Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions: Education Has Taken
Steps to Improve Monitoring and Assistance, but Further Progress 
Is Needed (04-JUN-07, GAO-07-926T).				 
                                                                 
Institutions that may receive funding under Titles III and V	 
include Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),	 
Tribal Colleges, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Alaska Native	 
Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and  
other postsecondary institutions that serve low-income students. 
In fiscal year 2006, these programs provided $448 million in	 
funding for over 500 grantees, nearly double fiscal year 1999	 
funding of $230 million. GAO examined these programs to determine
(1) how institutions used their Title III and Title V grants and 
the benefits they received from using these grant funds, (2) what
objectives and strategies the Department of Education (Education)
has developed for Title III and Title V programs, and (3) to what
extent Education monitors and provides assistance to these	 
institutions. This testimony updates a September 2004 report on  
these programs (GAO-04-961). To update our work, GAO reviewed	 
Education policy and planning documents, and program materials	 
and grantee performance reports; interviewed Education officials;
and analyzed Education data on grantee characteristics. 	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-926T					        
    ACCNO:   A70228						        
  TITLE:     Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions: Education  
Has Taken Steps to Improve Monitoring and Assistance, but Further
Progress Is Needed						 
     DATE:   06/04/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Aid for education					 
	     Colleges and universities				 
	     Disadvantaged persons				 
	     Education						 
	     Educational facilities				 
	     Educational grants 				 
	     Educational standards				 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Funds management					 
	     Grant administration				 
	     Grant monitoring					 
	     Higher education					 
	     Minority education 				 
	     Performance management				 
	     Strategic planning 				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** 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-07-926T

   

     * [1]Background
     * [2]Grantees Reported a Range of Uses and Benefits for Title III
     * [3]Education Has Developed New Objectives, Strategies, and Perf
     * [4]Education Has Made Some Changes Designed to Better Target Mo
     * [5]Prior Recommendations and Agency Response
     * [6]GAO Contacts
     * [7]GAO's Mission
     * [8]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [9]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [10]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [11]Congressional Relations
     * [12]Public Affairs

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning,
and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, House of
Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office
GAO

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT
Monday, June 4, 2007

LOW-INCOME AND MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTIONS

Education Has Taken Steps to Improve Monitoring and Assistance, but
Further Progress Is Needed

Statement of George A. Scott, Director
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues

GAO-07-926T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the federal government's programs
to support low-income and minority serving institutions (MSIs). We
previously reported on the Department of Education's efforts to monitor
and assist these institutions.^1 Beginning in 1965, Congress created
several programs under the Higher Education Act (HEA) to strengthen and
support developing postsecondary institutions. In subsequent
reauthorizations, Congress expanded the HEA to include programs that
support institutions that provide low-income and minority students with
access to higher education.^2 These programs are generally referred to as
Titles III and V of the HEA. The amount of federal funds available for
these programs has nearly doubled from about $230 million in fiscal year
1999 to about $448 million in fiscal year 2007. Given the recent expansion
of these programs and that HEA is slated for reauthorization this year,
this hearing presents a timely opportunity to explore these grant
programs. My testimony today focuses on (1) how institutions used their
Title III and Title V grants and the benefits they received from using
these grant funds, (2) what objectives and strategies the Department of
Education (Education) has developed for Title III and Title V programs,
and (3) to what extent Education monitors and provides assistance to Title
III and Title V institutions.

In summary, we found that grantees most commonly reported using Title III
and Title V grant funds to strengthen academic quality; improve support
for students and student success; and improve institutional management and
reported a wide range of benefits. For example, Sinte Gleska, a tribal
college in South Dakota, used part of its Title III grant to fund the
school's distance learning department, and to provide students access to
academic and research resources otherwise not available at its rural
isolated location.

^1GAO, Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions: Department of
Education Could Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance, [13]GAO-04-961
(Washington, D.C. : Sept. 21, 2004).

^2These programs include Title III, Part A Strengthening Institutions;
Title III Part A American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and
Universities; Title III, Part A Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving
Institutions; Title III, Part B Strengthening Historically Black Colleges
and Universities; Title V, Part A Developing Hispanic Serving
Institutions. Throughout the report when we refer to Title III and Title V
programs or grants, we are referring to these specific programs. Our
review did not include Title III, Part B Historically Black Professional
or Graduate Institutions; Part D HBCU Capital Financing; or Part E
Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program.

However, our review of grant files found that institutions experienced
challenges, such as staffing problems, which sometimes resulted in
implementation delays. For example, one grantee reported delays in
implementing its management information system due to the turnover of
experienced staff. In addition, Education officials told us that common
problems include delays in construction of facilities and hiring of staff.
As a result of these implementation challenges, grantees sometimes need
additional time to complete planned activities.

Although Education has established outcome based objectives and
performance measures, it needs to take additional steps to align some of
its strategies and objectives, and develop additional performance
measures. Education has established an overall strategy to improve the
academic, administrative, and fiscal stability of HBCUs, HSIs, and Tribal
Colleges, along with objectives and performance measures focused on
maintaining or increasing student outcomes, such as graduation rates. When
we reported on Education's strategic planning efforts in our 2004 report,
its measures were focused on program outputs rather than outcomes, which
did not assess programmatic impacts. While Education has made progress in
developing more outcome based measures, we found insufficient links
between its strategies for improving administrative and fiscal stability
with its objectives to increase student outcomes. To address challenges in
measuring institutional progress in areas such as administrative and
fiscal stability, Education is conducting a study of the financial health
of low income and minority serving institutions supported by Title III and
Title V programs.

Education has made changes to better target monitoring and assistance in
response to recommendations we made in our 2004 report, however,
additional study is needed to determine the effectiveness of these
efforts. For example, Education uses risk indicators designed to better
target at risk grantees that may require site visits, but a more extensive
review is required to determine the quality of these visits. While
Education implemented an electronic monitoring system, it lacks the
ability to systematically track grantee performance as designed. Education
has expanded its training specific to monitoring and assistance by
offering courses such as an overview of grant monitoring. However, more
information is needed to assess how well courses meet staff needs because
Education's new training recordkeeping system does not contain information
from prior systems. While Education provides technical assistance through
various methods, its ability to target assistance remains limited in that
its feedback mechanisms may not encourage open communication.

To determine how institutions used Title III and Title V funds and the
resulting benefits, we reviewed Education's 2006 Annual Performance
Reports for six grantee institutions of Title III and Title V grant
programs to determine uses and benefits of grant funds, and challenges
associated with project implementation. Education selected these
institutions based on our request for examples of schools with typical
grant experience. The results from our review cannot be generalized to all
grantees, and we did not independently verify the accuracy of the
information that grantees reported. To determine the objectives,
strategies, and performance measures Education has developed for Title III
and Title V programs, we talked with Education officials and reviewed
program and planning documents. To determine how Education monitors and
provides assistance to the Title III and Title V grantees, we interviewed
Education officials and reviewed documents, including program policies and
guidance. We also reviewed applicable laws and regulations, and analyzed
data regarding the characteristics of fiscal year 2006 grantee
institutions as reported in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS). To assess the completeness of the IPEDS data, we reviewed
the National Center for Education Statistics' documentation on how the
data were collected and performed electronic tests to identify missing or
out-of-range values. On the basis of these reviews and tests, we found the
data sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Our work was performed in May
2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Background

Postsecondary institutions that serve large proportions of economically
disadvantaged and minority students are eligible to receive grants from
Education through Title III and Title V of the Higher Education Act, as
amended, to improve academic and program quality, expand educational
opportunities, address institutional management issues, enhance
institutional stability, and improve student services and outcomes.
Institutions eligible for funding under Titles III and V include
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges,
Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian
Institutions, and other undergraduate institutions of higher education
that serve low-income students. While these institutions differ in terms
of the racial and ethnic makeup of their students, they serve a
disproportionate number of financially needy students and have limited
financial resources, such as endowment funds, with which to serve them.
(See app. I for characteristics of Title III and Title V institutions and
their students.) Title III and Title V statutory provisions generally
outline broad program goals for strengthening participating institutions,
but provide grantees with flexibility in deciding which approaches will
best meet their needs. An institution can use the grants to focus on one
or more activities that will help it achieve the goals articulated in its
comprehensive development plan--a plan that each applicant must submit
with its grant application outlining its strategy for achieving growth and
self-sufficiency. The statutory and regulatory eligibility criteria for
all of the programs, with the exception of the HBCU program, contain
requirements that institutions applying for grants serve a significant
number of economically disadvantaged students. See table 1 for additional
information about eligibility requirements.

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

                                              Wait-out                        
Grant program   Type of grant^a Duration^b period^c Eligibility criteria   
Title III, Part Competitive     Up to 5    2 years  An institution of      
A Strengthening                 years               higher education which 
Institutions                                        (1) has an enrollment  
                                                       of needy students--at  
                                                       least 50 percent of    
                                                       students receive       
                                                       need-based federal     
                                                       financial assistance   
                                                       or its percentage of   
                                                       students receiving     
                                                       Pell Grants exceeds    
                                                       that of comparable     
                                                       institutions; (2) has  
                                                       average educational    
                                                       and general            
                                                       expenditures that are  
                                                       low compared with      
                                                       those of other         
                                                       institutions that      
                                                       offer similar          
                                                       instruction; (3) is    
                                                       accredited or making   
                                                       reasonable progress    
                                                       toward accreditation;  
                                                       and (4) is legally     
                                                       authorized by the      
                                                       state in which it is   
                                                       located to be a junior 
                                                       college or award       
                                                       bachelor's degrees.    
Title III, Part Competitive     Up to 5    2 years  Must meet the same     
A Tribal                        years               eligibility criteria   
Colleges                                            as required for the    
                                                       Strengthening          
                                                       Institutions program.  
                                                       Additionally, must     
                                                       meet the statutory     
                                                       definition of          
                                                       "tribally controlled   
                                                       college or             
                                                       university."           
Title III, Part Competitive     Up to 5    2 years  Must meet the same     
A Alaska Native                 years               eligibility criteria   
and Native                                          as required for the    
Hawaiian                                            Strengthening          
                                                       Institutions program.  
                                                       Additionally, must     
                                                       have an undergraduate  
                                                       enrollment that is at  
                                                       least 20 percent       
                                                       Alaska Native or at    
                                                       least 10 percent       
                                                       Native Hawaiian, as    
                                                       applicable.            
Title III, Part Formulaic/      Up to 5    None     Any college or         
B Historically  noncompetitive  years               university that was    
Black Colleges                                      established prior to   
and                                                 1964, and whose        
Universities                                        principal mission was, 
                                                       and is, the education  
                                                       of African Americans,  
                                                       that is accredited or  
                                                       is making reasonable   
                                                       progress toward        
                                                       accreditation.         
Title V, Part A Competitive     Up to 5    2 years  Must meet the same     
Hispanic                        years               eligibility criteria   
Serving                                             as required for the    
Institutions                                        Strengthening          
                                                       Institutions program.  
                                                       Additionally, must     
                                                       have an undergraduate  
                                                       enrollment of          
                                                       full-time equivalent   
                                                       students that is at    
                                                       least 25 percent       
                                                       Hispanic, of which no  
                                                       less than 50 percent   
                                                       are low-income         
                                                       individuals.           
                                                       Institutions receiving 
                                                       grant funds through    
                                                       Title V may not        
                                                       simultaneously receive 
                                                       funds through Title    
                                                       III, Parts A or B.     

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

aInstitutions that participate in the HBCU program receive grants based on
a formula that considers, in part, the amount of funds appropriated, the
number of Pell Grant recipients, the number of graduates, and the number
of students that enroll in graduate school in degree programs in which
African Americans are underrepresented within 5 years after earning an
undergraduate degree. Institutions that participate in all other programs
receive grants based on a ranking of applications from a competitive peer
review evaluation, and may apply for individual development or cooperative
development grants. Institutions that receive cooperative grants partner
and share resources with another postsecondary institution--which may or
may not be eligible for Title III or Title V funding--to achieve common
goals without costly duplication of effort.

bFor some programs, institutions may apply for 1-year planning, 1-year
construction, and 1-year renovation grants.

cThe minimum number of years institutions receiving an individual
development grant must wait before they are eligible to receive another
grant under the same program

Historically, one of the primary missions of Title III has been to support
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which play a significant
role in providing postsecondary opportunities for African American,
low-income, and educationally disadvantaged students. These institutions
receive funding, in part, to remedy past discriminatory action of the
states and the federal government against black colleges and universities.
For a number of years, all institutions that serve financially needy
students--both minority serving and nonminority serving--competed for
funding under the Strengthening Institutions Program, also under Title
III. However, in 1998, the Higher Education Act was amended to create new
grant programs specifically designated to provide financial support for
Tribal Colleges, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Institutions, and
Hispanic Serving Institutions.^3 These programs have provided additional
opportunities for Minority Serving Institutions to compete for federal
grant funding. In 1999, the first year of funding for the expanded
programs, 55 Hispanic Serving, Tribal, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian
Institutions were awarded grants, and as of fiscal year 2006, 197 such
institutions had new or continuation grants. (See table 2).

^3Education has proposed discontinuing funding for Title III, part A
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions in its fiscal year 2008 budget
proposal. According to Education, the types of activities supported by
this program may be carried out under the Title III Strengthening
Institutions program. Institutions whose projects would be discontinued
would be eligible to seek funds under the Strengthening Institutions
program.

Table 2: Title III and Title V Funding by Program, Fiscal Years 1999 and
2006

                                                                  Number of
                                         Funding (in millions of institutions
                                                dollars)            funded
Type of grant                            1999   2006     1999         2006
Title III, part A Strengthening                  $60      $80   180    223 
Institutions                                                               
Title III, part A Tribal Colleges                  3       24     8     27 
Title III, part A Alaska                           3       12     8     19 
Native/Native Hawaiian                                                     
Title III, part B Historically Black             136      238    98     97 
Colleges and Universities                                                  
Title V, part A Hispanic Serving                  28       95    39   151a 
Institutions                                                               
Total                                           $229     $448   319    517 

Source: Department of Education.

aIn 2006, 151 Hispanic Serving Institutions received 172 grants.
Twenty-one of the institutions received two grants--an individual
development grant and a cooperative development grant.

The grant programs are designed to increase the self-sufficiency and
strengthen the capacity of eligible institutions. Congress has identified
many areas in which institutions may use funds for improving their
academic programs. Authorized uses include, but are not limited to,
construction, maintenance, renovation or improvement of educational
facilities; purchase or rental of certain kinds of equipment or services;
support of faculty development; and purchase of library books,
periodicals, and other educational materials.

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

In their grant performance reports, the six grantees we recently reviewed
most commonly reported using Title III and Title V grant funds to
strengthen academic quality; improve support for students and student
success; and improve institutional management and reported a range of
benefits. To a lesser extent, grantees also reported using grant funds to
improve their fiscal stability. However, our review of grant files found
that institutions experienced challenges, such as staffing problems, which
sometimes resulted in implementation delays.

           o Efforts to Improve Academic Quality--Four of the six grantees we
           reviewed reported focusing at least one of their grant activities
           on improving academic quality. The goal of these efforts was to
           enhance faculty effectiveness in the classroom and to improve the
           learning environment for students. For example, Ilisagvik College,
           an Alaska Native Serving Institution, used part of its Title III,
           part A Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian grant to provide
           instruction and student support services to prepare students for
           college-level math and English courses. According to the
           institution, many of its students come to college unprepared for
           math and English, and grant funds have helped the school to
           increase completion rates in these courses by 14 percentage
           points.

           o Efforts to Improve Support for Students and Student
           Success--Four of the six grantees we reviewed reported focusing at
           least one of their grant activities on improving support for
           students and student success. This area includes, among other
           things, tutoring, counseling, and student service programs
           designed to improve academic success. Sinte Gleska, a tribal
           college in South Dakota, used part of its Title III grant to fund
           the school's distance learning department. Sinte Gleska reported
           that Title III has helped the school develop and extend its
           programs, particularly in the area of course delivery through
           technology. In addition, the school is able to offer its students
           access to academic and research resources otherwise not available
           in its rural isolated location.

           o Efforts to Improve Institutional Management--Four of the six
           grantees we reviewed reported focusing at least one of their grant
           activities on improving institutional management. Examples in this
           area include improving the technological infrastructure,
           constructing and renovating facilities, and establishing or
           enhancing management systems, among others. For example, Chaminade
           University, a Native Hawaiian Serving Institution, used part of
           its Title III grant to enhance the school's academic and
           administrative information system. According to Chaminade
           University, the new system allows students to access class lists
           and register on-line, and readily access their student financial
           accounts. Additionally, the Title III grant has helped provide
           students with the tools to explore course options and develop
           financial responsibility.

           o Efforts to Improve Fiscal Stability at Grantee Institutions--Two
           of the six institutions we reviewed reported focusing at least one
           of their grant activities on improving its fiscal stability.
           Examples include activities such as establishing or enhancing a
           development office, establishing or improving an endowment fund,
           and increasing research dollars. Development officers at Concordia
           College, a historically black college in Alabama, reported using
           its Title III grant to raise the visibility of the college with
           potential donors.

While grantees reported a range of uses and benefits, four of the six
grantees also reported challenges in implementing their projects. For
example, one grantee reported delays in implementing its management
information system due to the turn-over of experienced staff. Another
grantee reported project delays because needed software was not delivered
as scheduled. In addition, Education officials told us that common
problems for grantees include delays in constructing facilities and
hiring. As a result of these implementation challenges, grantees sometimes
need additional time to complete planned activities. For example, 45
percent of the 49 grantees in the Title V, developing Hispanic Serving
Institutions program that ended their 5-year grant period in September
2006 had an available balance greater than $1,000, ranging from less than
1 percent (about $2,500) to 16 percent (about $513,000) of the total
grant. According to Education regulations, grantees generally have the
option of extending the grant for 1 year after the 5-year grant cycle has
ended to obligate remaining funds.

Education Has Developed New Objectives, Strategies, and Performance Measures
that Focus on Program Outcomes, but Challenges Remain

Education has established a series of new objectives, strategies, and
performance measures that are focused on key student outcomes for Title
III and Title V programs. As part of Education's overall goal for higher
education within its 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, Education established a
supporting strategy to improve the academic, administrative, and fiscal
stability of HBCUs, HSIs, and Tribal Colleges. Education has also
established objectives in its annual program performance plans to maintain
or increase student enrollment, persistence,^4 and graduation rates at all
Title III and Title V institutions, and has developed corresponding
performance measures. When we reported on Education's strategic planning
efforts in our 2004 report, it measured its progress in achieving
objectives by measuring outputs, such as the percentage of institutional
goals that grantees had related to academic quality that were met or
exceeded. However, these measures did not assess the programmatic impact
of its efforts. Education's new objectives and performance measures are
designed to be more outcome focused. In addition, the targets for these
new performance measures were established based on an assessment of Title
III and Title V institutions' prior performance compared to performance at
all institutions that participate in federal student financial assistance
programs. Education officials told us that they made these changes, in
part, to address concerns identified by the Office of Management and
Budget that Education did not have specific long-term performance measures
that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program

^4The percentage of full-time undergraduate students who were in their
first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are
enrolled in the current year at the same institution.

Education needs to take additional steps to align some of its strategies
and objectives, and develop additional performance measures. GAO has
previously reported that performance plans may be improved if strategies
are linked to specific performance goals and the plans describe how the
strategies will contribute to the achievement of those goals.^5 We found
insufficient links between strategies and objectives in Education's
strategic plans and annual program performance plans. Specifically,
Education needs to better link its strategies for improving administrative
and fiscal stability with its objectives to increase or maintain
enrollment, persistence, and graduation rates because it is unclear how
these strategies impact Education's chosen outcome measures.

In fact, GAO and other federal agencies have previously found Education
faces challenges in measuring institutional progress in areas such as
administrative and fiscal stability. To address part of this problem,
Education is conducting a study of the financial health of low-income and
minority serving institutions supported by Title III and Title V funds to
determine, among other things, the major factors influencing financial
health and whether the data Education collects on institutions can be used
to measure fiscal stability. Education officials expect the study to be
completed in 2008.

^5GAO, Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve
Usefulness to Decisionmakers. GGD/AIMD-99-69 (Feb. 26, 1999.) Washington,
D.C.

Education Has Made Some Changes Designed to Better Target Monitoring and
Assistance, but Its Efforts Remain Limited

Education made changes designed to better target monitoring and assistance
in response to recommendations we made in our 2004 report; however,
additional work is needed to ensure the effectiveness of these efforts.
Specifically, we recommended that the Secretary of Education take steps to
ensure that monitoring and technical assistance plans are carried out and
targeted to at-risk grantees and the needs of grantees guide the technical
assistance offered. Education needed to take several actions to implement
this recommendation, including completing its electronic monitoring tools
and training programs to ensure that department staff are adequately
prepared to monitor and assist grantees and using appropriately collected
feedback from grantees to target assistance.

Education has taken steps to better target at-risk grantees, but more
information is needed to determine its effectiveness. In assessing risk,
department staff are to use a variety of sources, including expenditure of
grant funds, review of performance reports, and federally required audit
reports. However, according to a 2007 report issued by Education's Office
of Inspector General, program staff did not ensure grantees complied with
federal audit reporting requirements. As a result, Education lacks
assurance that grantees are appropriately managing federal funds, which
increases the potential risk for waste, fraud, and abuse.^6 In addition to
reviewing grantee fiscal, performance, and compliance information, program
staff are also required to consider a number of factors affecting the
ability of grantees to manage their grants in the areas of project
management and implementation, funds management, communication, and
performance measurement. Education reports that identifying appropriate
risk factors have been a continuous process and that these factors are
still being refined. On the basis of results of the risk assessments,
program staff are to follow up with grantees to determine whether they are
in need of further monitoring and assistance. Follow-up can take many
forms, ranging from telephone calls and e-mails to on-site compliance
visits and technical assistance if issues cannot not be readily addressed.
In targeting grantees at risk, Education officials told us that the
department has recently changed its focus to improve the quality of
monitoring while making the best use of limited resources. For example,
Education officials said that risk criteria are being used to target those
grantees most in need of sites visits rather than requiring staff to
conduct a minimum number each year. Based on information Education
provided, program staff conducted site visits at 28 of the 517
institutions receiving Title III and Title V funding in fiscal year 2006,
but a more extensive review is required to determine the nature and
quality of them.

^6Office of Inspector General, Department of Education, Audit of the
Discretionary Grant Award Process in the Office of Postsecondary Education
(OPE), CAN: ED-OIG/A19G0001 (Apr 16, 2007).

Education's ability to effectively target monitoring and assistance to
grantees may be hampered because of limitations in its electronic
monitoring system, which are currently being addressed. Education
implemented this system in December 2004 and all program staff were
required to use the system as part of their daily monitoring activities.
The system was designed to access funding information from existing
systems, such as its automated payment system, as well as to access
information from a departmental database that contains institutional
performance reports. According to Education, further refinements to its
electronic monitoring system to systematically track and monitor grantees.
For example, the current system does not allow users to identify the risk
by institution. Education also plans to automate and integrate the
risk-based plan with their electronic monitoring system. Education
anticipates the completion of system enhancements by the end of 2007.
Because efforts are ongoing, Education has limited ability to
systematically track grantee performance and fiscal information.

Regarding training, Education reports that it has expanded course
offerings to program staff specific to monitoring and assistance.
Education officials told us that the department has only a few mandated
courses, but noted that a number of training courses are offered, such as
grants monitoring overview and budget review and analysis, to help program
staff acquire needed skills for monitoring and assistance. However,
because Education recently moved to a new training recordkeeping system
that does not include information from prior systems, we were unable to
determine the extent to which program staff participated in these
offerings. We reported in 2004 that staff were unaware of the guidelines
for monitoring grantees and more information is needed to determine the
extent to which new courses are meeting the needs of program staff.

While Education provides technical assistance through program conferences,
workshops, and routine interaction between program officers and grantees,
Education's ability to target assistance remains limited, in that its
feedback mechanisms may not encourage open communication. Education
officials told us that they primarily rely on grantee feedback transmitted
in annual performance reports and communication between program officers
and grantees. As we reported in 2004, Education stated that it was
considering ways to collect feedback separate from its reporting process
for all its grant programs but no such mechanisms have been developed.

Prior Recommendations and Agency Response

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

Education agreed with our recommendation, and has taken actions to target
its monitoring and technical assistance to at-risk grantees. However,
additional study is needed to determine the effectiveness of these
efforts.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have
at this time.

GAO Contacts

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
include Debra Prescott, Tranchau (Kris) Nguyen, Claudine Pauselli,
Christopher Lyons, Carlo Salerno, Sheila McCoy, and Susan Bernstein.

Appendix I: Characteristics of Fiscal Year 2006 Title III and Title V
Grantees

                                                         Title III,              
                                   Title    Title III,       Part B     Title V, 
                     Title III,     III, Part A Alaska Historically       Part A 
                         Part A   Part A Native/Native        Black     Hispanic 
                  Strengthening   Tribal      Hawaiian Colleges and      Serving 
                   Institutions Colleges  Institutions Universities Institutions 
Average                                                                       
undergraduate                                                                 
enrollment             5,606      539         2,644        2,885       10,152 
Gender                                                                        
Male                      42       34            41           39           41 
Female                    58       66            59           61           59 
Race/Ethnicity                                                                
American                   2       83             6                         1 
Indian/Alaska                                                                 
Native                                                                        
Asian/Pacific              6        2            47            1            9 
Islander                                                                      
Black                     14                      2           81           10 
Hispanic                   8        1             3            3           43 
White                     65       13            36           13           28 
Nonresident                2                      3            1            3 
alien                                                                         
Unknown                    5        1             4            2            6 
Control                                                                       
Private,                  22       36            14           47           20 
not-for-profit                                                                
Public                    78       64            86           53           79 
Type                                                                          
< 4-year                  67       57            50           13           55 
4-year                    33       43            50           87           45 
Average                                                                       
percentage of                                                                 
students with                                                                 
federal                                                                       
grant^a                   45       67            27           67           51 
Open                                                                          
admissions                                                                    
policyb                                                                       
Yes                       70       93            64           39           62 
No                        29        7            29           60           36 
Not applicable                      7             2            1              
On campus                                                                     
housing                                                                       
Yes                       47       29            57           87           34 
No                        53       71            43           12           66 
Not applicable             2                                                  

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Department of Education, Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System.

aFederal grants include Pell Grants and other federal grants awarded to
individual students.

bThis is an admission policy whereby the institution will accept any
student who applies.

Notes: (1)Percentages do not always sum to 100 because responses labeled
"not applicable" "not reported" or left intentionally blank have been
excluded.

(2) Data for average percentage of students with federal grant aid is from
fiscal year 2004.

(130777)

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

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [14]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
[15]www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

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

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: [16]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [17][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [18][email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [19][email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

[20]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-926T .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact George Scott at (202) 512-7215 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [21]GAO-07-926T , a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on
Education and Labor, House of Representatives

June 4, 2007

LOW-INCOME AND MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTIONS

Education Has Taken Steps to Improve Monitoring and Assistance, but
Further

Institutions that may receive funding under Titles III and V include
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges,
Hispanic Serving Institutions, Alaska Native Serving Institutions, Native
Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and other postsecondary institutions that
serve low-income students. In fiscal year 2006, these programs provided
$448 million in funding for over 500 grantees, nearly double fiscal year
1999 funding of $230 million. GAO examined these programs to determine (1)
how institutions used their Title III and Title V grants and the benefits
they received from using these grant funds, (2) what objectives and
strategies the Department of Education (Education) has developed for Title
III and Title V programs, and (3) to what extent Education monitors and
provides assistance to these institutions.

This testimony updates a September 2004 report on these programs
(GAO-04-961). To update our work, GAO reviewed Education policy and
planning documents, and program materials and grantee performance reports;
interviewed Education officials; and analyzed Education data on grantee
characteristics.

[22]What GAO Recommends

Education made changes to improve monitoring and assistance in response to
our 2004 recommendations, but further progress is needed.

In their performance reports, the six grantees we reviewed most commonly
reported using Title III and Title V grant funds to strengthen academic
quality; improve support for students and student success; and improve
institutional management and reported a wide range of benefits. For
example, Sinte Gleska, a tribal college in South Dakota, used part of its
Title III grant to fund the school's distance learning department, to
provide students access to academic and research resources otherwise not
available in its rural isolated location. Our review of grant files found
that institutions experienced challenges, such as staffing problems, which
sometimes resulted in implementation delays. For example, one grantee
reported delays in implementing its management information system due to
the turn over of experienced staff. As a result of these implementation
challenges, grantees sometimes need additional time to complete planned
activities.

Although Education has established outcome based objectives and
performance measures, it needs to take steps to align some strategies and
objectives, and develop additional performance measures. Education has
established an overall strategy to improve the academic, administrative,
and fiscal stability of grantees, along with objectives and performance
measures focused on student outcomes, such as graduation rates. In 2004,
we reported that Education's strategic planning efforts in were focused on
program outputs that did not assess programmatic impacts, such as the
percentage of goals that grantees met or exceeded, rather than outcomes.
While Education has made progress in developing outcome based measures, we
found insufficient links between its strategies for improving
administrative and fiscal stability with its student outcome objective. To
address challenges in measuring institutional progress in areas such as
administrative and fiscal stability, Education is conducting a study of
the financial health of low income and minority serving institutions
supported by Title III and Title V.

Education has made changes to better target monitoring and assistance in
response to recommendations GAO made in 2004, however, additional study is
needed to determine the effectiveness of these efforts. For example,
Education uses risk indicators designed to better target grantees that may
require site visits. While Education implemented an electronic monitoring
system, it lacks the ability to systematically track grantee performance
as designed. While Education provides technical assistance through various
methods, its ability to target assistance remains limited in that its
feedback mechanisms may not encourage open communication. Specifically,
Education relies on grantee performance reports that are tied to funding
decisions to solicit feedback.

References

Visible links
  13. mailto://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-961
  14. mailto://www.gao.gov/
  15. mailto://www.gao.gov/
  16. mailto://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  17. mailto:[email protected]
  18. mailto:[email protected]
  19. mailto:[email protected]
  20. mailto://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-926T
  21. mailto://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-926T
*** End of document. ***