This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-265 
entitled 'D.C. Tuition Assistance Grants: Program May Increase College 
Choices, but a Few Program Procedures May Hinder Grant Receipt for Some 
Residents' which was released on January 31, 2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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. 

United States General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees and the Mayor of the District of 
Columbia. 

January 2002: 

D.C. Tuition Assistance Grants: 

Program May Increase College Choices, but a Few Program Procedures May 
Hinder Grant Receipt for Some Residents: 

GAO-02-265: 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Some Applicants May Have Experienced Barriers to College Access: 

Minimal Change Occurred in UDC Enrollment and Characteristics Differ 
Between TAG and UDC Freshmen: 

Although Most Initial Concerns Have Been Resolved, Some Administrative 
Issues May Hinder Program Operations: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Colleges and Universities That As of December 10, 2001, 
Had Agreed to Participate in the TAG Program: 

Appendix III: Comments From the Mayor of the District of Columbia: 

Appendix IV: Comments From the University of the District of Columbia: 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Profiles of UDC and TAG Freshmen in Academic Year 2000-01: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Percentage of College-age D.C. Residents That Applied for the 
Tuition Assistance Grant by Ward: 

Figure 2: Number of TAG Recipients Attending College in Each State 
During Academic Year 2000-01: 

Figure 3: Total Undergraduate Enrollment at UDC During Fall Terms 1998-
2000: 

Abbreviations: 

GPA: grade point average 

HBCU: Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

D.C. CAP: D.C. College Access Program 

IG: Inspector General 

SAT: Scholastic Aptitude Test 

TAG: Tuition Assistance Grant 

UDC: University of the District of Columbia: 

[End of section] 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

January 31, 2002: 

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable George V. Voinovich: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and 
the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Constance A. Morella: 
Chairwoman: 
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Anthony A. Williams: 
The Mayor of the District of Columbia: 

With the enactment of the District of Columbia College Access Act of 
1999 (P.L. 106-98), the Congress created a grant program with the 
purpose of expanding higher education choices for college-bound 
District of Columbia (D.C.) residents in an effort to stabilize the 
city’s population and tax base. This program, the D.C. Tuition 
Assistance Grant (TAG) Program, addressed a concern that D.C. students 
were at a disadvantage in their postsecondary school choices because 
D.C. lacks a state university system.[Footnote 1] The TAG Program 
allows undergraduate students to attend eligible public universities 
and colleges nationwide at in-state tuition rates and provides smaller 
grants for students to attend private institutions in the D.C. 
metropolitan area and private Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities (HBCUs) in Maryland and Virginia.[Footnote 2] In the TAG 
Program’s first year, 3,500 individuals applied for the grants and 
nearly 2,500 were found eligible for the grants. 

The College Access Act (the act) mandates that we monitor the effects 
of the grant program on eligible students and assess the impact of the 
program on enrollment at the University of the District of Columbia 
(UDC), which is ineligible to participate in the TAG Program because in-
state tuition rates are already available to D.C. residents. In 
addition, because some institutions voiced concerns regarding some of 
the administrative requirements that the initial program regulations 
placed on participating institutions,[Footnote 3] Senator Voinovich 
requested that we expand our study to include a review of program 
administration. We focused our work on answering the following 
questions: 

* To what extent did eligible applicants who did not use the grant 
potentially experience barriers to college access at the eligible 
public and private institutions due to factors such as enrollment caps, 
entrance requirements, and the absence of minority outreach programs? 

* How did enrollment at UDC change during the initial year of the grant 
program, and do UDC and the TAG Program serve similar freshmen 
populations? 

* What program administration issues, if any, could potentially hinder 
program operations? 

In conducting this work, we examined applicant data from the TAG 
Program for academic year 2000-01, the first year of the grant program, 
and surveyed parents of those applicants who did not use the grant. We 
had a response rate of 42 percent for our parent survey. This response 
rate is too low to permit us to consider the survey results to be 
representative of the situations of all eligible applicants who did not 
use the grant. Nevertheless, the information that the parents provided 
regarding the applicants gives an indication of why at least some 
applicants did not use the grant. We examined data from eligible 
institutions, D.C. public schools, UDC, and college guide books. We 
also surveyed institutions that participated in the TAG Program in 
academic year 2000-01. In addition, we interviewed various federal, 
university, and D.C. government officials and reviewed program office 
files. Appendix I further describes our scope and methodology. We 
conducted our review between January and August 2001 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Twenty-one percent of grant-eligible applicants who did not use the 
funding to attend a participating college or university may have faced 
barriers to college access due to factors such as entrance requirements 
and the absence of minority outreach programs. Whether enrollment caps 
at colleges posed a barrier for applicants is unclear. In the first 
year of the grant program, 516 of the nearly 2,500 eligible applicants 
did not use the grant. To understand why they had not used the grant, 
we requested the grade point average (GPA) and Scholastic Aptitude Test 
(SAT) scores for 290 of these applicants—those who had recently 
graduated from a D.C. public high school[Footnote 4] —and found that 
some of them may have faced barriers due to college entrance 
requirements. Because data on entrance requirements were not readily 
available, we used average freshmen high school GPA and SAT scores as a 
proxy for college entrance requirements. For example, the average GPA 
for 183 of the applicants for whom data were available was 2.36, 
whereas entering freshmen at a majority of the schools that the 
applicants wanted to attend had an average GPA of 3.0 or higher. 
[Footnote 5] In addition, although nearly 97 percent of all D.C. public 
high school students are considered members of a racial minority, only 
24 of the postsecondary institutions that the 290 applicants were 
interested in attending, excluding HBCUs, reported that minority 
outreach programs existed at their institutions.[Footnote 6] About 21 
percent of the institutions in which these applicants expressed 
interest have restrictions on the number of out-of-state students that 
the college will accept, although the extent to which this played a 
role in limiting these applicants’ access to these institutions is 
unclear. According to parents who responded to our survey of parents of 
the 516 eligible applicants who did not use the funding, some 
applicants decided to postpone college or to attend an ineligible 
institution in academic year 2000-01, and approximately 51 applied to, 
but were not accepted at, any institutions participating in the TAG 
Program. 

Enrollment at UDC changed little during the initial year of the TAG 
Program, and freshmen entering UDC had on average different 
characteristics than the average entering freshman who received a 
tuition assistance grant in academic year 2000-01. Since 1998, fall 
enrollment at UDC has remained stable. Furthermore, fewer than 20 
students left UDC to participate in the TAG Program in its first year. 
The TAG Program and UDC appeared to serve different freshmen 
populations, and this may account for the minimal impact the TAG 
Program had on enrollment at UDC. For example, at UDC, the average age 
of entering freshmen was 29 years and most were enrolled part-time; in 
contrast, in the TAG Program, the average age of entering freshmen was 
almost 20 years and most were enrolled full-time. 

Although issues that were initially raised by institutions concerning 
the administration of the TAG Program were largely resolved with the 
revision of program regulations in December 2000, other administrative 
issues exist that may hinder program operations. Our review identified 
problematic procedural issues related to determination of applicant 
eligibility and distribution of information on institutions 
participating in the program. For example, close to half of those who 
were deemed ineligible for the grant may not have had their 
applications fully reviewed with regard to eligibility. These 
applicants received ineligibility letters from the TAG Program office 
because they listed on their application only ineligible institutions 
as those they might attend rather than because they did not meet the 
applicant eligibility criteria. In addition, the TAG Program office is 
disseminating a pamphlet to potential applicants that may be misleading 
because it states that 2,000 postsecondary institutions across the 
United States are participating in the TAG Program, even though just 
514 of those institutions have formally agreed to participate. We are 
recommending that the mayor of the District of Columbia instruct the 
TAG Program office to clearly establish an applicant’s eligibility on 
the basis of his or her characteristics and indicate to applicants 
which schools have agreed to participate in the program. In commenting 
on this report, the mayor generally agreed with the findings of the 
report and concurred with our recommendation that the TAG Program 
office fully review the eligibility of all applicants. The mayor 
disagreed with our recommendation that the pamphlet promoting the grant 
program clearly identify which schools have agreed to participate in 
the TAG Program, commenting that this action would decrease program 
accessibility. We believe the recommendation would not discourage D.C. 
residents from applying for the grant and may avoid confusion. 

Background: 

In 1999, the Congress enacted the D.C. College Access Act for the 
purpose of expanding higher education opportunities for college-bound 
D.C. residents in an effort to stabilize D.C.’s population and tax 
base. The act created the D.C. TAG Program, a residency-based tuition 
subsidy program, which allows D.C. residents to attend participating 
public universities and colleges nationwide at in-state tuition rates. 
UDC is not eligible to participate in the TAG Program because in-state 
tuition rates are already available for D.C. residents.[Footnote 7] The 
TAG Program also provides smaller grants for students to attend private 
institutions in the D.C. metropolitan area and private HBCUs in 
Maryland and Virginia. An eligible institution may participate in the 
grant program only if the institution has formally signed a Program 
Participation Agreement with the mayor of the District of Columbia. 
Students attending a participating public institution can receive a 
tuition subsidy of up to $10,000 per year (calculated as the difference 
between in-state and out-of-state tuition rates), with a total cap of 
$50,000 per student. D.C. residents attending private institutions in 
the D.C. metropolitan area and private HBCUs in Maryland and Virginia 
may receive an annual grant award of up to $2,500 per year, with a 
total cap of $12,500 per student. The grant funding can be applied only 
to a student’s tuition and fee costs and must not supplant other grant 
funding that the student is eligible to receive. As a result, the 
tuition assistance grant must be considered as the final or “last 
dollar” that is added to a student’s financial aid package. Since the 
grant can be applied only to tuition and fees, other costs associated 
with college attendance, such as room and board fees and transportation 
costs, must be paid by other means. 

The D.C. government received $17 million in each of fiscal years 2000 
and 2001 to implement the grant program and to provide grants to 
qualified applicants. As of August 2001, the TAG Program disbursed 
approximately $11 million for grants and administration. Consequently, 
the D.C. government maintains a grant balance of approximately $23 
million. The act (P.L. 106-98) states that the funding shall remain 
available until expended. 

The TAG Program office engaged in a variety of publicity and outreach 
efforts to both D.C. residents and eligible institutions to promote the 
TAG Program in its first year of operation. Efforts to inform potential 
applicants about the TAG Program included staff visits to public and 
private high schools in D.C., information about the program mailed to 
every D.C. public high school senior, radio advertisements, and 
marketing posters at subway and bus stations around the city. TAG 
Program staff also worked with staff at the D.C. College Access Program 
(D.C. CAP) to provide information to D.C. public schools about the 
grant. The D.C. CAP is a nonprofit organization, funded by a consortium 
of 17 private sector companies and foundations, whose intent is to 
complement the TAG Program by encouraging D.C. public high school 
students to enter and graduate from college. D.C. CAP provides D.C. 
public school students with support services both before and during 
college, including placing college advisors in each public high school 
beginning in academic year 2000-01, assisting students with college and 
financial aid applications, and providing both information resources at 
D.C. public high schools and educational planning workshops for 
students and parents. TAG Program staff provided training and 
information about the grant to D.C. CAP college advisors. In order to 
inform eligible institutions about the grant program, staff mailed 
information to the president and financial aid officer of each public 
institution and eligible private institution. In addition, the 
Secretary of Education sent a letter to each chief executive officer of 
public higher education undergraduate institutions nationwide in July 
2000, providing information about the grant program and urging 
institutions to sign a Program Participation Agreement with the mayor 
of the District of Columbia. Currently, if a grant-eligible applicant 
decides to attend an eligible but nonparticipating institution, the TAG 
Program staff contact the institution and provide information on the 
program as well as on the participation agreement. However, according 
to the TAG Program director, the applicant and his or her family often 
play a vital role in persuading the institution to sign an agreement 
with the program. 

In order to be eligible for the grant, an applicant must meet certain 
criteria, including graduation from any high school or attainment of a 
secondary school equivalency diploma after January 1998 and enrollment 
or acceptance for enrollment in an undergraduate program at an eligible 
institution. Applicants must also be domiciled[Footnote 8] in D.C. for 
12 consecutive months prior to the start of their freshman year of 
college and must continue to maintain their primary residence in D.C. 
throughout the grant period. In academic year 2000-01, approximately 
3,500 individuals applied for the grant and 70 percent, or 
approximately 2,500 individuals, met the eligibility criteria. Twenty-
two percent of the applicants, on the other hand, were found ineligible 
for the grant, and about 8 percent of the applications were pending or 
inactive at the time of our review. The reasons for which applicants 
were found ineligible include not meeting the statutory requirements 
pertaining to graduation and domicile. 

All of the wards in D.C. were represented in the applicant pool. 
Although D.C. comprises 8 wards, most of the applicants resided in 
wards 4, 5, and 7, which are located primarily in the northeast and 
southeast quadrants of D.C. The greatest percentage of college-age 
residents applying for the grant came from these three wards.[Footnote 
9] Figure 1 shows the percentage of college-age residents in each D.C. 
ward that applied for the grant.[Footnote 10] 

Figure 1: Percentage of College-age D.C. Residents That Applied for the 
Tuition Assistance Grant by Ward: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a map of the District of Columbia indicating the 
following data: 

Percentage of College-age D.C. Residents That Applied for the Tuition 
Assistance Grant by Ward: 

Ward 1: 6.3%; 
Ward 2: 1.9%; 
Ward 3: 4.0%; 
Ward 4: 18.9%; 
Ward 5: 14.3%; 
Ward 6: 7.2%; 
Ward 7: 16.5%; 
Ward 8: 8.5%. 

Source: GAO analysis of TAG data. 

[End of figure] 

About 1,900 eligible applicants used the grant to attend 152 
participating public and private institutions in academic year 2000-01. 
Almost half of the applicants came directly from high school, with 
nearly 70 percent of the applicants who recently graduated from high 
school coming from a D.C. public high school. The remaining applicants 
were already enrolled in college. Approximately 97 percent of the grant 
recipients for whom data was available enrolled in college full-time. 
[Footnote 11] Eighty-six percent of TAG recipients attended a 4-year 
institution, and 14 percent attended a 2-year college. Seventy-six 
percent of the eligible applicants who used the grant attended a public 
institution, with an average grant per fall and spring semester of 
nearly $2,900, whereas the remaining 24 percent attended a private 
institution with an average grant per fall and spring semester of 
approximately $1,200. Overall, 18 percent of the applicants attended an 
open-admission institution,[Footnote 12] and almost 40 percent enrolled 
at a public or private HBCU. Figure 2 provides more detailed 
information on the number of TAG recipients who attended college in 
each state in academic year 2000-01. 

Figure 2: Number of TAG Recipients Attending College in Each State 
During Academic Year 2000-01: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a map of the United States indicating the number of TAG 
recipients attending college in each state during academic year 2000-
01. 

Source: GAO analysis of TAG data. 

[End of figure] 

Initially, the act included only public institutions and private HBCUs 
in Maryland and Virginia, as well as private institutions in the D.C. 
metropolitan area, as eligible to participate in the TAG Program. 
[Footnote 13] In May 2000, the program was expanded to include all 
public colleges and universities nationwide. Not all of these colleges 
and universities participate in the program, however, though they are 
eligible to do so. Currently, 514 public and private institutions have 
formally agreed to participate. Participating institutions are located 
in every state, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Sixty-two participating 
institutions are located in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. Appendix II 
provides a list of the institutions that had signed a participation 
agreement with the D.C. government as of December 10, 2001. 

Before the program’s nationwide expansion, the TAG Program office 
promulgated the initial regulations for administration of the program. 
In the fall of 2000, four large public institutions—the University of 
California, the University of Florida, the University of Michigan, and 
the State University of New York—refused to sign the Program 
Participation Agreement, claiming that the regulations were overly 
burdensome. Subsequently, in December 2000, the TAG Program office 
revised the regulations, and all four institutions signed the 
agreement. 

Current proposed legislation, H.R. 1499, would make changes to the TAG 
Program, including modifying some of the student eligibility 
requirements. The bill would expand eligibility for the grant to 
include D.C. residents who both begin their college education more than 
3 years after they graduated from high school and who graduated from 
high school prior to January 1, 1998, provided that they are currently 
enrolled in an eligible institution. Eligible applicants would be 
required to meet the citizenship and immigration requirements currently 
specified in the Higher Education Act of 1965.[Footnote 14] The bill 
would expand the list of eligible institutions to include private HBCUs 
nationwide. In addition, the bill would require the D.C. Government to 
establish a dedicated account for TAG Program funding and would clarify 
the use of administrative funding by the program office. The bill 
passed the House of Representatives in July 2001, and was amended by 
and passed the Senate in December 2001; the amended bill is currently 
pending before the House. 

The Department of Education’s Inspector General (IG) completed an audit 
of the TAG Program finances in August 2001. The IG’s audit provided 
findings in the areas of administrative funding and interest income and 
made recommendations to address each of these issues.[Footnote 15] 

Some Applicants May Have Experienced Barriers to College Access: 

Of the nearly 2,500 applicants who were eligible for the tuition 
assistance grant, 21 percent—or 516 applicants—did not use the grant in 
academic year 2000-01 and some of these applicants may have faced 
barriers due to college entrance requirements and the absence of 
minority outreach programs. Whether college enrollment caps had any 
impact on college access for these applicants is unclear. According to 
the parents who responded to our parent survey, eligible applicants did 
not use the grant for a variety of reasons, including decisions to 
postpone college attendance or enroll in an ineligible school and 
rejection for admission at schools participating in the TAG Program. 

College entrance requirements may have been a barrier to college access 
for some eligible applicants who did not use the grant in academic year 
2000-01. Entrance requirements vary at postsecondary institutions—from 
only requiring a high school diploma or equivalent to reviewing a 
combination of high school GPA, SAT or other college entrance 
examination scores, and essays. Since data on college entrance 
requirements were not readily available,[Footnote 16] we used average 
freshmen high school GPA and SAT scores as a proxy for college entrance 
requirements. We requested GPA and SAT scores for 290 of the 516 
eligible applicants who did not use the grant—those who had recently 
graduated from a D.C. public high school—from D.C. public school 
officials and compared these data to high school GPA and SAT scores for 
entering freshmen at the 62 institutions that the applicants were 
interested in attending. Although the average high school GPA for 
entering freshmen at a majority of the 62 institutions was 3.0 or 
higher, the average GPA for 183 of the applicants for whom data were 
available was 2.36.[Footnote 17] Furthermore, whereas the median 
combined SAT score for 150 of the applicants for whom data were 
available was 735, entering freshmen at a majority of these 
institutions had median combined SAT scores higher than 735.[Footnote 
18] For example, these institutions reported median combined SAT scores 
between 800 and 1400. 

The absence of minority outreach programs at these institutions may 
have also been a barrier to college access for some of the D.C. public 
school students who were eligible for, but did not use, the grant. 
Approximately 97 percent of D.C. public school students are considered 
members of a racial minority,[Footnote 19] but outreach programs 
specifically geared toward minority students existed at only 24 of the 
institutions, excluding those that are considered an HBCU, that these 
applicants expressed interest in attending, and for which data were 
available.[Footnote 20] For example, the University of Arizona’s 
minority outreach efforts include favorable consideration of minority 
status in financial aid decisions. At Catholic University of America, 
outreach efforts include allowing a limited number of talented minority 
high school seniors to take college courses free of charge. Our survey 
of all participating institutions, beyond the institutions that D.C. 
public school students were interested in attending, showed that other 
minority outreach efforts include recruiting visits to high schools 
with large minority student populations and waiving of out-of-state 
enrollment cap restrictions for minority applicants. 

Whether caps on the number of out-of-state residents who can enroll at 
an institution served as a barrier to college access for these eligible 
TAG applicants is unclear. Some public postsecondary institutions have 
policies that limit the percentage of undergraduates who may enroll 
from outside the state or who may be admitted as freshmen to the 
institution. For example, the University of Virginia allows 35 percent 
of undergraduate students to enroll from outside Virginia, while the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill caps out-of-state 
enrollment for undergraduates at 18 percent. Such policies exist at 
about 21 percent of the 62 institutions for which data were 
available.[Footnote 21] 

The parents of some eligible applicants provided a variety of reasons 
why the applicants did not use the TAG funding during academic year 
2000-01. Of the 213 parents[Footnote 22] who provided information on 
eligible applicants, 31 percent indicated that their son or daughter 
applied to but did not enroll in a college or university, 15 percent 
indicated that their child decided not to apply to college, and 54 
percent indicated that their son or daughter attended a college or 
university in academic year 2000-01. Most of the grant-eligible 
applicants who did not use the grant attended institutions that were 
not eligible to participate in the TAG Program,[Footnote 23] and their 
parents indicated that the institution chosen best met their child’s 
educational or financial needs. Examples of ineligible colleges these 
applicants attended included UDC and private HBCUs outside D.C., 
Maryland, or Virginia. Most parents of grant-eligible applicants who 
applied to but did not enroll in a college indicated that their child 
either wanted to postpone college or did not enroll due to personal 
reasons. For example, one parent told us that her daughter delayed 
college because of the birth of a child, while another parent told us 
that her son wanted to wait to improve his SAT scores. Fifty-one 
students were not accepted to an eligible TAG college or university, 
and of these students, 10 of those were not accepted by any college or 
university. Due to a low response rate of 42 percent, however, our 
results cannot be considered generalizable to all of the parents in our 
survey. 

Minimal Change Occurred in UDC Enrollment and Characteristics Differ 
Between TAG and UDC Freshmen: 

The change in enrollment at UDC during the first year of the TAG 
Program was minimal, and UDC appears to be serving a different freshman 
population than the population served by the TAG Program. Fall semester 
enrollment has remained stable since 1998, and in academic year 2000-
01, 18 students left UDC and used the grant funding to attend a TAG-
participating college or university. The UDC officials we spoke with 
believed that the TAG Program would likely have little impact on UDC’s 
enrollment level, in part because of the diverse student population 
that UDC serves. 

UDC Enrollment Changed Little During the First Year of the TAG Program, 
and Only a Few Students Left to Use the Tuition Assistance Grant: 

UDC enrollment has changed little since the TAG Program began offering 
grants to D.C. residents. Between the 1999-00 and 2000-01 academic 
years, total undergraduate enrollment at UDC increased by about 1 
percent. As shown in figure 3, UDC enrollment for fall 2000, the first 
semester that tuition assistance grants were awarded, was 5,008, close 
to the enrollment for the previous two fall semesters. In addition, 
entering freshmen enrollment has remained fairly stable over the past 3 
years. Freshmen enrollment increased 0.4 percent—from 1,859 to 
1,867—between the 1999-00 and 2000-01 academic years. UDC officials we 
interviewed believed that because the TAG Program was in only its first 
year, it had not affected enrollment at UDC. They expressed concern, 
however, that students cannot use the grant to attend UDC and noted 
that a grant could prove beneficial, because many UDC students rely on 
financial aid to pay for tuition costs, even though tuition rates are 
low. 

Figure 3: Total Undergraduate Enrollment at UDC During Fall Terms 1998-
2000: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Total Undergraduate Enrollment at UDC During Fall Terms 1998-2000: 
Fall 1998: 5029; 
Fall 1999: 4944; 
Fall 2000: 5008. 

Source: GAO analysis of UDC enrollment data. 

[End of figure] 

In the first year of the TAG Program, fewer than 20 students left UDC 
to use the tuition assistance grant. Overall, 136 TAG applicants were 
enrolled at UDC when they applied for the grant. Of that number, only 
18 students determined to be eligible for the grant used the funding to 
attend a school other than UDC in academic year 2000-01. 

UDC and TAG Appear to Be Serving Different Freshmen Populations: 

During academic year 2000-01, the average freshman entering UDC 
differed markedly from the average TAG recipient entering college as a 
freshman. For example, the average age of freshmen entering UDC was 29 
years,[Footnote 24] compared with an average age of almost 20 years for 
TAG recipients entering college as freshmen. In addition, whereas most 
UDC freshmen were enrolled as part-time students, almost all freshmen 
that received the tuition assistance grant were enrolled as full-time 
students. Finally, a higher percentage of TAG freshmen recipients 
graduated from a high school in D.C., Maryland, or Virginia, compared 
with UDC freshmen. These differences in the two populations suggest 
that UDC and the TAG Program draw on different student populations. In 
fact, the UDC officials we spoke with felt that the impact of the TAG 
Program would not be large because of the differing groups of college 
students that UDC and the TAG Program serve. Table 1 shows the profiles 
of UDC and TAG college freshmen for academic year 2000-01. 

Table 1: Profiles of UDC and TAG Freshmen in Academic Year 2000-01: 

Student characteristics: Average age; 
UDC: 29 years; 
TAG: 20 years. 

Student characteristics: Percentage full-time; 
UDC: 30%; 
TAG: 96%. 

Student characteristics: Percentage part-time; 
UDC: 70%; 
TAG: 4%. 

Student characteristics: Percentage that attended high school in D.C., 
Md., or Va. 
UDC: 73[A]; 
TAG: 97[B]. 

Source: GAO analysis of UDC enrollment and TAG applicant data. 

[A] For UDC, data on high school attended is based on students enrolled 
after the drop period, whereas the average age and full-time/part-time 
data are based on students who were officially registered for classes 
for each semester. 

[B] For TAG recipients, the high school data excludes those students 
for whom location of high school attendance was not available. 

[End of table] 

Although Most Initial Concerns Have Been Resolved, Some Administrative 
Issues May Hinder Program Operations 

Although most concerns about administration of the TAG Program that 
were initially raised by four large institutions[Footnote 25] were 
largely resolved by the revision of the regulations in December 2000, 
some administrative issues exist that may hinder program operations. 
Our review of the TAG Program identified issues with the procedure that 
TAG staff use to determine eligibility for the grant when applicants 
list on their grant applications only ineligible institutions as 
schools they are interested in attending. We also found that unclear 
and potentially misleading information about participating institutions 
is being disseminated by the TAG Program office in both an 
informational pamphlet to TAG applicants and in letters sent to 
eligible applicants. 

Initial Concerns Raised by Some Institutions Were Generally Resolved, 
and Participating Institutions Report Few Problems: 

Some concerns about the initial TAG Program voiced by four 
participating institutions have been resolved. Some officials at these 
four institutions initially expressed apprehension regarding the 
institutional requirements contained in the original program 
regulations. For example, the officials whom we spoke with at the four 
institutions felt that program requirements—including the requirements 
that institutions conduct an annual compliance audit, maintain records 
that duplicate those held by the TAG Program office, and confirm 
student eligibility—would be burdensome for their institutions. 
University officials whom we spoke with at these institutions indicated 
that most of their initial concerns were resolved when program 
regulations were revised in December 2000. In fact, all four 
institutions have now signed a Program Participation Agreement with the 
mayor of the District of Columbia, formally agreeing to participate in 
the grant program. 

In general, the few remaining administrative concerns mentioned by the 
university officials we spoke with did not appear to be problematic at 
the majority of the institutions that enrolled tuition assistance grant 
recipients in academic year 2000-01. For example, although officials 
from two of the four universities stated that administering the grant 
required the time-consuming task of creating a separate financial aid 
process, officials from 74 percent of the participating institutions 
that we surveyed indicated that they did not have to create a new 
process for TAG students. Furthermore, officials from more than half of 
the participating institutions reported that the administration of the 
grant did not require additional university staff time. Among those who 
said that it took longer to administer the grants than to determine 
financial aid for students not receiving the grants, the majority 
indicated that the administration process took less than 10 minutes 
longer. 

Some of the university officials that we interviewed indicated that the 
program regulation requiring that their institutions wait to bill the 
TAG Program office until the end of the drop/add period—sometimes as 
long as 30 days after the start of classes—resulted in late payment for 
schools. According to the officials, waiting for grant payments 
contravenes the practice at many institutions—some of which are bound 
by state law—to collect tuition and fees before the first day of class. 
At the University of California, for example, officials told us that 
this regulation required that the institution provide a loan to the 
student to cover tuition costs for the period between the first day of 
classes and the university’s receipt of the grant funding from the TAG 
Program office. However, whereas approximately 57 percent of the 
participating institutions have such a statutory or institutional 
requirement, nearly 70 percent of the institutions we surveyed stated 
that similar delays in tuition payments affect students in other grant 
programs. TAG Program officials said that they will review the 
possibility of changing the drop/add requirement for academic year 2002-
03. In addition, while three of the schools we interviewed initially 
felt that the record-keeping requirements for the TAG Program were more 
burdensome than was necessary for a relatively small program, more than 
two-thirds of the participating institutions indicated that the record 
keeping was not significantly different from that for other financial 
aid programs they administer. 

Administrative Issues Exist That May Hinder Program Operations: 

In the first year of the grant program, some applicants who were found 
ineligible for the grant did not receive a full and consistent review 
of their eligibility factors by TAG staff. Nearly half of all 
applicants who were deemed ineligible were so assessed because they 
listed on their grant applications only ineligible institutions as 
schools they were likely to attend. TAG staff told us that because of 
the volume of grant applications received in the first year, the staff 
did not verify all eligibility factors for applicants listing only 
ineligible institutions on their applications. TAG staff stated that 
these applicants were sent a letter of ineligibility solely on the 
basis of the applicants’ listing of ineligible schools on their 
applications. According to TAG staff, they informed the applicants by 
telephone that because the institutions they listed were ineligible for 
the grant program, the applicants would receive a letter of 
ineligibility for the grant. From the applicants who were deemed 
ineligible because they listed ineligible institutions, we randomly 
selected 75 files to review in depth. Our review indicated that the TAG 
staff might not have checked the domicile criterion for 55 percent of 
applicants or the graduation criterion for 11 percent of applicants. 
Furthermore, our review showed that for nearly 40 percent of 
applicants, no record existed of their being contacted by telephone. 
For the current year of the grant program—academic year 2001-02—TAG 
staff members have indicated that they will discontinue their attempts 
to contact by telephone those applicants who list only ineligible 
institutions. Instead, these applicants will automatically receive 
ineligibility letters. 

In addition, the TAG Program office is disseminating unclear and 
misleading information to potential applicants regarding which 
postsecondary institutions have agreed to participate in the grant 
program. The TAG Program office provides potential applicants with a 
pamphlet that is meant to inform the applicant as to which colleges and 
universities he or she can attend with the grant. However, this 
pamphlet lists approximately 2,000 postsecondary institutions as 
“participating,” even though just 514 of these institutions have 
formally agreed to participate in the grant program by signing a 
Program Participation Agreement with the mayor of the District of 
Columbia. According to the TAG Program director, this pamphlet lists 
all of the institutions that are eligible to participate in the TAG 
Program—rather than just those that have agreed to participate—to 
provide applicants with information on the full range of institutions 
they could theoretically attend with the grant. The director felt that 
listing only the participating institutions might discourage 
individuals from applying for the grant. 

Misleading information is also provided to grant-eligible TAG 
applicants in the award letter. This letter is to be either sent or 
taken as proof of grant eligibility to the college or university the 
eligible applicant decides to attend. However, the letter states that 
the TAG Program office will pay tuition “at any U.S. public college or 
university that you attend,” without informing the applicant that not 
all of these institutions have agreed to participate in the TAG 
Program. Therefore, an applicant choosing to attend an institution that 
is eligible but not currently participating may experience difficulty 
or delay with receiving the grant because of the time it could take to 
convince the institution to participate in the program— possibly 
occurring after the applicant has enrolled at the institution. In 
addition, eligible applicants who, for example, list one eligible 
institution and one ineligible institution on their grant application 
receive a standard letter of eligibility, which does not inform the 
applicant that one of the institutions may not be eligible for the 
grant. Therefore, this applicant may not be aware that he or she will 
not receive the grant if he or she chooses to attend the ineligible 
institution listed on his or her grant application. The TAG Program 
director believes that the letter sent to applicants is clear in that 
it states that the grant can only be used at eligible institutions. TAG 
Program officials said that they are currently reviewing TAG Program 
operations and procedures. 

Conclusions: 

Since the establishment of the TAG Program, D.C. residents have more 
resources available to attend college if they choose an eligible 
institution that agrees to participate in the grant program. However, 
although the TAG Program’s purpose is to expand higher education 
opportunities for D.C. residents, a few of the program’s procedures may 
inadvertently discourage and hinder some D.C. residents from receiving 
grant money. The practice of determining that applicants are ineligible 
when they list only ineligible institutions on their grant applications 
could deny applicants who meet the student eligibility requirements the 
resources that they need for college solely because of the institutions 
they expressed an interest in attending. This practice is also 
troublesome given that at the time applicants submit their grant 
applications to the TAG office, they are not required to have enrolled 
at or even submitted a college application to the postsecondary 
institutions they list on their applications. In addition, the award 
letter and pamphlet that do not clearly notify applicants that an 
institution in which they are interested is ineligible or not 
participating in the TAG Program, may confuse applicants who then 
choose to attend ineligible or nonparticipating institutions. These 
factors could lead to frustration among applicants and may cause some 
D.C. residents to discontinue their efforts to obtain grant assistance 
to attend a postsecondary institution. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that the mayor of the District of Columbia direct the TAG 
Program office to: 

* Change the current applicant eligibility determination process to 
ensure that (1) all applicants receive a full review to determine their 
eligibility to receive the grant, (2) eligible applicants who indicate 
interest only in ineligible institutions are made aware in their award 
letters that the institutions listed on their applications are 
ineligible and that an eligible school must be selected for the 
applicants to receive the tuition assistance grant, and (3) all letters 
sent to eligible applicants indicate which institutions have already 
formally agreed to participate in the grant program. 

* Indicate clearly in the pamphlet promoting the TAG Program which 
eligible postsecondary institutions have already formally agreed to 
participate in the grant program. 

Agency Comments: 

We obtained comments on a draft of this report from the U.S. Department 
of Education, the mayor of the District of Columbia, and UDC. The 
comments from the mayor and UDC are reproduced in appendixes III and 
IV, respectively. Education only provided technical clarifications, 
which we incorporated when appropriate. UDC also provided technical 
clarifications that we incorporated when appropriate. 

The mayor of the District of Columbia generally agreed with the 
findings of our report and concurred with our recommendation that the 
TAG Program office conduct a full review of all applicants to determine 
their eligibility to receive the grant. However, as to our 
recommendation that the TAG Program office clearly indicate to 
applicants which eligible postsecondary institutions have signed a 
Program Participation Agreement, the mayor disagreed, stating that 
advertising only those institutions that have formally agreed to 
participate would decrease the accessibility of the program. The mayor 
stated that students would become discouraged if they saw that the 
institutions they were interested in attending were not listed in TAG 
Program literature. Our recommendation, however, does not preclude the 
TAG Program office from providing applicants a list of all institutions 
that are potentially eligible to participate in the program, but rather 
recommends that the TAG Program office separately identify those 
institutions that have formally agreed to participate. By providing 
this additional information, we believe that potential applicants will 
be better informed about the status of the postsecondary institutions 
they are interested in attending. We do not believe that this 
additional information would discourage D.C. residents from applying 
for the grant program and may avoid confusion for those eligible 
applicants who choose to apply to currently nonparticipating 
institutions. Finally, the mayor disagreed with the title of the 
report, commenting that the title is not borne out by the contents of 
the report. We changed the title to address his concerns. 

Many of the comments made by UDC were related to the potential impact 
of the TAG Program on UDC and the funding levels of the TAG Program. 
UDC stated that although enrollment levels have not significantly 
changed as a result of the implementation of the TAG Program, UDC 
officials believe the TAG Program may have impacted the quality of the 
entering freshmen at UDC and that the institution is losing some of the 
better-prepared college-bound students in D.C. to institutions that are 
participating in the TAG Program. While we recognize the importance of 
analyzing student quality, such an analysis was outside the scope of 
the mandate and the request. UDC further believes that the reporting of 
the average age and enrollment status of UDC freshmen does not tell the 
complete story of the type of student that is served by the 
institution. They stated that UDC students range in age from 17 years 
to 55 years and that most students must work full-time to meet personal 
and family responsibilities. We focused our comparison of UDC and TAG 
Program freshmen on average student age, enrollment status, and 
location of high school the student graduated from because these were 
among the only data available from both UDC and the TAG Program that 
allowed a direct comparison of the types of students that each were 
serving. UDC officials also provided updated data on the location of 
high schools attended by UDC entering freshmen, which we incorporated. 
Regarding the funding of the TAG Program, UDC believed that an 
examination of the funding levels for the TAG Program were needed and 
suggested that any unused funding for the TAG Program could be 
reallocated to UDC to enhance education programs and scholarships for 
UDC students. In addition, UDC commented that further examination of 
various aspects of the TAG Program were necessary, including an 
analysis of graduation outcomes for TAG Program participants, the 
impact of the TAG Program on the quality of UDC students and UDC’s 
program and services, as well as the financial impact of the TAG 
Program on D.C. residents. While we recognize that these issues are 
important, they were not within the scope of the mandate or the 
request. 

We are sending copies of this report to the House Committee on
Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and
other interested committees; the Secretary of Education; and other
interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon
request. Please contact me at (202) 512-8403 or Diana Pietrowiak,
Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6239 if you or your staff have any 
questions concerning this report. Other GAO contacts and staff 
acknowledgments are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

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

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

A variety of data sources allowed us to examine different aspects of 
the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant (TAG) Program. We wanted to explore 
several issues, such as the extent to which TAG-eligible applicants who 
did not use the tuition assistance grant faced barriers to college 
access, how student enrollment at the University of the District of 
Columbia (UDC) has changed since the TAG Program began, whether UDC and 
TAG serve similar freshmen populations, and whether there are program 
administration issues that could potentially hinder the TAG Program 
operations. We selected data sources that would allow us to examine 
these issues. 

To review and summarize general information on TAG applicants, we 
obtained a database from the TAG Program office listing applicant data, 
such as name of high school attended, year of college enrollment, and 
date of birth. These data, which we did not verify, represent the only 
information available on TAG applicants. To determine whether eligible 
applicants who did not use the tuition assistance grant may have faced 
barriers to college access, we obtained data from the TAG Program 
office on applicants who applied and were found eligible for the grant, 
but did not use the grant in academic year 2000-01. We then analyzed 
the academic qualifications of some of these eligible applicants and 
compared these data with similar data on average freshmen at the 
postsecondary institutions they listed on their TAG applications as 
colleges they would most likely attend. To do this, we requested the 
grade point average (GPA) and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores for 
290 of the eligible applicants—those who had recently graduated from a 
D.C. public high school—from D.C. public school officials and obtained 
data for some of these graduates. We compared the available data on the 
D.C. public school students to GPA and SAT data we obtained for average 
freshmen at the 62 institutions these applicants were interested in 
attending from Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges, 2001; Peterson’s 
4 Year Colleges, 2001; and Peterson’s 2 Year Colleges, 2001. To 
determine whether access barriers may have existed at the 62 
institutions, we obtained data on the presence of minority outreach 
programs and the use of out-of-state enrollment caps from a college 
survey that we developed as part of our review. 

To further identify barriers to college access, we sought to determine 
why the eligible applicants did not use the grant. To do this, we 
developed and administered a survey for the parents of all 516 eligible 
applicants who did not participate in the TAG Program. We chose to 
survey parents rather than the eligible applicants, because current 
contact information for the parents was readily available. We received 
responses from 42 percent of the parents surveyed, and from these 
responses we obtained general information on the reasons these 
applicants did not use the tuition assistance grant. 

To obtain information on how student enrollment at UDC changed during 
the initial year of the TAG Program and what types of students UDC and 
TAG serve, we obtained student data from UDC, including enrollment 
numbers, age, enrollment status, and information on high schools from 
which UDC students graduated. To compare the average UDC student with 
the average TAG recipient, we analyzed data for TAG recipients, 
including age, enrollment status, and high schools attended, who 
entered their freshmen year of college in academic year 2000-01. 

To determine whether program administration issues exist that could 
potentially hinder program operations, we interviewed the four 
financial aid directors from the institutions that initially voiced 
concerns regarding the administration of the TAG Program—the University 
of California, the University of Florida, the University of Michigan, 
and the State University of New York. We also conducted a survey of 140 
institutions that administered the grant in academic year 2000-01. We 
received responses from 84 percent of the institutions in our survey. 
In addition, to develop an understanding of the program operations and 
procedures, we interviewed managers and staff of the TAG Program office 
as well as officials in the office of the D.C. Chief Financial Officer. 
We also interviewed U.S. Department of Education officials to obtain 
their views on the TAG Program. Furthermore, we reviewed 75 randomly 
selected files of ineligible applicants to determine whether TAG 
officials had conducted a full eligibility review of applicants who had 
listed ineligible colleges or universities on their applications. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Colleges and Universities That As of December 10, 2001, 
Had Agreed to Participate in the TAG Program: 

State: Alaska; 
Institution Name: University of Alaska Southeast; 
City: Juneau. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: Alabama Agricultural & Mechanical University; 
City: Normal. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: Alabama State University; 
City: Montgomery. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: Auburn University; 
City: Auburn. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: Bishop State Community College;
City: Mobile. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: Central Alabama Community College; 
City: Alexander City 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: Enterprise State Junior College 
City: Enterprise. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: Gadsden State Community College; 
City: Gadsden. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: Jacksonville State University; 
City: Jacksonville. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: Jefferson Davis Community College; 
City: Brewton. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: Southern Union State Community College; 
City: Wadley. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: Troy State University Montgomery; 
City: Montgomery. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: University of Alabama; 
City: Tuscaloosa. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: University of Alabama at Birmingham; 
City: Birmingham. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: University of Alabama at Huntsville; 
City: Huntsville. 

State: Alabama; 
Institution Name: University of North Alabama; 
City: Florence. 

State: Arkansas; 
Institution Name: Cossatot Technical College; 
City: De Queen. 

State: Arkansas; 
Institution Name: Delta Technical Institute; 
City: Marked Tree. 

State: Arkansas; 
Institution Name: Forest Echoes Technical Institute; 
City: Crossett. 

State: Arkansas; 
Institution Name: Henderson State University; 
City: Arkadelphia. 

State: Arkansas; 
Institution Name: Southern Arkansas University; 
City: Magnolia. 

State: Arkansas; 
Institution Name: University of Arkansas; 
City: Fayetteville. 

State: Arkansas; 
Institution Name: University of Arkansas at Little Rock; 
City: Little Rock. 

State: Arkansas; 
Institution Name: University of Arkansas at Monticello; 
City: Monticello. 

State: Arkansas; 
Institution Name: University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff; 
City: Pine Bluff. 

State: Arkansas; 
Institution Name: University of Arkansas Community College at 
Batesville; 
City: Batesville. 

State: Arkansas; 
Institution Name: University of Central Arkansas; 
City: Conway. 

State: Arkansas; 
Institution Name: Westark College; 
City: Fort Smith. 

State: Arizona; 
Institution Name: Arizona State University; 
City: Tempe. 

State: Arizona; 
Institution Name: Eastern Arizona College; 
City: Thatcher. 

State: Arizona; 
Institution Name: GateWay Community College; 
City: Phoenix. 

State: Arizona; 
Institution Name: Pima County Community College District; 
City: Tucson. 

State: Arizona; 
Institution Name: Pinal Community College District - Central Arizona 
College; 
City: Coolidge. 

State: Arizona; 
Institution Name: University of Arizona (The); 
City: Tucson. 

State: Arizona; 
Institution Name: Yavapai College; 
City: Prescott. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: California State University Dominguez Hills; 
City: Carson. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: California State University, Bakersfield;
City: Bakersfield. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: California State University, Northridge; 
City: Northridge. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: California State University, San Marcos; 
City: San Marcos. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Cerro Coso Community College; 
City: Ridgecrest. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Chabot Community College; 
City: Hayward. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Chaffey Community College; 
City: Rancho Cucamonga. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Citrus College; 
City: Glendora. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: College of the Sequoias; 
City: Visalia. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Contra Costa College; 
City: San Pablo. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: De Anza Community College; 
City: Cupertino. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: East San Gabriel Valley Regional Occupational 
Program; 
City: West Covina. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Fullerton College; 
City: Fullerton. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Lassen College; 
City: Susanville. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Long Beach City College; 
City: Long Beach. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Los Angeles Pierce College;
City: Woodland Hills. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: MiraCosta College; 
City: Oceanside. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Monterey Peninsula College; 
City: Monterey. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Porterville College; 
City: Porterville. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Riverside Community College; 
City: Riverside. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: San Bernardino Valley College; 
City: San Bernardino. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: San Diego State University; 
City: San Diego. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: San Francisco State University; 
City: San Francisco. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: Sonoma State University; 
City: Rohnert Park. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: University of California - Davis; 
City: Davis. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: University of California - San Diego; 
City: La Jolla. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: University of California - Santa Cruz; 
City: Santa Cruz. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: University of California (The) - Berkeley; 
City: Berkeley. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: University of California Santa Barbara; 
City: Santa Barbara. 

State: California; 
Institution Name: West Hills Community College;
City: Coalinga. 

State: Colorado; 
Institution Name: Arapahoe Community College; 
City: Littleton. 

State: Colorado; 
Institution Name: Colorado School of Mines; 
City: Golden. 

State: Colorado; 
Institution Name: Colorado State University; 
City: Fort Collins. 

State: Colorado; 
Institution Name: Front Range Community College; 
City: Westminster. 

State: Colorado; 
Institution Name: Lamar Community College; 
City: Lamar. 

State: Colorado; 
Institution Name: Mesa State College; 
City: Grand Junction. 

State: Colorado; 
Institution Name: Metropolitan State College of Denver; 
City: Denver. 

State: Colorado; 
Institution Name: Red Rocks Community College; 
City: Lakewood. 

State: Colorado; 
Institution Name: Trinidad State Junior College; 
City: Trinidad. 

State: Colorado; 
Institution Name: University of Colorado at Boulder; 
City: Boulder. 

State: Colorado; 
Institution Name: University of Northern Colorado; 
City: Greeley. 

State: Connecticut; 
Institution Name: Charter Oak State College; 
City: New Britain. 

State: Connecticut; 
Institution Name: Middlesex Community College; 
City: Middletown. 

State: Connecticut; 
Institution Name: University of Connecticut; 
City: Storrs. 

State: Connecticut; 
Institution Name: Western Connecticut State University; 
City: Danbury. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Institution Name: American University; 
City: Washington. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Institution Name: Catholic University of America; 
City: Washington. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Institution Name: Corcoran College of Art and Design; 
City: Washington. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Institution Name: Gallaudet University;
City: Washington. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Institution Name: George Washington University; 
City: Washington. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Institution Name: Georgetown University; 
City: Washington. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Institution Name: Howard University; 
City: Washington. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Institution Name: Southeastern University; 
City: Washington. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Institution Name: Trinity College; 
City: Washington. 

State: Delaware; 
Institution Name: Delaware State University; 
City: Dover. 

State: Delaware; 
Institution Name: University of Delaware; 
City: Newark. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Brevard Community College; 
City: Cocoa. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Daytona Beach Community College; 
City: Daytona Beach. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University; 
City: Tallahassee. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Florida Atlantic University; 
City: Boca Raton. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Florida Community College at Jacksonville; 
City: Jacksonville. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Florida Gulf Coast University; 
City: Fort Myers. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Florida International University; 
City: Miami. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Florida State University; 
City: Tallahassee. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Lake City Community College; 
City: Lake City. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Palm Beach Community College; 
City: Lake Worth. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Pasco - Hernando Community College; 
City: New Port Richey. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Seminole Community College; 
City: Sanford. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: South Florida Community College; 
City: Avon Park. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: University of Central Florida; 
City: Orlando. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: University of Florida; 
City: Gainesville. 

State: Florida; 
Institution Name: Valencia Community College; 
City: Orlando. 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College; 
City: Tifton. 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: Atlanta Technical Institute; 
City: Atlanta; 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: Dekalb Technical Institute; 
City: Clarkston. 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: Gainesville College; 
City: Gainesville. 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: Georgia College & State University; 
City: Milledgeville. 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: Georgia Institute of Technology; 
City: Atlanta. 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: Georgia Perimeter College; 
City: Decatur. 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: Georgia Southwestern State University;
City: Americus. 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: Middle Georgia College; 
City: Cochran. 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: Savannah State University; 
City: Savannah. 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: South Georgia College; 
City: Douglas. 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: University of Georgia;
City: Athens. 

State: Georgia; 
Institution Name: Valdosta State College; 
City: Valdosta. 

State: Hawaii; 
Institution Name: University of Hawaii at Hilo; 
City: Hilo. 

State: Iowa; 
Institution Name: Iowa State University of Science & Technology; 
City: Ames. 

State: Iowa; 
Institution Name: University of Iowa; 
City: Iowa City. 

State: Iowa; 
Institution Name: University of Northern Iowa; 
City: Cedar Falls. 

State: Idaho; 
Institution Name: College of Southern Idaho; 
City: Twin Falls. 

State: Idaho; 
Institution Name: Idaho State University; 
City: Pocatello. 

State: Idaho; 
Institution Name: Lewis-Clark State College; 
City: Lewiston. 

State: Idaho; 
Institution Name: University of Idaho; 
City: Moscow. 

State: Illinois; 
Institution Name: Kishwaukee College; 
City: Malta. 

State: Illinois; 
Institution Name: McHenry County College; 
City: Crystal Lake. 

State: Illinois; 
Institution Name: Parkland College; 
City: Champaign. 

State: Illinois; 
Institution Name: Southern Illinois University at Carbondale; 
City: Carbondale. 

State: Illinois; 
Institution Name: University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign; 
City: Champaign. 

State: Illinois; 
Institution Name: University of Illinois Central Office; 
City: Urbana. 

State: Illinois; 
Institution Name: Western Illinois University;
City: Macomb. 

State: Illinois; 
Institution Name: William Rainey Harper College; 
City: Palatine. 

State: Indiana; 
Institution Name: Indiana University - Bloomington; 
City: Bloomington. 

State: Indiana; 
Institution Name: Indiana University - Purdue University - Fort Wayne; 
City: Fort Wayne. 

State: Indiana; 
Institution Name: Purdue University; 
City: West Lafayette. 

State: Kansas; 
Institution Name: Allen County Community College; 
City: Iola. 

State: Kansas; 
Institution Name: Barton County Community College; 
City: Great Bend. 

State: Kansas; 
Institution Name: Coffeyville Community College; 
City: Coffeyville. 

State: Kansas; 
Institution Name: Emporia State University; 
City: Emporia. 

State: Kansas; 
Institution Name: Fort Scott Community College; 
City: Fort Scott. 

State: Kansas; 
Institution Name: Independence Community College; 
City: Independence. 

State: Kansas; 
Institution Name: Labette Community College; 
City: Parsons. 

State: Kansas; 
Institution Name: Manhattan Area Technical College; 
City: Manhattan. 

State: Kansas; 
Institution Name: Pratt Community College & Area Vocational School; 
City: Pratt. 

State: Kansas; 
Institution Name: Southwest Kansas Technical School; 
City: Liberal. 

State: Kansas; 
Institution Name: University of Kansas; 
City: Lawrence. 

State: Kansas; 
Institution Name: Washburn University – Topeka; 
City: Topeka. 

State: Kentucky; 
Institution Name: Hopkinsville Community College; 
City: Hopkinsville. 

State: Kentucky; 
Institution Name: Jefferson Community College - University of Kentucky 
Community College System;
City: Louisville. 

State: Kentucky; 
Institution Name: Lexington Community College; 
City: Lexington. 

State: Kentucky; 
Institution Name: Madisonville Community College; 
City: Madisonville. 

State: Kentucky; 
Institution Name: Morehead State University; 
City: Morehead. 

State: Kentucky; 
Institution Name: Murray State University; 
City: Murray. 

State: Kentucky; 
Institution Name: Northern Kentucky University; 
City: Highland Heights. 

State: Kentucky; 
Institution Name: University of Kentucky; 
City: Lexington. 

State: Kentucky; 
Institution Name: University of Louisville; 
City: Louisville. 

State: Louisiana; 
Institution Name: Delgado Community College; 
City: New Orleans. 

State: Louisiana; 
Institution Name: Grambling State University; 
City: Grambling. 

State: Louisiana; 
Institution Name: Louisiana State University at Alexandria; 
City: Alexandria. 

State: Louisiana; 
Institution Name: Louisiana State University in Shreveport; 
City: Shreveport. 

State: Louisiana; 
Institution Name: Louisiana Technical College - Alexandria Campus; 
City: Alexandria. 

State: Louisiana; 
Institution Name: Louisiana Technical College - Ascension Campus; 
City: Sorrento. 

State: Louisiana; 
Institution Name: Northwestern State University; 
City: Natchitoches. 

State: Louisiana; 
Institution Name: Southern University and Agricultural & Mechanical 
Colege at Baton Rouge; 
City: Baton Rouge. 

State: Louisiana; 
Institution Name: University of New Orleans; 
City: New Orleans. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Institution Name: Bristol Community College; 
City: Fall River. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Institution Name: Massachusetts College of Art; 
City: Boston. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Institution Name: Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts; 
City: North Adams. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Institution Name: Mount Wachusett Community College; 
City: Gardner. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Institution Name: Springfield Technical Community College; 
City: Springfield. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Institution Name: University of Massachusetts - Amherst; 
City: Amherst. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Institution Name: University of Massachusetts - Boston; 
City: Boston. 

Massachusetts; 
Institution Name: University of Massachusetts – Dartmouth; 
City: North Dartmouth. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Allegany College of Maryland; 
City: Cumberland. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Baltimore City Community College; 
City: Baltimore. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Bowie State University; 
City: Bowie. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Capitol College; 
City: Laurel. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Cecil Community College; 
City: North East. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Chesapeake College; 
City: Wye Mills. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: College of Southern Maryland; 
City: La Plata. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Columbia Union College; 
City: Takoma Park. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Coppin State College; 
City: Baltimore. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Frederick Community College; 
City: Frederick. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Frostburg State University; 
City: Frostburg. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Garrett Community College; 
City: McHenry. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Hagerstown Community College; 
City: Hagerstown. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Howard Community College; 
City: Columbia. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Maryland College of Art and Design; 
City: Silver Spring. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Montgomery College; 
City: Rockville. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Morgan State University; 
City: Baltimore. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Prince George’s Community College; 
City: Largo. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Salisbury State University; 
City: Salisbury. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: St. Mary’s College of Maryland; 
City: Saint Mary’s City. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: Towson University; 
City: Towson. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: University of Baltimore; 
City: Baltimore. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: University of Maryland - Baltimore County; 
City: Baltimore. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: University of Maryland - Eastern Shore; 
City: Princess Anne. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: University of Maryland - University College; 
City: East Adelphi. 

State: Maryland; 
Institution Name: University of Maryland at College Park; 
City: College Park. 

State: Maine; 
Institution Name: Eastern Maine Technical College; 
City: Bangor. 

State: Maine; 
Institution Name: Maine Maritime Academy; 
City: Castine. 

State: Maine; 
Institution Name: Northern Maine Technical College; 
City: Presque Isle. 

State: Maine; 
Institution Name: University of Maine; 
City: Orono. 

State: Maine; 
Institution Name: University of Maine-Farmington; 
City: Farmington. 

State: Maine; 
Institution Name: University of Maine-Fort Kent; 
City: Fort Kent. 

State: Maine; 
Institution Name: University of Maine-Machias; 
City: Machias. 

State: Maine; 
Institution Name: University of Maine-Presque Isle; 
City: Presque Isle. 

State: Maine; 
Institution Name: University of Southern Maine; 
City: Portland; 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: Alpena Community College; 
City: Alpena. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: Eastern Michigan University; 
City: Ypsilanti. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: Ferris State University; 
City: Big Rapids. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: JTPA School of Practical Nursing; 
City: Detroit. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: Kalamazoo Valley Community College; 
City: Kalamazoo. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: Michigan State University; 
City: East Lansing. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: Michigan Technological University; 
City: Houghton. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: Monroe County Community College; 
City: Monroe. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: Montcalm Community College;
City: Sidney. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: Northern Michigan University; 
City: Marquette. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: St. Clair County Community College; 
City: Port Huron. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: University of Michigan - Ann Arbor; 
City: Ann Arbor. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: University of Michigan - Flint; 
City: Flint. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: Washtenaw Community College; 
City: Ann Arbor. 

State: Michigan; 
Institution Name: Western Michigan University; 
City: Kalamazoo. 

State: Minnesota; 
Institution Name: Dakota County Technical College; 
City: Rosemount. 

State: Minnesota; 
Institution Name: Fond du Lac Tribal & Community College; 
City: Cloquet. 

State: Minnesota; 
Institution Name: Inver Hills Community College; 
City: Inver Grove Heights. 

State: Minnesota; 
Institution Name: Metropolitan State University; 
City: Saint Paul. 

State: Minnesota; 
Institution Name: Minnesota State University Moorhead; 
City: Moorhead. 

State: Minnesota; 
Institution Name: St. Cloud State University; 
City: Saint Cloud. 

State: Minnesota; 
Institution Name: University of Minnesota - Morris; 
City: Morris. 

State: Minnesota; 
Institution Name: University of Minnesota - Twin Cities; 
City: Minneapolis. 

State: Missouri; 
Institution Name: Lincoln University; 
City: Jefferson City. 

State: Missouri; 
Institution Name: Metropolitan Community Colleges; 
City: Kansas City. 

State: Missouri; 
Institution Name: Missouri Western State College; 
City: St. Joseph. 

State: Missouri; 
Institution Name: North Central Missouri College; 
City: Trenton. 

State: Missouri; 
Institution Name: Northwest Missouri State University; 
City: Maryville. 

State: Missouri; 
Institution Name: Southwest Missouri University - West Plains; 
City: West Plains. 

State: Missouri; 
Institution Name: Truman State University; 
City: Kirksville. 

State: Missouri; 
Institution Name: University of Missouri - Columbia; 
City: Columbia. 

State: Missouri; 
Institution Name: University of Missouri - Rolla; 
City: Rolla. 

State: Missouri; 
Institution Name: University of Missouri - Saint Louis; 
City: St. Louis. 

State: Mississippi; 
Institution Name: Alcorn State University; 
City: Alcorn State. 

State: Mississippi; 
Institution Name: Jackson State University; 
City: Jackson. 

State: Montana; 
Institution Name: Montana State University - Billings; 
City: Billings. 

State: Montana; 
Institution Name: Montana Tech of the University of Montana; 
City: Butte. 

State: Montana; 
Institution Name: University of Montana (The); 
City: Missoula. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Appalachian State University; 
City: Boone. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Bladen Community College; 
City: Dublin. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Brunswick Community College; 
City: Supply. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Caldwell Community College & Technical Institute; 
City: Hudson. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Cape Fear Community College; 
City: Wilmington. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Carteret Community College; 
City: Morehead City. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Catawba Valley Community College; 
City: Hickory. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Central Carolina Community College; 
City: Sanford. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Cleveland Community College; 
City: Shelby. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Craven Community College; 
City: New Bern. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: East Carolina University; 
City: Greenville. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Elizabeth City State University; 
City: Elizabeth City. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Fayetteville State University; 
City: Fayetteville. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Forsyth Technical Community College; 
City: Winston-Salem. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Halifax Community College; 
City: Weldon. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: James Sprunt Community College; 
City: Kenansville. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Martin Community College; 
City: Williamston. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State 
University; 
City: Greensboro. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: North Carolina Central University; 
City: Durham. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: North Carolina School of the Arts; 
City: Winston-Salem. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: North Carolina State University; 
City: Raleigh. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Randolph Community College; 
City: Asheboro. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Richmond Community College; 
City: Hamlet. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Stanly Community College; 
City: Albemarle. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill; 
City: Chapel Hill. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of North Carolina - Charlotte; 
City: Charlotte. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; 
City: Greensboro. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of North Carolina - Wilmington; 
City: Wilmington. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of North Carolina at Asheville; 
City: Asheville. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of North Carolina at Pembroke; 
City: Pembroke. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Wake Technical Community College; 
City: Raleigh. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Western Piedmont Community College; 
City: Morganton. 

State: North Carolina; 
Institution Name: Winston-Salem State University; 
City: Winston-Salem. 

State: North Dakota; 
Institution Name: Bismarck State College; 
City: Bismarck. 

State: North Dakota; 
Institution Name: Dickinson State University; 
City: Dickinson. 

State: North Dakota; 
Institution Name: Lake Region State College; 
City: Devils Lake. 

State: North Dakota; 
Institution Name: Mayville State University; 
City: Mayville. 

State: North Dakota; 
Institution Name: Minot State University; 
City: Minot. 

State: North Dakota; 
Institution Name: Minot State University - Bottineau; 
City: Bottineau. 

State: North Dakota; 
Institution Name: North Dakota State University - Main Campus - Fargo; 
City: Fargo. 

State: North Dakota; 
Institution Name: Sitting Bull College; 
City: Ft. Yates. 

State: North Dakota; 
Institution Name: University of North Dakota - Main Campus - Grand 
Forks; 
City: Grand Forks. 

State: North Dakota; 
Institution Name: Valley City State University; 
City: Valley City. 

State: North Dakota; 
Institution Name: Williston State College; 
City: Williston. 

State: Nebraska; 
Institution Name: Nebraska Indian Community College; 
City: Macy. 

State: Nebraska; 
Institution Name: Southeast Community College; 
City: Lincoln. 

State: Nebraska; 
Institution Name: University of Nebraska; 
City: Lincoln. 

State: Nebraska; 
Institution Name: University of Nebraska Central Office; 
City: Lincoln. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Institution Name: New Hampshire Technical Institute; 
City: Concord. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Institution Name: Plymouth State College; 
City: Plymouth. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Institution Name: University of New Hampshire; 
City: Durham. 

State: New Jersey; 
Institution Name: Atlantic Cape Community College; 
City: Mays Landing. 

State: New Jersey; 
Institution Name: Burlington County College - Pemberton Campus; 
City: Pemberton. 

State: New Jersey; 
Institution Name: Kean University; 
City: Union. 

State: New Jersey; 
Institution Name: Montclair State University; 
City: Upper Montclair. 

State: New Jersey; 
Institution Name: New Jersey City University; 
City: Jersey City. 

State: New Jersey; 
Institution Name: Ramapo College of New Jersey; 
City: Mahwah. 

State: New Jersey; 
Institution Name: Rutgers the State University of New Jersey; 
City: New Brunswick. 

State: New Jersey; 
Institution Name: Salem Community College; 
City: Carneys Point. 

State: New Jersey; 
Institution Name: Sussex County Community College; 
City: Newton. 

State: New Jersey; 
Institution Name: William Paterson University of New Jersey; 
City: Wayne. 

State: New Mexico; 
Institution Name: New Mexico Highlands University; 
City: Las Vegas. 

State: New Mexico; 
Institution Name: New Mexico Military Institute; 
City: Roswell. 

State: New Mexico; 
Institution Name: New Mexico State University; 
City: Las Cruces. 

State: Nevada; 
Institution Name: Western Nevada Community College; 
City: Carson City. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: Binghamton University - State University of New York; 
City: Binghamton. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: Broome Community College; 
City: Binghamton. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: Cayuga County Community College; 
City: Auburn. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: Cornell University; 
City: Ithaca. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: CUNY LaGuardia Community College; 
City: Long Island City. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: Dutchess Community College; 
City: Poughkeepsie. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: Fashion Institute of Technology; 
City: New York. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: Mohawk Valley Community College; 
City: Utica. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: Monroe Community College; 
City: Rochester. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: New York State College of Ceramics; 
City: Alfred. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: Purchase College of the State University of New York; 
City: Purchase. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: State University of New York - Rockland Community 
College; 
City: Suffern. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: State University of New York at Farmingdale; 
City: Farmingdale. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: State University of New York College of Technology; 
City: Utica. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: Sullivan County Board of Cooperative Educational 
Services (BOCES);
City: Liberty. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: Sullivan County Community College - SUNY Office of 
Community Colleges; 
City: Loch Sheldrake. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: SUNY College at Cortland; 
City: Cortland. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: SUNY College at Fredonia; 
City: Fredonia. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: SUNY College at Potsdam;
City: Potsdam. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: SUNY College of Environment Science & Forestry; 
City: Syracuse. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: SUNY College of Technology at Delhi; 
City: Delhi. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: SUNY Ulster County Community College; 
City: Stone Ridge. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: SUNY Westchester Community College; 
City: Valhalla. 

State: New York; 
Institution Name: University at Albany-State University of New York; 
City: Albany. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Belmont Technical College; 
City: St. Clairsville. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Bowling Green State University; 
City: Bowling Green. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Central State University; 
City: Wilberforce. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Cleveland State University; 
City: Cleveland. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Columbus State Community College; 
City: Columbus. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Cuyahoga Community College; 
City: Cleveland. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Delaware Joint Vocational School; 
City: Delaware. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Hocking College; 
City: Nelsonville. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Kent State University; 
City: Kent. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Marion Technical College; 
City: Marion. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Miami University; 
City: Oxford. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: North Central Technical College. 
City: Mansfield. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Ohio State University (The); 
City: Columbus. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Ohio University; 
City: Athens. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Terra Community College; 
City: Fremont. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: University of Akron (The); 
City: Akron. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: University of Cincinnati; 
City: Cincinnati. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Wright State University; 
City: Dayton. 

State: Ohio; 
Institution Name: Youngstown State University; 
City: Youngstown. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Institution Name: Cameron University; 
City: Lawton. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Institution Name: Carl Albert State College; 
City: Poteau. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Institution Name: Langston University;
City: Langston. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Institution Name: Northeastern State University; 
City: Tahlequah. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Institution Name: Northern Oklahoma College; 
City: Tonkawa. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Institution Name: Redlands Community College; 
City: El Reno. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Institution Name: Southern Oklahoma Technology Center; 
City: Ardmore. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Institution Name: University of Central Oklahoma; 
City: Edmond. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Institution Name: University of Oklahoma; 
City: Norman. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Institution Name: University of Science & Arts of Oklahoma; 
City: Chickasha. 

State: Oregon; 
Institution Name: Southern Oregon University; 
City: Ashland. 

State: Oregon; 
Institution Name: Southwestern Oregon Community College; 
City: Coos Bay. 

State: Oregon; 
Institution Name: University of Oregon; 
City: Eugene. 

State: Oregon; 
Institution Name: Western Oregon University; 
City: Monmouth; 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania; 
City: Bloomsburg. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Butler County Community College; 
City: Butler. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: California University of Pennsylvania; 
City: California. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Cheyney State University; 
City: Cheyney. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Clarion University of Pennsylvania; 
City: Clarion. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Community College of Allegheny County - Allegheny 
Campus; 
City: Pittsburgh. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Community College of Beaver County; 
City: Monaca. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Community College of Philadelphia; 
City: Philadelphia. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania; 
City: Edinboro. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Harrisburg Area Community College; 
City: Harrisburg. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Kutztown University of Pennsylvania; 
City: Kutztown. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Lincoln University; 
City: Lincoln University. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Mansfield University of Pennsylvania; 
City: Mansfield. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Millersville University of Pennsylvania; 
City: Millersville. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Northampton Community College; 
City: Bethlehem. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Pennsylvania College of Technology; 
City: Williamsport. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Pennsylvania State University; 
City: University Park. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania; 
City: Shippensburg. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania; 
City: Slippery Rock. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: Temple University; 
City: Philadelphia. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: University of Pittsburgh – Bradford; 
City: Bradford. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: University of Pittsburgh – Greensburg; 
City: Greensburg. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: University of Pittsburgh – Pittsburgh; 
City: Pittsburgh. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown; 
City: Johnstown. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: University of Pittsburgh at Titusville; 
City: Titusville. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Institution Name: West Chester University of Pennsylvania; 
City: West Chester; 

State: Puerto Rico; 
Institution Name: University of Puerto Rico - Central Administration; 
City: San Juan. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Institution Name: University of Rhode Island; 
City: Kingston. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina; 
City: Charleston. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: Clemson University; 
City: Clemson. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: Coastal Carolina University; 
City: Conway. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: College of Charleston; 
City: Charleston. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: Francis Marion University; 
City: Florence. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: Greenville Technical College; 
City: Greenville. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: Midlands Technical College; 
City: West Columbia. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: Northeastern Technical College; 
City: Cheraw. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: South Carolina State University; 
City: Orangeburg. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of South Carolina; 
City: Columbia. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of South Carolina – Aiken; 
City: Aiken. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of South Carolina – Beaufort; 
City: Beaufort. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of South Carolina – Lancaster; 
City: Lancaster. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of South Carolina – Salkehatchie; 
City: Allendale. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of South Carolina – Spartanburg; 
City: Spartanburg. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of South Carolina - Sumter; 
City: Sumter. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of South Carolina - Union; 
City: Union. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: University of South Carolina Regional Campuses; 
City: Columbia. 

State: South Carolina; 
Institution Name: Winthrop University;
City: Rock Hill. 

State: South Dakota; 
Institution Name: Dakota State University; 
City: Madison. 

State: South Dakota; 
Institution Name: Northern State University; 
City: Aberdeen. 

State: South Dakota; 
Institution Name: University of South Dakota; 
City: Vermillion. 

State: Tennessee; 
Institution Name: Pellissippi State Technical Community College; 
City: Knoxville. 

State: Tennessee; 
Institution Name: Tennessee State University; 
City: Nashville. 

State: Tennessee; 
Institution Name: Tennessee Technical Center - Morristown; 
City: Morristown. 

State: Tennessee; 
Institution Name: University of Memphis; 
City: Memphis. 

State: Tennessee; 
Institution Name: University of Tennessee - Chattanooga; 
City: Chattanooga. 

State: Tennessee; 
Institution Name: University of Tennessee - Knoxville; 
City: Knoxville. 

State: Tennessee; 
Institution Name: University of Tennessee University-Wide 
Administration Central Office;
City: Knoxville. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: Austin Community College; 
City: Austin. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: Cisco Junior College; 
City: Cisco. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: El Centro College; 
City: Dallas. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: Houston Community College; 
City: Houston. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: Panola College; 
City: Carthage. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: Southwest Texas State University; 
City: San Marcos. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: Stephen F. Austin State University; 
City: Nacogdoches. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: Sul Ross State University; 
City: Alpine. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: Texas A&M University; 
City: College Station. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: Texas Southern University; 
City: Houston. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: Texas State Technical College - Harlingen; 
City: Harlingen. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: Trinity Valley Community College; 
Athens. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: University of Houston-Victoria; 
City: Victoria. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: University of North Texas; 
City: Denton. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: University of Texas at Austin; 
City: Austin. 

State: Texas; 
Institution Name: West Texas Agricultural & Mechanical University; 
City: Canyon. 

State: Utah; 
Institution Name: College of Eastern Utah; 
City: Price. 

State: Utah; 
Institution Name: Dixie State College of Utah; 
City: St. George. 

State: Utah; 
Institution Name: Southern Utah University; 
City: Cedar City. 

State: Utah; 
Institution Name: University of Utah; 
City: Salt Lake City. 

State: Utah; 
Institution Name: Utah State University; 
City: Logan. 

State: Utah; 
Institution Name: Weber State University; 
City: Ogden. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Blue Ridge Community College; 
City: Weyers Cave. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Christopher Newport University;
City: Newport News. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: College of William & Mary; 
City: Williamsburg. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: George Mason University;
City: Fairfax. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Hampton University; 
City: Hampton. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: James Madison University; 
City: Harrisonburg. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: John Tyler Community College; 
City: Chester. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Longwood College; 
City: Farmville. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Lord Fairfax Community College; 
City: Middletown. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Mary Washington College; 
City: Fredericksburg. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Marymount University; 
City: Arlington. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Mountain Empire Community College; 
City: Big Stone Gap. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Norfolk State University; 
City: Norfolk. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Northern Virginia Community College; 
City: Annandale. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Old Dominion University; 
City: Norfolk. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Patrick Henry Community College; 
City: Martinsville. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Piedmont Virginia Community College; 
City: Charlottesville. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Radford University; 
City: Radford. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Saint Paul’s College; 
City: Lawrenceville. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Tidewater Community College; 
City: Portsmouth. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: University of Virginia; 
City: Charlottesville. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: University of Virginia’s College at Wise; 
City: Wise. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Virginia Commonwealth University; 
City: Richmond. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University; 
City: Blacksburg. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Virginia State University; 
City: Petersburg. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Virginia Union University; 
City: Richmond. 

State: Virginia; 
Institution Name: Wytheville Community College; 
City: Wytheville. 

State: Vermont; 
Institution Name: University of Vermont; 
City: Burlington. 

State: Vermont; 
Institution Name: Vermont Technical College; 
City: Randolph Center. 

State: Washington; 
Institution Name: Bellingham Technical College; 
City: Bellingham. 

State: Washington; 
Institution Name: Central Washington University; 
City: Ellensburg. 

State: Washington; 
Institution Name: Edmonds Community College; 
City: Lynnwood. 

State: Washington; 
Institution Name: Evergreen State College (The); 
City: Olympia. 

State: Washington; 
Institution Name: Green River Community College; 
City: Auburn. 

State: Washington; 
Institution Name: Lower Columbia College;
City: Longview. 

State: Washington; 
Institution Name: Pierce College; 
City: Lakewood. 

State: Washington; 
Institution Name: Shoreline Community College; 
City: Seattle. 

State: Washington; 
Institution Name: Tacoma Community College; 
City: Tacoma. 

State: Washington; 
Institution Name: Washington State University; 
City: Pullman. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Institution Name: Northcentral Technical College; 
City: Wausau. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Institution Name: Northeast Wisconsin Technical College; 
City: Green Bay. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Institution Name: University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire; 
City: Eau Claire. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Institution Name: University of Wisconsin - Green Bay; 
City: Green Bay. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Institution Name: University of Wisconsin - LaCrosse; 
City: La Crosse. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Institution Name: University of Wisconsin - Madison; 
City: Madison. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Institution Name: University of Wisconsin - Parkside; 
City: Kenosha. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Institution Name: University of Wisconsin - Platteville; 
City: Platteville. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Institution Name: University of Wisconsin - River Falls; 
City: River Falls. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Institution Name: University of Wisconsin - Stout; 
City: Menomonie. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Institution Name: Waukesha County Technical College; 
City: Pewaukee. 

State: West Virginia; 
Institution Name: Concord College; 
City: Athens. 

State: West Virginia; 
Institution Name: Fairmont State College; 
City: Fairmont. 

State: West Virginia; 
Institution Name: Glenville State College; 
City: Glenville. 

State: West Virginia; 
Institution Name: Marshall University; 
City: Huntington. 

State: West Virginia; 
Institution Name: Potomac State College of West Virginia University; 
City: Keyser. 

State: West Virginia; 
Institution Name: Shepherd College; 
City: Shepherdstown. 

State: West Virginia; 
Institution Name: West Liberty State College; 
City: West Liberty. 

State: West Virginia; 
Institution Name: West Virginia State College; 
City: Institute. 

State: West Virginia; 
Institution Name: West Virginia University; 
City: Morgantown. 

State: West Virginia; 
Institution Name: West Virginia University – Parkersburg; 
City: Parkersburg. 

State: Wyoming; 
Institution Name: Central Wyoming College; 
City: Riverton. 

State: Wyoming; 
Institution Name: Eastern Wyoming College; 
City: Torrington. 

State: Wyoming; 
Institution Name: University of Wyoming; 
City: Laramie. 

Source: TAG Program office. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments From the Mayor of the District of Columbia: 

The District of Columbia: 
Anthony A. Williams, Mayor: 

January 8, 2002: 

Ms. Comelia Ashby: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Ashby: 

I have reviewed your office's December 2001 Draft D.C. Tuition 
Assistance Grants: Program May Increase College Choices, but Improved 
Administration Could Expand Grant Accessibility. We found your report 
to be very useful. It is filled with excellent data that will help us 
administer the Tuition Assistance Program more effectively. It is 
unfortunate that you attached such a negative title to the report, a 
title that is not borne out by the contents of the report itself. 

We in the District of Columbia are very pleased with your findings that 
the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant Program Office is 
doing a good job administering the program, that the program has not 
had a negative impact on enrollment at the University of the District 
of Columbia, and that institutions of higher education do not have a 
significant problem with our administration of the program. When this 
law was passed in November of 1999, few believed that the District 
could manage the program at all, much less successfully implement it in 
just nine months. We met, and exceeded that challenge and I am pleased 
that your report recognizes that we met it well. 

In your report, you raise two administrative issues that we would 
characterize as minor in scope. I would like to respond to each of 
these issues in turn and then explain why we find the title of your 
report so misrepresentative of the report itself. 

The first administrative practice that the report criticizes is the 
automatic rejection of students who do not indicate that they will be 
attending an eligible college. The practice of Tuition Assistance staff 
in the first two years of the program was to declare as ineligible any 
applicant who listed only ineligible institutions on his/her 
application as schools that they were likely to attend. This means that 
none of the institutions listed on the application were eligible to
participate in the D.C. Tuition Program. Tuition Assistance staff did 
not process these applicants any further to determine if they met the 
domicile and other requirements of the program. Applicants who listed 
no schools on their applications were not automatically declared 
ineligible. 

By declaring students listing all ineligible schools automatically 
ineligible, the program was saved the administrative burden of fully 
processing students who were unlikely to use the grant. We also saved 
the families of these applicants from having to search for domicile 
documentation (most families did not provide complete supporting 
documentation upon application) to support the students' applications, 
only to find themselves unable to use the grants. 

Nonetheless, GAO makes a good point. There are a small number of 
students who will list ineligible schools on their applications and end 
up attending an eligible school they never mentioned on the 
application. These students might have been discouraged from attending 
the eligible school by our ineligibility letter. While our staff 
speculates that the probability of this happening is very small, if 
even one student were discouraged from attending college because of an 
ineligibility letter, that would be one student too many. 

We concur with GAO's recommendation that we should fully process all 
students, even those who give every indication of attending an 
ineligible institution. However, we will have to write a special letter 
to accompany these students' letters of eligibility warning them that 
the schools they listed in the application are all ineligible. We had 
several cases last year where applicants listed both eligible and 
ineligible institutions on their application, we declared them 
eligible, they chose to attend the ineligible institution, and then 
were upset that we did not award them with a grant. This was despite a 
clear reference in the letter of eligibility that grants would be 
awarded only to eligible institutions. 

The second GAO criticism is of our practice of advertising that 
District residents are eligible to receive grants at any public college 
or university in the nation under the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant 
Program. This argument makes the point that only institutions that have 
entered into a written agreement with the District are actually 
"eligible." This is accurate, but only in a highly technical sense. 

The reality is that our program staff has been successful in signing up 
literally 100% of the institutions that District residents have 
expressed interest in attending. When students apply to the Tuition 
Assistance Grant Program for eligibility and list an institution that 
has yet to sign an agreement with the District on the application, 
program staff immediately begins a campaign to have the institution 
sign a program participation agreement. Every single institution where 
District residents attend has signed an agreement with us. GAO's 
approach would, in fact, decrease program accessibility. Students would 
look at our literature, see that the institution they were interested 
in attending was not listed, and become discouraged from applying for 
our grant - the very process that alerts us to recruit new schools into 
the program. We strongly disagree with this GAO recommendation. 

Finally, we object to the draft title of this report. Despite our 
disagreement with one of your recommendations, we feel that, overall, 
your analysts have written an excellent report that gives us lots of 
data that we can use to improve the program. Unfortunately, this 
excellent report is marred by its title. Nothing in the body of the 
report suggests that "...Improved Administration Could Expand Grant 
Accessibility." While agreeing with your recommendation to fully 
process even those applicants who indicate that they are only thinking 
about attending ineligible schools, my staff estimate that less than 
half a dozen persons would be affected by that change. I reiterate, 
that even one student denied access is one too many. That is why we 
have agreed with, and will adopt, your recommended course of action. 
Nonetheless, to headline this report as you have over this minor issue 
distorts its whole analysis. The other recommendation you make would 
actually decrease accessibility, discouraging students from applying to 
colleges and universities simply because no one from the District had 
attended that institution recently. We strongly urge you to reconsider 
the title of this report. 

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need to discuss this 
response. Please call Laurent Ross, the Director of the D.C. Tuition 
Assistance Grant Program if you have any questions. He can be reached 
at (202) 727-2814. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Anthony A. Williams: 
Mayor of the District of Columbia: 

AAW/lr: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments From the University of the District of Columbia: 

University of the District of Columbia: 
Office of the President: 
4200 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20008: 
Telephone (202) 274-5100: 
Fax (202) 274-5304: 
[hyperlink, http://www.udc.edu]: 

January 10, 2002: 

Michelle C. Verbrugge, Senior Policy Analyst: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security: 
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO): 
441 G Street, N.W., Room 5932-A: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Enclosed, please find the comments and requested adjustments officially 
offered by the University of the District of Columbia regarding the GAO 
Draft Report - D.C. Tuition Assistance Program - GAO Report Number 02-
265. We are very appreciative of the opportunity to review the draft 
report and, even more, to be able to offer comments and suggested 
revisions, as may be appropriate. 

We particularly note that we have suggested significant adjustments to 
the Conclusions and Recommendations sections, specifically to add 
remarks about the program's impact on the University and the need for 
continued examination of those and other potential impacts. Some of our 
other comments and suggested adjustments center on insuring that the 
impact on the University is clearly stated, not just in terms of 
enrollment numbers, but also in terms of the potential long-term impact 
on quality - both with respect to the kinds of students the University 
now and will enroll and the impact of this on our teaching, research, 
and service missions. Also, given the potentially-wide distribution of 
the final report, we took the liberty of providing what we consider to 
be important background information on the University, its 
legislatively-mandated scope and purpose and its historical record of 
providing a quality higher education experience for the city's 
residents. All of these comments and adjustments, we hope you find 
important to incorporate into the final report document. 

Please know that we sincerely appreciate the efforts of the entire GAO 
review team. We thank you for your attention to some of the critical 
aspects of the Tuition Assistance Program that may affect the 
University of the District of Columbia (UDC) and we hope that your work 
will continue in the review of the program beyond the first year of 
operations as we attempt to get a handle on the kinds of things we must 
do to strengthen UDC. We ask that you provide us copies of the final 
report when released. 

Again, thank you for your and the review team's efforts and we look 
forward to continued communications. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Timothy L. Jenkins: 
President: 

UDC Comments to the GAO Report - D.C. Tuition Assistance Grants: 

Item: "This program ..., addresses a concern that D.C. students
Page Number: 1 (Second sentence); 
Suggested Change: "This program...addresses a concern that D.C. students
were at a disadvantage in their postsecondary school are at a 
disadvantage in their postsecondary school choices because of a 
perception that D.C. lacks a state university system, notwithstanding 
the fact that the University of the District of Columbia was 
established through the merger of three separate postsecondary
institutions and, by federal and District statute, was designed as a 
comprehensive university system." 

Item: (Footnote) "D.C. has only one public postsecondary institution, 
the University of the District of Columbia." 
Page Number: 1 (footnote); 
Suggested Change: "D.C. has only one public postsecondary institution, 
the University of the District of Columbia which, by federal and 
District statute, is designed to offer a comprehensive university 
program, similar to a state university system. UDC provides 
certificate, two-year, four-year, and graduate degree programs and is a 
member of the Consortium of Universities of the Metropolitan Area which 
allows UDC students to take course work at all member institutions. 


Item: "program on enrollment at the University of the District of 
Columbia (UDC), which is ineligible to participate in the TAG Program 
because in-state tuition rates are already available to D.C. 
residents." 
Page Number: 2 (top); 
Suggested Change: "program on enrollment at the University of the 
District of Columbia (UDC), which is ineligible to participate in 	
the TAG Program." 
		
Item: "Twenty-one percent of grant-eligible applicants who did not use 
the funding to attend a participating college or university may have 
faced barriers to college access due to	factors such as, entrance 
requirements and the absence of minority outreach programs." 
Page Number: 3 (top); 
Suggested Change: Twenty-one percent of grant-eligible applicants who 
did not use the funding at attend a participating college or university 
may have faced barriers to college access due to factors such as 
entrance requirements and the absence of minority outreach programs, or 
they simply may have chosen to attend an ineligible institution, 
including UDC. 

Item: ..."conducted survey of parents of the 516 applications who were 
eligible, but did not use their funding - ... some applicants decided 
to postpone college or to attend an ineligible institution in academic 
year 2000-01, and approximately 51 applied to, but were not accepted 
at, any institutions participating in the TAG Program." 
Page Number: 3; 
Suggested Change: (Note: Would have been good to quantify the number 	
enrolling in UDC and other non-eligible institutions by institution). 
		
Item: "The TAG Program and UDC appeared to serve different freshman 
populations, and this may account for the minimal impact the TAG 
Program had on enrollment at UDC. For example, at UDC, the average age 
of entering freshman was 29 years and most were enrolled part-time; in 
contrast, in the '[AG Program, the average age of entering freshman was 
almost 20 years and most were enrolled full-time.
Page Number: 4 (Top, 3rd sentence); 
Suggested Change: "The TAG Program and UDC appeared to serve different 
populations, and this may account for the minimal impact the TAG 
Program had on enrollment levels at UDC. However, the TAG Program 
appeared to have impacted the kind of student now enrolled in UDC. For 
example, for the year examined, at UDC, the average age of entering 
freshmen was 29 years and most were enrolled part-time; in contrast, in 
the TAG Program, the average age of entering freshmen was almost 20 
years and most were enrolled full-time. However, a closer examination 
reveals that as an open admission institution, the age span of UDC's 
freshman class ranges from as low as 17 years to as high as 55 years. 
In addition, UDC serves a population of District residents who must 
work, often full time, to sustain themselves and their families and to 
pay in full for their college education. Therefore, the data on the 
average age of freshmen are skewed by the wide range of ages and the 
personal and familial responsibilities UDC's freshmen are likely to 
have. In the more traditional colleges and universities involved in the 
TAG program, particularly those without an open admission policy, 
admission policies generally limit the number of non-traditional, post 
high school students. Further, in the two years proceeding 
implementation of the TAG, the UDC's freshmen enrollment comprised half 
recent high school graduates and half who had been out of high school 
for several years Thus, the Tag Program may have significantly impacted 
the quality of UDC's entering freshmen and these impacts may pose other 
trickle down effects on the institution. In the recent past, UDC has 
operated a highly-regarded Honors Program and, according the studies of 
the National Research Council, it has consistently held a position 
among the top twenty of all postsecondary institutions in the country 
whose African American bachelor's degree recipients have gone on to 
earn the doctorate. In addition, UDC has conducted major federal 
research programs under which its undergraduates have been mandated to 
participate in the research and the degree to which its current 
compliment of students can meet these requirements may have been 
impacted by this reduction in traditional college-bound students. 

Item: "In 1999, Congress enacted the D.C. College Access Act for the 
purpose of expanding higher education opportunities for	college-bound 
D.C. residents in an effort to stabilize D.C.'s population & tax base." 
Page Number: 4	(Background, 1st paragraph). 
Suggested Change: (Note: What is missing is an analysis of 1) how many 	
college bound D.C. residents attended eligible institutions in the past 
(i.e., five year longitudinal), 2) whether or not the TAG Program has 
effected any significant increase in those numbers, and 3) whether TAG 
Program recipients are majoring in programs not available at UDC.) 

Item: "UDC is not eligible to participate in the TAG program because in-
state tuition rates are already available for D.C. residents." 
Page Number: 4	(bottom)- 5 (top). 
Suggested Change: "UDC is not eligible to participate in the TAG 
program." (Note: placing a reason is purely speculative. One could 
write "and in-state tuition rates are already available for D.C. 
residents enrolling in UDC" but this, too, appears to provide an 
unwarranted and misleading justification for excluding UDC from 
enhancements that were lobbied for under the TAG Program. 

Item: D.C. government received $17 million each in FY2000 and FY2001. 
As of 8/01 had disbursed $11 million in grants & administrative costs. 
"Consequently, the D.C. government maintains a grant balance of 
approximately $23 million. The act (P.L. 106-98) states that the 
funding shall remain available until expended. 
Page Number: 5 (middle page). 
Suggested Change: (Note: An interpolation of whether or not the program 
is over-funded or underutilized could be made in support of lobbied-for 
enhancements that could have also been made on behalf of UDC, i.e., 
number of potential college-bound students eligible.)
		
Item: ... most of the applicants resided in wards 4, 5, and 7 which are 
located primarily in the northeast and southeast quadrants of D.C." 
Page Number: 6 (last sentence) and 8 (chart). 
Suggested Change: ...most of the applicants resided in Wards 4, 5, and 
7 which are located in the northwest, near northeast, and far northeast 
quadrants of D.C., respectively. These are also the Wards from which 
UDC has historically drawn the majority of its students." (Note: The 
chart on page 8 needs to read - Percentage of "College-Age" D.C. 
Residents..."). 	 

Item: "An open admission institution maintains an admissions policy 
that allows the school to admit any student that applies to the 
school." 
Page Number: 9 (Footnote). 
Suggested Change: "An open-admission institution maintains an 
admissions policy that allows the school to admit any student with a
high school diploma or equivalency that applies to the school." 

Item: "The UDC officials we spoke with believed that the TAG Program 
would likely have little impact on UDC, in part	because of the 
different student population that UDC serves." 
Page Number: 15 (middle paragraph). 	
Suggested Change: "The UDC officials we spoke with believed that the 
TAG Program would likely have little impact on UDC's enrollment level, 
in part because of the diverse student population that UDC serves." 

Item: "Almost half of the applicants came directly from high school, 
with nearly 70 percent of the applicants who recently graduated from 
high school coming from a D.C. public high school. The remaining 
applicants were already enrolled in college."
Page Number: 8 (second sentence). 
Suggested Change: "Almost half of the applicants came directly from 
high school. Slightly more than half were already enrolled in recently 
graduated from high school coming from a D.C. college. Nearly 70 
percent of the applicants coming directly from high school came from a 
D.C. public high school." (Note: The emphasis here is on the fact that 
the majority of recipients were already in college, thus lessening the 
perception that UDC's mission may have been minimized.) 

Item: Conclusion. 
Page Number: 20; 
Suggested Change: (Note: There are no concluding remarks relative to 
UDC. Please consider adding:) 
(Perhaps place first in conclusions): 

Notwithstanding the fact that UDC's enrollment level has not suffered 
significantly because of the TAG Program, the TAG Program appears to 
have had a significant impact on the general demographic and 
educational background characteristics of students UDC now serves, with 
further potential impacts on the comprehensive scope of the 
institution's mission. Established as a comprehensive university system 
with a strong academic and liberal arts focus, the institution appears 
to be losing some of the city's better prepared college-bound students 
to the TAG Program. As a result, its long-standing position among the 
top twenty of all postsecondary institutions whose African American 
baccalaureate degree recipients go on to earn the doctorate may be 
jeopardized Further, as a result in the shift in population makeup of 
the institution, more financial resources may be required for UDC to 
support the resulting remedial and academic support requirements of e 
students entering the institution who have been outside of the academic 
arena for long periods.	 

What is not known is how much it costs, out-of-pocket or through 
student loans, D.C. residents to attend TAG eligible institutions. 
Thus, while UDC remains a viable option for many District residents, it 
appears to remains the only real option for low income and lower-middle 
income residents. 
	
In addition, without a longitudinal study of the graduation outcomes of 
TAG participants, we will not know the true impact or benefit of the 
TAG program, as UDC has historically received a significant number of 
transfer students from both traditional and Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities. 

(Later, following the existing text under Conclusions):	 

Another option for addressing the TAG legislative objective of 
increasing higher education options for District residents would be to 
reallocate some of the unutilized TAG funding to the University to 
expand its program offerings and enhance the quality of its existing 	
ones. It is highly unlikely that the TAG Program could sufficiently 
increase the number of student participants required to absorb all of 
its FY 2002 funding (and certainly nor the $23 million carryover 
balance). Even if the program were to double its student participation, 
there would he approximately $4 million available to reallocate to the 
University on an annual basis. In addition to program development and 
enhancement, these funds could also be used to offer scholarships that 
prepare District residents for occupations that are in high demand in 
the District, as well as to District high school graduates that meet 
specific academic performance requirements, similar to the Hope 
Scholar's program now in effect in various states. 

Item: Recommendations. 
Page Number: 21. 
Suggested Change: That continued examination of the impact of the TAG 
Program on UDC be commissioned, to include a review of its impact on 
the quality of students enrolled in UDC and qualitative impacts UDC's 
programs and services, and that future reviews include an examination 
of the financial impact of TAG on District residents as well as the 
graduation outcomes of these citizens. 

We also recommend that the Congress and the Mayor review the financial 
requirements of the Tag Program to determine the feasibility of funding 
appropriated for TAG being fully expended on TAG participants. Should 
it be determined that TAG funding will not be fully expended, the 
Congress and the City should consider reallocating surplus Tag funding 
to UDC for program expansion and enhancement and for scholarship 
support. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Diana M. Pietrowiak, (202) 512-6239: 
Michelle C. Verbrugge, (202) 512-7242: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made 
important contributions to this report: Cathy Hurley, Ben Jordan, James 
Rebbe, Jay Smale, and James P. Wright. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] D.C. has only one public postsecondary institution, the University 
of the District of Columbia, which was created in 1977 when D.C. 
Teacher’s College, the Federal City College and the Washington 
Technical Institute were combined into a single institution. The 
University of the District of Columbia currently offers certificate, 2-
year, 4-year, and graduate degree programs to students. 

[2] In addition to the criterion related to the location of eligible 
institutions, to be eligible, an institution must meet the definition 
of an “institution of higher education” and be eligible to participate 
in the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965. Examples of institutions that meet this 
definition include institutions that (1) are public or other nonprofit 
institutions, (2) admit students with a secondary school graduation 
certificate or equivalent, and (3) have either been accredited or 
granted a pre-accreditation status by a national accrediting agency. 

[3] Some institutions were concerned with the institutional 
requirements contained in the initial program regulations, including 
the requirements that institutions conduct an annual compliance audit, 
maintain records that in some cases duplicate records held by the 
program office, confirm student eligibility, disseminate information 
about the program to students, and use the federal government’s 
financial aid refund policy, rather than their own institution’s refund 
policy, when a student drops out of school during the school term. 

[4] We examined the records of D.C. public school students because 
their data were more accessible than those of students who attended 
private high schools. 

[5] Data on high school GPA were not available for 107 of the 290 D.C. 
public school students who were eligible for, but did not use, the 
tuition assistance grant in academic year 2000-01. 

[6] Of the 62 institutions that these students were interested in 
attending, 19 are considered HBCUs. Data on the existence of minority 
outreach programs at the remaining 43 institutions were incomplete. 
Twenty-four institutions reported at least one minority outreach 
program, 10 reported that no program existed, and data were not 
available for 9 institutions. 

[7] UDC residential tuition rates for a full-time student with 12 
credit hours was $900 per semester in academic year 2000-01. 

[8] To prove domicile in D.C., an applicant must submit acceptable 
documentation to prove that D.C. has been his or her primary place of 
residence for the 12 months prior to the start of the freshman year of 
college. Documentation includes tax records and utility bills. 

[9] College-age residents are defined as the number of 18- to 24-year 
old residents who live in each ward. For this analysis, the number of 
students who applied for the grant program in each ward was divided by 
the number of 18- to 24-year old residents in each ward—based on census 
data prepared by the Office of Planning, D.C. State Data Center—to 
determine the percentage of college-age residents that applied for the 
grant in each ward. 

[10] The boundaries for the D.C. wards have changed since the end of 
our review due to ward redistricting, which became effective on January 
1, 2002. 

[11] These percentages do not reflect missing data on enrollment status 
for grant recipients. Data on enrollment status were not available for 
456 of the 1,920 TAG recipients. 

[12] An open-admission institution maintains an admissions policy that 
allows the school to admit any student that applies to the school. 

[13] The act provided that the mayor of the District of Columbia could 
expand the geographic scope of the public school program beyond 
Maryland and Virginia after consultation with Congress and the 
Secretary of Education if the mayor determined that eligible students 
experienced difficulty gaining admissions to public institutions in 
Maryland and Virginia because of in-state preferences and upon 
consideration of the cost of such an expansion. 

[14] This requirement would prohibit the participation of foreign 
nationals in the TAG Program. Under current law, foreign nationals who 
meet the eligibility requirements, including proof of domicile in D.C., 
are eligible to receive the grant. 

[15] The IG’s findings and recommendations can be found in the report 
titled, Audit of the Implementation of the District of Columbia College 
Access Act of 1999, Final Audit Report, Control Number ED-OIG/A03-
B0003, US Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, August 
2001. 

[16] We attempted to obtain information on SAT and high school GPA 
requirements for the 62 institutions by contacting college officials 
and reviewing requirements listed in college guide books. Many 
officials we contacted, however, indicated that they could not provide 
this information to us or that SAT and GPA data were only part of the 
overall admissions decision and, therefore, specific requirements were 
not available. However, data on average freshmen SAT scores were 
available for 37 institutions and high school GPAs were available for 
50 institutions. 

[17] High school GPA data were not available for 107 of the 290 
applicants who were eligible for, but did not use, the tuition 
assistance grant. Twelve of the 62 institutions did not provide data on 
average high school GPA for entering freshmen. 

[18] SAT data were not available for 140 of the 290 applicants who were 
eligible for, but did not use, the tuition assistance grant in academic 
year 2000-01. The median SAT was calculated on the basis of median SAT 
scores for freshmen at 37 of the 62 institutions. Eleven of the 62 
institutions did not collect SAT information on students, and we were 
unable to reach officials at 14 institutions to obtain these data. 

[19] Since the TAG Program did not collect data on race, we used as a 
proxy the percentage of all D.C. public high school students who were 
members of a racial minority. 

[20] To calculate how many of the 62 institutions had a minority 
outreach program, we tabulated data from our survey of colleges and 
universities and excluded 19 institutions that are considered HBCUs. 
Data on institutions with a minority outreach program were available 
for 34 of the 43 institutions that are not HBCUs. 

[21] Data on enrollment caps were not available for 19 of the 62 
institutions. 

[22] The parent survey was sent to the parents of 516 eligible 
applicants who did not use the grant. We received 219 responses to our 
parent survey; however, 6 of the responding parents did not provide 
information on the applicants’ activities during academic year 2000-01. 

[23] Among the 80 parents who indicated that their son or daughter 
attended an ineligible college in academic year 2000-01, 30 reported 
that their child attended UDC and 50 attended other ineligible 
institutions. 

[24] While the average age of UDC entering freshmen was 29 years, UDC 
officials reported that entering freshmen ranged in age from 17 years 
to 55 years. 

[25] As noted earlier, the four institutions included the University of 
California, the University of Florida, the University of Michigan, and 
the State University of New York. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The General Accounting 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 [hyperlink, 
http://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 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports 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. General Accounting 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: [hyperlink, http://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. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: