D.C. Tuition Assistance Grants: Program May Increase College	 
Choices, but a Few Program Procedures May Hinder Grant Receipt	 
for Some Residents (31-JAN-02, GAO-02-265).			 
                                                                 
Twenty-one percent of grant-eligible applicants who did not use  
the District of Columbia's tuition assistance grant (TAG) funding
to attend a participating college or university may have	 
encountered such barriers as college entrance requirements and	 
the absence of minority outreach programs. Whether enrollment	 
caps at colleges posed a barrier for applicants is unclear. In	 
the program's first year, 516 of the nearly 2,500 eligible	 
applicants did not use the grants. About 21 percent of the	 
institutions in which applicants expressed interest restrict the 
number of out-of-state students that they will accept, although  
the extent to which this played a role in limiting access to	 
these institutions is unclear. Enrollment at the University of	 
the District of Columbia (UDC) changed little during the TAG	 
program's first year. The TAG program and UDC appeared to serve  
different freshmen populations, which may account for the TAG	 
program's minimal impact on UDC enrollment. Although concerns	 
about TAG program administration were largely resolved with the  
revision of program regulations in December 2000, other 	 
administrative issues may hinder program operations, including	 
the determination of applicant eligibility and the distribution  
of information on institutions participating in the program.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-265 					        
    ACCNO:   A02606						        
  TITLE:     D.C. Tuition Assistance Grants: Program May Increase     
College Choices, but a Few Program Procedures May Hinder Grant	 
Receipt for Some Residents					 
     DATE:   01/31/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Black colleges					 
	     Educational grants 				 
	     Eligibility determinations 			 
	     Grant administration				 
	     Grant monitoring					 
	     Higher education					 
	     D.C. College Access Program			 
	     D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant Program		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-265
     
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

                                     1

                                    3 5

12

15

17 20 21 21

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Appendix II Colleges and Universities That As of December 10,
2001, Had Agreed to Participate in the TAG Program 26

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 48

GAO Contacts 48
Staff Acknowledgments 48

Table

Table 1: Profiles of UDC and TAG Freshmen in Academic Year
2000-01 17

Figures

Figure 1: Percentage of College-age D.C. Residents That Applied for the
Tuition Assistance Grant by Ward 8 Figure 2: Number of TAG Recipients
Attending College in Each State During Academic Year 2000-01 10 Figure 3:
Total Undergraduate Enrollment at UDC During Fall Terms 1998-2000 16

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

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.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

1D.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.

Universities (HBCUs) in Maryland and Virginia.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,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

2In 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.

3Some 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.

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 school4
-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.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

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

5Data 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.

existed at their institutions.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

6Of 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.

Background

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.

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.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

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

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 domiciled8 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.9 Figure 1 shows the percentage of college-age
residents in each D.C. ward that applied for the grant.10

8To 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.

9College-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.

10The 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.

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

Source: GAO analysis of TAG data.

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.11 Eighty-six percent of TAG

11These 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.

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,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.

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

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

Source: GAO analysis of TAG data.

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.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 1965.14 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,

13The 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.

14This 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.

Some Applicants May Have Experienced Barriers to College Access

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.15

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,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

15The 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.

16We 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.

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 2.36.17 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 735.18 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,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.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.

17High 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.

18SAT 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.

19Since 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.

20To 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.

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.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 parents22 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,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

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

22The 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.

23Among 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.

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

of 42 percent, however, our results cannot be considered generalizable to
all of the parents in our survey.

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

                                    6000

                                 Enrollment

                               5029 4944 5008

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,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

24While 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.

                                    5000

                                    4000

                                    3000

                                    2000

                                   1000 0

1998 1999 2000 Fall

Source: GAO analysis of UDC enrollment data.

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

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

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

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

bFor TAG recipients, the high school data excludes those students for whom
location of high school attendance was not available.

Although most concerns about administration of the TAG Program that were
initially raised by four large institutions25 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

25As 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.

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

Recommendations

*

*

Agency Comments

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.

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.

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.

Cornelia M. Ashby
Director, Education, Workforce,

and Income Security Issues

                      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

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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.

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

                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                
                            University                  Alabama            Alabama                                  Bishop           Central            Enterprise 
State InstitutionCity Alaska of Alaska JuneauAlabama Agricultural Normal    State    Montgomery   Auburn   Auburn    State   Mobile  Alabama  Alexander    State 
         Name                                        & Mechanical                               University         Community        Community     City    Junior 
                            Southeast                                    University                                                                             
                                                      University                                                   College           College             College  
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                 

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

                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                              East San
                                                                                                                                                                Woodland MiraCosta Oceanside Peninsula Monterey Porterville Porterville Community Riverside 
                       College           Contra          De Anza               Gabriel                                                    Long            Los   
State InstitutionCity   of the  Visalia  Costa     San  Community Cupertino    Valley       West Fullerton Fullerton  Lassen Susanville   Beach    Long Angeles Woodland MiraCosta Oceanside Peninsula Monterey Porterville Porterville Community Riverside 
         Name                                   Pablo                         Regional   Covina   College            College              City   Beach   Pierce 
                      Sequoias          College         College                                                                                                 
                                                                            Occupational                                                College         College  
                                                                              Program                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                Woodland MiraCosta Oceanside Peninsula Monterey Porterville Porterville Community Riverside 
                                                                                                                                                                Woodland MiraCosta Oceanside Peninsula Monterey Porterville Porterville Community Riverside 
     State                    Institution Name                             City
                          Southeastern University                    Washington
                              Trinity College                        Washington
   Delaware              Delaware State University                        Dover
                           University of Delaware                        Newark
    Florida              Brevard Community College                        Cocoa

Daytona Beach Community College Daytona Beach

Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University Tallahassee

Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton

Florida Community College at Jacksonville Jacksonville

Florida Gulf Coast University Fort Myers

Florida International University Miami

Florida State University Tallahassee

Lake City Community College Lake City

Palm Beach Community College Lake Worth

Pasco - Hernando Community College New Port Richey

Seminole Community College Sanford

South Florida Community College Avon Park

University of Central Florida Orlando

                                                                                                                                                                

                                                    Abraham                                                                           Georgia                  Georgia 
 University             Valencia                    Baldwin            Atlanta            Dekalb            Gainesville              College &                Institute 
 of FloridaGainesville  Community OrlandoGeorgia Agricultural Tifton  Technical Atlanta Technical Clarkston   College   Gainesville    State   Milledgeville    
                        College                                      Institute          Institute                                                               
                                                   College                                                                          University               Technology  
                                                                                                                                                                stitute 

                                                                                                                                                                stitute 
                                                                                                                                                                stitute 

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

  State                      Institution Name                          City
                Southern Illinois University at Carbondale             Carbondale
               University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign             Champaign
                  University of Illinois Central Office                    Urbana
                       Western Illinois University                         Macomb
                      William Rainey Harper College                      Palatine
 Indiana             Indiana University - Bloomington                 Bloomington
           Indiana University - Purdue University - Fort Wayne         Fort Wayne
                            Purdue University                      West Lafayette

Kansas Allen County Community College Iola

Barton County Community College Great Bend

Coffeyville Community College Coffeyville

Emporia State University Emporia

Fort Scott Community College Fort Scott

Independence Community College Independence

Labette Community College Parsons

Manhattan Area Technical College Manhattan

Pratt Community College & Area Vocational School Pratt

Southwest Kansas Technical School Liberal

University of Kansas Lawrence Washburn University - Topeka Topeka

Kentucky Hopkinsville Community College Hopkinsville Jefferson Community
College - University of Kentucky Community College System Louisville
Lexington Community College Lexington Madisonville Community College
Madisonville Morehead State University Morehead Murray State University
Murray Northern Kentucky University Highland Heights University of Kentucky
Lexington University of Louisville Louisville

                                                                                                                                                Page 29 GAO-02-265 D.C. Tuition Assistance Grants

                                                                                                                                                                
                                                    Louisiana             Louisiana              Louisiana             Louisiana                                
           Delgado            Grambling               State                 State                Technical             Technical          Northwestern          
Louisiana Community      New    State    Grambling University Alexandria  University Shreveport  College - Alexandria  College - Sorrento    State    Natchitoches Agricultural 
           College  Orleans  University                at                     in                Alexandria             Ascension          University            
                                                   Alexandria            Shreveport               Campus                Campus                                  stiColg at Baton 
                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                es Agricultural 
                                                                                                                                                                es Agricultural 
                                                                                                                                                                es Agricultural 

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

State Institution Name City

University of Massachusetts - Boston Boston

University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth North Dartmouth

                                                                                                                                                                

         Allegany             Baltimore                                                                               College                                   
                                                                                     Cecil                                           Columbia         Coppin    
Maryland  College Cumberland    City    Baltimore Bowie StateBowie  Capitol Laurel Community North Chesapeake    Wye    of        La   Union  Takoma  State  Baltimore 
            of                Community           University       College                   East   College   Mills  Southern Plata            Park             
         Maryland             College                                               College                          Maryland        College         College    
                                                                                                                                                                timore 

                                                                                                                                                                timore 
                                                                                                                                                                timore 
                                                                                                                                                                timore 

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

                                                                                                                                                                

                        Monroe                                                 St. Clair        University        University                                    
                                         Montcalm          Northern                                                                Washtenaw          Western   
State InstitutionCity   County   Monroe Community Sidney   Michigan  Marquette   County   Port      of      Ann       of    Flint  Community  Ann    Michigan  Kalamazoo Minnesota 
         Name          Community                                               Community Huron  Michigan - Arbor  Michigan -                 Arbor              
                       College           College         University             College         Ann Arbor           Flint          College          University  
                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                alamazoo Minnesota 
                                                                                                                                                                alamazoo Minnesota 
                                                                                                                                                                alamazoo Minnesota 
                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                 North                                          
                        Forsyth                                    James                                        Carolina                 North            North 
                                                Halifax                                  Martin                                                                 
State InstitutionCity  Technical Winston-Salem Community Weldon   Sprunt   Kenansville Community Williamston  Agricultural Greensboro  Carolina  Durham  Carolina Winston-Salem 
         Name          Community                                 Community                                    & Technical               Central         School of 
                       College                  College          College                College                  State                University        the Arts  
                                                                                                              University                                        
                                                                                                                                                                a Winston-Salem 

                                                                                                                                                                a Winston-Salem 
                                                                                                                                                                a Winston-Salem 
                                                                                                                                                                a Winston-Salem 
                                                                                                                                                                a Winston-Salem 
                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                
                      Rutgers the                                                  William                                                                      .
                         State                 Salem             Sussex           Paterson                New Mexico        New Mexico         New Mexico       
State InstitutionCity  University        New Community Carneys   County   Newton University Wayne   New   Highlands   Las    Military Roswell    State      Las 
         Name                     Brunswick             Point   Community                         Mexico             Vegas                                Cruces  
                         of New               College                              of New                University         Institute         University        .
                        Jersey                                  College            Jersey                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                klahoma .
                                                                                                                                                                klahoma .
                       Ohio State                               Terra           University       University              Wright           Youngstown            .
State InstitutionCity  University Columbus    Ohio    Athens  Community Fremont  of Akron Akron      of     Cincinnati    State   Dayton    State    YoungstownOklahoma .
         Name                              University                                                                                                           <
                         (The)                                College             (The)         Cincinnati             University        University             
                                                                                                                                                                .
                                                                                                                                                                klahoma .

                                                                                                                                                                klahoma .
                                                                                                                                                                klahoma .
                                                                                                                                                                klahoma .
                                                                                                                                                                klahoma .
                                                                                                                                                                klahoma .
                                                                                                                                                                

                       University           University                                                                                                  Citadel, 
                           of                   of                 West Chester                 University of              University                      The  
State InstitutionCity  Pittsburgh Johnstown Pittsburgh Titusville University of     WestPuerto  Puerto Rico -  San   Rhode  of Rhode  Kingston  South   Military Charleston 
         Name                                                                   Chester  Rico      Central    Juan  Island                    Carolina   College 
                           at                   at                Pennsylvania                                               Island                             .
                       Johnstown            Titusville                                         Administration                                           of South 
                                                                                                                                                        Carolina

                                                                                                                                                                 Charleston 
                                                                                                                                                                 Charleston 
                                                                                                                                                                 Charleston 
                                                                                                                                                                T

                         Texas                                                                                                                                  
                         State              Trinity         University          University       University         West Texas              College        Dixie 
State InstitutionCity  Technical Harlingen   Valley  Athens of Houston Victoria  of North Denton  of Texas  Austin Agricultural Canyon Utah   of    Price  State 
         Name                              Community                                                               & Mechanical             Eastern       College George  
                       College -                            -Victoria             Texas          at Austin                                                      
                      Harlingen             College                                                                 University               Utah         of Utah  

                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                 
     State                       Institution Name                       City
                          Evergreen State College (The)                   Olympia
                          Green River Community College                    Auburn
                              Lower Columbia College                     Longview
                                  Pierce College                         Lakewood
                           Shoreline Community College                    Seattle
                             Tacoma Community College                      Tacoma
                           Washington State University                    Pullman
   Wisconsin              Northcentral Technical College                   Wausau
                      Northeast Wisconsin Technical College             Green Bay
                       University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire            Eau Claire
                       University of Wisconsin - Green Bay              Green Bay
                        University of Wisconsin - LaCrosse              La Crosse
                        University of Wisconsin - Madison                 Madison
                        University of Wisconsin - Parkside                Kenosha
                      University of Wisconsin - Platteville           Platteville
                      University of Wisconsin - River Falls           River Falls
                         University of Wisconsin - Stout                Menomonie
                        Waukesha County Technical College                Pewaukee
 West Virginia                   Concord College                           Athens
                              Fairmont State College                     Fairmont
                             Glenville State College                    Glenville
                               Marshall University                     Huntington
                Potomac State College of West Virginia University          Keyser
                                 Shepherd College                   Shepherdstown
                            West Liberty State College               West Liberty
                           West Virginia State College                  Institute
                             West Virginia University                  Morgantown
                      West Virginia University - Parkersburg          Parkersburg
    Wyoming                  Central Wyoming College                     Riverton
                             Eastern Wyoming College                   Torrington
                              University of Wyoming                       Laramie
                           Source: TAG Program office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix IV: Comments From the University 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

(130019)

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

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.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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.

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

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have
GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select
"Subscribe to 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 P.O. Box 37050 Washington, D.C. 20013

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

Visit GAO's Document GAO Building

Distribution  Center  Room 1100,  700 4th  Street, NW  (corner of 4th  and G
Streets, NW) Washington, D.C. 20013

To Report Fraud, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm,

Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected], or

Federal Programs 1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 (automated answering
system).

Jeff   Nelligan,  Managing   Director,   [email protected]   (202)  512-4800

Public Affairs U.S.  General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***