsecondary 
education. While Title III and Title V programs provide important 
resources to address some of the most critical needs of these 
institutions, the need for monitoring and assistance does not end with 
the award of a grant. These institutions, because they have limited 
resources, sometimes need additional assistance to help them implement 
their projects. Consequently, Education's role in monitoring and 
providing assistance to Title III and Title V grantees is critical to 
the success of these programs. Education has taken steps to enhance its 
monitoring and assistance efforts. However, by failing to carry out an 
effective process to identify and target oversight and assistance to 
at-risk grantees, Education has fallen short of ensuring that these 
institutions have all the tools they need to fulfill the programs' 
objectives. Education recognizes that it must work in partnership with 
its grantees to enhance the quality of and access to postsecondary 
education and has put in place plans that would allow it to better 
monitor and assist grantees. Education needs to fully implement these 
plans to provide oversight and assistance to those institutions most in 
need.

Recommendation:

We recommend that the Secretary of Education take steps to ensure that 
monitoring and technical assistance plans are carried out and targeted 
to at-risk grantees and the needs of grantees guide the technical 
assistance offered. These steps should include completing its automated 
monitoring tools and training programs to ensure that department staff 
are adequately prepared to monitor and assist grantees and using 
appropriately collected feedback from grantees to target assistance.

Agency Comments:

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for 
review and comment. In written comments on a draft of this report, the 
Department of Education agreed with our recommendation to carry out and 
target its monitoring and technical assistance plans to at-risk 
grantees. Education has made a commitment to complete the 
implementation of its monitoring, training, and technical assistance 
efforts in a timely manner. Education also provided technical comments, 
which we incorporated where appropriate. Education's comments appear in 
appendix IV.

Copies of this report will be sent to the congressional committees and 
subcommittees responsible for the Higher Education Act; the Honorable 
Joshua Bolten, Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other 
interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon 
request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on 
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 
512-8403 or Bryon Gordon at (202) 512-9207. Other contacts and 
acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.

Sincerely yours,

Signed by: 

Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

We reviewed Title III and Title V grant programs to determine (1) how 
Title III and Title V institutions are using the grants and the 
benefits they have derived, (2) what objectives and strategies the 
Department of Education (Education) has developed for Title III and 
Title V programs, and (3) to what extent Education monitors and 
provides assistance to Title III and Title V institutions.

To determine how institutions used the funds and the benefits derived, 
we reviewed grant files for a stratified random sample of 104 of the 
206 Title III and Title V individual development grant 
recipients.[Footnote 13] We reviewed grant applications and grantee 
performance reports to develop a standardized data collection 
instrument. We completed the data collection instrument for each 
grantee in our sample, and each record was independently reviewed by 
another staff person for clarity and accuracy.

To identify these recipients, we obtained from Education a list of 
grantees for specific grant cycles. The grant cycles were chosen to 
allow us to review documentation from as many years of the 5-year grant 
cycle as possible or to allow for the review of comparable information. 
For example, we selected 1999-2004 as the grant cycle for grantees from 
three of the programs in our review because 1999 was the first year 
awards were made in these programs. For the Title III, part B program, 
we looked at available data from the 2002-2007 grant cycle because 
performance reports comparable to those provided by grantees in other 
programs were not available from a previous grant cycle. The grant 
cycles are shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Grant Funding Cycles for Programs in Our Sample:

Program: Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions; 
Grant cycle: 10/ 1998-9/2003; 
Total number of grantees: 55; 
Sample size: 35; 
Final number of cases reviewed: 33.

Program: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges; 
Grant cycle: 10/1999-9/ 2004; 
Total number of grantees: 8; 
Sample size: 8; 
Final number of cases reviewed: 8.

Program: Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions; 
Grant cycle: 10/1999-9/2004; 
Total number of grantees: 8; 
Sample size: 8; 
Final number of cases reviewed: 8.

Program: Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities; 
Grant cycle: 10/2002-9/2007; 
Total number of grantees: 96; 
Sample size: 33; 
Final number of cases reviewed: 28.

Program: Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions; 
Grant cycle: 10/1999-9/2004; 
Total number of grantees: 39; 
Sample size: 28; 
Final number of cases reviewed: 27. 

Source: GAO calculations based on Education data.

[End of table]

We stratified our sample by the five programs and within these strata 
randomly selected grantees. Our sample was statistically drawn and 
weighted so that we could generalize the results of our review across 
programs. As with all samples, our review of grant files is subject to 
sampling errors. The effects of sampling errors, due to the selection 
of a sample from a larger population, can be expressed as confidence 
intervals based on statistical theory. Sampling errors occur because we 
use a sample to draw conclusions about a larger population. If a 
different sample had been taken, the results might have been different. 
To recognize the possibility that other samples might have yielded 
other results, we express our confidence in the precision of our 
particular sample's results as a 95 percent confidence interval. The 95 
percent confidence interval is expected to include the actual results 
for 95 percent of samples of this type. Our sample sizes were selected 
to give us results within +/-10 percentage points of what we would have 
obtained if we had surveyed the entire study population within each 
program. Because we included the entire population for the Title III, 
part A programs that cover Tribal Colleges, Alaska Native Institutions, 
and Native Hawaiian Institutions, there is no sampling error associated 
with the results presented for these programs. Each sample element was 
subsequently weighted in the analysis to account for all members of the 
population, including those that were not selected. When we make 
estimates to the entire population of grantees, we are 95 percent 
confident that the results we obtained are within +/-7 percentage 
points of what we would have obtained if we had included the entire 
population within our review unless otherwise noted.

We analyzed data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 
System (IPEDS) to better understand the kinds of students they 
serve.[Footnote 14] To assess the completeness of the IPEDS data, we 
reviewed the National Center for Education Statistics' documentation on 
how the data were collected and performed electronic tests to look for 
missing or out-of-range values. On the basis of these reviews and 
tests, we found the data sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 
Additionally, we conducted site visits to nine of the postsecondary 
institutions included in our sample based on type of program 
participation and geographic proximity to each other. These 
institutions included four Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
in Georgia, two Tribal colleges in North Dakota, and three Hispanic 
Serving Institutions in Texas.

To determine what objectives and strategies Education has developed for 
Title III and Title V programs, we talked with Education officials and 
reviewed program and planning documents. To determine how Education 
monitors and provides assistance to the Title III and Title V grantees, 
we talked with Education officials and reviewed program policies and 
guidance.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Characteristics of Title III and Title V Grantees by 
Program:

Average undergraduate enrollment; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 6,391; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 286; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 3,388; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 2,692; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 12,643.

Gender: Male; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 43%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 32%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 40%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 38%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 41%. 

Gender: Female; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 57%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 68%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 60%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 62%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 59%. 

Race/ethnicity: American Indian/Alaska Native; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 1%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 88%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 6%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: <1%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: <1%. 

Race/ethnicity: Asian/Pacific Islander; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 9%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: <1%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 54%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 1%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 8%. 

Race/ethnicity: Black; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 7%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: <1%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 2%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 75%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 11%. 

Race/ethnicity: Hispanic; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 18%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 1%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 3%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 1%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 55%. 

Race/ethnicity: White; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 57%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 9%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 31%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 21%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 20%. 

Race/ethnicity: Nonresident alien; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 2%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: <1%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/ Native Hawaiian Institutions: 3%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 1%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 3%. 

Race/ethnicity: Unknown; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 6%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 1%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 3%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 1%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 3%. 

Control: Private not-for-profit; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 12; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 50%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 13%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 39%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 23%. 

Control: Public; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 88%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 50%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 88%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 61%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 77%. 

Type: 2-year; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 79%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 100%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 75%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 18%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 54%. 

Type: 4-year; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 21%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 0%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 25%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 82%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 46%. 

Percentage of students with federal grant[A]; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 34%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 78%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 23%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 59%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 57%. 

Open admissions policy[B]: Yes; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 73%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 100%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 75%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 36%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 65%. 

Open admissions policy[B]: No; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 27%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 0%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 25%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 64%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 35%. 

On campus housing: Yes; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 42%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 13%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 50%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 79%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 35%. 

On campus housing: No; 
Title III, part A Strengthening Institutions: 58%; 
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 88%; 
Title III, part A Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions: 50%; 
Title III, part B Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 21%; 
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving Institutions: 65%. 

Source: Department of Education, Integrated Postsecondary Education 
Data System.

[A] Federal grants include Pell Grants and other federal grants 
awarded to individual students.

[B] This is an admission policy whereby the institution will accept 
any student who applies.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Overview of How Grants Have Been Used by Institutions We 
Visited:

Title III, part B: Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities we visited in Georgia.

Clark Atlanta University; 
Clark Atlanta University, a private comprehensive historically black 
university in Atlanta, Georgia, was formed in 1988 by the consolidation 
of Clark College, a 4-year liberal arts college founded in 1866, and 
Atlanta University, a graduate institution, founded in 1869. In fall 
2002, 3,864 undergraduates were enrolled, of which 94 percent were 
black and 71 percent were women; 

Type: 4-year or above; 

Highest degree offered: doctorate; 

Award periods and amount funded: 
10/1997-9/2002: $11.3 million; 
10/2002-9/ 2007: $6.7 million[A]; 

Grant uses and benefits: Clark Atlanta University reported focusing 
its Title III, part B grant on efforts that will improve student 
services and student outcomes and academic quality. The university has 
used its funds to provide support to strengthen student communication 
skills, including reading, writing, and speech. Funds have also been 
used to provide tutoring and supplemental instruction in selected 
academic programs. Another of Clark Atlanta's efforts is designed to 
enhance retention by integrating instructional support programs and 
student services to ensure academic success for students; 

Clark Atlanta originally proposed an effort to improve its ability to 
provide distance-learning courses. However, this effort was reexamined 
once a new president was appointed and more was known about the costs 
of implementing distance learning. According to the project director, 
these concerns led the institution to shift the focus from distance 
learning to an emphasis on instructional technology infusion and Web-
enhanced course instruction. Flexibilities in the program allowed the 
institution to make this change; 

While its current grant began in 2002, Clark Atlanta, like other HBCUs, 
has benefited from the continued funding Title III, part B provides. 
Specifically, officials at Clark Atlanta have credited Title III with 
enabling it to build and sustain its technological infrastructure and 
facilitating the infusion of technology into instruction.

Fort Valley State University; 
Fort Valley State University, a public historically black university, 
was founded as Fort Valley State College in 1939 and became Fort 
Valley State University in 1996. Located in Fort Valley, Georgia, it 
is the state's only 1890 land grant institution. In fall 2002, 2,193 
undergraduate students were enrolled, of which 94 percent were black 
and 56 percent were women; 

Type: 4-year or above; 

Highest degree offered: master's; 

Award periods and amounts funded: 
10/1997-9/2002: $8.3 million; 
10/2002-9/2007: $4.8 million[A]; 

Grant uses and benefits: Fort Valley State University reported using 
its Title III, part B grant to fund a number of efforts to improve 
academic quality, student services and outcomes, and institutional 
management. For example, to improve academic quality, the university 
reported using grant funds to establish a major in juvenile justice 
and a population studies center- -the first of its kind in the state 
university system--to prepare students for careers as demographers. 
Fort Valley has also focused its grant efforts on strengthening its 
fine arts program. As part of its faculty and staff development 
program, the university reported providing two faculty members with 
funding that led to an advanced degree; 

To improve student services and outcomes, the university reported 
using grant funds to establish an academic success center, which is 
responsible for providing advisement services and referrals for 
additional services. The university also reported using the grant to 
enhance support services for students enrolled at its outreach sites. 
Specifically, the university has increased tutoring and counseling 
services for students at these locations for whom traveling to the 
main campus might not be practical. The university reported an increase 
in the pass rate for the Georgia Regents exam for students who 
participated in academic enrichment services; 

Fort Valley also reported using its current Title III grant to upgrade 
its network in support of its objective to redesign the system 
architecture and ensure that existing hardware is continuously 
upgraded. In particular, Title III funds were used to replace network 
hardware and outdated servers, increasing the overall speed of the 
network. Officials at the university told us that Title III funds from 
earlier grant periods provided the base funding to establish the 
college's technological infrastructure.

Spelman College; 
Spelman College, a private historically black liberal arts college for 
women in Atlanta, Georgia, was founded in 1881. In fall 2002, 2,121 
undergraduate women were enrolled at the college, 97 percent of whom 
were black; 

Type: 4-year or above; 

Highest degree offered: bachelor's; 

Award periods and amounts funded: 
10/1997-9/ 2002: $7.2 million; 
10/2002-9/2007: $4.3 million[A]; 

Grant uses and benefits: Spelman reported using its grant to focus on 
improving academic quality and institutional management. Specifically, 
the grant has been used to strengthen writing, promote 
interdisciplinary teaching and research, integrate educational 
technology into the learning environment, and support an advanced 
program in computer science. To improve institutional management, 
Spelman has used its grant to ensure that the college has access to 
appropriate levels of technical computing and networking support 
services essential to effective use of technology resources for 
education and research; 

According to the project director, Title III funds have enabled 
Spelman to purchase sophisticated computer equipment for its computer 
science and math students that it would not have been able to obtain 
otherwise. Students who major in computer and information science 
acquire cutting-edge knowledge of the discipline. We toured a facility 
at the college that houses test networks for teaching purposes. In 
teams, students attempt to break into the test networks, enhancing 
their knowledge of network security without harming the college's 
actual network. Spelman also used Title III funds to wire each room in 
the dormitories on campus to enable students to connect to the campus 
network using a laptop or personal computer. The director of the 
project thinks technology will always be a key area covered by Title 
III funds at the college because it frees up funds to meet other needs.

Morehouse College; 
Morehouse College is a private historically black liberal arts college 
for men located in Atlanta, Georgia. Established in 1867 in the 
basement of a Baptist church to prepare black men for the ministry and 
teaching, the school received full accreditation in 1957. In fall 
2002, 2,738 undergraduate men were enrolled, 94 percent of whom were 
black; 

Type: 4-year or above; 

Highest degree offered: bachelor's; 

Award periods and amounts funded: 
10/1997-9/2002: $6.9 million; 
10/2002-9/2007: $4.4 million[A]; 

Grant uses and benefits: Morehouse College reported using its grant to 
fund several efforts designed to support students, improve 
technological capacity, promote faculty development, and develop a 
holistic approach to strategic planning and assessment to determine 
the effectiveness of academic programs and services. To support 
students, Morehouse has used its grant to support a tutoring initiative 
designed to retain freshmen, as well as a learning resource center 
that provides study space, a 24-hour computer lab, and supplemental 
educational materials for all students. Morehouse has also used its 
grant to cover the cost of professional counselors in its wellness 
center, which provides counseling, disability services, and workshops 
on a variety of topics such as test taking and study skills; 

Morehouse has relied on Title III funding to help build its 
technological infrastructure. For example, Title III funds have been 
used to pay for the installation of high-speed Internet lines, wiring 
of all buildings on campus including dormitories, and connecting all 
the buildings to a common network. An official at Morehouse told us 
the college's emphasis on technology stems from the need to compete 
with other institutions for the best students and to ensure that 
students graduate with technology skills that are necessary in the 
workplace; 

Morehouse reported that it has also used Title III funds to develop a 
strategic planning and assessment model that it will use to determine 
the overall effectiveness of its programs and services, including 
documenting student learning outcomes. Related to its efforts to 
promote faculty development, it has provided fellowships to help two 
faculty members complete advanced degrees.

Title V, part A Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions we visited in 
Texas.

University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA); 
UTSA, a public Hispanic Serving Institution in San Antonio, Texas, was 
founded in 1969 to serve the needs of the multicultural population in 
the San Antonio area and South Texas. In fall 2002, 48 percent of the 
18,729 undergraduate students enrolled were Hispanic, and 55 percent 
were women; 

Type: 4- year or above; 

Highest degree offered: doctorate; 

Award period and amount funded: 10/1999-9/2004: $2 million; 

Grant uses and benefits: The University of Texas at San Antonio 
reported focusing its grant on improving student services to increase 
retention and graduation rates. Specifically, the university used its 
Title V grant to establish learning communities where cohorts of 25 
students are enrolled in three linked courses. At the heart of the 
learning communities is the Freshman Seminar, a course that introduces 
students to resources that will help them succeed in college. Each 
course in a learning community is linked by a theme that connects the 
classes within the learning community to one another, offering 
students the opportunity to study a given topic from various points of 
view; 

UTSA reported it has used the grant to provide training for faculty to 
enhance their teaching techniques and understand the developmental 
needs of students in their classes. Officials at the university told 
us that the learning communities have changed how professors teach and 
that they understand their role in retaining and graduating students. 
One faculty member we spoke to said even though he has always received 
fairly high ratings from his students, he considered himself an 
average teacher before participating in the learning communities. He 
thinks he's more effective in the classroom now and credits the 
learning communities with the increased confidence he has about 
teaching and better relationships with faculty. Students we talked to 
agreed that being enrolled in three courses with the same group of 
students helped them connect more easily with other students and 
resources on campus, as well as teaching them about how to succeed in 
college.

Laredo Community College (LCC); 
LCC, a public Hispanic Serving Institution is located in Laredo, 
Texas, an isolated border town that is 150 miles from any major city 
in the United States. In fall 2002, 94 percent of the 7,766 
undergraduate students enrolled were Hispanic and 59 percent were 
women; 

Type: 2-year; 

Highest degree offered: associate's; 

Award period and amount funded: 10/1999-9/2004: $2.2 million; 

Grant uses and benefits: Laredo Community College reported using its 
Title V award to meet the demand for health care workers in the area. 
Since the grant was awarded to the college in 1999, two new hospitals 
have been built and work on a third facility is under way. The college
has used its Title V grant primarily to increase student access and 
success in math and the sciences; 

for example, by providing funds for a new science facility to house 20 
percent more students and by paying to renovate and update laboratory 
facilities and equipment. Title V funds covered 40 percent of the 
costs of construction for the new facility, and the college raised the 
remaining funds. The new building replaces a facility more than 30 
years old that did not meet current safety standards; 

LCC also reported using its Title V grant to provide a comprehensive 
faculty development program designed to integrate technology and 
retention strategies into the curriculum. Officials at the college 
said the institution chose to focus its grant activities on faculty 
because they believe retention is driven by instruction. Changes in 
instruction and the curriculum due to this training are credited with 
the nursing program's recently achieving a 100 percent student pass 
rate on certifying examinations; 

LCC designated $250,000 from its Title V grant to develop an endowment 
fund for the college. By matching each dollar provided by Title V, the 
college has used one-half of the interest generated annually from the 
endowment to provide scholarships for math and science students. 
College officials told us that the matching component has generated a 
substantial amount of interest in the community, with endowments being 
developed to benefit students in other disciplines.

University of the Incarnate Word; 
University of the Incarnate Word, a private liberal arts, Catholic 
institution in San Antonio, Texas. In fall 2002, 55 percent of the 
3,337 undergraduate students were Hispanic and 67 percent were women; 

Type: 4-year or above; 

Highest degree offered: doctorate; 

Award periods and amount funded: 10/1999-9/2004: $1.6 million; 

Grant uses and benefits: The focus of the University of Incarnate Word 
grant is on strengthening student learning through faculty development. 
The university aimed to change the classroom culture to better serve 
its diverse student body, particularly Hispanic students, by focusing 
on pedagogy, globalization, technology, mentoring, and recruitment and 
retention of minority faculty. According to one official at the 
university, students at the institution mirror the demographics of San 
Antonio, but the faculty did not and faculty were interested in how 
they could be more effective with these students. The university 
reported that it used its grant to develop and implement a linguistic 
and cultural diversity workshop to train faculty in how to cope with 
differences in learning among students from different cultures, and 
has provided Spanish language instruction to faculty. The university 
also used its grant to research models for recruiting and retaining 
minority faculty and is incorporating recommendations into its 
strategic plan; 

To promote globalization and research, Incarnate Word reported that it 
used the grant to provide faculty with grants to conduct research 
abroad. For example, using her newly acquired technology skills and 
seed money from Title V, one professor led a student expedition to map 
the ruins of an ancient Mayan city; 

Another key focus of the grant has been providing technology training 
to increase the infusion of technology into the classroom. According 
to university officials, most faculty at the college have participated 
in summer institutes and workshops, and many are creating Web pages 
for their courses using a course management software. The Web pages 
can be used to post syllabi and assignments, as well as to communicate 
with students in the class; 

The university plans to sustain its faculty development activities at 
the conclusion of the grant using a portion of the interest from the 
endowment it has raised using grant funds.

Title III, part A Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities we 
visited in North Dakota.

United Tribes Technical College (UTTC); 
UTTC, a private tribal college located in Bismarck, North Dakota, was 
established in 1969 as an employment training center. In fall 2002, 89 
percent of the 463 undergraduate students enrolled were American 
Indian or Alaska Native, and 59 percent were female; 

Type: 2-year; 

Highest degree offered: associate's; 

Award periods and amounts funded: 
10/1999-9/2004: $1.4 million; 
10/2002-9/2003: $1.7 million[B]; 

Grant uses and benefits: United Tribes Technical College reported that 
it used its Title III grant to develop comprehensive student services. 
In particular, the college leveraged its Title III funds with funds 
from the Department of Commerce to create a one-stop center that houses 
most services students need, such as registration, advising, tutoring, 
counseling, computer labs, a cafeteria, and student bookstore. The 
college also reported that it used grant funds to develop a retention 
model specifically designed to meet the needs of American Indian 
students. Officials told us that funds were also used to address 
retention because tribes don't have the resources to adequately 
prepare students for college; 

College officials also told us that grant funds were used to enhance 
student records management, improving communication between offices 
that interact with students, such as admissions and registration. The 
college has installed a system designed to consolidate its many 
separate databases that were housed in each student service office on 
campus; 

Officials at the college told us that the Title III grants it has 
received over the years have been an important source of funding, 
allowing the college to pursue institutional goals while freeing up 
other institutional funds to provide tuition assistance to needy 
students. Officials told us that the college does not participate in 
the federal student loan programs because it does not want to risk 
losing eligibility to participate in the federal Pell Grant program if 
loan default rates are too high; 

In 2002, United Tribes Technical College received a 1-year 
construction grant, which it has used to enhance its technological 
infrastructure, including enhancing connectivity to the North Dakota 
University System's interactive video network.

Sitting Bull College (SBC); 
SBC, is a public tribal college located on the Standing Rock Sioux 
reservation, which spans parts of both North and South Dakota. The 
main campus is in Fort Yates, North Dakota, with satellite campuses in 
McLaughlin and Mobridge, South Dakota. In fall 2002, 89 percent of the 
214 undergraduates enrolled at the college were American Indian or 
Alaska Native, and 74 percent were women; 

Type: 2-year; 

Highest degree offered: associate's; 

Award periods and amounts funded: 
10/1999-9/2004: $2.1 million; 
10/2002-9/2003: $1.2 million[B]; 

Grant uses and benefits: Sitting Bull College reported that the focus 
of its grant has been to improve student services and outcomes, along 
with fiscal stability. Officials told us that there is an acute need 
for services that will help bring students up to the college level 
because most students enter the college with below average skills in 
math, reading, and English. To address the academic deficiencies many 
students have, Sitting Bull college proposed learning assistance 
programs that would help students improve basic skills and additional 
student services. Officials told us that students who score below the 
12th grade level in core courses are now required to take appropriate 
foundations courses. In the past many students opted out of these 
courses because they don't count toward graduation requirements, but 
they were failing as a result. Title III funds were used to renovate a 
building and purchase software and computers for this effort. The 
college has also implemented a survey designed to identify students at 
risk of failing or dropping out; 

Sitting Bull College also reported that it used grant funds to develop 
its fund-raising capacity and to establish an endowment. Because the 
college does not receive any state funding, it relies heavily on 
federal funding, primarily from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. College 
officials acknowledged that increasing fiscal stability is central to 
becoming more self-sufficient; 

In 2002, Sitting Bull College received a 1-year construction grant 
through Title III, which it is using for construction of a new campus.

Source: GAO's analysis of grant activities from site visits and 
grantee performance reports submitted to the Department of Education.

[A] Grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities are based 
on a formula that is calculated each year based in part on the number 
of Pell Grant recipients, the number of graduates, and the number of 
students that enroll in graduate school within 5 years after earning 
an undergraduate degree. Funding information for subsequent years of 
the grant cycle was not available from Education:

[B] In addition to receiving a 5-year development grant through Title 
III, part A, these Tribal colleges were awarded a 1-year construction 
grant.

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION:

SEP 13 2004:

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:

Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States General Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Ashby:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft 
report, Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions. Department of 
Education Could Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance (GAO-04-961). We 
are pleased that the report highlights the substantial benefits to 
students and institutions resulting from the increased funding of the 
Title III and Title V grant programs. Using the program funds, 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, 
Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian 
Institutions, and other institutions that serve low-income students are 
making significant progress in strengthening academic quality, as well 
as improving the financial condition and management of their 
institutions.

In general, we agree with the information in the report and the General 
Accountability Office's (GAO) recommendation that the Department take 
steps to ensure that monitoring and technical assistance plans are 
carried out and targeted to at-risk grantees and that the needs of the 
grantees guide the technical assistance. While the report identifies 
areas for improvement, it also documents many of the action plan steps 
the Department is currently implementing. Our actions are already 
making improvements in the areas of monitoring, training, and technical 
assistance and we are firmly committed to completing our plans in a 
timely manner.

We have provided technical comments to the report separately.

We appreciate the GAO's analysis and work in this important area of 
continuing to develop low-income and minority serving institutions.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Sally L. Stroup: 

[End of section]

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

Contacts:

Bryon Gordon, Assistant Director, (202) 512-9207 
Debra Prescott, Analyst-in-Charge (202) 512-2972:

Acknowledgments:

In addition to those named above, Karen Burke, Carl Barden, Carla 
Craddock, Kim Gianopoulos, Catherine Hurley, Sheila Nicholson, Jim 
Rebbe, and Vanessa Taylor made important contributions to this report.

FOOTNOTES

[1] These programs include Title III, part A Strengthening 
Institutions; Title III part A American Indian Tribally Controlled 
Colleges and Universities; Title III, part A Alaska Native and Native 
Hawaiian Serving Institutions; Title III, part B Strengthening 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities; Title V, part A 
Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions. Throughout the report when we 
refer to Title III and Title V programs or grants we are referring to 
these specific programs. Our review did not include Title III, part B 
Historically Black Professional or Graduate Institutions; part D HBCU 
Capital Financing; or part E Minority Science and Engineering 
Improvement Program.

[2] Percentage estimates for Title III, part A Strengthening 
Institutions, Title III, part B Strengthening Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities, and Title V Hispanic Serving Institutions 
are based on the sample and are subject to sampling error. Unless 
otherwise noted, we are 95 percent confident that the results we 
obtained for these programs are within +/-10 percentage points of what 
we would have obtained if we had received responses from the entire 
population. There is no sampling error associated with Title III, part 
A programs that cover Tribal Colleges, Alaska Native Institutions, and 
Native Hawaiian Institutions because we included the entire population 
in our review. Each sample element was subsequently weighted in the 
analysis to account for all members of the population, including those 
that were not selected. Unless otherwise noted, when we make estimates 
to the entire population of grantees, we are 95 percent confident that 
the results we obtained are within +/-7 percentage points of what we 
would have obtained if we had included the entire population within our 
review. 

[3] The 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated percentage of 
grantees that reported using grant funds to improve fiscal stability is 
from 44 to 58 percent. 

[4] In the application package for Title III, part A, Alaska Native and 
Native Hawaiian institutions are prohibited from using grant funds for 
endowment. 

[5] The 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated percentage of 
grantees that reported improvements to fiscal stability is from 51 to 
63 percent. 

[6] The 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated percentage of 
grantees that reported hiring and staffing challenges in implementing 
their grants is from 38 to 54 percent. 

[7] In 2003 Education granted a one-time extension to HBCUs that did 
not obligate all their grant funds by the end of the 5-year grant 
period that ended in September 2002, allowing them until September 2006 
to obligate the funds. Education granted this extension because of 
perceptions that grantees were confused by a provision in the Higher 
Education Act that allowed grantees 10 years from the date of the 
initial grant to spend the funds. According to Education, most HBCUs 
received their initial grants in 1987, so this provision no longer 
applies to these institutions. We are awaiting information from 
Education's General Counsel regarding the department's justification 
for extending the period of time grantees had to obligate funds for 
more than 1 year beyond the 5-year period. 

[8] The 2002-2007 Strategic Plan established a set of high-level 
strategic objectives, which may or may not relate to specific programs 
and corresponding outcome measures. Education's program performance 
plans are used to determine the success of each program and the 
relationship between program-specific funding and results. 

[9] According to Education, positive fiscal balance is determined by 
identifying positive change in the fiscal status of grantees during the 
federal fiscal year using information that institutions report each 
year through its Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. In 
assessing an institution's performance, Education reviews data on 
revenues, expenditures, and assets.

[10] Office of the Inspector General, Department of Education, Office 
of Higher Education Programs Needs to Improve its Oversight of Parts A 
and B Of the Title III Program, ACN: ED-OIG/A04-90013 (Atlanta, Ga.: 
December 27, 2000). Office of the Inspector General, Department of 
Education, Process Enhancements in the HEA, Title III, Institutional 
Aid Program Would Increase Program Efficiency, Despite Limited 
Resources, ACN: 04-60001 (Atlanta, Ga.: March 27, 1996).

[11] Its automated payment system does contain limited nonfinancial 
information such as the due dates for institutional performance reports 
and the date reports were submitted.

[12] Geographic proximity is considered an appropriate method to use 
when choosing institutions for site visits. 

[13] Our sample originally included 112 grantees. However, 8 grantees 
were dropped from the sample. Education could not locate files for 3 
grantees, 1 grantee lost accreditation and was no longer eligible for 
funding, 2 grantees had not submitted annual performance reports to 
Education, and the annual reports for 2 grantees contained too many 
reporting errors to include in the sample.

[14] IPEDS is a system of surveys designed to collect data from all 
primary providers of postsecondary education. These surveys collect 
institution-level data in such areas as enrollments, program 
completions, faculty, staff, and finances. Data are collected annually 
from approximately 9,600 postsecondary institutions, including over 
6,000 institutions eligible for the federal student aid programs. 

GAO's Mission:

The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

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:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: