Department of Education

HIGHER EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language .............................................................................................................T-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes............................................................................T-3

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers ....................................................................................T-7

Summary of Changes ..................................................................................................................T-8

Authorizing Legislation.................................................................................................................T-9

Appropriations History................................................................................................................T-15

Significant Items in FY 2013 Appropriations Reports..................................................................T-16

Summary of Request .................................................................................................................T-18

Activities:

Aid for institutional development ............................................................................................T-23

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions .......................................................................................T-61

Other aid for institutions:

 International education and foreign language studies:

Domestic programs ........................................................................................................T-71

Overseas programs........................................................................................................T-89

 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education......................................................T-96

 Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education.T-104

 Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions ...................................T-108

 Special programs for migrant students .............................................................................T-113

Assistance for students:

 Federal TRIO programs....................................................................................................T-121

 Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs ..............................T-135

 Scholarships and fellowships:

Graduate assistance in areas of national need.............................................................T-144

 Child care access means parents in school......................................................................T-152

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation...................................................................................T-158
T-1

HIGHER EDUCATION

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, titles III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of 

the HEA, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, and section 117 of the 

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, $2,182,799,000: Provided, That 

$67,607,000 shall be used for data collection, evaluation, research, and demonstration activities 

relating to programs under the HEA, including activities that are designed to test approaches for 

providing grant, loan, or work assistance under title IV of the HEA in ways that promote access 

to, and completion of, affordable and high-quality postsecondary education programs:1 Provided 

further, That the Secretary may use funds under the preceding proviso for the costs of 

postsecondary tuition, fees, textbooks, and related costs for students enrolled in postsecondary 

courses who are participating in evaluation, research, and demonstration activities funded under 

the preceding proviso:

2 Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 

made available in this Act to carry out title VI of the HEA and section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual 

Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 may be used to support visits and study in 

foreign countries by individuals who are participating in advanced foreign language training and 

international studies in areas that are vital to United States national security and who plan to 

apply their language skills and knowledge of these countries in the fields of government, the 

professions, or international development:3 Provided further, That, of the funds referred to in the 

preceding proviso up to 1 percent may be used for program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination activities:4 Provided further, That funds available for part B of title VII 

may be used for continuation awards authorized under subpart 2 of part D of title VII:

5 Provided 

further, That up to $75,000,000 of the funds made available under this Act for part B of title VII 

may be used: (1) to support projects to develop third-party validation systems that identify 

competencies, assessments, and curricula for particular fields; or (2) for performance-based 

awards or other agreements under the Pay for Success program:6 Provided further, That, with
T-2

HIGHER EDUCATION

respect to the preceding proviso, any funds obligated for such projects or agreements shall 

remain available for disbursement until expended, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), and that 

any funds deobligated from such projects or agreements shall immediately be available for part 

B of title VII:7 Provided further, That, with respect to the second preceding proviso, the Secretary 

may award funds to the types of entities listed in section 741(a) or any other type of entity that 

the Secretary identifies in the notice inviting applications for such awards:8 Provided further, 

That up to $100,000,000 of the funds made available under this Act for part B of title VII shall be 

used for awards to develop, implement, and evaluate interventions to help high school students, 

particularly from low-income families, successfully transition to and succeed in higher 

education:9 Provided further, That, of the amount available under subpart 2 of part A of title VII 

of the HEA, the Secretary may use up to $1,485,000 to fund continuation awards for projects 

originally supported under subpart 1 of part A of title VII of the HEA:

10 Provided further, That up 

to 1.5 percent of the funds made available under chapter 2 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV may 

be used for evaluation.

11

NOTES

A full-year 2013 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, 

this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175). The amounts included for 2013 reflect the 

annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

Each language provision that is followed by a footnote reference is explained in the Analysis of Language 

Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriation language.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-3

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 Provided, That $67,607,000 shall be used 

for data collection, evaluation, research, and 

demonstration activities relating to programs 

under the HEA, including activities that are 

designed to test approaches for providing 

grant, loan, or work assistance under title IV 

of the HEA in ways that promote access to, 

and completion of, affordable and high-quality 

postsecondary education programs: 

This language authorizes and provides funds 

to conduct evaluations for programs 

authorized under the Higher Education Act 

that do not have funds available for such 

activities, or where funding is insufficient, as 

well as to conduct research, evaluations, and 

demonstrations to test approaches for 

providing student financial aid in ways that 

promote postsecondary access and 

completion.

2 Provided further, That the Secretary may 

use funds under the preceding proviso for the 

costs of postsecondary tuition, fees, 

textbooks, and related costs for students 

enrolled in postsecondary courses who are 

participating in evaluation, research, and 

demonstration activities funded under the 

preceding proviso:

This language authorizes the Department to 

pay costs for high school students or for 

adults who do not have a high school diploma 

that would otherwise be allowable under Pell 

grants.

3 Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, funds made available 

in this Act to carry out title VI of the HEA and 

section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational 

and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 may be 

used to support visits and study in foreign 

countries by individuals who are participating 

in advanced foreign language training and 

international studies in areas that are vital to 

United States national security and who plan 

to apply their language skills and knowledge 

of these countries in the fields of government, 

the professions, or international development:

This language permits International 

Education programs authorized under Title VI 

of the Higher Education Act (HEA) and the

Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 

Act of 1961 (MECEA) to use funds for visits 

and study in foreign countries by individuals 

(in addition to teachers and prospective 

teachers) who plan to apply their language 

skills and knowledge in world areas that are 

vital to United States national security in the 

fields of government, the professions, or 

international development.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-4

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

4 Provided further, That, of the funds referred 

to in the preceding proviso up to 1 percent 

may be used for program evaluation, national 

outreach, and information dissemination 

activities:

This language authorizes the use of funds for 

program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination activities at a level 

that is up to 1 percent of the amount 

appropriated for International Education 

programs authorized by Title VI of the HEA 

and Section 102(b)(6) of the MECEA.

5 Provided further, That funds available for 

part B of Title VII may be used for 

continuation awards authorized under 

subpart 2 of part D of title VII:

This language permits the Department to use 

funds awarded under the Fund for the 

Improvement of Postsecondary Education

(FIPSE) in 2014 to support continuation 

awards in the Model Transition Programs for 

Students with Intellectual Disabilities into 

Higher Education program.

6 Provided further, That up to $75,000,000 of 

the funds made available under this Act for 

part B of title VII may be used: (1) to support 

projects to develop third-party validation 

systems that identify competencies, 

assessments, and curricula for particular 

fields; or (2) for performance-based awards 

or other agreements under the Pay for 

Success program:

This language allows the Department to use 

up to $75 million of the funds awarded under 

FIPSE in 2014 to support: 1) projects to 

develop third-party validation systems 

that identify competencies, assessments, 

and curricula for particular fields, and 

2) performance-based awards under the 

Pay for Success program.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-5

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

7 Provided further, That, with respect to the 

preceding proviso, any funds obligated for 

such projects or agreements shall remain 

available for disbursement until expended, 

notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), and that 

any funds deobligated from such projects or 

agreements shall immediately be available for 

part B of title VII:

This language provides that funds 

appropriated for 1) projects that develop 

third-party validation systems that identify 

competencies, assessments, and curricula for 

particular fields, and 2) performance-based 

awards for Pay for Success projects made 

under FIPSE shall remain available for 

disbursement until expended. The language 

further provides any deobligated funds for 

1) projects to develop third-party validation 

systems that identify competencies, 

assessments, and curricula for particular 

fields, and 2) performance-based awards 

under the Pay for Success program 

immediately be made available for FIPSE. 

8 Provided further, That, with respect to the 

second preceding proviso, the Secretary may 

award funds to the types of entities listed in 

section 741(a) or any other type of entity that 

the Secretary identifies in the notice inviting 

applications for such awards:

This language permits the Department, in the 

notice inviting applications, to identify the 

types of entities eligible to receive awards 

from the funds appropriated for 1) projects 

that develop third-party validation systems 

that identify competencies, assessments, 

and curricula for particular fields, and 

2) performance-based awards for Pay for 

Success projects under FIPSE.

9 Provided further, That up to $100,000,000 of 

the funds made available under this Act for 

part B of title VII shall be used for awards to 

develop, implement, and evaluate 

interventions to help high school students, 

particularly from low-income families, 

successfully transition to and succeed in 

higher education:

This language permits the Department to use 

funds awarded under FIPSE to support 

projects that develop, implement, and 

evaluate interventions to help high school 

students, particularly from low-income 

families, successfully transition to and 

succeed in higher education.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-6

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

10 Provided further, That, of the amount 

available under subpart 2 of part A of title VII 

of the HEA, the Secretary may use up to 

$1,485,000 to fund continuation awards for 

projects originally supported under subpart 1 

of part A of title VII of the HEA:

This language permits the Department to use 

funds awarded under the Graduate 

Assistance in Areas of National Need in 2014

to fund continuation awards in the Javits 

Fellowships program. 

11 Provided further, That up to 1.5 percent of 

the funds made available under chapter 2 of 

subpart 2 of part A of title IV may be used for 

evaluation.

This language permits the Department to use 

up to 1.5 percent of the funds appropriated 

for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness 

for Undergraduate Programs in 2014 for 

evaluation.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-7

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2012 2013 2014

Discretionary:

Appropriation........................................................... $1,873,196 $1,869,656 $2,182,799

Across-the-board reduction (P.L. 112-74) ............... -3,540 0 0

Across-the-board increase (P.L. 112-175)............... 0 11,442 0

Total, adjusted discretionary appropriation........ 1,869,656 1,881,098 2,182,799

Comparative transfers to:

Innovation and Instructional Teams for:

Teacher Quality Partnership.................................... -42,833 -42,833 0

Comparative transfer from:

Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring

Equity for: Special Programs for Migrant

Students.................................................................. 36,526 36,526 0

Total, comparable discretionary appropriation... 1,863,349 1,874,791 2,182,799

Mandatory: 

Appropriation........................................................... 428,000 428,000 428,000

Total, comparable discretionary and

mandatory appropriation................................. 2,291,349 2,302,791 2,610,799

 . 

NOTE: Amounts for transferred programs exclude the 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided by 

P.L. 112-175. The comparable total 0.612 percent across-the-board increase for the account is $11,442 thousand.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-8

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2012 .................................................................................. $1,863,349

2014 .................................................................................. 2,182,799

Net change ........................................................................ +319,450

Increases: 2012 base

Change 

from base

Program:

 ogram Increase funding for International Education and 

Foreign Language Studies Domestic Programs to 

support additional projects that strengthen the 

American education system in the area of foreign 

languages and international studies. $66,586 +$6,901

m Increase funding for the Fund for the Improvement of 

Postsecondary Education to support the First in the 

World initiative, which would include an evidencebased competition with a priority for projects designed 

to improve college access and selection. Funds would 

also support projects to develop third-party validation 

systems to facilitate competency-based learning in 

particular fields and Pay for Success awards to 

providers of free 2-year degrees. 3,494 +256,506

 rogram Increase funding for GPRA Data/HEA Program 

Evaluation to support data collection, evaluation, 

research, and demonstration activities relating to 

programs under the HEA, including activities that are 

designed to test approaches for providing grant, loan, 

or work assistance under Title IV of the HEA in ways 

that promote access to, and completion of, affordable 

and high-quality postsecondary education programs 607 +67,000

Subtotal, increases +330,407

Decreases: 

Program:

m Eliminate funding for Model Transition Programs for 

Students with Intellectual Disabilities into Higher Education

because projects to improve the quality of education for 

disabled students will be funded under FIPSE. $10,957 -$10,957

Net change +319,450
HIGHER EDUCATION

9

T-9

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2013 

Authorized

otnote

2013 

Estimate

otnote

2014 

Authorized

otnote

2014 

Request

otnote

Aid for institutional development:

Strengthening institutions (HEA-III-A-311) Indefinite $80,623 Indefinite $80,623

Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities

(HEA-III-A-316) Indefinite 25,713 Indefinite 25,713

Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities

(HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) $30,000 1 30,000 1 $30,000 1 30,000 1

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving

institutions (HEA-III-A-317) Indefinite 12,859 Indefinite 12,859

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving

institutions (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 15,000 1 15,000 1 15,000 1 15,000 1

Strengthening historically Black colleges and universities

(HEA-III-B-323) Indefinite 227,980 Indefinite 227,980

Strengthening historically Black colleges and universities

(HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 85,000 1 85,000 1 85,000 1 85,000 1

Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions

(HEA-III-B-326) Indefinite 58,958 Indefinite 58,958

Master’s degree programs at HBCUs and PBIs

(HEA VIII-AA-897) (mandatory) 11,500 2 11,500 2 11,500 2 11,500 2

Strengthening predominantly Black institutions (HEA-III-A-318) 75,000 9,262 75,000 9,262

Strengthening predominantly Black institutions (HEA-III-F-371)

(mandatory) 15,000 1 15,000 1 15,000 1 15,000 1

Strengthening Asian American and Native American

Pacific Islander-serving institutions (HEA-III-A-320) Indefinite 3,119 Indefinite 3,119

Strengthening Asian American and Native American 

Pacific Islander-serving institutions (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 5,000 1 5,000 1 5,000 1 5,000 1

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal institutions

(HEA-III-A-319) Indefinite 3,119 Indefinite 3,119
HIGHER EDUCATION

10

T-10

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2013 

Authorized

otnote

2013 

Estimate

otnote

2014 

Authorized

otnote

2014 

Request

Aid for institutional development:

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal institutions

(HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) $5,000 1 $5,000 1 $5,000 1 $5,000 1

Minority science and engineering improvement (HEA-III-E-1) Indefinite 9,466 Indefinite 9,466

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions:

Developing Hispanic-serving institutions (HEA-V-A) Indefinite 100,432 Indefinite 100,432

Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation programs

(HEA III-F-371(b)(2)(B)) (mandatory) 100,000 1 100,000 1 100,000 1 100,000 1

Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for

Hispanic Americans (HEA-V-B-512) (discretionary) Indefinite 9,011 Indefinite 9,011

Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for

Hispanic Americans (HEA-VIII-AA-898) (mandatory) 11,500 2 11,500 2 11,500 2 11,500 2

Other aid for institutions:

International education and foreign language studies:

Domestic programs (HEA-VI-A and B) Indefinite 66,586 Indefinite 73,487

Overseas programs (MECEA-102(b)(6)) Indefinite 7,451 Indefinite 7,451

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education (HEA-VII-B) Indefinite 43,494 3 Indefinite 260,000

Model comprehensive transition and postsecondary programs for 

students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

(HEA-VII-D-2) Indefinite 4 10,957 4 Indefinite 4 0

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical

institutions (Carl D. Perkins CTEA section 117) Indefinite 8,131 Indefinite 8,131

Migrant Education: Special programs for migrant students

(HEA-IV-A-5) Indefinite 36,526 Indefinite 36,526
HIGHER EDUCATION

11

T-11

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2013 

Authorized

otnote

2013 

Estimate

otnote

2014 

Authorized

otnote

2014 

Request

otnote

Assistance for students:

Federal TRIO programs (HEA-IV-A-2-1) Indefinite $839,932 Indefinite $839,932

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate

programs (HEA-IV-A-2-2) Indefinite 5 302,244 5 Indefinite 5 302,244 5

Scholarships and fellowships:

Graduate assistance in areas of national need (HEA-VII-A-2) $35,000 30,909 $35,000 30,909

Child care access means parents in school (HEA-IV-A-7) Indefinite 15,970 Indefinite 15,970

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation (Department of Education

Appropriations Act) 607 6 607 6 67,607 6 67,607 6

College access challenge grants program (HEA-VII-E)

(mandatory) 150,000 7 150,000 7 150,000 7 150,000 7

Unfunded authorizations:

Interest subsidy grants (HEA-I-121) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

 Hawkins Centers of Excellence (HEA-II-B-2) (discretionary) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Endowment challenge grants (HEA-III-C-331) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Programs in STEM Fields (HEA-III-E-2) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Science and technology advanced foreign language education

(HEA-VI-D-637)

Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Byrd honors scholarships (HEA-IV-A-6) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Loan repayment for civil legal assistance attorneys

(HEA-IV-B, section 428L)

Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

International education and foreign language studies:

Institute for international public policy (HEA-VI-C) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Javits fellowships (HEA-VII-A-1) 30,000 0 30,000 0

Thurgood Marshall legal educational opportunity program

(HEA-VII-A-3) 5,000 0 5,000 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

12

T-12

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2013 

Authorized

2013 

Estimate

2014 

Authorized

2014 

Request

Unfunded authorizations (cont’d):

Master’s degree programs at historically Black colleges and

universities (HEA-VII-A-4-723) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Master’s degree programs at predominantly Black institutions

(HEA-VII-A-4-724) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Demonstration projects to support postsecondary faculty, staff, and

administrators in educating students with disabilities (HEA-VII-D-1) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Model demonstration program to support improved access to

postsecondary instructional materials for students with print

disabilities (HEA-VII-D-3) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

National Technical Assistance Center (HEA-VII-D-4(a)) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

College access challenge grant program (HEA-VII-E)

(discretionary) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Project GRAD (HEA-VIII-A) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Mathematics and science scholars program (HEA-VII-B) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Business workforce partnerships for job skill training in high growth

occupations or industries (HEA-VIII-C) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Capacity for nursing students and faculty (HEA-VIII-D) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

American history for freedom (HEA-VIII-E) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Patsy T. Mink fellowship program (HEA-VIII-G) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Improving college enrollment by secondary schools (HEA-VIII-H) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Early childhood education professional development and career

task force (HEA-VIII-I) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

education with a focus on Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian

students (HEA-VIII-J) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

13

T-13

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2013 

Authorized

2013 

Estimate

2014 

Authorized

2014 

Request

Unfunded authorizations cont’d):

Pilot programs to increase college persistence and

success (HEA-VIII-K) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Student safety and campus emergency management

(HEA-VIII-L-821) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Education disaster and emergency relief loan program

(HEA-VIII-L-824) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Low tuition (HEA-VIII-M) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

College partnership grants (HEA-VIII-O) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Jobs to careers (HEA-VIII-P) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Rural development grants for rural-serving colleges and

universities (HEA-VIII-Q) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Campus-based digital theft prevention (HEA-VIII-R) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

University sustainability programs (HEA-VIII-U-881) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Cooperative education (HEA-VIII-N) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Modeling and simulation programs (HEA-VIII-V) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Path to success program (HEA-VIII-W) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

School of veterinary medicine competitive grant program

(HEA-VIII-X) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Early Federal Pell Grant commitment demonstration program

(HEA-VIII-Y) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

Grants to states for workplace and community transition

training for incarcerated individuals (Higher Education

Amendments of 1998-VIII-D) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0

B.J. Stupak Olympic scholarships (Higher Education

Amendments of 1992, Section 1543) Indefinite 0 Indefinite 0
Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2013 

Authorized

2013 

Estimate

2014 

Authorized

2014 

Request

Unfunded authorizations (cont’d):

Underground railroad program (Higher Education Amendments

of 1998-VIII-H) $3,000 0 $3,000 0

Total definite authorization 576,607 643,607

Total discretionary appropriation $1,863,349 $2,182,799

Portion of request not authorized 607 67,607

Total mandatory appropriation 428,000 428,000

Total appropriation including 0.612 percent ATB increase 1,881,097

 1 Mandatory funds made available in fiscal year 2009 and each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2019. 2 Mandatory funds made available in fiscal year 2009 and each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2014.

3 Includes $1,128 thousand for Training and Job Placement of Realtime Writers.

4 Of the amount appropriated, funds must be reserved for a cooperative agreement to establish a Coordinating Center under Section 777(b) of the HEA, for an 

amount that is (1) not less than $240,000 for any year in which the appropriation for this program is $8,000 thousand or less; or equal to 3 percent of the amount 

appropriated for this program for any year if the appropriation is greater than $8,000 thousand. 5 Of the amount appropriated, not less than 33 percent shall be used for State Grants and not less than 33 percent shall be used for Partnership Grants. 6 The program is authorized in fiscal year 2013 through appropriations language. The Administration proposes to continue funding this program in fiscal 

year 2014 through appropriations language. 7 Mandatory funds made available in fiscal year 2010 and each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2014.

T-14
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-15

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget

Estimate to 

Congress

House 

Allowance

footnote

Senate 

Allowance

Footno

te

Appropriation

Footnote

2005 $1,977,028 $1,976,056 $2,148,458 $2,117,195

2005 Rescission --- --- --- -496

2006 1,202,315 1,936,936 2,112,958 1,951,052

2007 1,108,711 N/A 1 N/A 1 1,951,053 1,2

2008 Discretionary 1,837,737 2,184,533 2,040,302 2,036,851

2008 Mandatory 378,000 378,000 378,000

2009 Discretionary 1,733,684 2,080,881 3 1,856,2143 3 2,100,150

2009 Mandatory 401,000 401,000 401,000 401,000

Recovery Act Supplemental 

(P.L. 111-5) 0 100,000 50,000 100,000

2010 Discretionary 2,050,191 2,294,882 2,106,749 4 2,255,665

2010 Mandatory 80,000 80,000 80,000 485,000

2011 Discretionary 2,131,493 2,177,915 5 2,243,895 4 1,903,944 6

2011 Mandatory 80,000 485,000 485,000 485,000

2012 Discretionary 2,277,069 1,628,052 7 1,903,946 7 1,869,656

2012 Mandatory 428,000 428,000 428,000 428,000

2013 Discretionary 1,950,590 1,869,656 8 1,911,348 8 1,881,098 9

2013 Mandatory 428,000 428,000 428,000 428,000

2014 Discretionary 2,182,799

2014 Mandatory 428,000

 1 This account operated under a full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). House and Senate allowances are 

shown as N/A (Not Available) because neither body passed a separate appropriations bill. 2 Total excludes $30,000 thousand appropriated in Chapter 7 of P.L. 110-28, the Troops Readiness, Veterans’ 

Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007, May 25, 2007. 3 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2009 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 4 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only.

5 The levels for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 6 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10). 7 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill; the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee action only. 8 The level for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 9 The amount shown includes the 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided by P.L. 112-175, in effect 

through March 27, 2013.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-16

Significant Items in FY 2013 Appropriations Reports

Title VI International Education and Foreign Languages Studies Programs

Senate: The increase in funds over the fiscal year 2012 level should be used to support 

new awards in the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language 

program. The Committee recognizes that study abroad helps prepare students to 

function effectively in a global environment and recommends funding to expand 

access to study abroad, as authorized by section 604(b) of the HEA, particularly

for underserved student populations and to nontraditional destinations, especially 

in developing countries.

Response: The 2013 continuing resolution does not include an increase in funding for this 

activity.

Analysis of Federal Regulations and Reporting Requirements on Institutions of Higher

Education

Senate: Analysis of Federal Regulations and Reporting Requirements on Institutions of 

Higher Education.—The Committee directs $1,000,000 for the Secretary to enter 

into an agreement with the National Research Council of the National Academy 

of Sciences to conduct a study on the impacts of Federal regulations and 

reporting requirements on institutions of higher education as authorized under 

section 1106 of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. The study shall 

include information describing, by agency, the number of Federal regulations and 

reporting requirements affecting institutions of higher education, the estimated 

time required and costs to institutions of higher education (disaggregated by 

types of institutions) to comply with the regulations and reporting requirements 

affecting institutions of higher education, and recommendations for consolidating, 

streamlining, and eliminating redundant and burdensome Federal regulations 

and reporting requirements affecting institutions of higher education. The study

shall be submitted to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, as 

well as the Committee on HELP and the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this act.

Response: The 2013 continuing resolution does not include funds for this study.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-17

Significant Items in FY 2013 Appropriations Reports

Model Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students With 

Intellectual Disabilities

Senate: The Committee is aware that the national coordinating center has been unable to 

collect data about the characteristics of students served, course access, 

employment, and costs associated with creating these services because its 

evaluation system has yet to be approved. It is important for the Committee to 

learn which supports are successful in improving educational and employment 

outcomes for students with intellectual disabilities. Therefore, the Committee 

urges the Department, in coordination with OMB, to finalize the national 

coordinating center’s evaluation.

Response: The national coordinating center convened a panel of higher education 

professionals, researchers, and practitioners to develop program standards to 

help guide the creation of a pilot evaluation system. The resulting evaluation tool 

was reviewed in 2011 by the 27 existing Model Comprehensive Transition and 

Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) 

grantees. The center submitted the evaluation tool to OMB for approval in 

August 2011, made substantial revisions of the tool based on OMB feedback, 

and resubmitted it for approval, which it received in August 2012. From 

September 2012 through December 2012, grantees entered data for the first 

2 project years. The center is currently developing a report on the first 2 years of 

data. 

Federal TRIO Programs

Senate: The Committee is aware that the Department plans to reallocate fiscal year 2012 

funds from the McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement program to the Upward 

Bound Math-Science program. Recognizing the importance of increasing 

attainment of doctoral degrees by students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the 

Committee directs the Department to submit a report, not later than 90 days after 

enactment of this act, on the impact of any proposed reduction on preparing and 

assisting students in the pursuit of doctoral degrees. Additionally, the Committee 

expects to be notified in advance of the obligation of any Federal TRIO funds for 

fiscal year 2013 and urges the Department to restore any proposed reduction in 

funding to the McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement program within available 

resources.

Response: The Department will comply with these directives.
Summary of Request

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2014

Category 2012 2013 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Higher Education

1. Aid for institutional development:

(a) Strengthening institutions (HEA III-A, section 311) D 80,623 80,623 80,623 0 0.000%

(b) Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities (HEA III-A, section 316) D 25,713 25,713 25,713 0 0.000%

(c) Mandatory strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities 

(HEA III-F, section 371) M 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0.000%

Subtotal 55,713 55,713 55,713 0 0.000%

(d) Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions (HEA III-A,

section 317) D 12,859 12,859 12,859 0 0.000%

(e) Mandatory strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving 

institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 0.000%

Subtotal 27,859 27,859 27,859 0 0.000%

(f) Strengthening HBCUs (HEA III-B, section 323) D 227,980 227,980 227,980 0 0.000%

(g) Mandatory strengthening HBCUs (HEA III-F, section 371) M 85,000 85,000 85,000 0 0.000%

Subtotal 312,980 312,980 312,980 0 0.000%

(h) Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions (HEA III-B, section 326) D 58,958 58,958 58,958 0 0.000%

(i) Master's degree programs at HBCUs and predominantly Black 

institutions (HEA VIII-AA, section 897) M 11,500 11,500 11,500 0 0.000%

(j) Strengthening predominantly Black institutions (HEA III-A, section 318) D 9,262 9,262 9,262 0 0.000%

(k) Mandatory strengthening predominantly Black institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 0.000%

Subtotal 24,262 24,262 24,262 0 0.000%

(l) Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving 

institutions (HEA III-A, section 320) D 3,119 3,119 3,119 0 0.000%

(m) Mandatory strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific 

Islander-serving institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.000%

Subtotal 8,119 8,119 8,119 0 0.000%

(n) Strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions (HEA III-A, section 319) D 3,119 3,119 3,119 0 0.000%

(o) Mandatory strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0.000%

Subtotal 8,119 8,119 8,119 0 0.000%

(p) Minority science and engineering improvement (HEA III-E-1) D 9,466 9,466 9,466 0 0.000%

Subtotal, Aid for institutional development 597,599 597,599 597,599 0 0.000%

Discretionary D 431,099 431,099 431,099 0 0.000%

Mandatory M 166,500 166,500 166,500 0 0.000%

NOTES: D = discretionary program, M = mandatory program; FY = fiscal year 

FY 2013 discretionary appropriation amounts are based on P.L. 112-175, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, that provided appropriations through March 27, 2013. FY 2013 mandatory amounts are 

either specifically authorized levels, or are based on FY 2013 President's Budget Policy, updated for more recent estimates of mandatory costs, or FY 2014 President's Budget Policy, as applicable.

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

2014 President's Budget 

Compared to 2012 Appropriation

T-18
(in thousands of dollars) 2014

Category 2012 2013 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Higher Education (continued)

2. Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions:

(a) Developing Hispanic-serving institutions (HEA V-A) D 100,432 100,432 100,432 0 0.000%

(b) Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation programs (HEA III-F, section 371(b)(2)(B)) M 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0.000%

(c) Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans (HEA V-B, section 512) D 9,011 9,011 9,011 0 0.000%

(d) Mandatory promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans

 (HEA VIII-AA, section 898) M 11,500 11,500 11,500 0 0.000%

Subtotal 220,943 220,943 220,943 0 0.000%

Discretionary D 109,443 109,443 109,443 0 0.000%

Mandatory M 111,500 111,500 111,500 0 0.000%

 3. Other aid for institutions:

(a) International education and foreign language studies:

(1) Domestic programs (HEA VI-A and B) D 66,586 66,586 73,487 6,901 10.364%

(2) Overseas programs (MECEA section 102(b)(6)) D 7,451 7,451 7,451 0 0.000%

Subtotal 74,037 74,037 80,938 6,901 9.321%

(b) Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education:

(1) Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education/FITW (HEA VII_B) D 2,366 2,366 260,000 257,634 10889.011%

(2) Training for realtime writers (HEA VIII-S) D 1,128 1,128 0 (1,128) -100.000%

Subtotal 3,494 3,494 260,000 256,506 7341.328%

(c) Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into

higher education (HEA VII-D-2) D 10,957 10,957 0 (10,957) -100.000%

(d) Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions (CTEA section 117) D 8,131 8,131 8,131 0 0.000%

(e) Special programs for migrant students (HEA IV-A-5) 1 D 36,526 36,526 36,526 0 0.000%

 4. Assistance for students:

(a) Federal TRIO programs (HEA IV-A-2, Chapter 1) D 839,932 839,932 839,932 0 0.000%

(b) Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

(GEAR UP) (HEA IV-A-2, Chapter 2) D 302,244 302,244 302,244 0 0.000%

(c) Graduate assistance in areas of national need (HEA VII-A-2) D 30,909 30,909 30,909 0 0.000%

(d) Child care access means parents in school (HEA IV-A-7) D 15,970 15,970 15,970 0 0.000%

 5. GPRA data/HEA program evaluation (Department of Education Appropriations Act) D 607 607 67,607 67,000 11037.891%

 6. College access challenge grants program (HEA VII-E) M 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 0.000%

Total 2,291,349 2,291,349 2,610,799 319,450 13.942%

Discretionary D 1,863,349 1,863,349 2,182,799 319,450 17.144%

Mandatory M 428,000 428,000 428,000 0 0.000%

Across-the-board 0.612% increase applied to discretionary appropriation, provided in P.L. 112-175. 11,404

Total, Discretionary 1 1,863,349 1,874,753 2,182,799 319,450 17.144%

NOTES: D = discretionary program, M = mandatory program; FY = fiscal year 

FY 2013 discretionary appropriation amounts are based on P.L. 112-175, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, that provided appropriations through March 27, 2013. FY 2013 mandatory amounts are 

either specifically authorized levels, or are based on FY 2013 President's Budget Policy, updated for more recent estimates of mandatory costs, or FY 2014 President's Budget Policy, as applicable.

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

1 Adjusted for comparability. Includes $36,526 thousand for Special Programs for Migrant Students that was appropriated in the Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity account in FY 2012 and FY 2013. 

Excludes $42,833 thousand in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 for Teacher Quality Partnership included in the FY 2014 President's Budget in the Innovation and Instructional Teams account.

Compared to 2012 Appropriation

2014 President's Budget 

T-19
T-20

Summary of Request

The Department’s request for fiscal year 2014 includes $2.2 billion in discretionary funds for 

programs in the Higher Education account. This request would support a comprehensive set of 

programs that will help achieve the President’s goal of significantly increasing the percentage of 

Americans with postsecondary degrees or industry-recognized certificates.

To help close the gap in college enrollment and degree attainment between minority and 

low-income students and others, the request would provide a total of $431.1 million in 

discretionary funding for Title III for the Aid for Institutional Development programs, the same 

as the 2012 appropriation. The request for Title III demonstrates the Administration’s 

commitment to assisting institutions that enroll a large proportion of minority and disadvantaged 

students by providing funds to improve institutions’ academic programs and administrative and 

fundraising capabilities. Within this amount, the Administration requests $80.6 million for the 

Strengthening Institutions Program. The Administration is also requesting $228 million for 

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); $59 million for

Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGIs); and $9.3 million for 

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs). African Americans have historically 

lacked access to quality education compared to their White cohorts. The Strengthening 

HBCUs, Strengthening HBGIs, and Strengthening PBIs grants programs increase the capacity 

of the HBCUs, HBGIs, and PBIs to provide greater access to academic programs at both 

undergraduate and graduate levels to African Americans.

Also included in the request for Title III programs is $25.7 million for the Tribally Controlled 

Colleges and Universities program; $12.9 million for the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving Institutions program; $3.1 million for the Native American-serving Nontribal 

Institutions program; and $3.1 million for the Asian American and Native American Pacific 

Islander-serving Institutions program to support institutions that serve Native American, 

Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian, and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander 

students. Lastly, the Administration is requesting $9.5 million, the same as the 2012 

appropriation for the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program to help 

improve science and engineering programs at postsecondary institutions with predominantly 

minority enrollments.

The Administration requests $100.4 million in discretionary funding for Developing 

Hispanic-serving Institutions (HSIs), the same as the 2012 appropriation. In addition, the 

request includes $9 million, the same as the 2012 appropriation for the Promoting 

Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans. This funding demonstrates the 

Administration’s commitment to ensuring that Hispanic students have access to high quality 

postsecondary education and to closing the gap between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students 

in areas of academic achievement, high school graduation, postsecondary enrollment, and 

life-long learning.

Overall, the Administration requests $81 million for the International Education and Foreign 

Language Studies (IEFLS) programs, $6.9 million or 9.3 percent, over the 2012 appropriation. 

The IEFLS programs are designed to help meet the Nation's security and economic needs 

through the development of expertise in foreign languages and area and international studies. 

More specifically, the request for IEFLS includes $73.5 million for the Domestic Programs, an 

increase of $6.9 million, over the 2012 appropriation; and $7.5 million, the same as the 2012 

appropriation, for the Overseas Programs.
T-21

Summary of Request (continued)

The Administration requests $839.9 in discretionary funding for the Federal TRIO Programs, 

the same as the 2012 appropriation. The TRIO request includes funding for Student Support 

Services, Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math and Science, Veterans Upward Bound, Talent 

Search, Educational Opportunity Centers, and McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement. The 

TRIO programs are the Administration’s oldest college preparation and student support 

programs and they have a long history of providing support to low-income students and 

students whose parents never completed college. The request for Gaining Early Awareness 

and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) would maintain funding at the fiscal 

year 2012 appropriation level of $302.2 million. These programs are designed to increase 

postsecondary access by providing low-income students with the necessary tools to enroll in 

and successfully complete college.

The Administration also requests $260 million for the Fund for the Improvement of 

Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) for fiscal year 2014 to support a First in the World (FITW) 

fund to help ensure that institutions of higher education have access to innovative strategies 

and practices that have been shown to be effective in improving educational outcomes for 

students. Up to $100 million would be set aside for competitive grants for projects designed to 

improve college access and selection. Additionally, up to $75 million of FIPSE funds would 

support projects to develop third-party validation systems to facilitate competency-based 

learning in specific fields and Pay for Success awards to providers of free 2-year degrees, 

especially in fields supported by validation systems. 

To provide students with additional financial resources, the Administration requests 

$30.9 million for Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) to provide 

merit-based scholarships and fellowships for graduate students. The request for GAANN 

includes funding for continuation costs for the Javits Fellowships program.

The Administration requests funding of $67.6 million for GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation

(GPRA/HEA) activities in fiscal year 2014, an increase of $67 million from the 2012 amount. The 

funding would allow the Department to conduct evaluations for programs authorized under the 

Higher Education Act that do not have funds available for such activities, or for where funding 

set-asides are not sufficient to cover costs, or to collect and analyze data needed to measure 

program progress. The Administration is requesting an additional $60 million above the 2012 

level to conduct research, evaluations, and demonstrations to test approaches for providing 

student financial aid in ways that promote postsecondary access, program completion, and 

high-quality, affordable education programs. Funds would pay for the third year of the 

evaluation of the Pell grant expansions under the Experimental Sites Study and to pay certain 

costs associated with establishing or expanding dual enrollment programs, including tuition, 

fees, books, and supplies for postsecondary coursework for students who are not eligible for 

Pell grants because they are still enrolled in high school or do not have a high school diploma 

and the costs of the program evaluation. At the request level, the Department also would be 

able to support at least one additional demonstration and evaluation, as well as work to improve 

performance measurement or special studies.
T-22

Summary of Request (continued)

The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, authorizes and provides the following 

mandatory funds that are not included in the Administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget request:

• $230 million for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2019 for existing programs under 

Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act—$85 million for Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities, $30 million for Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, 

$15 million for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions, and $100 million 

for Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions.

• $25 million for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2019 for other programs that support 

minority-serving institutions—$15 million for Predominantly Black Institutions, $5 million 

for Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions, and 

$5 million for Native American-serving Nontribal Institutions. 

• $11.5 million for Master’s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities and Predominantly Black Institutions for each of the fiscal years 2009 

through 2014 to provide grants to specified eligible institutions determined to be making a 

substantial contribution to graduate education opportunities for Black Americans at the 

master’s level in mathematics, engineering, the physical or natural sciences, computer 

science, information technology, nursing, allied health, or other scientific disciplines.

• $11.5 million for Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans

for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014 to provide grants to help Hispanic Americans 

gain entry into and succeed in graduate study, a level of education in which they are 

underrepresented.

• $150 million for College Access Challenge Grants for each of the fiscal years 2010 

through 2014 to support grants to States to promote activities designed to increase the 

number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary 

education.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-23

Activities:

Aid for institutional development

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title III and Title VIII, Part AA, Section 897)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite (discretionary), $166,5001 (mandatory)

Budget Authority: Change

2012 2013 2014 from 2012

Strengthening Institutions (Part A discretionary) $80,623 $80,6232 $80,623 0

Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges

and Universities 

TCCUs (Part A discretionary) 25,713 25,7132 25,713 0

TCCUs (Part F mandatory) 30,000 30,000 30,000 0

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native

Hawaiian-serving Institutions

ANNH (Part A discretionary) 12,859 12,8592 12,859 0

ANNH (Part F mandatory) 15,000 15,000 15,000 0

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges

and Universities

HBCUs (Part B discretionary) 227,980 227,9802 227,980 0

HBCUs (Part F mandatory) 85,000 85,000 85,000 0

Strengthening Historically Black Graduate

Institutions (Part B discretionary) 58,958 58,9582 58,958 0

Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs and PBIs

(Title VIII, Part AA mandatory)

Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs 9,000 9,000 9,000 0

Master’s Degree Programs at PBIs 2,500 2,500 2,500 0

Subtotal 11,500 11,500 11,500 0

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions

PBIs (Part A discretionary) 9,262 9,2622 9,262 0

PBIs (Part F mandatory) 15,000 15,000 15,000 0

Strengthening Asian American and Native

American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

AAN APISI (Part A discretionary) 3,119 3,1192 3,119 0

AAN APISI (Part F mandatory) 5,000 5,000 5,000 0

Strengthening Native American-serving

Nontribal Institutions 

NASNT I (Part A discretionary) 3,119 3,1192 3,119 0

NASNT I (Part F mandatory) 5,000 5,000 5,000 0

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement

Program (Part E discretionary) 9,466 9,4662 9,466 0

 Total 597,599 597,5992 597,599 0

Discretionary 431,099 431,0992 431,099 0

Mandatory . 166,500 166,500 166,500 0

 1 These funds are not part of the fiscal year 2014 budget request, but are mandatory appropriations provided under 

Title III, Part F, Section 371 of the HEA and Title VIII, Part AA, Section 897 of the HEA. 2 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-24

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Aid for Institutional Development programs, commonly referred to as the Title III programs, 

are designed to strengthen institutions of higher education that serve high percentages of 

minority students and students from low-income backgrounds. A low-income individual is 

defined as an individual from a family whose taxable income for the preceding year did not 

exceed 150 percent of an amount equal to the poverty level determined by using criteria of 

poverty established by the Bureau of the Census. Federal grants made under these programs

to eligible institutions are to support improvements in the academic quality, institutional 

management, and fiscal stability of the institutions. Specifically, the Title III programs provide 

financial assistance to help institutions solve problems that threaten their ability to survive, to 

improve their management and fiscal operations, to build endowments, and to make effective

use of academic and technological resources. Funding is targeted to minority-serving and other 

institutions that enroll a large proportion of financially disadvantaged students and have low perstudent expenditures.

In addition, from its inception in 1965, one of the primary missions of the Title III programs has 

been to strengthen the Nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The Higher 

Education Amendments of 1998 extended that mission to include programs to strengthen 

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving 

Institutions. Furthermore, the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA), which 

reauthorized the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), established the Asian American and 

Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions program, the Native American-serving 

Nontribal Institutions program, and the Predominantly Black Institutions program. The HEOA 

transferred mandatory funding for Strengthening HBCUs and Other Minority Serving Institutions 

program from Title IV, Section 499A of the HEA to Title III, Section 371 of the HEA. The HEOA 

authorizes and appropriates mandatory funding in Title VIII, Section 897 of the HEA for Master’s 

Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Predominantly 

Black Institutions (PBIs). Lastly, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), signed 

into law on March 30, 2010, amended the HEA to make mandatory funding for minority serving 

institutions available through fiscal year 2019 under Section 371 of the HEA.

Strengthening Institutions (Part A, Section 311) authorizes competitions for 1-year planning 

grants and 5-year discretionary development grants. Special consideration is given to 

institutions that: have endowment funds with a market value per full-time equivalent student less 

than the market value of endowment funds per full-time equivalent student at similar institutions, 

and have below average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent 

undergraduate student. Institutions receiving a 5-year grant under this part are not eligible to 

receive an additional grant under this part until 2 years after the 5-year grant has expired. 

Institutions may use their Part A funds to plan, develop, and implement activities that encourage 

faculty and academic program development; improvement in fund and administrative 

management; joint use of libraries and laboratories; construction, maintenance, renovation, and 

improvement of instructional facilities; student services; and education or counseling services 

designed to improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of students or the students’ 

families. To further facilitate the development of eligible institutions, funds can be used to 

support activities that strengthen an institution’s technological capabilities. Institutions may use 

no more than 20 percent of grant funds to establish or increase an institution’s endowment fund. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-25

These endowment funds must be matched at a rate of one non-Federal dollar for each Federal 

dollar.

To participate in the Strengthening Institutions program (SIP), an institution must: award 

bachelor degrees or be a junior or community college; provide an education program legally 

authorized by the State in which it is located; and be accredited or be making reasonable 

progress toward accreditation. An institution must also have below average educational and 

general expenditures per full-time equivalent undergraduate student and include in its 

enrollment a significant percentage of financially needy students. The enrollment of needy 

students criterion may be met if a substantial percentage of the institution's enrolled students 

are Pell Grant recipients, or if 50 percent of its enrolled students are Title IV need-based aid 

recipients. If a Strengthening Institution participant receives funding under this program, it 

cannot receive funding under other sections of Part A or Part B of Title III of the HEA, or Part A 

of Title V of the HEA.

Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs) (Part A, Section 316)

authorizes 5-year formula-based discretionary grants that enable TCCUs to improve and 

expand their capacity to serve American Indian students. The term “Tribal College or 

University” means an institution that qualifies for funding under the Tribally Controlled Colleges 

and Universities Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) or the Navajo Community 

College Act (25 U.S.C. 640a note); or is cited in Section 532 of the Equity in Educational LandGrant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note). Institutions receiving grants under this part are 

exempted from the 2-year wait-out requirement in Section 313, i.e., TCCUs are eligible to 

receive funding each year. Under Section 371, an appropriation of $30 million is available for 

fiscal years 2010-2019 for TCCUs to be used for the same activities currently authorized under 

Section 316 of the HEA. 

The Department may reserve 30 percent of the funds appropriated to award 1-year grants of at 

least $1 million for institutional construction, maintenance, and renovation needs at eligible 

institutions, with a preference given to institutions that did not receive an award in a prior fiscal 

year. The remaining funds must be allocated according to a formula, with a minimum grant of 

$500,000. Sixty percent of the remaining funds (after reservation for construction) are allocated 

based on Indian student counts at eligible institutions and the other 40 percent of the remaining 

funds are distributed equally among eligible Tribal Colleges or Universities. 

Institutions may use their funds to plan, develop, and implement activities that encourage: 

faculty and academic program development; improvement in fund and administrative 

management; construction, maintenance, renovation, and improvement of instructional facilities, 

including purchase or rental of telecommunications technology equipment or services, and the 

acquisition of real property adjacent to the campus of the institution on which to construct such 

facilities; student services; the establishment of a program of teacher education with a particular 

emphasis on qualifying students to teach Indian children; the establishment of community 

outreach programs that encourage Indian elementary and secondary school students to develop 

the academic skills and interest to pursue postsecondary education; education or counseling 

services designed to improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of students or the 

students’ families; and developing or improving facilities for Internet use or other distance 

education technologies. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-26

Institutions may use no more than 20 percent of grant funds to establish or increase an 

institution’s endowment fund. These endowment funds must be matched at a rate of one 

non-Federal dollar for each Federal dollar. If a TCCU receives funding under this program, it 

cannot receive funding under other sections of Part A or Part B of Title III of the HEA, or Part A 

of Title V of the HEA.

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions (ANNH) (Part A, 

Section 317) authorizes competitions for 1-year planning grants and 5-year discretionary 

development grants that enable these institutions to improve and expand their capacity to serve 

Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students. Institutions receiving grants under this part are 

exempted from the 2-year wait-out requirement in Section 313, i.e., they are eligible to receive 

an additional grant after their 5-year grant period expires. Institutions may use their funds to 

plan, develop, and implement activities that support: faculty and curriculum development; 

improvement in fund and administrative management; renovation and improvement in 

classroom, library, laboratory and other instructional facilities; student services; the purchase of 

library books and other educational materials; and education or counseling services designed to 

improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of students or the students’ families. These 

institutions are typically located in remote areas not served by other postsecondary educational 

institutions. 

The term "Alaska Native-serving institution" is defined as an institution that meets the definition 

of an eligible institution under Section 312(b) of the HEA and that, at the time of application, 

has an undergraduate enrollment that is at least 20 percent Alaska Native students (as defined 

in Section 7306 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). The term "Native Hawaiianserving institution" is defined as an institution that meets the definition of an eligible institution 

under Section 312(b) of the HEA that, at the time of application, has an undergraduate 

enrollment that is at least 10 percent Native Hawaiian students (as defined in Section 7207 of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). If an Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian-serving 

institution receives funding under this program, it cannot receive funding under other sections of 

Part A or Part B of Title III of the HEA, or Part A of Title V of the HEA.

Under Section 371 of the HEA, $15 million in mandatory funding is available in each of the 

fiscal years 2008 through 2019 to be used for the same activities currently authorized under 

Section 317 of the HEA. 

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) (Part B, Section 323)

authorizes 5-year formula-based discretionary grants to help HBCUs strengthen their 

infrastructure and achieve greater financial stability. HBCUs may use their funds to plan, 

develop, and implement activities that support: faculty and academic program development; 

improvement in fund and administrative management; construction, maintenance, renovation, 

and improvement of instructional facilities; student services; the establishment of a program of 

teacher education designed to qualify students to teach in public schools; the establishment of 

community outreach programs that will encourage elementary and secondary school students to 

develop the academic skills and the interest to pursue postsecondary education; the acquisition 

of real property in connection with the construction, renovation, or addition to or improvement of 

campus facilities; education or financial information designed to improve the financial literacy 

and economic literacy of students or the students’ families, especially with regard to student 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-27

indebtedness and student assistance programs under Title IV; and services necessary for the 

implementation of projects or activities that are described in the grant application and that are 

approved, in advance, by the Department, except that not more than 2 percent of the grant 

amount may be used for this purpose.

HBCUs may use no more than 20 percent of the grant funds provided under Part B—which 

must be matched at a rate of one institutional dollar for each Federal dollar—to establish or 

increase an institution’s endowment fund.

A Part B eligible institution is defined as any accredited, legally authorized HBCU that was 

established prior to 1964 and whose principal mission was, and is, the education of African 

Americans. Part B, Section 323, appropriations are allocated among HBCUs based on the 

number of Pell Grant recipients enrolled, the number of graduates, and the percentage of 

graduates who are attending graduate or professional school in degree programs in which 

African Americans are underrepresented. The statute provides for a $250,000 minimum grant 

for each eligible institution. If an HBCU receives funding under this program, it cannot receive 

funding under Part A. 

Under Section 371 of the HEA, $85 million is available in mandatory funding in each of the fiscal 

years 2008 through 2019 for HBCUs. The funds are awarded to HBCUs based on the formula 

used to allocate funding in the Strengthening HBCUs program authorized under Section 323. 

Funds are to be used for activities currently authorized under Section 323 with a priority for the 

following purposes:

• Purchase, rental, or lease of scientific or laboratory equipment for educational purposes, 

including instructional and research purposes; 

• Construction, maintenance, renovation, and improvement in classroom, library, laboratory, 

and other instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of telecommunications 

technology equipment or services; 

• Academic instruction in disciplines in which Black Americans are underrepresented; 

• Purchase of library books, periodicals, microfilm, and other educational materials, including 

telecommunications program materials; 

• Establishing or enhancing a program of teacher education designed to qualify students to 

teach in a public elementary or secondary school in the State that shall include, as part of 

such program, preparation for teacher certification; and

• Increasing the college or university’s capacity to prepare students for careers in the physical 

or natural sciences, mathematics, computer science or information technology/sciences, 

engineering, language instruction in the less-commonly taught languages or international 

affairs, or nursing or allied health professions.

Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGIs) (Part B, Section 326) authorizes 

5-year formula-based discretionary grants to the following 24 postgraduate institutions: 

Morehouse School of Medicine, Meharry Medical School, Charles R. Drew Postgraduate 

Medical School, Clark-Atlanta University, Tuskegee University School of Veterinary Medicine, 

Xavier University School of Pharmacy, Southern University School of Law, Texas Southern 

University School of Law and School of Pharmacy, Florida A&M University School of 

Pharmaceutical Sciences, North Carolina Central University School of Law, Morgan State 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-28

University, Hampton University, Alabama A&M, North Carolina A&T State University, University 

of Maryland Eastern Shore, Jackson State University, Norfolk State University, Tennessee State 

University, Alabama State University, Prairie View A&M University, Delaware State University, 

Langston University, Bowie State University, and University of the District of Columbia David A.

Clarke School of Law.

A grant under this section can be used for: scholarships and fellowships for needy graduate and 

professional students; construction, maintenance, renovation, and improvement of instructional 

facilities; the establishment or maintenance of an endowment fund; establishment or 

improvement of a development office to strengthen and increase contributions from alumni and 

the private sector; improvement in fund and administrative management; purchase, rental, and 

lease of scientific and laboratory equipment for educational purposes; purchase of library books, 

periodicals, technical and scientific journals, microfilms, microfiches, and other educational 

materials, including telecommunications program materials; acquisition of real property that is 

adjacent to the campus in connection with the construction, renovation, or addition to or 

improvement of campus facilities; education or financial information designed to improve the 

financial literacy and economic literacy of students or the students' families, especially with 

regard to student indebtedness and student assistance programs under Title IV of the HEA; 

services necessary for the implementation of projects or activities that are described in the grant 

application and that are approved, in advance, by the Department, except that not more than 

2 percent of the grant amount may be used for this purpose; and tutoring, counseling, and 

student service programs designed to improve academic success.

Section 326 grants are limited to $1 million unless the HBGI agrees to match 50 percent of the 

grant funding in excess of $1 million with non-Federal resources. Institutions are not required to 

match any portion of the first $1 million of their award.

An HBGI that received a grant under this section in fiscal year 2008 (and that is eligible to 

receive a grant after fiscal year 2008) may not receive a grant in subsequent fiscal years that is 

less than the grant amount received in fiscal year 2008. No institution or university system may 

receive more than one grant under Section 326 in any fiscal year. If an HBGI receives funding 

under this program, it cannot receive funding under Title III, Part A of the HEA. In addition, no 

institution of higher education may receive an HBGI grant while also receiving a grant under the 

Title V, Part B Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program, or 

the Title VII, Part A, subpart 4 Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs and Predominantly Black 

Institutions.

Of the amount appropriated: the first $56.9 million (or any lesser amount appropriated) must be 

used to make grants to the first 18 HBGIs listed above; any amount appropriated in excess of 

$56.9 million but less than $62.9 million must be used to make grants to Alabama State 

University, Prairie View A&M University, Delaware State University, Langston University, Bowie 

State University, and University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law; and 

any amount in excess of $62.9 million must be made available to each of the 24 HBGIs 

pursuant to a formula using: (1) an institution’s ability to match funds; (2) the number of students 

enrolled in the postgraduate program; (3) the average cost of education per student enrolled in 

the postgraduate program; (4) the number of students who received a degree from the 

postgraduate program in the previous year; and (5) the contribution of the institution as 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-29

calculated by the ratio of programs for which the institution is eligible to receive funds to the 

number of African Americans receiving graduate or professional degrees in those programs.

Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs and PBIs (Title VIII, Part AA, Section 897) authorizes two 

master’s degree programs to further advance educational opportunities for African Americans: 

Master’s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Section 723) and 

Master’s Degree Programs at Predominantly Black Institutions (Section 724). Section 897 of 

the HEA authorizes and appropriates mandatory funding totaling $11.5 million annually to 

provide grants to eligible institutions in these programs for fiscal years 2009 through 2014. Both 

programs authorize grants of up to 6 years in duration to specified eligible institutions 

determined to be making a substantial contribution to graduate education opportunities for Black 

Americans at the master’s level in mathematics, engineering, the physical or natural sciences, 

computer science, information technology, nursing, allied health, or other scientific disciplines. 

• Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs authorizes grants to the following 18 institutions: 

Albany State University; Alcorn State University; Claflin University; Coppin State University; 

Elizabeth City State University; Fayetteville State University; Fisk University; Fort Valley 

State University; Grambling State University; Kentucky State University; Mississippi Valley 

State University; Savannah State University; South Carolina State University; University of 

Arkansas, Pine Bluff; Virginia State University; West Virginia State University; Wilberforce 

University; and Winston-Salem State University.

• Master’s Degree Programs at PBIs authorizes grants to the following 5 institutions: Chicago 

State University; Columbia Union College; Long Island University, Brooklyn campus; Robert 

Morris College; and York College (The City University of New York).

From the amount appropriated to carry out the Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs for any 

fiscal year: the first $9 million (or any lesser amount appropriated) must be used to make 

minimum grant awards of $500,000 to each eligible institution. If the amount appropriated is not 

sufficient to cover minimum grants to eligible institutions, each institution’s grant award is ratably 

reduced. Any appropriated amount in excess of $9 million must be made available to each of 

the eligible institutions identified in the statute based on: (1) the ability of the institution to match 

Federal funds with non-Federal funds; (2) the number of students enrolled in the qualified 

master’s degree program at the eligible institution in the previous academic year; (3) the 

average cost of attendance per student, for all full-time students enrolled in the qualified 

master’s degree program; (4) the number of students who received a degree in the qualified 

master’s degree program in the previous year; and (5) the contribution of the institution as 

calculated by the ratio of programs for which the institution is eligible to receive funds to the 

number of African Americans receiving master’s degrees in disciplines related to the program.

Likewise, from the amount appropriated to carry out the Master’s Degree Programs at PBIs for 

any fiscal year, the first $2.5 million (or any lesser amount appropriated) must be used to make 

minimum grant awards of $500,000 to each eligible institution. If the amount appropriated is not 

sufficient to cover minimum grants to eligible institutions, each institution’s grant award is ratably 

reduced. Any appropriated amount in excess of $2.5 million must be made available to each of 

the eligible institutions identified in the statute on the same basis as the Master’s Degree 

Programs at HBCUs. An eligible institution that receives a grant under either program in fiscal 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-30

year 2009 (and that is eligible to receive a grant after fiscal year 2009) may not receive a grant 

in subsequent fiscal years that is less than the grant amount received in fiscal year 2009, unless 

either the appropriation is not sufficient to provide such grant amounts to all institutions and 

programs that received program grants, or the institution cannot provide sufficient matching 

funds to meet program requirements. No institution may receive more than one grant in any 

fiscal year.

Institutions in each program may use their funds to plan, develop, and implement activities that 

support: purchase, rental, or lease of scientific or laboratory equipment for educational 

purposes; construction, maintenance, renovation, and improvement in classroom, library, 

laboratory, and other instructional facilities; purchase of library books, periodicals, technical and 

other scientific journals, microfilm, microfiche, and other educational materials; scholarships, 

fellowships, and other financial assistance for needy graduate students to permit the enrollment 

of the students in, and completion of, a master’s degree in mathematics, engineering, the 

physical or natural sciences, computer science, information technology, nursing, allied health, or 

other scientific disciplines in which African Americans are underrepresented; establishment or 

maintenance of an institutional endowment; funds and administrative management; acquisition 

of real property that is adjacent to the campus in connection with the construction, renovation, or 

improvement of, or an addition to, campus facilities; education or financial information designed 

to improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of students or the students' families; 

tutoring, counseling, and student service programs; and faculty professional development, 

faculty exchanges, and faculty participation in professional conferences and meetings.

An eligible institution may use up to 10 percent of its grant for the development of a new 

qualified master’s degree program defined as a master’s degree program in mathematics, 

engineering, the physical or natural sciences, computer science, information technology, 

nursing, allied health, or other scientific disciplines in which African Americans are 

underrepresented and which has students enrolled in the program at the time of application for 

a grant.

The legislation for both programs require that institutions provide an assurance that 50 percent 

of the cost of the purposes for which the grant is made will be paid from non-Federal sources to 

receive a grant in excess of $1 million. However, the institution is not required to match any 

portion of the first $1 million of the institution's award. After funds are made available to each 

eligible institution under the program funding rules, the Department is required to distribute, on a 

pro rata basis, any amounts which an institution cannot use due to the failure to meet the 

matching requirements to those institutions complying with the matching requirement.

An institution that is eligible for and receives an award under HEA’s Title III Historically Black 

Graduate Institutions program (Section 326) or Title V Promoting Postbaccalaureate 

Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (Section 512) is not eligible to receive grant funding under 

Section 897—Master’s Degree Programs for HBCUs and PBIs—for the same fiscal year. In 

addition, an institution that receives a grant under Title VII Master’s Degree Programs for 

HBCUs (Sections 723) is not eligible to receive a grant under the Master’s Degree Programs for 

PBIs (Section 724) program and vice versa.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-31

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs) (Part A, Section 318) authorizes 5-year

formula-based discretionary development grants to help PBIs to plan, develop, undertake, and 

implement programs to enhance the institution’s capacity to serve more low- and middle-income 

Black American students; to expand higher education opportunities for students by encouraging 

college preparation and student persistence in secondary school and postsecondary education; 

and to strengthen the financial ability of the PBIs to serve the academic needs of their students. 

PBIs may use their funds for activities consistent with those outlined in Section 311(c) of the 

HEA, academic instruction in disciplines in which Black Americans are underrepresented, 

establishing or enhancing a program of teacher education designed to qualify students to teach 

in public elementary or secondary schools, and establishing community outreach programs that 

will encourage elementary and secondary school students to develop the academic skills and 

the interest to pursue postsecondary education. No more than 50 percent of grant funds 

awarded may be used for constructing or maintaining a classroom, library, laboratory, or other 

instructional facility. Institutions may use no more than 20 percent of grant funds to establish or 

increase an institution’s endowment fund. Institutions must provide matching funds from 

non-Federal sources in an amount that is equal to or greater than the Federal funds used for 

PBI program activities.

Funding is allocated among PBIs according to a formula based on the number of Pell Grant 

recipients enrolled, the number of graduates, and the percentage of graduates who are 

attending a baccalaureate degree-granting institution or a graduate or professional school in 

degree programs in which Black American students are underrepresented. The statute 

provides for a $250,000 minimum grant for each eligible institution. If a PBI receives funding 

under this program, it cannot receive funding under other sections of Part A or Part B of Title III; 

or Part A of Title V of the HEA.

The term “Predominantly Black institution” is defined as an institution of higher education that:

• Has a high enrollment of needy students;

• Has an average educational and general expenditure per full-time equivalent undergraduate 

student that is low in comparison with the average educational and general expenditure per 

full-time equivalent undergraduate student of institutions of higher education that offer 

similar instruction;

• Has an enrollment of undergraduate students

- That is at least 40 percent Black American students;

- That is at least 1,000 undergraduate students;

- Of which not less than 50 percent are low-income individuals or first-generation college 

students (as defined in Section 402A(h) of the HEA); and 

- Of which not less than 50 percent are enrolled in an educational program leading to a 

bachelor's or associate's degree that the institution is licensed to award by the State in 

which the institution is located;

• Is legally authorized to provide, and provides within the State, an educational program for 

which the institution of higher education awards a bachelor's degree, or in the case of a 

junior or community college, an associate's degree;

• Is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the 

Department to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered, or is, according to 

such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation; and
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-32

• Is not receiving assistance under Part B of Title III or Part A of Title V of the HEA.

This program is different than the Predominantly Black Institutions program authorized under 

Title III, Part F, Section 371 of the HEA. While both programs serve similar institutions, 

Section 371 is a mandatory program that awards 25 discretionary grants of $600,000 for up to 

4 years in duration. Grants are to be awarded competitively to eligible institutions of higher 

education to support programs in any of the following areas: science, technology, engineering, 

or mathematics (STEM); health education; internationalization or globalization; teacher 

preparation; or improving educational outcomes of African American males in each of the fiscal 

years 2008 through 2019. Section 318 awards discretionary development grants to help PBIs to 

plan, develop, undertake, and implement programs to enhance the institution’s capacity to serve 

more low- and middle-income Black American students and authorizes a broad range of activities.

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

(AANAPISI) (Part A, Section 320) authorizes 5-year competitive grants to eligible institutions of 

higher education as defined under Section 312(b) of the HEA that have, at the time of 

application, an enrollment of undergraduate students that is at least 10 percent Asian American 

or Native American Pacific Islander students. The term “Asian American” means a person 

having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian 

subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, 

the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam as defined in the Office of Management and 

Budget’s Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and 

Ethnicity as published on October 30, 1997 (62 Federal Register 58789). The term “Native 

American Pacific Islander” means any descendant of the aboriginal people of any island in the 

Pacific Ocean that is a territory or possession of the United States. Institutions receiving grants 

under this part are exempted from the 2-year wait-out requirement in Section 313, i.e., they are 

eligible to receive an additional grant after their 5-year grant period expires.

The program authorizes grants that enable these institutions to improve and expand their 

capacity to serve Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander students and 

low-income individuals. Institutions may use their funds for the purchase, rental, or lease of 

scientific or laboratory equipment for educational purposes; renovation and improvement in 

classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other instructional facilities; support of faculty 

exchanges, faculty development, and faculty fellowships to assist in attaining advanced degrees 

in the faculty’s field of instruction; curriculum development and academic instruction; purchase 

of library books, periodicals, and other educational materials; funds and administrative 

management, and acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening funds management; joint 

use of facilities, such as laboratories and libraries; academic tutoring and counseling programs 

and student support services; establishing or improving an endowment fund; academic 

instruction in disciplines in which Asian American and Native American Pacific Islanders are 

underrepresented; conducting research and data collection for Asian American and Native 

American Pacific Islander populations and subpopulations; establishing partnerships with 

community-based organizations serving Asian American and Native American Pacific Islanders; 

and education or counseling services designed to improve the financial and economic literacy of 

students or the students’ families. If an Asian American or Native American Pacific Islanderserving institution receives funding under this program, it cannot receive funding under other 

sections of Part A or Part B of Title III or Title V of the HEA.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-33

Under Section 371 of the HEA, $5 million is available in mandatory funding in each of fiscal 

years 2008 through 2019 for AANAPISI to carry out activities authorized under Section 311(c) of 

the HEA—the Strengthening Institutions Program. The mandatory funding provided under 

Section 371 is available to the same institutions eligible for grants under the AANAPISI program 

under Section 320. The funding provided under Section 371 may be used for construction in 

classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other instructional facilities, an activity that is not 

authorized under Section 320.

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTI) (Part A, Section 319)

authorizes 5-year competitive grants to eligible institutions of higher education as defined under 

Section 312(b) of the HEA that have, at the time of application, an enrollment of undergraduate 

students that is not less than 10 percent Native American students; and are not a Tribal College 

or University (as defined in Section 316 of the HEA). The term “Native American” means an 

individual who is of a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States. Institutions 

receiving grants under this part are exempted from the 2-year wait-out requirement in 

Section 313, i.e., they are eligible to receive an additional grant after their 5-year grant period 

expires.

Institutions may use their funds to plan, develop, undertake, and carry out activities to improve 

and expand the institutions' capacity to serve Native Americans and low-income individuals. 

Supported activities include the: purchase, rental, or lease of scientific or laboratory equipment 

for educational purposes, including instructional and research purposes; renovation and 

improvement in classroom, library, laboratory, and other instructional facilities; support of faculty 

exchanges, faculty development, and faculty fellowships to assist faculty in attaining advanced 

degrees in the faculty's field of instruction; curriculum development and academic instruction; 

the purchase of library books, periodicals, microfilm, and other educational materials; funds and 

administrative management, and acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening funds 

management; the joint use of facilities such as laboratories and libraries; academic tutoring and 

counseling programs and support services; and education or counseling services designed to 

improve the financial and economic literacy of students or the students’ families.

The statute provides for a $200,000 minimum grant for each eligible institution. If an NASNTI 

receives funding under this program, it cannot receive funding under Part A or Part B of Title III 

or Part A of Title V of the HEA.

Under Section 371 of the HEA, $5 million is available in mandatory funding in each of the fiscal 

years 2008 through 2019 to be used for the same activities authorized under Section 319 of the 

HEA. The mandatory funding authorized under Section 371 is available to the same institutions 

eligible for grants under the NASNTI program under Section 319. The authorized activities are 

the same for both programs, except that Section 371 does not include as an authorized activity 

education or counseling services designed to improve the financial and economic literacy of 

students or the students’ families.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-34

The Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP) (Part E, Subpart 1)

supports discretionary grants for periods of up to 3 years that are awarded competitively to 

institutions of higher education that are designed to effect long-range improvement in science 

and engineering education at predominantly minority institutions and to increase the

participation of underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities in scientific and technological 

careers. Colleges and universities with minority enrollments greater than 50 percent are eligible 

to receive assistance under MSEIP. MSEIP allows grantee institutions the latitude to support a 

variety of innovative and customized projects. Typically, MSEIP projects are designed to 

implement one, or a combination of, educational projects, such as curriculum development, 

purchase of scientific equipment, or development of research capabilities.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2009................................................................................$588,9091

2010.................................................................................. 651,2681

2011.................................................................................. 614,3411

2012.................................................................................. 597,5991

2013.................................................................................. 597,5991,2

 1 Includes $166,500 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 2 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST 

For fiscal year 2014, the Administration requests $431.1 million in discretionary funding for the 

Aid for Institutional Development programs, the same as the 2012 appropriation. In addition, 

$166.5 million is available in mandatory funding in fiscal year 2014 for programs authorized 

under Section 371 and Section 897 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended; although,

these funds are not part of the fiscal year 2014 budget request. An important strategy in closing 

the gap in educational attainment between low-income and minority students and their 

high-income, non-minority peers is to strengthen the quality of educational opportunities in 

institutions dedicated to serving low-income and minority students. A significant number of 

postsecondary education institutions serving high percentages of minority students and students 

from low-income backgrounds face challenges that threaten their continued operation and ability 

to provide a high-quality education. The Administration is committed to assisting institutions 

enrolling a large proportion of disadvantaged students by providing funds to improve the 

academic programs and administrative and fundraising capabilities of these institutions. 

• The Administration requests $80.6 million for the Part A, Section 311 Strengthening 

Institutions Program, the same as the 2012 appropriation. This funding level would continue 

to support the Administration’s commitment to assisting institutions that provide educational 

opportunities to low-income and minority students. It would also allow the Administration to 

continue the use of evidence in this program to ensure funds are being used for proven 

activities that will move our Nation closer to meeting the 2020 college completion goal.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-35

The 2012 Strengthening Institutions program (SIP) competition became the first Title III 

competition to include a competitive preference priority to support programs, practices, or 

strategies for which there is strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness. Applications that 

scored within an established range were forwarded to the Institute of Education Sciences 

(IES) to undergo What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) certified review to determine whether 

their proposed activities were supported by evidence. Projects supported by strong 

evidence were given an additional 5 points while projects supported by moderate evidence 

were given an additional 2.5 points. Of the 14 new awards ultimately funded under this 

program in fiscal year 2012, the WWC reviewers determined that 8 projects were supported 

by strong evidence while 6 projects were supported by moderate evidence. The SIP 

competition also demonstrated that postsecondary institutions are interested in pursuing 

evidence-based funding—of the 151 eligible applications reviewed, 137 addressed the 

evidence priority. The Administration believes that the field of education needs to use the 

best available evidence to inform policy and practices and, where strong evidence does not 

exist, to build evidence over time.

• The request includes $25.7 million for the Part A, Section 316 Strengthening Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs) program, the same as the 2012 appropriation. 

There are 32 fully accredited Tribal Colleges and Universities in the United States and one 

formal candidate for accreditation. Three additional universities are in Associate Status, 

meaning a tribal college seeking formal accreditation candidacy status. TCCUs are located

mainly in the Midwest and Southwest. Many TCCUs are 2-year schools that have been in 

existence for less than 30 years. TCCUs are located primarily in remote areas not served 

by other postsecondary education institutions. They offer a broad range of degree and 

vocational certificate programs to students for whom these educational opportunities would 

otherwise be geographically and culturally inaccessible. 

• A very serious problem at all TCCUs is physical infrastructure. Many of the schools were 

established in old and dilapidated buildings that were formerly post offices, warehouses or 

elementary schools. Many of these facilities are insufficient, technologically deficient, and 

unsuited for continued use as academic buildings. Grantees can conduct constructionrelated activities under their approved individual development grants.

• The total enrollment in TCCUs increased by 54 percent, from 13,700 in fall 2000 to 21,200 

in fall 2010. In 2010, over 16,600 students in TCCUs were American Indian/Alaska Native, 

representing 78 percent of total enrollment. Approximately 8.5 percent of all American 

Indian/Alaska Native college students were enrolled in TCCUs in 2010. American 

Indian/Alaska Native at TCCUs increased at a faster rate between 2000 and 2010 than did 

American Indian/Alaska Native college and university enrollment generally (45.5 percent 

versus 30 percent). The traditional college-age population rose 12 percent between 2000 

and 2010, and the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college rose from 

35 percent in 2000 to 41 percent in 2010. Between 1999–2000 and 2009–2010, the number 

of degrees conferred rose at all levels. The number of bachelor's degrees was 33 percent 

higher, the number of master's degrees was 50 percent higher, and the number of doctor's 

degrees was 34 percent higher. Despite the overall increases in college enrollment and 

degree attainment, American Indian/Alaska Native students continue to lag behind their 

White cohorts in overall educational attainment. In 2009-2010, American Indian/Alaska 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-36

Natives earned only 0.8 percent of the bachelor’s degrees, 0.6 percent of the Master’s 

degrees, and 0.6 percent of PhDs awarded in the United States, though American 

Indian/Alaska Natives comprise 1.7 percent of the population. In addition, under Section 

371 of the HEA, $30 million is available in mandatory funding for TCCUs in fiscal year 2014. 

The Department will award funding to all eligible TCCUs using the formula outlined in the 

program statute. 

• The request includes $12.9 million for discretionary grants under Part A, Section 317 for the 

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions (ANNH) program, the 

same as the 2012 appropriation. Like TCCUs, these institutions are typically located in 

remote areas not served by other postsecondary educational institutions. Between 1990

and 2010, American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment at institutions of higher education

increased from 102,800 students to 196,400 students; and Asian/Pacific Islander enrollment 

increased from 572,400 to nearly 1.3 million. The Department will also award grants using 

$15 million in mandatory funding provided under Section 371 of the HEA.

• The Administration requests $228 million for the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities (HBCUs) program under Part B, Section 323 and $59 million for the

Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGIs) program under Part B 

Section 326, the same as the 2012 appropriation. The fiscal year 2014 request 

demonstrates the Administration’s continued support of these institutions that play a unique 

and vital role in providing higher education opportunities to minority and disadvantaged

students. While the 105 designated HBCUs make up nearly 3 percent of colleges and 

universities that grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV Federal 

financial aid programs, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that 

HBCUs have produced 16 percent of the African Americans who currently hold 

undergraduate degrees. HBCUs enroll over 10 percent of all African American students in 

higher education. Figures compiled by NCES indicate that an estimated 265,900 African 

American students were enrolled at HBCUs in 2010.

African American enrollment at institutions of higher education more than doubled between 

1976 and 2010 from about 1.03 million students to just over 3 million students. Despite the 

increases in college enrollment and degree attainment, African American students continue 

to lag behind the national average in overall educational attainment. In 2009-2010, African

Americans earned only 10 percent of the bachelor’s degrees, 11 percent of the Master’s

degrees, and 6.6 percent of PhDs awarded in the United States, though 14 percent of the 

United States population identified themselves as African American. Further, African 

American student participation in and completion of advanced programs in the physical and 

natural sciences, engineering, and mathematics continues to be low. Part B funding 

increases the capacity of HBCUs and HBGIs to provide such programs. Grants provided 

under the Title III, Part B programs enable the HBCUs and HBGIs to continue serving a 

growing population of students, and to encourage and prepare more of these students to 

pursue advanced study by enabling these institutions to improve their academic quality, 

institutional management, and fiscal stability.

• In 2014, mandatory funding of $85 million is also appropriated under Section 371 of the HEA

for HBCUs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-37

• The request includes $9.3 million for Part A, Section 318 Predominantly Black Institutions 

(PBIs) program, the same as the 2012 appropriation. PBIs are primarily urban and rural

2-year colleges that enroll at least 40 percent Black American students and serve at least

50 percent low-income or first-generation college students. 

In addition, Section 371 of the HEA makes available $15 million in mandatory funds in 2014 

for PBIs.

• The request includes $3.1 million in discretionary funds for Part A, Section 320 

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

(AANAPISIs) program, the same as the 2012 appropriation. Most AANAPISI institutions are 

junior and community colleges where nearly half (47 percent) of AAPI undergraduates 

enroll. AANAPISI-eligible institutions enroll 75 percent of the low-income AAPI 

undergraduate students in U.S. higher education. They also serve communities with

disproportionately high numbers of English learners and individuals with low academic 

achievement.

In 2014, mandatory funding of $5 million is appropriated under Section 371 of the HEA for 

AANAPISIs.

• The request includes $3.1 million in discretionary funds for Part A, Section 319 

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTIs) program, the same 

as the 2012 level. These institutions are not designated as TCCUs, yet enroll at least 

10 percent Native American students and serve at least 50 percent low-income students. 

With increasing enrollment at institutions of higher education, nontribal institutions of higher 

education that serve large populations of Native American students require resources to 

improve and expand their capacity to serve the unique and diverse needs of their Native 

American student population. 

In 2014, mandatory funding of $5 million is also appropriated under Section 371 of the HEA 

for NASNTIs.

• The Administration requests $9.5 million for the Minority Science and Engineering 

Improvement Program, the same as the 2012 appropriation. This request would maintain 

support for the improvement of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

programs at institutions of higher education enrolling large numbers of minority students and 

would further the Administration’s efforts to increase access to a quality higher education for 

individuals from underrepresented minority groups. According to the Science and 

Engineering Indicators 2012 (NSB 12-01), published by the National Science Board, 

between 2000 and 2009:

 The proportion of science and engineering (S&E) bachelor’s degrees awarded to Black

students held steady at 9 percent, although Blacks comprise 13 percent of the 

population in the U.S. While Asian/Pacific Islanders account for approximately 5 percent 

of the U.S. population, S&E bachelor’s degrees awarded to them rose from 9 percent to 

10 percent. S&E degrees awarded to Hispanic students rose from 7 percent to

9 percent; Hispanics comprise 16 percent of the population in the U.S. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-38

 The proportion of master’s degrees in S&E fields earned by U.S. citizens and permanent 

residents from underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities increased slightly between 

2000 and 2009. Blacks accounted for 10 percent of master’s degree recipients in 2009;

up from 8 percent in 2000; Hispanic degree recipients increased from 5 percent in 2000 

to 7 percent in 2009; and American Indians/Alaska Natives from 0.5 percent to 

0.6 percent.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 footnote2013 Footnote2014 Footnote

Strengthening Institutions:

SIP Number of new development awards 15 29 51

SIP Average new development award $389 $834 $400

SIP Total new development award funding $5,842 $24,190 $20,387

SIP Number of NCC development awards 199 153 126

SIP Average NCC development award $375 $364 $472

SIP Total NCC development award funding $74,656 $55,627 $59,430

SIP Peer review of new award applications $125 $806 $806

SIP Total award funding (Section 311) $80,623 $80,623 $80,623

SIPTotal number of awards 214 182 177

Strengthening TCCUs:

TCCU Discretionary funding:

TCCU Number of development awards 33 33 1 33 1

TCCU Average development award $779 $779 $779

TCCU Total development award funding $25,713 $25,713 $25,713

TCCU Mandatory funding:

Number of development awards 33 33 33

Average development award $909 $909 $909

Total development award funding $30,000 $30,000 $30,000

Total award funding $55,713 $55,713 $60,169

Discretionary (Section 316) $25,713 $25,713 $30,000

Mandatory (Section 371) $30,000 $30,000 $30,000

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) 66 66 66

 1 It is assumed that 33 TCCUs will apply for and receive designation as eligible institutions, and submit data on 

student enrollments and Indian student counts necessary to calculate grant allocations.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-39

Measures 2012 footnote2013 Footnote2014 Footnote

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian-serving Institutions:

ANNH Discretionary funding:

ANNH Number of new development awards 0 0 3

ANNH Average new development award 0 0 $735

ANNH Total new development award funding 0 0 $2,205

ANNH Number of NCC development awards 15 12 11

ANNH Average NCC development award $694 $715 $740

ANNH Total NCC development award funding $10,405 $8,584 $8,140

ANNH Number of NCC cooperative arrangement awards 3 3 3

ANNH Average NCC cooperative arrangement award $804 $830 $827

ANNH Total NCC cooperative arrangement award 

funding

$2,413 $2,489 $2,481

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $33

ANNHOther (including supplemental awards) $34 $1,786 0

ANNHMandatory funding:

ANNH Number of new renovation awards 11 0 15

ANNH Average new renovation award $1,123 0 $1,769

ANNH Total new renovation award funding $12,352 1 0 2 $26,533

ANNH Number of NCC renovation awards 0 12 0

ANNH Average NCC renovation award 0 $899 0

ANNH Total NCC renovation award funding 0 $10,788 3 0

ANNH Peer review of new award applications $19 0 $30

Total award funding $27,859 $27,859 $27,859

Discretionary (Section 317) $12,859 $12,859 $12,859

Mandatory (Section 371) $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

ANNH Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover

mandator y funds r emai ning at the end of (mandatory funds remaining at the end of

 the fiscal year) $7,351 4 $11,563 5 0

 1 Includes $4,721 thousand carried over from fiscal year 2011 pursuant to the Title III, Part F, Section

371(b)(1)(B) of the HEA; and $7,631 thousand from the $15,000 thousand available for obligation in fiscal year 2012. 2 The Department will not conduct a competition in fiscal year 2013, but intends to develop a strategy for using 

the mandatory funding in 2014 that would address problems these institutions face, such as inferior infrastructure, 

problems in stabilizing their management and fiscal operations, challenges in strengthening their curriculum and

academic instruction, and providing student support services. 3 Includes $7,351 thousand in funding carried over from fiscal year 2012, and $3,437 thousand from the $15,000 

thousand available for obligation in fiscal year 2013 that is expected to be obligated in fiscal year 2013. 4 Unobligated fiscal year 2012 mandatory funding to be carried into fiscal year 2013.

5 Unobligated fiscal year 2013 mandatory funding to be carried into fiscal year 2014. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-40

Measures 2012 footnote2013 Footnote2014 Footnote

 Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available 

 for obligation at the start of the fiscal year $19,722 $22,351 $26,563

Total number of awards (discretionary and

 mandatory) 29 27 15

Strengthening HBCUs:

HBCU Discretionary funding:

HBCU Number of new awards 97 0 0

HBCU Average new award $2,350 0 0

HBCU Total new award funding $227,980 0 0

HBCU Number of NCC awards 0 97 97

HBCU Average NCC award 0 $2,350 $2,350

 HTotal NCC award funding 0 $227,980 $227,980

Mandatory funding:

HBCU Number of NCC awards 97 97 97

HBCU Average NCC award $876 $876 $876

HBCU Total NCC award funding $85,000 $85,000 $85,000

HBCU Total award funding $312,980 $312,980 $312,980

 HBCU Discretionary (Section 323) $227,980 $227,980 $227,980

 HBCUMandatory (Section 371) $85,000 $85,000 $85,000

HBCU Total number of awards (discretionary and

mandatory) 194 194 194

Strengthening HBGIs:

HBGIs Number of new awards 6 0 0

BGIs Average new award $3,950 0 0

BGIs Total new award funding $23,698 0 0

HBGIs Number of NCC awards 18 24 24

HBGIs Average NCC award $1,959 $2,457 $2,457

HBGIs Total NCC award funding $35,260 $58,958 $58,958

HBGIs Total award funding (Section 326) $58,958 $58,958 $58,958

HBGIs Total number of awards 24 24 24

Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs and PBIs:

Mandatory funding for HBCUs:

Masters H BCU Number of NCC awards 18 18 18

 M asters HBC UsAverage NCC award $500 $500 $500

 M asters HBC UsTotal NCC award funding $9,000 $9,000 $9,000
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-41

Measures 2012 footnote2013 Footnote2014 Footnote

Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs and PBIs

(cont’d):

Mandatory funding for PBIs:

Masters PBIsNumber of NCC awards 5 5 5

Masters PBIsAverage NCC award $500 $500 $500

Masters PTotal NCC award funding $2,500 $2,500 $2,500

Total Master’s Degree Programs funding $11,500 $11,500 $11,500

Total Master’s Degree Programs awards 23 23 23

Strengthening Predominantly Black 

Institutions:

 PBIsDiscretionary funding (formula-based):

PBIsNumber of NCC development awards 35 35 35

 PBIsAverage NCC development award $265 $265 $265

 PBIsTotal NCC development award funding $9,262 $9,262 $9,262

Mandatory funding (competitive):

PBIs Number of NCC awards 27 27 27

PBIs Average NCC award $556 $556 $556

PBIs Total NCC award funding $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

 PBIsTotal award funding $24,262 $24,262 $24,262

 PBIsDiscretionary (Section 318) $9,262 $9,262 $9,262

 PBIsMandatory (Section 371) $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

 PBIsTotal number of awards (discretionary and

 PBIs mandatory) 62 62 62

Strengthening Asian American and Native

American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions:

AAN APISI Discretionary funding:

AAN APISINumber of NCC development awards 8 8 8

AAN APISIAverage NCC development award $341 $315 $323

AAN APISI Total NCC development award funding $2,731 $2,522 $2,583

AAN APISI Other (including supplemental awards) $388 $597 $536

 Mandatory funding:

AAN APISI Number of NCC development awards 11 11 11

AAN APISI Average NCC development award $382 $382 $388

AAN APISITotal NCC development award funding $4,204 $4,200 $4,266

AAN APISIOther (including supplemental awards) $796 $800 $734

AAN APISI Total award funding $8,119 $8,119 $8,119

AANAPISIDiscretionary (Section 320) $3,119 $3,119 $3,119

AANAPISIMandatory (Section 371) $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

AAN APISI Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) 19 19 19
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-42

Measures 2012 footnote2013 Footnote2014 Footnote

Strengthening Native American-serving

Nontribal Institutions:

NASNT I Discretionary funding:

NASNT I Number of NCC development awards 6 6 6

NASNT I Average NCC development award $393 $386 $374

NASNTI Total NCC development award funding $2,355 $2,316 $2,241

NASNT I Other (including supplemental awards) $764 $803 $878

Mandatory funding:

NASNT INumber of NCC development awards 13 13 13

NASNT IAverage NCC development award $375 $371 $365

NASNT ITotal NCC development award funding $4,872 $4,829 $4,751

NASNT I Other (including supplemental awards) $128 $171 $249

NASNT ITotal award funding (discretionary and 

mandatory) $8,119 $8,119 $8,119

NASNTIDiscretionary (Section 319) $3,119 $3,119 $3,119

NASNTIMandatory (Section 371) $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

 N ASNT I Total number of awards (discretionary and 

 mandatory) 19 19 19

Minority Science and Engineering 

Improvement Program:

MSEIP Number of new awards 14 17 13

MSEIP Average new award $228 $190 $217

MSEIP Total new award funding $3,197 $3,237 $2,824

MSEIP Number of NCC awards 32 26 31

MSEIP Average NCC award $196 $236 $211

MSEIP Total NCC award funding $6,269 $6,135 $6,548

MSEIP Peer review of new award applications 0 $94 $94

MSEIP Total award funding $9,466 $9,466 $9,466

MSEIP Total number of awards 46 43 44

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-43

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2014

and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by the programs.

SIP grantee institutions had the highest persistence rates in 2012 for 4-year Title III institutions 

(81 percent), exceeding the national rate of 79.6 percent. AANAPISI grantee institutions had the 

highest persistence rate in 2012 for 2-year Title III institutions (72 percent), exceeding the national 

rate of 58.9 percent. In addition, AANAPISI grantee institutions had the highest graduation rates 

for 4-year and 2-year grantee institutions—48 percent and 27 percent versus national rates of 

59.4 percent and 21.1 percent in 2011, respectively. The performance results at AANAPISI 

grantee institutions do not provide a clear picture because many diverse subgroups make up the 

AANAPI population. The educational results of low-achievement subgroups are overshadowed 

by others in the same category that have high-achievement levels. All national persistence and 

graduation rates reflected below are estimates based on preliminary data from NCES/Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) and subject to minor changes.

Persistence Rates at Title III Institutions

59

72

53

57

72

59

62

77

72

65

74

45

81

80

44

58

0 25 50 75 100

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP 

National Rate

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP

National Rate

Institution

2012 Persistence %

4-year

2-year
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-44

Graduation Rates at Title III Institutions

22

27

14

17

16

21

34

48

33

33

47

11

47

59

16

20

0 25 50 75 100

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP 

National Rate

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP

National Rate

Institution

2011 Graduation %

Goal: To improve the capacity of minority-serving institutions, which traditionally have 

limited resources and serve large numbers of low-income and minority students, to 

improve student success, and to provide high-quality educational opportunities for their 

students.

Objective: Maintain or increase the enrollment, persistence, and graduation rates at minorityserving institutions.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP) 

institutions.

Year Target Actual

2008 5.1 (4-year change)

2013 6.4

2-year

4-year
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-45

Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 4-year SIP institutions who were in their first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same SIP institution.

Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 2-year SIP institutions who were in their first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same SIP institution.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 72.0 75.0 61.0 59.0

2010 72.0 76.0 62.0 60.0

2011 72.0 74.0 62.0 57.0

2012 73.0 81.0 62.0 58.0

2013 74.0 62.0

2014 74.0 62.0

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year SIPs graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year SIPs graduating within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 48.5 55.0 20.0 21.0

2010 49.5 50.0 22.0 20.0

2011 50.0 47.0 23.0 20.0

2012 50.5 23.0

2013 51.0 24.0

2014 51.5 24.0

Additional information: The data used to calculate these performance measures come from 

NCES/IPEDS. Enrollment is a long-term measure that focuses on changes in enrollment rather 

than the absolute numbers of students enrolled. The Department uses fall enrollment data for all 

full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students and tracks program enrollment at the beginning 

of, and 1 year after the end of, each 5-year grant period. The percentage change is calculated 

against the base year. There are no intermediate annual targets. The Department will only 

assess progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). Student enrollment at SIP 

grantee institutions in 2008 (402,507) was used to calculate the percentage change against 

student enrollment at SIP institutions in the base year 2004 (382,890). The target for 2013 will be

used to determine success for the 5-year grant period 2008-2012 and was developed in late 

2008. Thus far, the change in SIP enrollment for fiscal years 2008-2012 is 20.6 percent. The 

enrollment data presented here takes into account student enrollment for the full set of SIP 

institutions receiving continuation grants.

Persistence at 4-year SIP institutions is one percentage point higher than persistence rates at 

4-year public and private schools (79.6 percent). In addition, the current performance level for 

2-year SIP institutions is one percentage point lower than the rate for all 2-year public and private 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-46

schools nationally (58.9 percent) and is comparable to the 2-year persistence rates at HBCUs 

(57 percent) and NANSTI grantee institutions (59 percent). Since 2009, 4-year SIP grantee 

institutions have consistently met or exceeded its targets. Persistence data for 2013 will be 

available in December 2013.

The targets on the 4-year graduation measure for fiscal year 2010 and beyond will serve to 

gradually narrow the gap between program and national (59.4 percent) performance. Graduation 

rates at 4-year SIP grantee institutions is comparable to the graduation rate at ANNH grantee 

institutions, but falls short of the national graduation rate at 4-year public and private institutions 

(59.4 percent). Graduation data for 2011-2012 will be available in December 2013. 

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at TCCUs.

Year Target Actual

2008 24.3

2013 24.0

Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 4-year TCCUs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment

in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same TCCU.

Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 2-year TCCUs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment 

in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same TCCU.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 45.0 46.0

2010 48.0 51.0 50.0 54.0

2011 49.0 50.0 51.0 41.0

2012 49.0 45.0 51.0 44.0

2013 50.0 52.0

2014 50.0 52.0

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year TCCUs graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year TCCUs graduating within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 37.0 14.0 23.0 31.0

2010 37.0 16.0 27.0 25.0

2011 37.0 11.0 27.0 16.0

2012 16.5 28.0

2013 17.0 28.0

2014 17.0 28.0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-47

Additional information: The data used to calculate these performance measures come from 

NCES/IPEDS. Enrollment is a long-term measure that focuses on changes in enrollment rather 

than the absolute numbers of students enrolled. The Department uses fall enrollment data for 

all full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students and tracks program enrollment at the 

beginning of, and 1 year after the end of, each 5-year grant period. The percentage change is 

calculated against the base year. There are no intermediate annual targets. The Department 

will only assess progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). Student enrollment 

at TCCUs in 2008 (9,666) was used to calculate the percentage change against student 

enrollment at TCCUs in the base year 2003 (7,776). The target for 2013 will be used to 

determine success for the 5-year grant period 2008-2012 and was developed in late 2008. 

Thus far, the change in TCCUs enrollment for fiscal years 2008-2012 is 25.5 percent.

The 2012 persistence rate at 4-year TCCUs is 5 percentage points lower than the 2011 rate. 

The persistence rate at 2-year TCCUs exceeded the 2011 rate, however, did not meet the

target set for 2012.

The 2011 graduation rates at 4-year and 2-year TCCUs are lower than the 2010 rates by 

5 percentage points and 9 percentage points, respectively. The decrease in the graduation 

rates from 2010 to 2011 at 4-year and 2-year TCCUs is largely the result of missing data from 

several institutions who accounted for a significant percent of total number of degree-seeking 

students who completed their degree within 150 percent of normal time to degree attainment. 

The rate for 2-year TCCUs is comparable to ANNH-grantee institutions and HBCUs. 

Graduation data for 2011-2012 will be available in December 2013. Performance data for these 

measures are derived from electronic annual performance reports from program grantees and 

NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported by all institutions participating in these programs and 

are subject to NCES consistency and validity checks. 

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at ANNH institutions.

Year Target Actual

2008 -1.7

2013 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-48

Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 4-year ANNH-serving institutions who were in their first year of 

postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same 

ANNH-serving institution.

Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 2-year ANNH-serving institutions who were in their first year of 

postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same 

ANNH-serving institution.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 68.0 57.0

2010 75.0 63.0

2011 76.0 57.0

2012 76.5 74.0 59.0 72.0

2013 77.0 59.5

2014 77.0 59.5 

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year ANNH institutions who graduate within 6 years of 

enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year ANNH institutions who graduate within 3 years of 

enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 29.0 43.0 16.0 14.0

2010 29.0 46.0 16.0 15.0

2011 30.0 47.0 16.0 16.0

2012 46.5 16.0

2013 47.0 16.0

2014 47.0 16.0

Additional information: The data used to calculate these performance measures come from 

NCES/IPEDS. Enrollment is a long-term measure that focuses on changes in enrollment rather than 

the absolute numbers of students enrolled. The Department uses fall enrollment data for all full-time 

degree-seeking undergraduate students and tracks program enrollment at the beginning of, and 

1 year after the end of, each 5-year grant period. The percentage change is calculated against the 

base year. There are no intermediate annual targets. The Department will only assess progress 

against targets periodically (about every 5 years). Student enrollment at ANNH-serving institutions 

in 2008 (13,407) was used to calculate the percentage change against student enrollment at 

ANNH-serving institutions in the base year 2003 (13,638). The target for 2013 will be used to 

determine success for the 5-year grant period 2008-2012 and was developed in late 2008. Thus far, 

the change in ANNH enrollment for fiscal years 2008-2012 is 14.3 percent.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-49

The 2012 persistence rate at 2-year ANNH grantee institutions (72 percent) exceeded the 2011 rate. 

The 2012 persistence rate at 4-year ANNH grantee institutions (74 percent) compares favorably to 

the national persistence rate at 4-year public and private schools (79.6 percent).

Data for only three 2-year grantees were used to calculate the graduation rate for 2011. The 

graduation rate for 4-year ANNHs (47 percent) exceeded the target set for 2011 (30 percent) and is 

comparable to the 4-year graduation rate at SIP grantee institutions. While the program exceeded 

the 4-year graduation target and met the 2-year graduation target, both lag behind national 

graduation rates at 4-year and 2-year public and private schools (59.4 percent and 21.1 percent, 

respectively). Graduation data for 2011-2012 will be available in December 2013. Performance 

data for these measures are derived from electronic annual performance reports from program 

grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported by all institutions participating in these 

programs and are subject to NCES consistency and validity checks.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at HBCUs.

Year Target Actual

2008 8.0

2013 8.0

Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 4-year HBCUs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in 

the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HBCU.

Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 2-year HBCUs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in 

the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HBCU.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 67.0 66.0 56.0 52.0

2010 67.5 68.0 56.5 53.0

2011 68.0 66.0 56.5 50.0

2012 68.5 65.0 57.0 57.0

2013 69.0 57.0

2014 69.0 57.0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-50

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year HBCUs graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year HBCUs graduating within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 40.0 34.0 14.0 18.0

2010 40.0 34.0 14.5 17.0

2011 40.0 33.0 15.0 17.0

2012 40.0 16.0

2013 40.0 16.5

2014 40.0 17.0

Additional information: The data used to calculate these performance measures come from 

NCES/IPEDS. Enrollment is a long-term measure that focuses on changes in enrollment rather 

than the absolute numbers of students enrolled. The Department uses fall enrollment data for 

all full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students and tracks program enrollment at the 

beginning of, and 1 year after the end of, each 5-year grant period. The percentage change is 

calculated against the base year. There are no intermediate annual targets. The Department 

will only assess progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). Student enrollment 

at HBCUs in 2008 (216,207) was used to calculate the percentage change against student 

enrollment at HBCUs in the base year 2003 (200,369). The target for 2013 will be used to 

determine success for the 5-year grant period 2008-2012 and was developed in late 2008. The 

target of 8 percent for fiscal year 2013 reflects an anticipated level of future growth equal to that 

experienced during the fiscal year 2003-2008 timeframe. Thus far, the change in HBCU

enrollment for fiscal years 2008-2012 is 4.6 percent.

The 2012 persistence rates at 4-year HBCUs (65 percent) and 2-year HBCUs (57 percent) 

currently lag behind national persistence rates for 4-year public and private schools (79.6

percent) and 2-year public and private schools (58.9 percent). Two-year HBCUs met the target 

set for 2010; however, 4-year HBCUS missed the target set for 2012 by 3 percentage points. 

The 2-year persistence rate at HBCUs compares favorably to the rate at 2-year SIP grantee 

institutions (58 percent) and NASNTI grantee institutions (59 percent). Persistence data for 2013

will be available December 2013.

The graduation rate for HBCUs falls short of the national rate of 21.1 percent for 2-year

institutions by 4 percentage points yet exceeds the target set for 2011 by 2 percentage points. 

Graduation data for 2011-2012 will be available in December 2013. The graduation rate at 4-year 

HBCUs is comparable to the rates at PBIs and NASNTIs. Performance data for these measures 

are derived from electronic annual performance reports from grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS 

data are reported by all institutions participating in these programs and are subject to NCES 

consistency and validity checks.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-51

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time graduate students enrolled at HBGIs.

Year Target Actual

2008 13.0

2013 13.0

Degree Completion Measure: The number of PhDs, first professional, and Master’s degrees 

awarded at HBGIs.

Year Target Actual

2009 4,680 6,358

2010 4,774 6,459

2011 4,870 6,343

2012 4,967

2013 6,500

2014 6,600

Additional information: The data used to calculate these performance measures come from 

NCES/IPEDS. Enrollment is a long-term measure that focuses on changes in enrollment rather 

than the absolute numbers of students enrolled. The Department uses fall enrollment data for all 

full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students and tracks program enrollment at the beginning 

of, and 1 year after the end of, each 5-year grant period. The percentage change is calculated 

against the base year. There are no intermediate annual targets. The Department will only 

assess progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). Student enrollment at HBGIs 

in 2008 (11,144) was used to calculate the percentage change against student enrollment at 

HBGIs in the base year 2003 (9,860). The target for 2013 will be used to determine success for 

the 5-year grant period 2008-2012 and was developed in late 2008. The target of 13 percent for 

fiscal year 2013 reflects an anticipated level of future growth equal to that experienced during the 

fiscal year 2003-2008 timeframe. Achieving this target will require annual increases of almost 

2.5 percent. Thus far, the change in HBGI enrollment for fiscal years 2008-2011 is 1.7 percent.

The program exceeded the target set for 2011 for degree completion. Data for 2012 will be 

available in December 2013. Performance data for these measures are derived from electronic 

annual performance reports from program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported 

by all institutions participating in these programs and are subject to NCES consistency and validity 

checks.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change of the number of full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at PBIs.

Year Target Actual

2009 14.7 (1-year change)

2016 TBD
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-52

Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 4-year PBIs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in 

the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same PBI.

Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 2-year PBIs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in 

the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same PBI.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2010 73.0 49.0

2011 69.0 52.0

2012 72.0 72.0 54.0 53.0

2013 72.5 54.5 

2014 73.0 54.5

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year PBIs who graduate within 6 years of enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year PBIs who graduate within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 40.0 9.0

2010 28.0 13.0

2011 33.0 14.0

2012 29.0 13.0

2013 29.5 13.5

2014 29.5 13.5

Additional information: This program received its first year of funding in 2008. Data for the 

2012 persistence rate and the 2011 graduation rate are from PBI grantees who received a new 

award in 2011 in the discretionary and mandatory PBI programs. For enrollment, the percentage 

change is calculated against the base year. There are no intermediate annual targets. Future 

progress will be assessed against targets periodically (about every 5 years). Student enrollment at 

PBI grantee institutions in 2009 (57,334) was used to calculate the percentage change against 

student enrollment at PBIs in the base year 2008 (49,980). The target for 2016 will be developed 

as soon as data are available and will be used to determine success for the 5-year grant period 

2011-2015. Thus far, the change in enrollment for fiscal years 2011-2012 is -3.9 percent.

The 2012 persistence rates at 4-year and 2-year PBI grantee institutions lag behind the national 

2012 persistence rates. However, the 2012 persistence rate at 2-year PBI grantee institutions is 

one percentage point higher than the 2011 rate. The 2011 graduation rates at 4-year and 2-year 

PBIs exceed the 2010 rates at these institutions, yet lag far behind the national rates for 4-year 

public and private schools, respectively (59.4 and 21.1 percent). The 2011 graduation rate at 

4-year PBIs (33 percent) compares favorably to the graduation rates at 4-year HBCUs and 

NASNTIs. Graduation data for 2011-2012 will be available in December 2013. Performance data 

for these measures are derived from electronic annual performance reports from program grantees 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-53

and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported by all institutions participating in these programs and 

are subject to NCES consistency and validity checks.

Although the funding for discretionary (formula) and mandatory (competitive) PBI programs are 

awarded to different institutions and support significantly different activities, we believe assessment 

of the performance of both programs should focus on enrollment, persistence, and graduation 

rates at PBIs. Therefore, performance data for the discretionary PBI program and the mandatory 

PBI program is combined.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change of the number of full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at AANAPISIs.

Year Target Actual

2009 -2.5 (1-year change)

2015 TBD

Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 4-year AANAPISIs who were in their first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same AANAPISI.

Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 2-year AANAPISIs who were in their first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same AANAPISI.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2010 90.0 73.0

2011 79.0 69.0

2012 80.0 77.0 70.0 72.0

2013 80.0 70.0

2014 80.0 70.0

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year AANAPISIs who graduate within 6 years of enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year AANAPISIs who graduate within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 77.0 26.0

2010 48.0 20.0

2011 48.0 27.0

2012 48.0 23.0

2013 48.5 23.0

2014 48.5 23.0

Additional information: This program received its first year of funding in 2008. Recent data are 

from eight grantees who received funding in the discretionary AANAPISI program in 2010—five
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-54

2-year institutions and three 4-year institutions. No funding was awarded in the mandatory 

AANAPISI program in 2010 because the Department delayed the competition for new awards until 

fiscal year 2011 to ensure that all potential applicants had the opportunity to apply for designation 

of eligibility prior to the announcement for new awards. For enrollment, the percentage change is 

calculated against the base year. There are no intermediate annual targets. Future progress will 

be assessed against targets periodically (about every 5 years). Student enrollment at AANAPISI 

grantee institutions in 2009 (38,014) was used to calculate the percentage change against student 

enrollment at AANAPISIs in the base year 2008 (38,981). The target for 2015 will be developed as 

soon as data are available and will be used to determine success for the 5-year grant period 

2010-2014. Thus far, the change in enrollment for fiscal years 2010-2012 is 6.5 percent.

AANAPISIs exceeded the national persistence rate for 2-year public and private schools 

(58.9 percent) by 13 percentage points. The 4-year persistence rate at AANAPISIs (77 percent) 

falls just short of the national rate at 4-year public and private schools (79.6 percent).

AANAPISIs exceeded the national graduation rate for 2-year public and private schools 

(21.1 percent) by 6 percentage points. The only other program to do so was NASNTI grantee 

institutions, with a 22 percent graduation rate in 2011. Although AANAPISI grantee institutions 

failed to meet the national graduation rate, the program had the highest graduation rate at 2-year 

Title III institutions, as well as the highest graduation rate at 4-year Title III institutions (48 percent). 

Performance data for these measures are derived from electronic annual performance reports from 

program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported by all institutions participating in 

these programs and are subject to NCES consistency and validity checks.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change of the number of full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at NASNTIs.

Year Target Actual

2009 9.0 (1-year change)

2015 TBD

Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 4-year NASNTIs who were in their first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same NASNTI.

Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 2-year NASNTIs who were in their first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same NASNTI.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2010 64.0 57.0

2011 71.0 51.0

2012 71.5 62.0 52.0 59.0

2013 72.0 52.5

2014 72.0 52.5
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-55

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year NASNTIs who graduate within 6 years of enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year NASNTIs who graduate within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 33.0 17.0

2010 33.0 20.0

2011 34.0 22.0

2012 33.5 20.0

2013 34.0 20.5

2014 34.0 20.5

Additional information: This program received its first year of funding in 2008. Similar to the 

AANAPISI program, recent data in the NASNTI program are from grantees who received 

funding in the discretionary NASNTI program in 2010—four 2-year institutions and two 4-year 

institutions. No funding was awarded in the mandatory NASNTI program in 2010 because the 

Department delayed the competition for new awards until fiscal year 2011 to ensure that all 

potential applicants had the opportunity to apply for designation of eligibility prior to the 

announcement for new awards. For enrollment, the percentage change is calculated against 

the base year. There are no intermediate annual targets. Future progress will be assessed

against targets periodically (about every 5 years). Student enrollment at NASNTI grantee 

institutions in 2009 (15,970) was used to calculate the percentage change against student 

enrollment at NASNTIs in the base year 2008 (14,646). The target for 2015 will be developed 

as soon as data are available and will be used to determine success for the 5-year grant period 

2010-2014. Thus far, the change in enrollment for fiscal years 2010-2012 is 1.7 percent.

The 2-year persistence rate at NASNTI grantee institutions exceeds the target set for 2012 by 

7 percentage points. The 2012 persistence rate at 4-year NASNTI grantee institutions is 

8 percentage points higher than the 2011 rate. The 2-year graduation rate in NASNTI grantee 

institutions is comparable to the 2-year graduation rates in SIP. However, as there are only a 

total of six non-competing continuation grantees receiving program funding in 2011, the national 

comparison may not necessarily be meaningful. Graduation data for 2011-2012 will be 

available in December 2013. Performance data for these measures are derived from electronic 

annual performance reports from program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are 

reported by all institutions 

The Department is re-examining the methodology used for the current measures of enrollment 

and graduation in the MSEIP program. The current enrollment measure is calculated by 

determining the percentage change between the average minority enrollment in the fields of 

engineering, mathematics, biological sciences, and physical sciences at grantee institutions just 

before the beginning of the MSEIP grant period and at the end of the grant period. However, 

the classification of enrollments into fields of study may not be very reliable, with many students 

unsure of their major upon enrolling. In addition, data are not available for some years because 

enrollment data by field of study is provided only biennially in IPEDS. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-56

The current graduation measure is not calculated in the same manner as in IPEDS (graduating 

within 150 percent of normal time). The current MSEIP graduation measure uses degree 

completion data calculated using NCES/IPEDS Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) 

Codes developed to facilitate collection and reporting of postsecondary degree completions by 

major field of study using standard classifications. For 4-year institutions receiving continuation 

funding, the completion rate is calculated using data generated from 39 IPEDS CIP codes 

(covering 15 major fields of study) selected by the Department relevant to this program and data 

from IPEDS in 4 basic fields of study—math, engineering, biological sciences, and physical 

sciences. This measure is problematic because it compares minority enrollments in the 4 broad 

fields of study to minority completions using the 39 IPEDS CIP codes 6 years later.

As an alternative, we used IPEDS data to determine whether the percentage of bachelor’s 

degrees conferred that were in STEM fields increased between 2005 and 2010. Specifically, we 

examined:

• The percentage of bachelor’s degrees conferred by the 2005 cohort of MSEIP grantees 

in 2005 and 2010 that were in STEM fields;

• The percentage of bachelor’s degrees conferred by all Title IV eligible institutions in 

2005 and 2010 that were in STEM fields.

In addition, we examined the same percentages for the two largest underrepresented 

racial/ethnic groups.

The intent is to examine whether an increasing percentage of students in MSEIP institutions 

earn degrees in STEM fields, given that one of the main purposes of the MSEIP program is to 

increase the participation of underrepresented minorities in scientific and technological careers. 

While it would not be possible to attribute changes to the MSEIP program, given the importance 

of STEM fields to the Nation’s future, we would expect to see increases over time.

STEM fields can include a wide range of disciplines. However, for purposes of this data 

analysis, STEM fields include computer and information sciences; engineering; engineering 

technologies and engineering-related fields; biological and biomedical sciences; mathematics 

and statistics; physical sciences; science technology/technicians; and agriculture, agriculture 

operations, and related sciences.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-57

Measure: Number and percentage of bachelor’s degrees conferred that are in STEM fields, 

2005 and 2010.

MSEIP grantees All Title IV Institutions

2005 2010 2005 2010

All students

Number of STEM degrees 4,430 4,896 288,543 323,328

Number of degrees 23,866 32,663 1,411,002 1,620,629

Percent of degrees that are in STEM fields 15.7% 15.0% 20.4% 20.0%

Black or African American students

Number of STEM degrees 915 847 19,611 19,278

Number of degrees 7,193 6,956 127,978 152,404

Percent of degrees that are in STEM fields 12.7% 12.2% 15.3% 12.6%

Hispanic students

Number of STEM degrees 1,237 1,713 20,224 25,555

Number of degrees 9,407 12,688 111,616 147,205

Percent of degrees that are in STEM fields 13.1% 13.5% 18.1% 17.4%

In 2005, approximately 15.7 percent of all bachelor’s degrees conferred by the 2005 cohort of

MSEIP grantees were in STEM fields, a figure that was slightly higher than the 2010 

percentage. The percentages were lower than for all Title IV institutions, where approximately 

20 percent of all degrees conferred were in STEM fields.

Lower percentages of degrees conferred to Black or Hispanic students were in STEM fields, 

and the percentages did not change appreciably between 2005 and 2010.

The Master’s Degree Programs for HBCUs and PBIs received its first year of funding in 2009. 

The Department has developed program performance measures on enrollment, completion, and 

time to degree for these programs. More specifically: (1) the percentage change, over the 

period between the fall of the year the grant was issued and the fall after the end of the grant

period, in the number of African American and/or low-income graduate students enrolled in the 

academic program(s) supported by the project; (2) the percentage change, over the fall 

semester before, in the number of African American and/or low-income students graduating in 

the academic program(s) supported by the project; and (3) median time to completion of a 

Master’s degree for African Americans and/or low-income graduate students, in the academic 

program(s) supported by the project during the period of the grant award. The percentage 

change for enrollment will be calculated against the base year. The Department will only 

assess progress against targets periodically (about every 6 years). Student enrollment at 

institutions in 2015 will be used to calculate the percentage change against student enrollment 

at institutions in the base year 2009. The target for 2015 will be developed as soon as data 

become available and will be used to measure success for the 6-year grant period 2009-2014. 

Performance data for these measures will be derived from annual performance reports from 

program grantees.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-58

Efficiency Measures

The Department developed a common efficiency measure for the Aid for Institutional 

Development programs. These calculations do not take into account Federal student financial 

aid received by these institutions. Not only has the Department revised targets for 2013 based 

on a review of actual performance data from previous years for these programs to more 

accurately reflect program outcomes, but it has also based future calculations and targets to 

include both discretionary and mandatory funding in the TCCUs, ANNH-serving institutions, 

HBCUs, PBIs, AANAPISIs, and NASNTIs programs. 

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate degree 

at SIP institutions.

Year Target Actual

2009 $350 $413

2010 350 441

2011 350 438

2012 350

2013 430

2014 425

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate degree at TCCUs.

Year Target Actual

2009 $12,500 $32,733

2010 12,500 35,879

2011 12,500 29,518

2012 12,500

2013 32,950 1

2014 32,650 . . 

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 to accommodate the influx of mandatory funding resulting from 

SAFRA for these programs. SAFRA makes funding for minority-serving institutions available through fiscal year 2019 

under section 371 of the HEA.

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate degree 

at ANNH-serving Institutions.

Year Target Actual

2009 $2,775 $3,171

2010 2,775 2,259

2011 2,775 3,068

2012 2,775

2013 2,775 

2014 2,750
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-59

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate degree 

at HBCUs.

Year Target Actual

2009 $5,400 $7,105

2010 5,400 7,923

2011 5,400 7,333

2012 5,400

2013 7,415 1

2014 7,340 . . 

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 because performance in this program was worse than expected.

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per graduate degree at HBGIs.

Year Target Actual

2009 $12,700 $9,201

2010 12,700 9,510

2011 12,700 9,655

2012 12,700

2013 9,355 1

2014 9,262 . . 

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 because performance in this program was better than expected.

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate degree at PBIs.

Year Target Actual

2009 $974

2010 N/A 1,207

2011 N/A 1,043

2012 $1,800

2013 1,040 1

2014 1,030 . . 

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 because performance in this program was better than expected.

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate degree at 

AANAPISIs.

Year Target Actual

2009 $379

2010 N/A 310

2011 N/A 238

2012 $385

2013 300

2014 295
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-60

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate degree at NASNTIs.

Year Target Actual

2009 $1,395

2010 N/A 1,028

2011 N/A 968 

2012 $2,150

2013 1,0251

2014 1,015

_______________________ 1 The Department revised targets for 2013 because performance in this program was better than expected.

Additional information: These measures are calculated as the appropriation for the program 

divided by the number of undergraduate and graduate degrees awarded. Given that the 

average cost per successful outcome for 2009 and 2010 for many of the Aid for Institutional 

Development programs either significantly exceeds or is significantly lower than their targets, 

the Department has revised targets beginning in 2013 to more accurately reflect actual 

performance. A similar efficiency measure has been established for the Developing HSIs 

program and for Howard University. This metric may enable the Department to assess program 

performance across institutions with similar types of missions. 

Performance on the efficiency measure exceeded the targets set for 2011 for HBGIs. For the 

Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs and PBIs, the Department has developed a measure of 

the cost of a successful outcome, where success will be defined as Master’s degrees earned by

African American and low-income students, in the academic programs supported by the project 

during the period of the grant award. Targets for this measure will be developed as soon as 

baseline data for 2010 become available in December 2013.

Other Performance Information

A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on Low-Income and Minority Serving 

Institutions: Management Attention to Long-standing Concerns Needed to Improve Education’s 

Oversight of Grant Programs found that institutions eligible to receive Title III and V grants had 

fewer resources, including endowment holdings and revenue from tuition and fees, and lower 

per student spending on equipment than ineligible institutions. They also served more students 

who were minority, low-income, and attended part-time. Title III and V grantees reported 

challenges in all 4 grant focus areas: academic quality, student support, institutional 

management, and fiscal stability. While nearly all grantees reported challenges related to 

strengthening institutional management and fiscal stability, expenditures in these areas 

represented less than one-quarter of all grant funds spent (almost $385 million in fiscal year 

2006).

New Department studies, drawing on previous studies, are planned to address the relationships 

among academic quality, financial health, institutional management, and provision of student 

services for minority-serving institutions as compared to other postsecondary institutions. 

Preliminary results are being reviewed by the Department.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-61

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title V, Parts A and B; Title III, Part F, Section 371(b)(2)(B); 

and Title VIII, Part AA, Section 898)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite (discretionary); $111,500 (mandatory)

Budget Authority:

Program

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions 

(discretionary) (HEA V-A) $100,432 $100,432 $100,432 0

Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions 

Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics and Articulation 

(mandatory) (HEA III-F) 100,000 100,000 100,000 0

Promoting Postbaccalaureate 

Opportunities for Hispanic Americans 

(discretionary) (HEA V-B) 9,011 9,011 9,011 0

Promoting Postbaccalaureate 

Opportunities for Hispanic Americans 

(mandatory) (HEA VIII-AA, Section 898) 11,500 11,500 11,500 0

Total 220,943 220,943 1 220,943 0

Discretionary 109,443 109,443 109,443 0

Mandatory 111,500 111,500 111,500 0

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Aid for Hispanic-serving Institutions programs provide grants for direct support to 

institutions of higher education (IHEs) that educate a disproportionate share of Hispanic 

Americans. These Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) are defined as institutions that have an 

enrollment of undergraduate full-time equivalent students that is at least 25 percent Hispanic. 

The Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions program, authorized under Title V of HEA, is 

designed to expand and enhance the academic offerings, program quality, and institutional 

stability of the colleges and universities that are educating a large percentage of Hispanic 

college students. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-62

Grants of up to 5 years in duration are awarded competitively to HSIs to enable these 

institutions to improve and expand their capacity to serve Hispanic and low-income students. 

Individual development grants support efforts to resolve institutional problems. Cooperative 

arrangement development grants between two or more IHEs support efforts to resolve 

institutional problems common to the IHEs and enable IHEs to combine their resources to better 

achieve institutional goals and avoid costly duplication of effort. In addition, 1-year planning 

grants may be awarded for the preparation of plans and applications for a grant under this 

program. 

HSIs may use their funds to plan, develop, and implement activities that encourage: faculty and 

academic program development; better management of funds and administration; construction 

and maintenance of instructional facilities; student services; the establishment of a program of 

teacher education designed to qualify students to teach in public schools; establishment of 

community outreach programs that encourage elementary and secondary school students to 

develop the academic skills and the interest to pursue postsecondary education; and creating or 

improving facilities for Internet or other distance learning academic instruction, including 

purchase or rental of telecommunications technology equipment and services. Also, HSIs may 

use no more than 20 percent of the grant funds to establish or increase an institution’s 

endowment fund. The endowment funds must be matched at a rate of one non-Federal dollar 

for each Federal dollar. If an institution receives funding under this program, it cannot receive 

funding under Part A or Part B of Title III. 

The HSI STEM and Articulation Program, authorized under Title III, Part F of the HEA, is 

designed to increase the number of Hispanic and other low-income students attaining degrees 

in fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and to develop model 

transfer and articulation agreements between 2-year and 4-year HSIs in such fields. The 

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 

to provide $100 million in mandatory funding per year for fiscal years 2010 through 2019 for this 

program. 

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans program, authorized under 

Title V of HEA, seeks to help Hispanic Americans gain entry into and succeed in graduate 

study, a level of education in which they are underrepresented. To be eligible to apply, an 

institution of higher education must be an HSI that offers a postbaccalaureate certificate or 

postbaccalaureate degree-granting program. 

The Higher Education Opportunity Act amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 

$11.5 million in mandatory funding for this program for 6 years beginning in fiscal year 2009. 

HSIs may apply for competitive 5-year grants, which are to be used to improve 

postbaccaulareate offerings. Institutions receiving grants under this program may also receive 

funds under Title V, Part A.

Authorized activities include: purchasing, renting, or leasing scientific or laboratory equipment 

used for educational purposes; construction, maintenance, renovation and facilities 

improvement, including telecommunications; purchasing library books, periodicals, journals, and 

other educational materials, including telecommunications program materials; supporting 

low-income postbaccalaureate students through outreach programs, academic support 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-63

Percent of 18- to 24-year olds enrolled in 

degree-granting institutions by 

race/ethnicity (2010)

43.3% 38.0% 31.9%

62.2%

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

Asian White Black Hispanic

Enrollment

services, mentoring, and student financial assistance; supporting faculty exchanges, 

development, and research, as well as curricular development and academic instruction; the 

creation or improvement of facilities for Internet or other distance education technologies; and 

collaboration with other IHEs to expand postbaccalaureate offerings. Other activities germane 

to the promotion of postbaccalaureate study at HSIs are permissible, provided that they 

contribute to the overall purpose of the program and are approved by the Department. 

Funding levels for the Aid for HSI programs for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2009....................................................................................204,756 1

2010....................................................................................239,429 1

2011....................................................................................225,231 1

2012....................................................................................220,943 1

2013....................................................................................220,943 1,2

 1 Includes $111,500 thousand in mandatory funds in each fiscal year. 2 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $100.4 million for the Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions 

(HSIs) program and $9.1 million for the Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic 

Americans (PPOHA) program, level with fiscal year 2012. In addition, mandatory funding 

totaling $11.5 million is provided for the Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic 

Americans program under Title VIII, Part AA of the HEA and mandatory funding totaling 

$100 million is provided for the HSI STEM and Articulation program under Title III, Part F of the 

HEA. These mandatory funds are not part of the Administration’s fiscal year 2014 request.

In 1976, about 383,800 Hispanic Americans attended degree-granting institutions of higher 

education. Since then, Hispanic enrollment has grown steadily, reaching 2.4 million in 2010. 

Hispanics constitute the largest minority group in the Nation, 16 percent of the total U.S. 

population. As of 2010, the United States was home to 50.5 million Hispanic people. More than 

half the growth in the total US population between 2000 and 2010 was due to the increase in 

the Hispanic population. The Census Bureau projects that the Hispanic American population 

will triple between 2008 and 2050, reaching 132.8 million and 30 percent of the overall 

population.

Hispanics have made significant gains in education over the last several decades. The increase 

in Hispanic enrollment is being driven by 

population growth and by increasing proportions of 

the population enrolling in colleges and 

universities. In 1976, Hispanics represented 

3.7 percent of the undergraduate enrollment; in 

2011, they represented 16.5 percent of 

postsecondary enrollment and 25 percent of all 

students age 18 to 24 enrolled in 2-year 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-64

institutions. From 2009 to 2010, the enrollment of Hispanics age 18 to 24 in undergraduate and 

graduate programs grew by 24 percent, and grew by an additional 15 percent from 2010 to 

2011. Population growth among college-age Hispanics during the same period was only 

7 percent. For the first time, Hispanics are the largest minority group in 4-year colleges. 

Although Hispanics have made significant gains in education, their enrollment rates and 

degree attainment remain lower than those of their non-Hispanic peers. In 2010, 

only 31.9 percent of all Hispanics in the age group 18-24 years were enrolled in degree-granting 

institutions, compared to 62.2 percent of Asian peers, 43.3 percent of all non-Hispanic White 

peers, and 38.0 percent of Black peers (see graph). In 2009-2010, Hispanics earned 

8.8 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 7.1 percent of master’s degrees, and 5.8 percent of PhDs 

awarded in the United States despite constituting over 16 percent of the total national 

population.

The Aid for Hispanic-serving Institutions programs provide critically needed support to carry out 

activities designed to improve the educational outcomes for low-income, minority, and other 

institutions with a significant share of Hispanic enrollment. HSIs enroll only 16 percent of all 

postsecondary students, but they enroll 54 percent of all Hispanic undergraduates. Because of 

the unique role these institutions play, they are vital to the improvement of Hispanic Americans’ 

educational attainment.

The 2014 request, combined with the mandatory funding available through Title VIII, Part AA 

and Title III, Part F of the HEA, is intended to help close the achievement gap between HSI and 

non-HSI students.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 Footnotes2013 2014

Developing HSIs

Number of new awards 20 17 26

Average new award $626 $649 $652

Total new award funding $12,524 $11,039 $16,968

Number of NCC awards 139 136 129

Average NCC award $632 $650 $637

Total NCC award funding $87,824 $88,388 $82,292

Peer review of new award applications $84 $1,004 $1,172

Total award funding $100,432 $100,432 $100,432

Total number of awards 159 152 155
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-65

Number of NCC awards 21 21 21

Average NCC award $429 $429 $429

Total NCC award funding $9,011 $9,011 $9,011

Total award funding $9,011 $9,011 $9,011

Total number of awards 21 21 21

Mandatory funding:

Number of NCC awards 22 22 22

Average NCC award $523 $523 $523

Total NCC award funding $11,500 $11,500 $11,500

Total PPOHA award funding $20,511 $20,511 $20,511

Total number of PPOHA awards 43 43 43

HSI STEM and Articulation Programs

Mandatory funding: 

 Individual Development awards:

Number of NCC awards 109 109 109

Average NCC award $917 $917 $917

Total NCC award funding $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

Total HSI award funding $220,943 $220,943 $220,943

Discretionary 109,443 109,443 109,443

Mandatory 111,500 111,500 111,500

Total number of HSI awards 311 304 307

 22 NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

Measures 2012 Footnotes2013 2014

Promoting Postbaccalaureate 

Opportunities for Hispanic Americans

Discretionary funding:
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-66

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To improve the capacity of minority-serving institutions, which traditionally have 

limited resources and serve large numbers of low-income and minority students, to 

improve student success, and to provide high-quality educational opportunities for their 

students.

Objective: Increase the enrollment, persistence, and graduation rates at Hispanic-serving 

institutions.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolling at HSIs.

Year Target Actual

2008 11.2

2013 11.0

Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 4-year HSIs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment 

in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HSI.

Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 2-year HSIs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment 

in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HSI.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 75.0 67.0

2010 78.0 77.0 64.0 58.0

2011 78.0 72.0 64.0 65.0

2012 78.0 75.0 64.0 66.0

2013 78.0 65.0

2014 78.0 65.5
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-67

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduates students enrolled at 4-year HSIs graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduates students enrolled at 2-year HSIs graduating within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2009 44.0 42.0 22.0 19.0

2010 45.0 41.0 22.0 17.0

2011 45.0 40.0 22.0 20.0

2012 46.0 22.0

2013 46.0 22.0

2014 46.0 22.0

Additional Information: The Department recast the measure of long-term enrollment to focus 

on changes in enrollment rather than the absolute numbers of students enrolled. The 

new measure uses the same National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) fall enrollment data for all full-time 

degree-seeking undergraduate students used by the former measure except that the new 

measure tracks program enrollment at the beginning of, and 1 year after the end of, each 5-year 

grant period. The percentage change is calculated against the base year. There are no 

intermediate annual targets. Student enrollment at HSIs in 2008 (860,424) was used to 

calculate the percentage change against student enrollment at HSIs in the base year 2003 

(773,859). The target of 11 percent for 2013 will be used to assess success for the 5-year grant 

period 2008-2012 and was developed in late 2008.

Persistence at 2-year HSIs increased in fiscal year 2011, exceeding the target of 64 percent; 

persistence at 4-year HSIs improved, but still missed the target of 78 percent.

Fiscal year 2011 data show that graduation rates fell one percentage point for 4-year HSIs, but 

increased for 2-year HSIs. Neither of the targets were met. The data are derived from 

grantees’ electronic annual performance reports and the NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are 

reported by all institutions participating in these programs and are subject to NCES’ consistency 

and validity checks.

Objective: Improve the year-to-year increase in enrollment and graduation rates in 

postbaccalaureate programs at Hispanic-serving institutions.

Enrollment Change Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the 

number of graduate and professional students enrolled at HSI institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 2.5
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-68

Degree Change Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the 

number of master's, doctoral and first-professional degrees and postbaccalaureate certificates 

awarded at HSI institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 20

Additional Information: The long-term measure for change in enrollment assesses the 

percentage change in enrollment at the grantee institutions over a 5-year period. For 2013, the 

measure will be calculated as the percentage change in the number of graduate students 

enrolling at the grantee institutions, using the 2008 baseline of 62,821 students. During the 

previous 5 years, 2003-2008, enrollment at these same institutions declined. However, in 2009, 

the enrollment at the 22 grantee institutions increased by 1.3 percent over the prior year. This 

rate of growth was used to establish the 2013 enrollment target.

The long-term measure for change in graduate degrees assesses the percentage change in 

degrees and certificates awarded over a 5-year period. For 2013, the measure will be calculated 

as the percentage change in the number of degrees and certificates awarded at the grantee 

institutions, using the 2008 baseline of 18,108 degrees and certificates.

Efficiency Measures

Developing HSIs: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate 

degree at HSIs.

Year Target Actual

2009 $950 $1,780

2010 950 1,506

2011 950

2012 950

2013 1,280 

2014 1,265

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans: Cost per successful 

outcome: Federal cost per master's, doctoral and first-professional degree and 

postbaccalaureate certificate at HSI institutions.

Year Target Actual

2009 $597

2010 $2,215 741

2011 $2,215 714

Additional Information: The Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions efficiency measure is 

calculated by dividing the appropriation for the Developing HSIs program by the number of

undergraduate and graduate degrees awarded. The Department established targets of $950 

per successful outcome for fiscal years 2009 through 2012. Fiscal year 2010 data show a 

marked increase in efficiency from the prior year, but efficiency has decreased since 2008. This 

variability is due in large part to the fact that success is defined as a bachelor’s degree or 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-69

higher, while many of the 2-year institutions of higher education receiving grants primarily award 

associate’s degrees. Grantee-level data analyses will be used to identify institutions that may 

benefit from technical training in areas such as data collection and reporting, as well as to 

identify promising practices for improving program performance outcomes.

The efficiency measure can also be used to assess overall program performance over time. A 

similar efficiency measure has been established for the Title III Aid for Institutional Development 

programs as well as for Howard University. This metric may enable the Department to assess 

program performance across institutions with similar types of missions.

The PPOHA efficiency measure is calculated by dividing the appropriation for the PPOHA 

program by the number of graduate degrees and certificates awarded at grantee institutions. In 

fiscal year 2009, when the PPOHA appropriation was $11.5 million, grantee institutions awarded 

18,826 graduate degrees. The 2010 efficiency target was established on the basis of 

information on the performance of 117 potentially eligible institutions in 2007 and 2008, not 

actual grantees, and before 2009 data became available. Rather than develop new targets 

based on only two data points, the Department plans to establish targets for 2014 and beyond 

when data for fiscal year 2011 become available.

The HSI STEM and Articulation program was initially funded by the College Cost Reduction and 

Access Act (CCRAA). Because funding was made available for only 2 years, the Department 

did not establish any performance measures for this program at that point. The passage of the 

Public Law 111-152 in March 2010 extended the mandatory funding for the HSI STEM program 

through fiscal year 2019. The following measures have been put into place, although no data 

have been collected to date.

(1) The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of full-time 

degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at HSIs.

(2) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 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.

(3) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students 

enrolled at 4-year HSIs graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

(4) The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students 

enrolled at 2-year HSIs graduating within 3 years of enrollment.

(5) Federal cost for undergraduate and graduate degrees at institutions in the HispanicServing Institutions STEM and Articulation Programs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-70

Other Performance Information

A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on Low-Income and Minority Serving 

Institutions: Management Attention to Long-standing Concerns Needed to Improve Education’s 

Oversight of Grant Programs found that institutions eligible to receive Title III and V grants had 

fewer resources, including endowment holdings and revenue from tuition and fees, and lower 

per student spending on equipment than ineligible institutions. They also served more students 

who were minority, low-income, and attended part-time. Title III and V grantees reported 

challenges in all 4 grant focus areas: academic quality, student support, institutional 

management, and fiscal stability. While nearly all grantees reported challenges related to 

strengthening institutional management and fiscal stability, expenditures in these areas 

represented less than one-quarter of all grant funds spent (almost $385 million in fiscal year 

2006).

New Department studies, drawing on previous studies, are planned to address the relationships 

among academic quality, financial health, institutional management, and provision of student 

services for minority-serving institutions as compared to other postsecondary institutions. 

Preliminary results are being reviewed by the Department.

Additionally, the HSI STEM program includes absolute priorities related to STEM and 

articulation activities and one competitive preference priority for data-based decision-making. 

To assess the impact of the adoption of these priorities on program outcomes, the Department 

collects data through the annual performance report and conducts special analyses to 

determine the changes that occur during the course of the grant period in:

(1) The percentage of graduates receiving STEM related degrees from grantee 

institutions; 

(2) The number of students transferring from 2-year grantee institutions to 4-year 

institutions; and

(3) The use of student data on enrollment, persistence, and completion by grantee 

institutions that select the Competitive Preference Priority in conducting project 

activities. Such data may include data from State longitudinal data systems or other 

reliable third-party resources.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-71

Other aid for institutions: International education and foreign language studies:

Domestic programs

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VI, Parts A and B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

Change

2012 2013 2014 from 2012

$66,586 $66,5861 $73,487 +$6,901

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) Domestic Programs are 

designed to strengthen the capability and performance of American education in foreign 

languages and in area and international studies. The IEFLS programs have their origin in the 

National Defense Education Act of 1958 as a response to the need to strengthen instruction in 

foreign languages insufficiently taught in the United States as well as area and international 

studies.

Funds are used to support a broad range of activities under nine Domestic Programs. Grants 

are awarded to support centers, programs, and fellowships in institutions of higher education to 

increase the number of experts in foreign languages and area studies to meet national needs 

and to strengthen the teaching of foreign languages and international education at all levels. 

Prior to the beginning of each grant cycle, the Department must consult with and receive 

recommendations from the head officials of a wide range of Federal agencies to determine the 

areas of national need for expertise in foreign languages and world regions and make this list 

available to grant applicants. In addition, the Department must work with a variety of Federal 

agency heads to submit a biennial report to Congress and the public identifying areas of 

national need in foreign language, area, and international studies as such studies relate to 

government, education, business, and nonprofit needs, and a plan to address those needs. In 

awarding grants, the Department is required to take into account the degree to which applicants’ 

activities address national needs and inform the public; the applicants’ records of placing 

students into postgraduate employment, education, or training in areas of national need; and the 

applicants’ plans to increase this number.

The Department must aid grantees in developing a survey for students who have completed 

programs under Title VI Foreign Language and Areas Studies program to determine 

postgraduate employment, education, or training. Grantees, where applicable, must administer 

the survey once every 2 years and report the results to the Department. Up to 1 percent of 

Title VI funds may be used to carry out program evaluation, national outreach, and information 

dissemination activities relating to the Title VI programs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-72

Program legislation requires that institutions that receive funding under Title VI provide the 

following information to the Department, in accordance with the requirements of Section 117 of 

the HEA: (1) the amount of the contribution (including cash and the fair market value of any 

property) received from any foreign government or from a foreign private sector corporation or 

foundation during any fiscal year in which the contribution exceeds $250,000 in the aggregate; 

and (2) the aggregate contribution, or a significant part of the aggregate contribution, that is to 

be used by a center or program receiving funds under Title VI.

National Resource Centers support institutions of higher education (IHEs) or consortia of such 

institutions in establishing, operating, and strengthening advanced centers to train students, 

specialists, and other scholars; maintaining important library collections and related training and 

research facilities; conducting advanced research and development activities; establishing 

linkages between IHEs and other academic, governmental, and media entities; operating 

summer institutes in the United States or abroad; and providing outreach and consultative 

services at the national, regional, and local levels. Funds also support faculty, staff, and student 

travel in foreign areas, regions, or countries; the development and implementation of 

educational programs abroad for students; and projects that support students in the science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to achieve foreign language proficiency. 

National Resource Centers are funded for up to 4 years, with funds allocated on an annual 

basis pending satisfactory performance by the Centers and availability of funds.

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program supports academic year and summer 

fellowships for graduate- and undergraduate-level training at IHEs having nationally recognized 

programs of excellence. Students apply to IHEs that have received fellowship allocations from 

the Department of Education. Students receiving fellowships must be individuals who are 

engaged:

• In an instructional program with stated performance goals for functional foreign language 

use or in a program developing such performance goals, in combination with area studies, 

international studies, or the international aspects of a professional studies program;

• In the case of an undergraduate student, in the intermediate or advanced study of a less 

commonly taught language; or 

• In the case of a graduate student, in graduate study in connection with a program described 

above, including pre-dissertation level study, preparation for dissertation research, 

dissertation research abroad, or dissertation writing.

Before awarding a fellowship for use outside the United States, an institution must obtain 

approval from the Department of Education. A fellowship may be approved for use outside the 

United States if (1) the student is enrolled in an overseas modern foreign language program 

approved by the institution where the student is enrolled in the United States; or (2) the student 

is engaged in research that cannot be effectively done in the United States and is affiliated with 

an IHE or other appropriate organization in the host country. Institutions are funded for up to 

4 years and, in turn, award fellowships annually to individual students on a competitive basis. 

Applications for awards must include an explanation of how the activities funded by the grant 

will reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of views and generate debate on world 

regions and international affairs; and a description of how the applicant will encourage 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-73

government service in areas of national need, as well as in areas of need in the education, 

business, and nonprofit sectors.

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program supports IHEs or 

consortia of IHEs in establishing, operating, and strengthening instructional programs in 

international studies and foreign language at the undergraduate level. Eligible activities may 

include, but are not limited to, the development of a global or international studies program that 

is interdisciplinary in design; development of a program that focuses on issues or topics, such 

as international business or international health; development of an area studies program and 

programs in corresponding foreign languages; creation of innovative curricula that combine the 

teaching of international studies with professional and pre-professional studies, such as 

engineering; research for and development of specialized teaching materials, including 

language instruction, i.e., business French; establishment of internship opportunities for faculty 

and students in domestic and overseas settings; and development of study abroad programs.

Grantees must provide matching funds in either of the following ways: (1) cash contributions 

from the private sector equal to one-third of the total project costs; or (2) a combination of 

institutional and non-institutional cash or in-kind contributions equal to one-half of the total 

project costs. Applications for awards must include a description of how the applicant will 

provide information to students regarding federally funded scholarship programs in related 

areas; an explanation of how the activities funded by the grant will reflect diverse perspectives 

and a wide range of views and generate debate on world regions and international affairs, 

where applicable; and a description of how the applicant will encourage service in areas of 

national need, as identified by the Department of Education.

The Department may waive or reduce the required matching share for institutions that are 

eligible to receive assistance under Part A or Part B of Title III or under Title V of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965. Grant awards are normally made for 2 years. However, organizations, 

associations, and institutional consortia are eligible for up to 3 years of support.

International Research and Studies Program supports projects carried out by IHEs, public and 

private nonprofit organizations, and individuals that are designed to: determine the need for 

improved or increased instruction in foreign language and area and international studies; 

develop more effective teaching methods and standardized measures of competency; develop 

specialized curriculum materials; evaluate the extent to which programs that address national 

needs would not otherwise be offered; study and survey the uses of technology in foreign 

language and area and international studies programs; and determine through studies and 

evaluations effective practices in the dissemination of international information throughout the 

education community, including elementary and secondary schools. Funds also include support 

for evaluation of the extent to which programs funded under Title VI reflect diverse perspectives 

and a wide range of views and generate debate on world regions and international affairs; the 

systematic collection, analysis, and dissemination of data that contribute to achieving the 

purposes of Title VI; and support for programs or activities to make data collected, analyzed, or 

disseminated publicly available and easily understood. The Department funds participants 

through grants and contracts for up to 3 years.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-74

Centers for International Business Education support IHEs or consortia of IHEs by paying the 

Federal share of the cost of planning, establishing, and operating centers that provide a 

comprehensive university approach to improving international business education by bringing 

together faculty from numerous disciplines. The Centers serve as national resources for the 

teaching of improved business techniques, strategies, and methodologies that emphasize the 

international context in which business is transacted; provide instruction in critical foreign 

languages and international fields needed to provide an understanding of the cultures and 

customs of U.S. trading partners; provide research and training in the international aspects of 

trade, commerce, and other fields of study; provide training to students enrolled in the institution 

or institutions in which a center is located; serve as regional resources to local businesses by 

offering programs and providing research designed to meet the international training needs of 

such businesses; and serve other faculty, students, and institutions of higher education located 

within their respective regions. Grants are made for 4 years. The Federal share of the cost of 

planning, establishing, and operating the Centers cannot exceed 90 percent, 70 percent, or 

50 percent in the first, second, third and following years, respectively.

Language Resource Centers support IHEs or consortia of IHEs in improving the teaching and 

learning of foreign languages. The activities carried out by the Centers must include effective 

dissemination efforts, whenever appropriate, and may include: the conduct and dissemination 

of research on new and improved teaching methods (including the use of advanced educational 

technology) to the education community; the development, application, and dissemination of 

performance testing appropriate to an educational setting for use as a standard and comparable 

measurement of skill levels in all languages; the training of teachers in the administration and 

interpretation of the performance tests; a significant focus on the teaching and learning needs of 

the less commonly taught languages and the publication and dissemination of instructional 

materials in those languages; the development and dissemination of materials designed to 

serve as a resource for foreign language teachers at the elementary and secondary school 

levels; and the operation of intensive summer language institutes. Language Resource Centers 

are eligible for up to 4 years of support.

American Overseas Research Centers Program makes grants to consortia of IHEs to promote 

postgraduate research, faculty and student exchanges, and area studies. Funds may be used 

to pay for all or a portion of the cost of establishing or operating a center or program. Costs 

may include faculty and staff stipends and salaries; faculty, staff, and student travel; operation 

and maintenance of overseas facilities; teaching and research materials; the acquisition, 

maintenance, and preservation of library collections; travel for visiting scholars and faculty 

members who are teaching or conducting research; preparation for and management of 

conferences; and the publication and dissemination of material for the scholars and general 

public. Centers are eligible for 4 years of support.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-75

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2009.................................................................................... $102,335

2010...................................................................................... 108,360

2011........................................................................................ 66,712

2012........................................................................................ 66,586

2013........................................................................................66,5861

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests a total of $73.5 million for the Title VI Domestic Programs, an 

increase of $6.9 million or 10.4 percent over the 2012 appropriation. The fiscal year 2014

budget request will enable the Department to address two important objectives: (1) developing 

and maintaining a national capacity in teaching and learning priority languages and other less 

commonly taught languages and associated area/international studies; and (2) increasing the 

global competency of all U.S. students. Fiscal year 2014 is a pivotal year because existing 

awards in a number of key programs are ending in 2013 and virtually all of the funds requested 

are for new awards.

Historically, the Domestic Programs have helped to develop and maintain American expertise in 

world cultures and economies, and foreign languages. It is critical for our Nation to have a 

readily available pool of international area and language experts for economic, foreign affairs,

and defense purposes. Dramatic changes in the world’s geopolitical and economic landscapes, 

the events surrounding the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, and the war

on terrorism underscore the importance of maintaining and expanding this expertise. The

Title VI programs are key to the teaching and learning of languages vital to national interests 

and serve as a national resource.

The Administration also believes our Nation needs citizens with global competence. The ability 

to compete and collaborate on the world stage requires an awareness and understanding of the 

world, the ability to communicate and collaborate with others from different cultures, and 

exposure to foreign languages. The Administration believes that a world-class education must 

integrate global competencies and is committed to increasing the global competency of all U.S. 

students. 

Most of the funds requested would be allocated to the National Resource Centers (NRCs) 

program and Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) fellowship program. NRCs are the 

primary mechanism for developing U.S. language and area studies expertise. These grants 

help institutions of higher education to establish, strengthen, and operate advanced centers for 

the teaching and learning of foreign languages and area and international studies. Funding for 

this program was cut drastically in 2011 and in 2014 we are proposing to restore 66 percent of 

the 2010 level. FLAS fellowships support undergraduate and graduate training programs at 

many NRCs. They provide opportunities for intensive study of less commonly taught languages 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-76

and world areas both domestically and abroad during the summer or the academic year. 

Funding for FLAS would be maintained at the 2010 level.

To strengthen our capacity across institutions and at all levels, the Department is also proposing 

to restore 100 percent of the 2010 funding level for the Language Resource Centers (LRCs). 

Increased funding for this program will enable LRCs to improve outreach efforts to K-12 

schools, in addition to sponsoring research, training, performance testing, educational 

technology, and materials development. 

In addition, the Department proposes to allocate funds for new awards in the Centers for 

International Business Education (CIBE) program. CIBEs are designed to serve as regional and

national resources for businesses, students, and faculty at all levels. They meet the need for 

research and training in the international aspects of trade, commerce, and other fields of study. 

CIBEs prepare students for careers in global economy by developing and promoting

international business and economics academic programs and curricula. They also assist 

businesses in the region in exporting their products and services to other countries and/or 

importing what they need. CIBEs play an integral role in maintaining and increasing U.S. 

business global competitiveness. 

The Department also proposes to continue support for strengthening the capacity of underresourced institutions and minority serving institutions. The Department proposes to give 

priority to applications from institutions determined eligible under the Title III and Title V 

programs authorized by the Higher Education Act and to other under-resourced institutions such 

as community colleges.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

National Resource Centers:

NRCs Number of new awards 0 0 TBD

NRCs Average new award 0 0 TBD

NRCs Total new award funding 0 0 $22,476

NRCs Number of NCC awards 127 127 0

NRCs Average NCC award $142 $142 0

NRCs Total NCC award funding $18,049 $18,049 0

NRCs Total award funding $18,049 $18,049 $22,476

NRCs Total number of awards 127 127 TBD

Foreign Language and Area Studies 

Fellowships:

FLAS Academic year graduate fellowships 792 792 792

FLAS Average academic year fellowship $33 $33 $33

FLAS Academic year undergraduate fellowships 271 271 271

FLAS Average academic year fellowship $15 $15 $15
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-77

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Foreign Language and Area Studies 

Fellowships (cont’d):

FLAS Summer fellowships 746 746 746

FLAS Average summer year fellowship $8 $8 $8

FLAS Number of new awards 0 0 126

FLAS Average new award 0 0 $281

FLAS Total new award funding 0 0 $35,399

FLAS Number of NCC awards 126 126 0

FLAS Average NCC award $281 $281 0

FLAS Total NCC award funding $35,399 $35,399 0

FLAS Total award funding $35,399 $35,399 $35,399

FLAS Total number of awards 126 126 126

Undergraduate International Studies

and Foreign Language Program:

UISF LNumber of new awards 17 20 15

UISF L Average new award $90 $95 $94

UISF LTotal new award funding $1,538 $1,906 $1,412

UISF LNumber of NCC awards 3 17 20

UISF L Average NCC award $154 $95 $97

UISF L Total NCC award funding $461 $1,623 $1,945

UISF L Total award funding $1,999 $3,529 $3,357

UISF LTotal number of awards 20 37

International Research and Studies:

IRS Number of NCC awards 10 0 0

IRS Average NCC award $170 0 0

IRS Total NCC award funding $1,701 0 0

IRS Total award funding $1,701 0 0

IRS Total number of awards 10 0 0

Centers for International Business Education:

CIBE Number of new awards 0 0 TBD

CIBE Average new award 0 0 TBD

CIBE Total new award funding 0 0 $5,732

CIBE Number of NCC awards 33 33 0

CIBE Average NCC award $174 $174 0

CIBE Total NCC award funding $5,732 $5,732 0

CIBE Total award funding $5,732 $5,732 $5,732

CIBE Total number of awards 33 33 TBD
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-78

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Language Resource Centers:

LRC Number of new awards 0 0 15

LRC Average new award 0 0 $335

LRC Total new award funding 0 0 $5,022

LRC Number of NCC awards 15 15 0

LRC Average NCC award $170 $170 0

LRC Total NCC award funding $2,548 $2,548 0

LRC Total award funding $2,548 $2,548 $5,022

LRC Total number of awards 15 15 15

American Overseas Research Centers:

AORC Number of new awards 7 0 0

AORC Average new award $93 0 0

AORC Total new award funding $650 0 0

AORC Number of NCC awards 0 7 7

AORC Average NCC award 0 $93 $93

AORC Total NCC award funding 0 $650 $650

AORC Total award funding $650 $650 $650

AORC Total number of awards 7 7 7

DomesticTotal new award funding $2,188 $1,906 $70,041

DomesticTotal NCC award funding $63,890 $64,001 $2,595

Program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination $473 $614 $681

Peer review of new award applications $35 $65 $170

Total Domestic funding $66,586 $66,586 $73,487

Total Domestic awards 338 345 TBD

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-79

FY 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To meet the Nation's security and economic needs through the development of a 

national capacity in foreign languages, and area and international studies.

Objective: The National Resource Centers (NRC) program provides grants to institutions of 

higher education or consortia of institutions of higher education to establish, strengthen, and 

operate comprehensive and undergraduate language and area/international studies centers.

NRC Measure: Percentage of less and least commonly taught languages as defined by the 

Secretary of Education taught at Title VI NRCs.

Year Target Actual

2009 38.0

2010 38.0

2011 37.5 38.0

2012 38.5

2013 38.5

2014 38.5

NRC Measure: Percentage of priority languages as defined by the Secretary of Education 

taught at NRCs.

Year Target Actual

2009 81.0

2010 83.0

2011 81.0 81.0

2012 82.0

2013 83.5

2014 84.0

NRC Measure: Percentage of NRC grants teaching intermediate or advanced courses in 

priority languages as defined by the Secretary of Education.

Year Target Actual

2009 64.0

2010 64.0

2011 63.0 69.0

2012 64.0

2013 64.5

2014 65.0

Additional information: The 2011 rate of 38 percent reflects 108 less and least commonly 

taught languages out of 285 such languages taught at NRCs. This rate is comparable to 2010 

when 109 less and least commonly taught languages were taught out of 285. In 2011, 63 of the 

78 priority languages, or 81 percent, were taught at NRCs, a decrease of 2 priority languages as 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-80

compared to 2010 (65 of the 78 priority languages). The rate of 69 percent for 2011 reflects that 

NRC grantee institutions are teaching intermediate or advanced courses in 54 of the 78 priority 

languages, an increase of 4 priority languages as compared to 2010 rate. The NRC program 

exceeded or met the targets set for 2011. Grantees are required to submit annual performance 

reports via the International Resource Information System (IRIS). Data for 2012 will be 

available in October 2013.

Objective: Provides Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) academic year and summer 

fellowships to institutions of higher education to assist graduate students in foreign language 

and either area or international studies.

FLAS Measure: The average competency score of Title VI FLAS fellowship recipients at the 

end of 1 full year of instruction minus the average score at the beginning of the year.

Year Target Actual

2009 1.20 1.02

2010 1.20

2011 1.20

2012 1.20

2013 1.20

2014 1.20

FLAS Measure: Percentage of FLAS Master’s and doctoral graduates that studied priority 

languages as defined by the Secretary of Education.

Year Target Actual

2009 80.0

2010 85.0

2011 75.0 84.0

2012 75.0

2013 85.0

2014 85.5

Additional information: The overall change in the language competency self-assessment 

reflects a mix of different levels of improvement at all stages (beginner, intermediate, advanced) 

and for the three modalities of language acquisition (reading, writing, listening/speaking) based 

on the Interagency Language Roundtable’s (ILR) Self-Assessments on Speaking, Reading, and 

Listening proficiency. For 2009, the average competency score from pre- to post-award for 

2,172 Title VI FLAS fellowship recipients increased by 1.08 in writing, 1.01 in reading, and 

0.96 in speaking, for a total average competency score of 1.02 for the three modalities of 

language acquisition. Beginning language students may be expected to make larger advances 

over a given time period (and, therefore, have larger change scores) than more advanced 

students. A target value of 1.2 for change over the year reflects an ambitious, but appropriate, 

overall goal for the program. Grantees are required to submit annual performance reports via 

IRIS.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-81

A 2007 recommendation from the National Research Council of the National Academies in their

study entitled International Education and Foreign Languages: Keys to Securing America’s 

Future cited that the language proficiency of Foreign Language and Area Studies fellowships 

program is not adequately assessed because the Department uses a self-evaluation approach 

to collect information about improvement in language proficiency from FLAS fellows. To 

address this recommendation, data for 2011 reflect pre- and post-language evaluations 

completed by language instructors (speaking only), as opposed to self-assessments submitted 

by fellowship recipients.

The rate of 84 percent for fiscal year 2011 reflects 1,443 fellows studying critical need 

languages out of a total of 1,712 fellows, a decrease of 1 percentage point from the 2010 rate of 

85 percent when 1,518 fellows studied critical need languages out of a total of 1,783 fellows. 

Data for the remaining FLAS measure—percentage of FLAS participants who report that they 

found employment that utilizes their language and area skills—will not be available until 

December 2013. Data are derived from IRIS.

Objective: Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language (UISFL) program 

provides funds to institutions of higher education, a combination of such institutions, or 

partnerships between nonprofit educational organizations and institutions of higher education to 

plan, develop, and carry out programs to strengthen and improve undergraduate instruction in 

international studies and foreign languages.

UISFL Measure: Percentage of priority languages addressed/covered by foreign language 

major, minor, or certificate programs created or enhanced; or by language courses created or 

enhanced; or by faculty or instructor positions created with UISFL or matching funds in the 

reporting period.

Year Target Actual

2009 24.0

2010 18.0 28.0

2011 18.0 19.0

2012 18.0

2013 28.0

2014 28.5

Additional information: Performance in the UISFL program exceeded the target set for 2011. 

UISFL grantees proposed programs and activities that focused on language instruction and 

developed area or international studies programs that included language instruction in 

19 percent, or 15 of the 78 priority languages on the Department of Education's List of Less 

Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs). This is a decrease of 8 percentage points, or 7 fewer 

priority languages, as compared to the 2010 rate. Data are derived from IRIS. Data for 2012

will be available in December 2013.

Objective: Centers for International Business Education (CIBE) provide funding to schools of 

business for curriculum development, research, and training on issues of importance to United 

States trade and competitiveness.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-82

CIBE Measure: Percentage of graduates of a doctoral or Master's, including MBA, program 

with significant international business concentration at the postsecondary institution who are 

employed in business-related fields, including teaching at a business school.

Year Target Actual

2009 44.0

2010 42.0

2011 43.0

2012 44.0

2013 45.0

2014 45.0

Additional information: This measure tracks the percentage of CIBE graduates of a doctoral 

or Master's, including MBA, program with significant international business concentration at the 

postsecondary institution employed in business-related fields, including teaching at a business 

school. Besides producing the majority of internationally prepared business students and 

entrepreneurs, CIBEs are designed to serve as regional and national resources to businesses, 

students, and academics. Most are located at major U.S. universities. Data from 2011 reveal 

that 43 percent, or 3,833 doctoral or Master’s graduates out of a total of 8,997 graduates, are 

employed in business-related fields, including teaching at a business school. The 2011 rate is 

1 percentage point higher than the 2010 rate of 42 percent (5,890 out of 14,168 graduates). 

Grantees are required to submit annual performance reports via IRIS. Data for 2011 will be 

available in December 2013.

A number of the Title VI programs share common measures—the percentage of grantee 

projects judged to be successful by the program officer, based on a review of information 

provided in annual performance reports; and the number/percentage of outreach activities that 

are adopted or disseminated within a year, divided by the total number of outreach activities 

conducted in the current reporting period. The following programs share these common 

measures—UISFL, International Research and Studies (IRS), Business and International 

Education (BIE), CIBE, Language Resource Centers (LRCs), and American Overseas Research 

Centers (AORCs).

Objectives: International Research and Studies (RS) supports surveys, studies, and 

instructional materials development to improve and strengthen instruction in modern foreign 

languages, area studies, and other international fields to provide full understanding of the places 

in which the foreign languages are commonly used. The BIE program provides funds to 

institutions of higher education that enter into an agreement with a trade association and/or 

business for two purposes: to improve the academic teaching of the business curriculum and to 

conduct outreach activities that expand the capacity of the business community to engage in 

international economic activities. The LRC program provide grants for establishing, 

strengthening, and operating centers that serve as resources for improving the nation's capacity 

for teaching and learning foreign languages through teacher training, research, materials 

development, and dissemination projects. AORCs provides grants to consortia United States 

institutions of higher education to establish or operate overseas research centers that promote 

postgraduate research, exchanges, and area studies. Objectives for the UISFL and CIBE 

programs are reflected on previous pages.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-83

UISFL, IRS, BIE, CIBE, LRC, and AORC Measure: Percentage of projects judged to be 

successful by the program officer, based on a review of information provided in annual 

performance reports.

Year Target

UISFL 

Actual

IRS

Actual

BIE

Actual

CIBE

Actual

LRC

Actual

AORC

Actual

2009 90.4 88.6 90.7 100.0 100.0

2010 95.0 91.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2011 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2012 95.0

2013 95.0

2014 95.0

Additional information: The Department developed and implemented a Project Evaluation 

Profile (PEP) standard tool in IRIS used by Department program officers to assess performance 

reports submitted annually by grantees via IRIS. As each performance report is reviewed, the 

program officer completes the PEP by answering a series of questions that are assigned point 

values. IRIS tallies the points and a matrix is used to determine if the project is outstanding, 

successful, or at risk. For 2011, all UISFL (21 projects), IRS (31 projects), and LRC 

(15 projects) were reviewed and judged successful. Ten projects were reviewed and judged 

successful in the AORC program in 2010. The PEPs are placed in the official grant file and are

required for all annual and final reports. Data for 2012 for AORCs will be available March 2013. 

IRS, BIE, and LRC Measure: Number/percentage of outreach activities that are adopted or 

disseminated within a year, divided by the total number of outreach activities conducted in the 

current reporting period.

Year

IRS

Target (#)

IRS

Actual (#)

BIE

Target (%)

BIE

Actual (%)

LRC

Target (#)

LRC

Actual (#)

2009 1,241 60.0 42,864

2010 634 60.0 30,139

2011 255 51.0 32,199

2012 700 N/A1 31,000

2013 N/A1 N/A1 31,000

2014 N/A1 N/A1 31,000

 1 No targets are included for years in which the program was not funded or is not expected to be 

funded. 

Additional information: Title VI outreach programs extend to and have a positive impact on 

many teachers and students throughout the United States. This measure calculates the number 

of or percentage of outreach activities that are adopted or disseminated by a Title VI program 

within a year, divided by the total number of/percentage of outreach activities conducted in the 

current reporting period. A total of 255 outreach activities—221 by institutions and 34 by 

organizations—were adopted or disseminated by the IRS program in 2011. A total of 

634 outreach activities—449 by institutions and 185 by organizations—were adopted or 

disseminated by the IRS program in 2010.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-84

In the BIE program in 2011, 62 out of 121 (51 percent) lectures, seminars, workshops/ 

conferences, online resources, courses, media interviews, articles, and exhibits were adopted or 

disseminated; a decrease from 2010 when 105 out of 174 (60 percent) of the program’s 

outreach activities were adopted or disseminated.

In the LRC program in 2011, a total of 32,199 outreach activities were adopted or 

disseminated—32,017 by institutions and 182 by organizations. Institutions adopted or 

disseminated 30,139 outreach activities—29,926 by institutions and 213 by organizations in 

2010. Data for the performance measures are derived from IRIS. Grantees are required to 

submit annual performance reports via IRIS. Data for 2012 will be available in December 2013.

AORC Measure: Percentage of scholars who indicated they were "highly satisfied" with the 

services the Center provided.

Year Target Actual

2009 90.0

2010 86.0

2011

2012 N/A1

2013 90.0

2014 90.0

 1 No targets are included for years in which the program was not funded or is not expected to be 

funded.

Additional information: This measure tracks the percentage of scholars who indicated they 

were highly satisfied with the services the AORC provided. In 2010, 493 scholars indicated they 

were highly satisfied out of 574 scholars.

Efficiency Measures

The efficiency measures track cost per successful outcome.

FLAS Efficiency Measure: Cost per FLAS Fellowship fellow increasing average language 

competency by at least one level.

Year Number of Fellows Target Actual

2009 2,059 $16,075

2010

2011 $16,000

2012 16,000

2013 16,000

2014 16,000

Additional information: The calculation for the efficiency measure is the annual funding for 

the program divided by the number of FLAS fellows increasing their average language 

competency by at least one point from pre- to post-test. The 2009 cost per successful outcome 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-85

of $16,075 is calculated by dividing the annual funding allocation of $33,097,500 by 

2,059fellows, which is an improvement over the 2008 rate of $16,198 ($29,933,500 divided by 

1,848 fellows). Grantee-level data will be used to establish targets, improve performance, 

identify opportunities for technical assistance, provide early warning that a project may need 

more intensive oversight, and identify best practices. Data for 2010 will be available in 

December 2013.

CIBE Efficiency Measure: Cost per Master's, including MBA, degree recipient or doctoral 

graduate employed in business-related fields, including teaching in a business school.

Year Number of Fellows Target Actual

2009 7,295 $1,580

2010 7,837 1,628

2011 4,302 1,332

2012 $2,200

2013 2,100

2014 1,600

Additional information: For 2011, the cost per successful outcome of $1,332 was calculated 

by dividing the program allocation of $5,731,864 by 4,302 Master’s or doctoral graduates 

employed in business-related fields from the fiscal year 2010 competition. The cost per 

successful outcome in 2009 is based on data from 31 CIBEs that received funding in the 

2006-2009 performance period. Data show that a total of 24,885 Master’s or doctoral graduates 

were employed in business-related fields during the 2006-2009 grant period. The average cost 

per successful outcome for the 4-year grant period 2006-2009 is $1,760. Data for this efficiency 

measure are derived from IRIS. Data for 2011 will be available December 2013.

Other Performance Information

• The Department has initiated a number of studies to assess the effectiveness of the Title VI 

program. A study of the Language Resource was completed April 2011. The study found

that the LRCs have (1) successfully implemented the key activities outlined in the statutory 

mandate; (2) engaged in a wide range of dissemination activities, particularly for 

postsecondary and professional audiences; (3) collaborated effectively with one another as 

well as with non-LRC organizations; and (4) produced high-quality products, materials, and 

services for their key constituents.

Studies are underway to assess the effectiveness of the National Resource Centers, 

Business and International Education, and Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign 

Language programs in order to determine their scope and potential impact and to identify 

areas for improvement. The results from the studies will be used to monitor the 

effectiveness of the program.

• The Department is also conducting a study that will support the development of outcome 

measures; analyzing existing performance data, making that information available to the 

public; and providing recommendations for developing a comprehensive program evaluation 

strategy for the Title VI programs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-86

• A number of studies have been conducted over the years to evaluate aspects of the 

Domestic Programs. A few are outlined below.

In 2007, the National Research Council of the National Academies completed its review of 

Title VI International Education programs supported under the Higher Education Act as well 

as Section 102(b)(6) Fulbright-Hays International Education programs in a study entitled

International Education and Foreign Languages: Keys to Securing America’s Future. The 

National Research Council reviewed the adequacy and effectiveness of Title VI and 

Fulbright-Hays programs in addressing their statutory missions and in building the Nation's 

international and foreign language expertise—particularly as needed for economic, foreign 

affairs, and national security purposes. Despite its many recommendations for 

improvement, the Council recognizes that the Title VI/Fulbright-Hays programs have served 

as a foundation in the internationalization of higher education and should continue to do so. 

In addition, the Council:

 Found that within the Title VI/Fulbright-Hays programs, there was a need for better and 

more reliable data and for greater coordination within the Department and across other 

Federal agencies.

 Commented on the lack of rigorous, reliable information available on Title VI program 

performance and made recommendations for better program transparency and 

evaluation. Specifically, it found that the performance measures used by the 

Department and annual aggregate data reported by grantees provided insufficient 

information to appropriately judge program performance;

 Found that the language proficiency of Foreign Language and Area Studies fellowship 

recipients is not being adequately assessed, as the Department uses a self-evaluation 

approach to collect information about improvement in language proficiency;

 Concluded that the Department of Education does not have strategic coordination of 

foreign language and international programs within the Department or with other Federal 

agencies. They recommended creating a Senate-confirmed position within the 

Department to better coordinate programs within the Department and with other 

agencies;

 Commented that a key hindrance to establishing a pipeline of students who can 

eventually reach a high level of proficiency is the significant lack of K-12 teachers with 

foreign language and international expertise; and

 Stated that international education programs appear to have had little effect so far on the 

number of underrepresented minorities in international service. The Institute for 

International Public Policy Fellowship Program doesn’t reach many students and has 

significant costs.

• A study of the Department’s graduate fellowship programs was published in September 

2008. The study was designed to provide information on academic and employment 

outcomes (as of 2006) of graduate students who received financial support through the 

Department’s graduate fellowship programs between 1997 and 1999, including the Foreign 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-87

Language and Area Studies (FLAS) fellowship program. The results of the study confirmed 

the validity of performance report data on employment outcomes and improvement in 

language competency. Data from the study indicates:

 FLAS fellows studied a wide variety of languages. South Asia and East Asian 

languages were among the most common, studied by about one-third of FLAS fellows, 

and 35 percent of fellowships supported the study of a language spoken in central Asia, 

the Middle East, or Africa. About 70 percent of fellowships supported the study of a 

critical foreign language as defined by the Department of Education.

 Students who received FLAS fellowships were highly likely to complete their degrees. 

Master’s and first-professional degree students were far more likely (95-96 percent) than 

doctoral students (72 percent) to have completed their degrees at the time of the survey.

 Regardless of their degree completion status, FLAS fellows reported that their oral and 

written language skills improved over the course of their FLAS-supported study. At the 

time of the survey, FLAS fellows rated their abilities to speak, write, and read the 

languages they studied with FLAS support both at the time they began FLAS-supported 

study and at the time they completed that study at a variety of levels. They rated their 

speaking and listening ability on a 5-level scale, and their reading and writing abilities on 

6-level scales. On average, FLAS fellows reported a level 2 ability with respect to each 

of these skills at the time they began each FLAS-supported language study, and 

reported level 3 or 4 ability at the close of that study. FLAS fellowship recipients 

averaged a one-level gain in proficiency. These data compare favorably to data 

collected through IRIS on Title VI FLAS fellowship recipients.

 Nearly all fellows (92 percent) worked after completing their fellowships, and a majority 

of fellows (71 percent) worked in jobs that involved expertise they had gained through 

their FLAS-supported study. Nearly all fellows who reported working in a related job 

considered that job to be part of a career they were pursuing.

 Among fellows who had held at least one job related to the field they had studied with 

FLAS support, three-quarters of fellows worked in education, one-fifth in a U.S. private 

sector job, and one-fifth in foreign or international jobs. About one in nine worked for the 

military or other Government positions.

 Of fellows who had worked for pay since completing the fellowship, 68 percent worked in 

a job in which teaching was a major responsibility. These fellows had taught for an 

average of 3 years at the time of the survey, and 86 percent of them had taught in a field 

related to the FLAS-supported study.

 FLAS fellows believed that FLAS was very helpful in their degree completion and at 

least somewhat helpful in obtaining employment in a desired field. Over one-half 

reported that receiving a FLAS fellowship influenced their occupation and career 

choices.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-88

While these findings are encouraging, it should be noted that the overall response rate—the 

proportion of fellowships for which a survey was completed—was less than 50 percent. In 

addition, the study does not offer data on outcomes for an appropriate comparison group 

due to limitations in the Department’s data sources. Despite these reservations and 

limitations, the data indicate positive outcomes.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-89

Overseas programs

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

(Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Section 102(b)(6))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2012 2013 2014

Change 

from 2012

$7,451 $7,4511 $7,451 0

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) Overseas Programs 

provide participants with first-hand experience overseas that is designed to improve elementary, 

secondary, and postsecondary teaching and research concerning other cultures and languages, 

the training of language and area studies specialists, and the American public's general 

understanding of current international issues and problems. 

Four major Overseas Programs in foreign languages and in area and international studies are 

authorized under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (commonly known 

as the Fulbright-Hays Act). Under these programs, grants are provided on an annual basis to 

eligible institutions that in turn support projects of varying duration. 

Group Projects Abroad (GPA) program supports group training, research, and curriculum 

development in modern foreign languages and area studies for teachers, college students, and 

faculty for periods from 1 to 12 months. In addition, the program supports advanced overseas 

intensive language projects designed to take advantage of the opportunities in foreign countries 

by providing advanced language training to students for a period of up to 36 months. Projects 

focus on all major world areas with the exception of Western Europe.

Faculty Research Abroad (FRA) program supports opportunities for faculty members of 

institutions of higher education to study and conduct advanced research overseas. Fellowships 

are generally reserved for scholars whose academic specializations focus on the less commonly 

taught languages and all major world areas with the exception of Western Europe. The 

fellowships are from 3 to 12 months in length.

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) program supports opportunities for doctoral 

candidates to engage in full-time dissertation research overseas. Fellowships are generally 

reserved for junior scholars whose academic specializations focus on the less commonly taught 

languages and all major world areas with the exception of Western Europe. The fellowships are 

from 6 to 12 months in length.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

T-90

Seminars Abroad (SA)—Special Bilateral Projects with foreign countries support training and 

curriculum development opportunities for American teachers and faculty through short-term 

overseas seminars conducted in all major world areas with the exception of Western Europe. 

IEFLS programs are administered through discretionary grants and interagency agreements. 

Federal program staff, panels of non-Federal academic specialists, bi-national commissions, 

U.S. embassies, and the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board are involved in the 

merit-based selection of the Overseas Programs grantees and/or project participants. 

The Overseas Programs specifically increase the supply of specialists in area, international, and 

language studies, and improve public access to knowledge of other countries and languages by 

providing to individuals and institutions of higher education measurable opportunities in the field 

of international education for:

• Research;

• Area, language, and international studies training;

• Professional growth including faculty development and teacher-training;

• Networking with counterparts in the U.S. and abroad;

• Curriculum and instructional materials development; and

• Overseas experience. 

The Overseas Programs focus on the less commonly taught foreign languages and those areas 

of the world in which those languages are spoken. Current participants and graduates of the 

Overseas Programs are important sources of information and expertise on many issues that 

dominate the international environment.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2009..................................................................................... $14,709

2010....................................................................................... 15,576

2011......................................................................................... 7,465

2012......................................................................................... 7,451

2013......................................................................................... 7,4511

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

T-91

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST 

The Administration requests $7.5 million for the Overseas programs, level with fiscal year 2012. 

All of the funds would be used to support programs designed to develop expertise in strategic 

languages and area studies.

In 2014, funds would be used primarily for new awards under the following programs: Doctoral 

Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) program, which deepens research knowledge on and 

helps the Nation develop capability in areas of the world not generally included in U.S. curricula; 

and Group Projects Abroad (GPA) – Short-term projects, which give teachers and faculty the 

opportunity to benefit from overseas study of modern foreign languages and area studies.

The Administration also requests $1.9 million to cover continuation costs for the Group Projects 

Abroad – Advanced Overseas Intensive Language projects and $396 thousand for the China 

Seminar.

The Department plans to require applicants to all Overseas programs to focus on one or more 

of the following areas: Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia and Pacific Islands, South Asia, the 

Near East, East Central Europe and Eurasia, and the Western Hemisphere (excluding the 

United States and its territories). The Department also plans to give priority to applicants that 

focus on any of the 78 less commonly taught languages.

For the DDRA program, the Department is considering giving priority to projects that are hosted 

by one of the following regions: BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, or China), MAVINS (Mexico, 

Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nigeria, and South Africa) or MENA (Middle East, North Africa). 

For the GPA – Short-term projects, the Department plans to give priority to projects that include 

K-12 teachers or administrators as at least 50 percent of the project participants.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Group Projects Abroad:

GPA Number of new projects 23 18 18

GPA Average new project $130 $86 $86

GPA Total new project funding $2,990 $1,551 $1,551

GPA Number of NCC projects 0 11 11

GPA Average NCC project 0 $172 $172

GPA Total NCC project funding 0 $1,900 $1,900

GPA Total project funding $2,990 $3,451 $3,451

GPA Total number of projects 23 29 29

GPA Total number of participants 345 420 420
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

T-92

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad:

DDRA Number of new fellows 90 90 90

DDRA Average new fellowship $36 $36 $36

DDRA Number of new awards 24 24 24

DDRA Average new award $135 $134 $134

DDRA Total new award funding $3,240 $3,225 $3,221

Seminars Abroad—Special Bilateral 

Projects:

Semi nars Number of new projects 3 0 0

Semi nars Average new project $159 0 0

Semi nars Total new project funding $476 0 0

Semi nars Total number of participants 40 0 0

Semi nars China Contract $372 $389 $396

Semi nars China Contract participants 16 16 16

Department of State administrative costs $250 $250 $250

Program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination

$50 $74 $59

Peer review of new award applications $73 $62 $74

Total Overseas funding $7,451 $7,451 $7,451

Total Overseas participants 491 527 527

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To meet the Nation's security and economic needs through the development of a 

national capacity in foreign languages, and area and international studies.

Objective: Provide grants to colleges and universities to fund individual doctoral students to 

conduct research in other countries in modern foreign languages and areas studies (DDRA), to 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

T-93

fund faculty to maintain and improve their area studies and language skills by conducting 

research abroad (FRA), and to support overseas projects in training, research, and curriculum 

development in modern foreign languages and area studies by teachers, students, and faculty 

engaged in a common endeavor (GPA), and to U.S. educators in the social sciences and 

humanities for short-term study and travel seminars abroad for the purpose of improving their 

understanding and knowledge of the peoples and cultures of other countries (SA).

Measure: The average language competency score of Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation 

Research Abroad (DDRA) fellowship recipients at the end of their period of instruction minus 

their average score at the beginning of the period.

Year Target Actual

2009 0.75 0.49

2010 0.56 0.55

2011 0.57 0.63

2012 0.58

2013 0.59

Measure: The average language competency score of Fulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad 

program recipients at the end of their period of instruction minus their average language 

competency at the beginning of the period.

Year Target Actual

2009 0.50 0.14

2010 0.54 0.46

Measure: The difference between the average language competency of Fulbright-Hays Group 

Projects Abroad program recipients at the end of their period of instruction and their average 

competency at the beginning of the period.

Year Target Actual

2009 0.50 1.28

2010 1.10 1.08

2011 1.10 1.24

2012 1.10

2013 1.10
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

T-94

Measure: Percentage of all Fulbright-Hays Seminars Abroad Program projects judged to be 

successful by the program officer, based on a review of information provided in annual 

performance reports.

Year Target Actual

2009 100

2010 95 100

2011 95 100

2012 95

2013 95

Additional Information: In 2008, the Department established measures for the Faculty 

Research Abroad, Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad, and Group Projects Abroad 

International Overseas programs that focus on improving the average language competency 

score of program recipients in any of the three components of the proficiency self-assessment 

(listening/speaking, reading, and writing). Baseline data for these measures became available 

in March 2008 and were derived from the International Resource Information System (IRIS), a 

web-based performance reporting system for the IEFLS programs. All grantees are expected to 

provide documentation of the improved language competency of fellows through IRIS for the 

purposes of assessing individual projects and the program overall.

Because the performance measures account for language gains rather than language 

proficiency, targets were set with the expectation that beginning language learners would show 

greater rates of improvement than advanced speakers (such as DDRA, FRA, and second-year 

GPA grantees). When fiscal year 2007 data became available, the targets for the FRA and 

GPA programs were raised and the target for the DDRA program was lowered to better reflect 

reasonable yet ambitious expectations for language gain.

The Department also established a measure for the Seminars Abroad program, which 

calculates the percentage of programs judged to be successful. Because of the varied and 

short-term nature of the seminars funded under this program, language gain is not a viable 

measure, as it is for the other three overseas programs.

No targets have been set for 2014, as the Department is in the process of revising the 

performance measures for these programs in consultation with OMB.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

T-95

Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost per participant increasing language competency by at least one level in one (or 

all three) area(s).

Year

Doctoral 

Dissertation 

Research 

Abroad Target

Doctoral 

Dissertation 

Research 

Abroad Actual

Faculty 

Research 

Abroad

Target

Faculty 

Research 

Abroad

Actual

Group 

Projects 

Abroad

Target

Group 

Projects 

Abroad

Actual

2009 $138,000 $36,011 $375,000 $87,404 $36,000 $17,988

2010 60,000 41,828 375,000 236,341 36,000 34,888

2011 60,000 46,082 375,000 83,415 36,000

2012 60,000 375,000 36,000

2013 60,000 375,000 36,000

Measure: Cost per high-quality, successfully completed Seminars Abroad program project.

Year Target Actual

2009 $236,684

2010 $440,000 266,904

2011 440,000 228,274

2012 440,000

2013 440,000

Additional Information: The efficiency measure for these programs is the cost of a successful 

outcome, where success is defined as program recipients who increase their language 

competency by at least one level in any of the three components of the language competency 

assessment at the end of their period of instruction; for the Seminars Abroad program, success 

is defined as a high-quality, successfully completed seminar, as determined by the program 

officer. The language competency measure uses data pulled from IRIS and is calculated by 

dividing the annual funding for the program by the number of program recipients who increase 

their language competency appropriately. 

No targets have been set for 2014, as the Department is in the process of revising the 

performance measures for these programs in consultation with OMB.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-96

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part B)

(dollars in thousands) 

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

Period of Fund 

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

$3,494 $3,494 1 $260,000 +$256,506

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) supports exemplary 

projects that are models for innovative reform and improvement in postsecondary education. 

Under FIPSE, the Department has flexibility to establish specialized programs to support 

projects in areas of national need. Therefore, each year, the Department determines the 

competitions and funding priorities that will be announced and sets procedures for awarding 

grants. Discretionary grants and contracts are awarded to institutions of higher education and 

other public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies.

Additionally, FIPSE currently supports the International Consortia Programs, which include the 

U.S./European Community (Atlantis) Program, the North American Mobility Program, the 

U.S./Brazil Program, and the U.S./Russia program. Each program provides funds to support 

the formation of educational consortia comprised of institutions from different countries to 

facilitate the exchange of students and faculty and to develop integrated curricula. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fisca (dollars in thousands)

2009 .......................................................................................$133,667 1

2010 .........................................................................................159,403 2

2011 ......................................................................................... 19,607

2012 ............................................................................................ 3,494

2013 ............................................................................................ 3,494 3

1 Includes $91,243 thousand for Congressional earmarks. 2 Includes $101,507 thousand for Congressional earmarks.

3

 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

T-97

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $260.0 million for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary 

Education for fiscal year 2014, which would support the first year of the First in the World 

(FITW) fund. Within the total, approximately $175 million would be used to support an 

evidence-based grant competition, modeled after the Investing in Innovation (i3) program for K12, to support innovative projects that successfully improve student outcomes by: increasing 

student learning, and the number of students completing college within 100 percent of expected 

time or transferring from a 2-year to a 4-year institution; closing gaps in completion rates 

between different populations; reducing the net price paid by students, or; achieving other 

results that help improve postsecondary attainment. The competition would also include a 

priority for projects designed to improve college access and selection for high-need secondary 

school students. In addition, up to $75 million, to be available until expended, would be used to

support 1) projects to develop third-party validation systems that identify competencies, 

assessments, and curricula for specific fields, and 2) Pay for Success awards to providers of 

free two-year degrees, especially in fields supported by validation systems. The Administration 

is requesting extended availability of these funds because the Department would not make 

payments until grantees have successfully demonstrated that their projects have improved 

student outcomes.

FITW Grant Competition: To address the national college completion challenge while also 

addressing affordability and quality in higher education, FITW will encourage institutions to 

develop innovative practices, evaluate and build evidence of effectiveness needed to identify 

successful strategies, and scale up and disseminate proven strategies to a national level. 

Similar to the i3 program for K-12, FITW award amounts are tiered based upon the level of 

available evidence of the proposed intervention’s effectiveness. The development, validation, 

and scaling of projects and strategies will help ensure that States and postsecondary institutions

have access to innovative practices that have been shown to be effective in helping improve 

student completion, learning, transfer, or other important measures of student success, as well 

as practices that can help reduce the net price paid by students. The competition will also 

include a priority for applicants proposing innovations that improve college access and selection 

for high-need secondary school students. 

FITW funds would support:

• Development Grants, which are designed to provide funding to support projects that 

propose to carry out practices, strategies, or interventions that are innovative, nationally 

significant and for which there is a strong theory suggesting the proposal presents a 

better alternative to existing options for increasing student outcomes, but requires 

systematic study to verify this claim. Projects for Development Grants must be 

innovative and potentially significant nationally, not projects that simply implement 

existing practices, strategies, or interventions in additional locations or support needs 

that are primarily local in nature.

• Validation grants, which would support the expansion of a practice, strategy, or 

intervention supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness to a national, regional, or 

State level. The proposed practice, strategy, or intervention in a validation grant would 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

T-98

have to show it has a statistically significant effect on increasing student outcomes, while 

maintaining quality, and that with further study, the effect of implementing the proposed 

practice, strategy, or intervention may prove to be substantially significant. Validation 

grants must also address specific barriers to the growth or scaling up of practices, 

strategies, and interventions, so that the entity is well-positioned to continue expansion 

following the expiration of Federal funding. 

• Scale up grants, which would provide funding to assist the expansion, or “scaling up” of 

strategies, or interventions for which there is strong evidence of effectiveness to a 

national level. In addition to improving student outcomes for an increasing number of 

high-need students, we expect that Scale-up projects will generate information about the 

students and contexts for which a practice, strategy, or intervention is most effective. 

We also expect that Scale-up projects will increase understanding about how to expand 

practices, strategies, or interventions quickly and efficiently, while maintaining their 

effectiveness.

Up to $100 million of the funds requested for the FITW grant competition would be directed, 

through the use of a priority, to projects designed to improve college access and selection for 

high-need students. This priority reflects the Administration’s belief that, in order to meet the 

President’s goal for the Nation to lead the world in college attainment by 2020, we need to 

increase our investment in innovative strategies to increase college enrollment and completion.

For instance, research suggests that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely 

to complete college at selective institutions than at less selective ones. Unfortunately, research 

also suggests that, due to a variety of factors, including inadequate guidance counseling and 

mentoring, many students from disadvantaged backgrounds are “under-matched”—that is, they 

enroll in colleges that are less selective than those for which they are qualified. Furthermore, 

low-income students are more likely to under-match than middle- or high-income students. This 

priority would set aside funds to spur the field to develop projects that address the undermatching challenge with the goal of improving matches, enrollment, and college completion for 

low-income students. The Administration believes that the experience of grantees that have 

implemented projects through the Federal TRIO programs and the Gaining Early Awareness 

and Readiness for Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP) would be well suited to address this 

priority.

The Department’s experience under the Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP) in fiscal year 

2012 indicates that there are college completion strategies supported by strong or moderate 

evidence that merit further evaluation and work around successful scaling strategies. In the 

2012 SIP competition, the Department established the following competitive preference priority: 

supporting programs, practices, or strategies for which there is strong or moderate evidence of 

effectiveness. Applications that scored within an established range were forwarded to the 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to undergo What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) certified 

review to determine whether their proposed activities were supported by evidence. Projects 

supported by strong evidence were given an additional 5 points while projects supported by 

moderate evidence were given an additional 2.5 points. Of the 14 new awards ultimately 

funded under this program in fiscal year 2012, the WWC reviewers determined that 8 projects 

were supported by strong evidence while 6 projects were supported by moderate evidence. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

T-99

The SIP competition also demonstrated that postsecondary institutions are interested in 

pursuing evidence-based funding—of the 151 eligible applications reviewed, 137 addressed the 

evidence priority.

Third-party validation systems and free 2-year degrees: The request also includes up to 

$75 million to support projects to develop validation systems for competency-based learning 

and make performance-based awards for free 2-year degrees. These initiatives build 

alternative pathways for programs that are non-accredited, and therefore do not qualify for 

Federal grants and student loans, to receive Federal support if they can demonstrate good 

student outcomes. The validation systems competition would be open to consortia of entities 

including institutions of higher education, membership organizations, trade associations, and 

other organizations. Successful applicants would use funds to: 1) identify the competencies 

necessary to succeed in specific fields, 2) develop or certify assessments capable of 

determining whether students possess these competencies, and 3) certify online low- or no-cost 

curricula designed to educate students to achieve the competencies and prepare students for 

such assessments. 

The Department would also use a portion of the requested funds for performance-based awards 

under the Pay for Success (PFS) Program to reward non-accredited providers of free 2-year 

degrees that can demonstrate their interventions yielded successful outcomes, such as 

demonstrated competencies, passage of field-appropriate licensing tests, job placement, or 

other indicators of positive results. Applicants chosen to enter into PFS agreements would 

create free 2-year degree programs, ideally structured around the third party validation systems 

created in the first phase of this initiative. Applicants could provide such programs and degrees 

through multiple strategies, including but not limited to, competency-based education. The 

Department would only make awards to a PFS project if it achieves the goals outlined in the 

initial agreement. Through these agreements, providers would bear the up-front costs of 

educating students, but would be reimbursed for some or all of the costs with Federal payments 

if their students succeed. If a Pay for Success project is unsuccessful, funds would be 

redirected to support other FIPSE grants. 

Finally, the FIPSE request also includes $10.96 million for continuation costs for projects 

previously funded under Model Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities 

into Higher Education. No new competitions would be conducted for this program in the future, 

though similar activities could be supported through FITW. Further, the Department plans to 

hold no new special focus competitions for international consortia projects going forward and 

does not need any additional funds to cover continuation costs for these projects. The 

Department believes that directing new FIPSE funding to the FITW initiative would raise the 

quality of funded projects and better focus limited Federal resources on areas of greatest 

educational need.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

T-100

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

First in the World (FITW)

Grant competition

 Number of new awards 0 0 27

 Average new award 0 0 $6,417

 Total new award funding 0 0 $173,269

Third Party Validation System

Competition

0 0

 Number of Awards 0 0 5

 Average new award 0 0 $4,900

 Total Award funding 0 0 $24,500

Pay for Success Awards

 Number of Awards 0 0 15

 Average new award 0 0 $3,300

 Total Award funding 0 0 $49,500

 Total award funding 0 0 $247,269

 Total number of awards 0 0 47

U.S./European Community Program

 Number of NCC awards 34 TBD 0

 Average NCC award $56 TBD 0

 Total NCC award funding $2,116 1 TBD 0

 Total award funding $2,116 TBD 0

 Total number of awards 34 TBD 0

North American Mobility Program

 Number of NCC awards 0 TBD 0

 Average NCC award 0 TBD 0

 Total NCC award funding 0 TBD 0

 Total award funding 0 TBD 0

 Total number of awards 0 TBD 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

T-101

Measures 2012 2013 2014

U.S./Brazilian Program

 Number of NCC awards 0 TBD 0

 Average NCC award 0 TBD 0

 Total NCC award funding 0 TBD 0

 Total award funding 0 TBD 0

 Total number of awards 0 TBD 0

Training for Realtime Writers

 Number of new awards 4 TBD 0

 Average new award $277 TBD 0

 Total new award funding $1,109 TBD 0

 Total award funding $1,109 TBD 0

Model transition programs for 

students with intellectual disabilities 

into higher education

 Number of NCC awards 0 0 27

 Average NCC award 0 0 $406

 Total NCC award funding 0 0 $10,957 2

 Total funding 0 0 $10,957 2

Contracts

 FIPSE Database $266 $274 $274

Peer review of new award applications $3 TBD $1,500

Total FIPSE funding $3,494 $3,494 $260,000

Total number of awards 38 TBD 74

_____________

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 

1 The 2012 figure includes $224 thousand used to cover 2013 continuation costs for high-performing 

grantees. These funds are excluded from the “average NCC award” calculation.

2 Approximately $10,957 thousand would be provided in FY 2014 to support continuation awards for grants 

made in previous fiscal years for the Model Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities into Higher 

Education program.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

T-102

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, as well as the resources and 

efforts invested by those served by this program.

Goal: To improve postsecondary education by making grants to institutions in support of 

reform and innovation. 

Objective: Promote reforms that improve the quality of teaching and learning at postsecondary 

institutions.

Measure: The percentage of FIPSE grantees reporting project dissemination to others.

Year Target Actual

2009 91 100

2010 92 78

2011 92 100

2012 93

2013 93

Additional information: Practical limitations prevent FIPSE from measuring project replication 

on an annual basis. Therefore, data on project dissemination efforts are used as a proxy to 

track progress toward achieving the larger program goal. The Department has not established 

a target for 2014 because it is phasing out this measure in anticipation of the transition to First in 

the World. 

Measure: The percentage of projects reporting institutionalization on their home campuses.

Year Target Actual

2009 93 97

2010 93 100

2011 94 83

2012 94

2013 95

Additional information: FIPSE places a strong emphasis on institutional contributions to 

projects and the development of long-term continuation plans. The result is an exceptionally 

high rate of institutionalization. The Department has not established a target for 2014 because 

it is phasing out this measure in anticipation of the transition to First in the World.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

T-103

In anticipation of a FITW competition in fiscal year 2014, the Department is currently planning a 

major overhaul to the FIPSE performance measures to better align them with the objectives of 

the FITW program. The Department is considering establishing the following performance 

measures:

(1) The percentage of projects supported by FITW grants that provide evidence of their 

effectiveness at improving student outcomes.

(2) The percentage of projects supported by FITW grants that provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance feedback that allow for periodic assessment of 

progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

(3) The cost per student served by FITW grants.

(4) The cost per successful outcome.

Other Performance Information

The last review of FIPSE performance was conducted in 2004 when the American Institute for 

Research found that FIPSE was successfully achieving its goals, but that a lack of emphasis on 

evaluation has resulted in evaluations of mixed quality. The study examined the performance of 

60 randomly selected projects funded under the Comprehensive Program from 1996 to 1998. It 

also convened subject-matter experts to assess project effectiveness in a wider context. 

Overall, the study confirmed that FIPSE funds a wide range of innovative and reform projects 

that tend to continue after Federal funding expires, share their work with others in the higher 

education community, and influence postsecondary education. The proposed transition to FITW 

would preserve the mission of supporting innovative and reform projects but introduce a greater 

emphasis on both evidence and evaluation.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-104

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part D, Subpart 2)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2012 2013 2014 

Change 

from 2012

$10,957 $10,9571 0 -$10,957

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Model Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities into Higher Education 

(TPSID) support competitive grants awarded to institutions of higher education or consortia of 

such institutions to create or expand high quality, inclusive model comprehensive transition and 

postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities. Grants under this program 

are awarded for a period of 5 years. Institutions of higher education receiving funds under this 

program are required to match Federal funds in an amount that is no less than 25 percent of the 

award amount.

Funds may be used for: student support services; academic enrichment, socialization, or living 

skills programs; integrated work experiences; the development of individualized instruction 

plans; evaluation of the model program, in cooperation with the Coordinating Center; 

partnerships with local educational agencies to support students with intellectual disabilities 

participating in the model program who are still eligible for special education and related 

services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; program sustainability; and 

development of a program credential. 

The Department is also required to reserve 3 percent of the funds, or $240,000, whichever is 

greater, for a Coordinating Center, which develops evaluation standards for TPSID grantees 

and provides technical assistance, information, and opportunities for communication among 

institutions with postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2009 ............................................................................................... 0

2010 .................................................................................... $11,000

2011 ...................................................................................... 10,978

2012 ...................................................................................... 10,957

2013 ...................................................................................... 10,957 1

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

T-105

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests no funds for the TPSID program in fiscal year 2014. Instead of 

continuing support for small categorical, narrowly-focused programs like TPSID, the 

Administration proposes to direct increased funding toward the building of knowledge of what 

works in higher education. Specifically, the Administration is requesting $260 million in the 

Fund to Improve Postsecondary Education program for a First in the World (FITW) fund in 2014. 

In 2014, FITW will conduct competitions that use an evaluation and evidence framework similar 

to that of the Investing in Innovation (i3) program for K-12, and set its priorities based on critical 

needs in higher education.

While the HEA requires TPSID grantees to work with a Coordinating Center to establish 

performance measures and to compile data on program participants and their student 

outcomes, the program is not designed to support evidence-based practices or to build 

evidence of program effectiveness. Grantees receiving the relatively modest TPSID awards are 

required to carry out a broad range of program activities, but applicants are not required to 

provide evidence that the proposed activities have had a significant effect on improving student 

outcomes or present any research-based findings to show that the proposed practices, 

strategies, or programs have the potential to improve outcomes. The Coordinating Center, 

which is required to conduct evaluations of the TPSID projects, must also provide technical 

assistance and recommendations for program standards. The Coordinating Center funding is 

insufficient for it to undertake rigorous evaluations of projects while simultaneously carrying out 

its other functions.

Funding for the fiscal year 2014 continuation awards for the existing 27 TPSID grantees and the 

Coordinating Center is included in the request for FIPSE. Additionally, institutions seeking 

funding for transition and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities that 

are supportable under the evidence framework that would be used in FITW would also be 

encouraged to apply for funding under FITW.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014 ootnotes

Number of NCC awards 27 27 0

Average NCC award $394 $394 0

Total NCC award funding $10,628 1 $10,628 1 0

Coordinating Center $329 $329 0

 .

1 Each grantee is required to contribute a total of $4,500 to the Coordinating Center.

NOTES: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 

Continuation costs of approximately $10,628 thousand for grantees and $329 thousand for the Coordinating 

Center would be covered with funds from FIPSE in fiscal year 2014.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

T-106

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Grantees submit annual performance reports to the Department, which are used to assess the 

success of TPSID grantees in meeting the program’s goal of promoting the successful transition 

of students with intellectual disabilities into higher education.

The Coordinating Center piloted an evaluation tool in 2011 and made modifications based on 

grantee feedback. The Center made the evaluation data collection system available for use in 

September 2012 and TPSID grantees completed entry of Year I (2010-2011) and Year II (2011-

2012) data on December 31, 2012. The Center is currently preparing a report for the first 

2 project years.

Performance measures have been established for the Coordinating Center, for which it has 

provided preliminary data.

Completion and Credential Measure: The percentage of students with intellectual disabilities 

who are enrolled in programs funded under TPSID who complete the programs and obtain a 

meaningful credential, as defined by the Center and approved by the Department. Of a total of 

784 students with intellectual disabilities enrolled across the TPSID program in project years 

1 and 2, 390 have exited the program and 162 have earned a meaningful credential.

Standards Measure: The percentage of recipients that have grants under the TPSID program 

that meet Department-approved, Center-developed standards for necessary program 

components, such as academic, vocational social, and independent living skills, evaluation of 

student progress, program administration and evaluation, student eligibility, and program credit 

equivalency.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

T-107

Standard

Percentage of 

TPSID 

grantees 

meeting 

standard in 

2012

1. Academic Access: To facilitate quality academic access for students with 

intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive postsecondary education program 

should provide access to a wide array of college course types that are attended 

by students without disabilities and address issues that may impact college 

course participation

89%

2. Career Development: To facilitate career development leading to competitive 

employment for students with intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive 

postsecondary education program should provide students with the supports and 

experiences necessary to seek and sustain competitive employment. 

93%

3. Campus Membership: To facilitate campus membership for students with 

intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive postsecondary education program 

should provide access to and support for participation in existing social 

organizations, facilities, and technology. 

100%

4. Self-Determination: To facilitate the development of self-determination in 

students with intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive postsecondary 

education program should ensure student involvement in and control of the 

establishment of personal goals through use of person centered planning and 

have a stated process for family involvement. 

96%

5. Alignment with College Systems and Practices: To facilitate alignment with 

college systems and practices for students with intellectual disabilities, the 

comprehensive postsecondary education should offer an educational credential 

(e.g., degree or certificate) established by the institution for students enrolled in 

the program, provide access to academic advising college campus resources, 

collaborate with faculty and staff, and adhere to the college’s schedules, policies 

and procedures, public relations, and communications. 

100%

6. Coordination and Collaboration: To facilitate collaboration and coordination, 

the comprehensive postsecondary education program should establish 

connections and relationships with key college/university departments and have 

a designated person to coordinate program-specific services of the 

comprehensive postsecondary education program. 

100%

7. Sustainability: To facilitate sustainability the comprehensive postsecondary 

education program should use diverse sources of funding and have a planning 

and advisory team. 

100%

8. Ongoing Evaluation: To facilitate quality postsecondary education services 

for students with intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive postsecondary 

program should conduct evaluation of services and outcomes on a regular basis.

100%
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-108

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

(Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, Section 117)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

$8,131 $8,1312 $8,131 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2013; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2014. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program makes grants to tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions 

to provide career and technical education to Indian students.

In order to be eligible for a grant, a tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical 

institution must:

• Be formally controlled (or have been formally sanctioned or chartered) by a governing body 

of an Indian tribe or tribes;

• Offer a technical degree- or certificate-granting program;

• Demonstrate that it adheres to a philosophy or plan of operation that fosters individual 

Indian economic opportunity and self-sufficiency by providing, among other things, programs 

that relate to stated tribal goals of developing individual entrepreneurship and self-sustaining 

economic infrastructures on reservations;

• Have been operational for at least 3 years;

• Be accredited, or be a candidate for accreditation, by a nationally recognized accrediting 

authority for postsecondary career and technical education; 

• Enroll at least 100 full-time equivalent students, the majority of whom are Indians; and

• Receive no funds under Title I of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities

Assistance Act of 1978 or the Navajo Community College Act.

Funds may be used by a grantee to train teachers; purchase equipment; and provide 

instructional services, child-care and other family support services, and student stipends; and 

for institutional support.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

T-109

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2009 ..................................................................................... $7,773

2010 ....................................................................................... 8,162

2011 ....................................................................................... 8,146

2012 ....................................................................................... 8,131

2013 ....................................................................................... 8,131 1

___________________

1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2014 request includes $8.1 million for the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary 

Career and Technical Institutions (TCPCTI) program, the same amount as the 2012 

appropriation. Funds would be used to improve eligible institutions’ academic and career and 

technical offerings as well as for institutional support and capital expenditures. The budget 

request assumes that the program will be implemented in fiscal year 2014 under reauthorized 

legislation.

To date, only two institutions, Navajo Technical College (Navajo Tech), formerly Crownpoint 

Institute of Technology, and United Tribes Technical College (UTTC), have been able to 

demonstrate that they meet the statutory eligibility requirements for this program. Although the 

two institutions are different in many ways (for example, UTTC is located in an urban setting and 

serves a diverse Indian student population, while Navajo Tech is a rural institution that serves 

an almost entirely Navajo enrollment), they struggle with similar institutional and academic 

challenges. Both institutions serve an especially economically disadvantaged population and 

have difficulty providing sufficient financial aid to students. In addition, each school serves a 

number of students who lack preparation for postsecondary education and need academic and 

support services to help them develop academic and technical skills adequate for 

postsecondary work. 

Furthermore, these institutions, according to Navajo Tech and UTTC officials, receive limited 

support from the tribes they serve because they are not the primary postsecondary institutions 

for those tribes. The institutions also receive limited financial support from such sources as 

student tuition, endowments, and State assistance and, therefore, they rely on Federal 

assistance to help them provide postsecondary career and technical education services to their 

students. 

The Administration released its blueprint for reauthorization of the Perkins Act in April 2012. 

The reauthorization proposal would continue to provide support for the TCPCTI program while 

seeking to ensure that grantees under the program incorporate key reforms embodied in the 

broader reauthorization proposal, including linking career and technical education programs to 

in-demand occupations in high-growth sectors and ensuring linkages of those programs with 

industry and business. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

T-110

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Range of awards $3,682-4,464 $2,882-5,249 $2,882-5,249

Number of awards 2 2 2 ________________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This section presents selected program information, including, for example, GPRA goals, 

objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the progress 

made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on the 

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2014 

and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department collected baseline data for the performance indicators in 2008. Because the 

baseline data showed large differences in performance between the two grantees, the 

Department set individual grantee targets for most of the indicators. 

At this time, the Department does not validate the data for these indicators, which are obtained 

from grantee performance reports. The Department has worked with the grantees to help 

ensure that they collect performance data consistently, but both grantees have acknowledged 

weaknesses in their data on post-program outcomes (such as placement in jobs or continuing 

education). The grantees have stated it is difficult to track students after they leave the 

institutions and that they need to develop strategies for collecting better data on this indicator. 

Goal: To increase access to and improve career education that will strengthen workforce 

preparation, employment opportunities, and lifelong learning in the Indian community.

Objective: Ensure that career and technical education (CTE) students in tribally controlled 

postsecondary career and technical institutions make successful transitions to work or 

continuing education.

Measure: The percentage of CTE students who receive a degree, certificate, or credential.

Year

Target Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Actual 

Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target 

Percentage, 

UTTC

Actual Percentage, 

UTTC

2009 70 70 30 50

2010 75 79 40 38

2011 80 95 50 47

2012 85 55

2013 86 60

2014 87 60
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

T-111

Additional information: The percentage of CTE students who receive a degree, certificate, or 

credential is based on the number of CTE concentrators (students who have completed at least 

12 academic or CTE credits in a single program area or a full short-term CTE program 

comprised of less than 12 credits that results in an industry-recognized credential, certificate, or 

degree) who received an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree during the 

reporting year divided by the total number of CTE concentrators who left postsecondary 

education during the reporting year. Data for 2012 will be available in late 2013.

Measure The percentage of students who are retained in, and complete, postsecondary CTE 

programs.

Year

Target Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Actual 

Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target 

Percentage, 

UTTC

Actual Percentage, 

UTTC

2009 63 73 45 40

2010 70 77 55 58

2011 75 82 60 57

2012 80 65

2013 82 70

2014 85 72

Additional information: The percentage of students who are retained in, and complete, 

postsecondary CTE programs is based on the number of CTE concentrators who remained 

enrolled in their original postsecondary institution or transferred to another 2- or 4-year 

postsecondary institution during the reporting year and who were enrolled in postsecondary 

education in the fall of the previous reporting year, divided by the number of CTE concentrators 

who were enrolled in postsecondary education in the fall of the previous reporting year and who 

did not earn an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree in the previous 

reporting year. Data for 2012 will be available in late 2013.

Measure: The percentage of students who meet State- or program-established industryvalidated CTE skills standards.

Year

Target Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Actual 

Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target 

Percentage, 

UTTC

Actual Percentage, 

UTTC

2009 83 78 70 70

2010 86 53 75 67

2011 88 61 80 67

2012 90 82

2013 90 83

2014 86 86

Additional information: The percentage of students who meet State- or program-established 

industry-validated CTE skills standards is based on the number of CTE concentrators who 

passed technical skill assessments that are aligned with industry-recognized standards during 

the reporting year divided by the number of CTE concentrators who took technical skill 

assessments during the reporting year. Data for 2012 will be available in late 2013.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

T-112

Objective: Ensure that CTE students in the tribally controlled postsecondary career and 

technical institutions are placed in jobs or continuing education or complete postsecondary CTE 

programs.

Measure: The percentage of students placed in jobs, military service, or higher-level continuing 

education programs upon graduation or completion of the postsecondary career and technical 

education programs.

Year

Target Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Actual 

Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target 

Percentage, 

UTTC

Actual Percentage, 

UTTC

2009 32 42 30 81

2010 42 61 40 74

2011 50 69 50 83

2012 60 60

2013 70 70

2014 75 80

Additional information: The Department requires Navajo Tech and UTTC to collect 

placement data during the second quarter after students graduate from or complete their 

programs. Since most students do so in late spring or early summer, both institutions generally 

collect these data at the end of the calendar year. Data for 2012 will be available in late 2013. 

Efficiency measures

The Department adopted cost per participant as the efficiency measure for this program. 

Although the Department can also calculate the cost per successful outcome (which would be a 

more meaningful indicator of cost-effectiveness), the recipients do not use the same 

methodology to determine degree completion, making these data unreliable. The Department 

developed guidance to help grantees improve the comparability of the data provided in their 

performance reports and expects to be able to calculate the cost per successful outcome more 

reliably in the future.

Measure: Cost per participant.

Year Cost per participant, 

Navajo Tech

Cost per participant, 

UTTC

2007 $7,180 $6,363

2008 4,445 8,703

2009 4,865 5,269

2010 4,705 4,878

2011 3,160 4,747

Additional information: In order to maintain comparability across years, the Department 

calculates the cost per participant by dividing the reported number of full-time equivalent Indian 

students by two, starting with fiscal year 2006 data. Data for fiscal year 2012 will be available 

by the fall of 2013. Note that the validity of the student count data provided by the recipients is 

uncertain. The institutions sometimes submit multiple sets of data counts within the same year. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-113

Special programs for migrant students

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 5, Section 418A))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

$36,526 $36,526 1 $36,526 0

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Special Programs for Migrant Students provide 5-year grants to institutions of higher 

education (IHEs) and private nonprofit organizations to support educational programs designed 

for students who are engaged in, or whose families are engaged in, migrant and other seasonal 

farmwork. 

Projects funded under the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) recruit migrant students aged 

16 and over and provide academic and support services (including counseling, health services, 

stipends, and placement) to help those students obtain a high school equivalency certificate and 

subsequently to gain employment or admission to a postsecondary institution or training program. 

Projects funded by the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) provide tutoring, academic 

assistance, and counseling services, as well as stipends, tuition, and room and board, to first-year 

undergraduate migrant students and assist those students in obtaining student financial aid for 

their remaining undergraduate years. 

HEP projects, located in college or university settings, operate residential and commuter 

programs of instructional services for out-of-school migrant youth; some HEP projects employ a 

commuter model in which students attend GED classes after work. Most CAMP projects use an 

on-campus residential design and provide a high level of support services in order to assist 

participants, virtually all of whom have had no prior contact with a college campus, to adjust to life 

at an institution of higher education. In making awards under both programs, the Department is 

required to consider applicants' prior experience in operating HEP and CAMP projects. 

The Department may reserve up to one half of 1 percent of the funds appropriated for Special

Programs for Migrant Students for outreach, technical assistance, and professional development 

activities. If the total amount appropriated is below $40 million, the remaining funds are to be 

distributed between the two programs in the same proportion as the amounts available for each 

program the previous year. If the appropriation is over $40 million, 45 percent of the remaining
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-114

funds must be used for HEP and 45 percent for CAMP, and the remainder may be used for 

either program, based on the number, quality, and promise of applications received.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows: 

Year (dollars in thousands)

2009..........................................................$34,168

2010............................................................36,668

2011............................................................36,595

2012............................................................36,526

2013............................................................36,526 1

___________________

1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2014, the Administration requests a total of $36.5 million for the Special Programs for 

Migrant Students, the same amount as the 2012 appropriation. These funds would support the 

continuation of grants made in earlier years under the High School Equivalency (HEP) and 

College Assistance Migrant (CAMP) programs, as well as outreach, technical assistance, and 

professional development activities. 

Migrant youth are particularly at risk for poor educational, employment, and earnings outcomes. 

According to the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS) report, 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, a 2008 Update, farmworkers tend to be younger, less educated, 

and less likely to speak English than other wage and salary workers in the United States. 

Individuals aged 15-21 constituted 15.1 percent of farmworkers in 2006, and 30.0 percent of 

farmworkers had attained less than a 9th-grade education. Further, an ERS analysis of data 

from the US Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) showed that, 

over the period 1989-2006, the average median years of education for migrant farmworkers was 

6, compared to 9 for nonmigrant farmworkers, and that 66.2 percent of migrant farmworkers had

no knowledge of English, compared to 27.1 percent for nonmigrant farmworkers. Migrant 

farmworkers are also more likely to have lower hourly wages than nonmigrant farmworkers, and 

their limited education affects their ability to pursue postsecondary education or obtain skilled 

work that pays higher wages. 

A substantial number of migrant youth are living on their own. The 2002-03 NAWS found that 

migrant youth working in farmwork and on their own constitute 11 percent of the total farm labor 

force. Their likelihood of being able to support themselves for an extended period of time 

through farmwork is poor. The ERS 2008 Profile reported that unemployment rates of 

farmworkers are double those of all wage and salary workers; that hired farmworkers earned 

less than other workers; and that the rate of poverty among farmworkers was more than double 

that of all wage and salary employees.

The HEP and CAMP programs provide participants with assistance that can enable them to 

improve their earnings potential dramatically. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012-13 Edition, the median hourly wage for agricultural 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-115

workers in 2010 was $9.12, and these types of workers are often paid based on how much they 

do instead of how many hours they work. By comparison, the National Center for Education 

Statistics reports in The Condition of Education 2012 that in 2009 the median earnings for 

young adults aged 25-34 with a high school diploma or equivalent were $29,900 (equivalent to 

$14.38 per hour) and the median was $37,000 for a person with an associate’s degree 

(equivalent to $17.79 per hour). 

HEP and CAMP programs focus on finding and assisting migrant youth who have educational 

potential but who have not been able—due to limited or inconsistent educational opportunity—to 

complete high school or go on to postsecondary education. HEP and CAMP projects 

emphasize services to out-of-school-youth by conducting extensive outreach in locations where 

these youth live and work (e.g., farms, production facilities, and labor camps) and providing 

services at locations and times that meet the needs of an out-of-school, working population.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Outreach, technical assistance, and 

professional development $183 $183 $183

HEP:

Number of students served 5,292 5,292 5,292

Number of awards:

First year 5 0 17

Second year 10 5 0

Third year 13 10 5

Fourth year 17 13 10

Fifth year 0 17 13

Total 45 45 45

Funding:

New awards $2,114 0 $7,009

Peer review of new award applications 70 0 70

Continuation awards 17,687 $19,871 $12,792

Average grant award 440 444 450

Average Federal contribution per 

student (whole dollars) $3,743 $3,777 $2,417

CAMP:

Number of students served 1,925 1,925 1,925

Number of awards:

First year 9 0 14

Second year 7 9 0

Third year 10 7 9

Fourth year 14 10 7

Fifth year 0 14 10

Total 40 40 40
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-116

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Funding:

New awards $3,897 0 $5,814

Peer review of new award applications 70 0 70

Continuation awards $12,505 $16,472 $10,588

Average grant award 408 409 410

Average Federal contribution per 

student (whole dollars) $8,470 $8,505 $8,525 ________________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program information, including, for example, GPRA goals, 

objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the progress 

made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on the 

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2014 

and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

Goal: To assist migrant and seasonal farmworker students in obtaining the equivalent of 

a high school diploma, and, subsequently, in beginning postsecondary education, 

entering military service, or obtaining employment.

Objective: An increasing percentage of HEP participants will receive their General Educational 

Development (GED) credential.

Measure: The percentage of High School Equivalency Program (HEP) participants receiving a 

General Educational Development (GED) credential.

Year Target Actual

2009 69 61

2010 69 70

2011 69 74

2012 69

2013 69

2014 69

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. The Department 

established a new reporting system in 2008 to improve the quality of grantee data, and in 2009

the Department adjusted its methods for calculating performance data for recipients that serve 

more students than they projected at the beginning of their grant period. The data reported 

above for 2010 and 2011 reflect this adjusted methodology. Data collected for fiscal year 2012 

will be available in the spring of 2013. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-117

Objective: An increasing percentage of HEP recipients of the GED will enter postsecondary 

education programs, upgraded employment, or the military.

Measure: The percentage of HEP GED credential recipients who enter postsecondary 

educational programs, career positions, or the military.

Year Target Actual

2009 81 74

2010 80 75

2011 80 75

2012 80

2013 80

2014 80

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for this 

measure are based on actual placement after receipt of a GED credential. The Department is 

providing technical assistance to grantees on collecting data on program participants after they 

are no longer receiving program services. Data for 2012 will be available in the spring of 2013.

Goal: Assist migrant and seasonal farmworker students in successfully completing their 

first academic year of college and in continuing their postsecondary education.

Objective: All CAMP students will complete their first academic year at a postsecondary 

institution in good standing.

Measure: The percentage of College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) participants 

completing the first year of their postsecondary program.

Year Target Actual

2009 86 86

2010 86 85

2011 86 89

2012 86

2013 86

2014 86

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for projects 

completing their first year of implementation are not included in the data for any given year 

because projects receive their initial funding in the fall, after the school year may have already 

started. Thus, the measure reflects the percentage of participants completing the first year of 

their postsecondary program between the second and fifth year of the project. In 2009, the 

Department adjusted its methods for calculating performance data for recipients that serve more 

students than they projected at the beginning of their grant period. Data collected for fiscal year 

2012 will be available in the spring of 2013. 

Objective: A majority of CAMP students who successfully complete their first academic year of 

college will continue in postsecondary education.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-118

Measure: The percentage of College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) participants who, 

after completing the first academic year of college, continue their postsecondary education.

Year Target Actual

2009 84 91

2010 85 88

2011 85 95

2012 85

2013 85

2014 85

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for this 

measure are based on actual placement after completion of the first year of college. The 

Department is providing technical assistance to grantees on collecting data on program 

participants once the participants are no longer receiving program services. Data for 2012 will 

be available in the spring of 2013.

Efficiency measures

The Department established a cost-per-participant outcome measure to assess program 

efficiency for HEP and CAMP. For HEP, the measure is the cost per participant earning a GED 

credential and, for CAMP, it is the cost per participant who completes his or her first year of 

postsecondary education and then continues that postsecondary education. The Department 

established different costs for programs serving participants who commute, programs serving 

participants who reside at the institution of higher education where the program is based, and 

programs with both types of participants. Targets are based on actual costs in 2011 (the 

baseline year), multiplied by an estimate rate of inflation for college-associated costs and then 

decreased by an expected improvement in efficiency annually of 1 percent. Data for 2012 will 

be available in the spring of 2013.

HEP Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost Per Participant Earning a GED, Commuter programs.

Year Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2011 Baseline $7,529

2012 $7,910

2013 $8,306

2014 $8,718
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-119

Measure: Cost Per Participant Earning a GED, Residential Programs.

Year Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2011 Baseline $14,753

2012 $15,459

2013 $16,195

2014 $16,962

Measure: Cost Per Participant Earning a GED, Programs with Both Commuting and Resident 

Students.

Year Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2011 Baseline $11,923

2012 $12,502

2013 $13,104

2014 $13,732

CAMP Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost Per Participant Completing the First Year of Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary Education, Commuter programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2011 Baseline $11,486

2012 $12,003

2013 $12,543

2014 $13,107

Measure: Cost Per Participant Completing the First Year of Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary Education, Residential programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2011 Baseline $18,408

2012 $19,236

2013 $20,102

2014 $21,007
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-120

Measure: Cost Per Participant Completing the First Year of Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary Education, Programs with Both Commuting and Resident Students.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2011 Baseline $13,998

2012 $14,628

2013 $15,286

2014 $15,974
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-121

Assistance for students:

Federal TRIO programs

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

Period of Fund 

2012 2013 2014

Change 

from 2012

$839,932 $839,932 1 $839,932 0

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal TRIO Programs consist primarily of five discretionary grant programs—Talent 

Search, Upward Bound (which includes regular Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math-Science, 

and Veterans Upward Bound), Student Support Services, Educational Opportunity Centers, and 

Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement—that provide services to encourage 

individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter and complete college and postgraduate 

education. Competitive grants are awarded for 5 years to eligible applicants, which include 

institutions of higher education; public and private agencies, including community-based 

organizations with experience in serving disadvantaged youth; and, as appropriate to the 

purposes of the program, secondary schools. At least two-thirds of the program participants 

must be low-income, first-generation college students (or individuals with disabilities for the 

Student Support Services program). 

Talent Search encourages disadvantaged youth who are between 11 and 27 years of age, and 

who have the potential for postsecondary education, to graduate from high school (or return to 

school, for those who have dropped out) and to enroll in a postsecondary education program. 

Projects must provide connections to academic tutoring services, advice on and assistance in 

selecting secondary and college courses, assistance in preparing for college entrance exams 

and in completing college applications, information on student financial aid and assistance in 

completing financial aid applications, connections to services designed to improve financial and 

economic literacy, and guidance and assistance in re-entering and completing secondary 

school. Projects also may provide academic tutoring; personal and career counseling; 

information on career options; exposure to college campuses; and services specially designed 

for students with disabilities or limited English proficiency, homeless children and youth, and 

students in foster care.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-122

Upward Bound provides services to high school students that are designed to generate the 

skills and motivation needed to complete a program of secondary education and to pursue and 

complete a program of postsecondary education. In addition to providing all of the same 

services as Talent Search projects, Upward Bound projects must provide participants with 

instruction in mathematics through pre-calculus, laboratory science, composition, literature, and 

a foreign language through a six-week summer instructional component that is designed to 

simulate a college-going experience for participants and an academic year component. Upward 

Bound projects may provide an on-campus residential summer component and work-study 

positions that provide exposure to careers requiring a postsecondary degree. Upward Bound 

includes, besides the regular projects, Upward Bound Math/Science and Veterans projects. 

Upward Bound Math/Science projects strengthen the math and science skills of participating 

high school students and encourage them to pursue postsecondary degrees in those fields 

specifically. The Veterans Upward Bound projects assist veterans by providing intensive basic 

skills development in those academic subjects required for successful completion of a high 

school equivalency program and for admission to postsecondary education programs.

The Educational Opportunity Centers provide counseling and information on college admissions 

to adults who are at least 19 years old and who are seeking a postsecondary education degree. 

Services include disseminating information on higher education opportunities in the community; 

academic advice, personal counseling, and career workshops; help in completing applications 

for college admissions, testing, and financial aid; tutoring; mentoring; and services to improve 

financial and economic literacy. 

The Student Support Services program offers a broad range of support services to 

postsecondary students to increase their retention and graduation rates and to increase their 

transfer rates from 2-year to 4-year institutions. All projects must provide academic tutoring, 

advice on postsecondary course selection, financial aid counseling, services to improve 

financial and economic literacy, assistance in applying for graduate and professional programs, 

and activities to help students in 2-year institutions enroll in 4-year programs. Projects may also 

provide personal and career counseling; exposure to cultural events; mentoring; services to 

secure temporary housing during academic breaks for students who are homeless; activities for 

students with disabilities, limited English proficiency students, homeless students, and students 

in foster care; and grant aid (not to exceed 20 percent of a project’s Federal funds). Projects 

providing grant aid also must provide a match equal to 33 percent of the total funds used for that 

purpose, unless they are eligible to receive funds under Title III, Part A or B, or Title V of the 

Higher Education Act.

The Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement program prepares disadvantaged 

undergraduate students for doctoral study to help them succeed in obtaining doctoral degrees. 

Projects must provide opportunities for research and other scholarly activities at the recipient 

institution or graduate center, summer internships, seminars, tutoring, academic counseling, 

and activities to help students enroll in graduate programs. Projects may also provide services 

to improve financial and economic literacy, mentoring, and exposure to cultural events and 

academic programs not usually available to disadvantaged students. 

The two largest programs, in terms of funding, are Upward Bound (which includes Veterans 

Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math-Science) and Student Support Services, which 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-123

together accounted for nearly three-fourths of TRIO funding in 2012. TRIO programs vary 

greatly in service intensity, with per participant annual costs ranging from a high for the Ronald 

E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement program of approximately $8,300 to a low of $240 

for the Educational Opportunity Centers. The Upward Bound projects, on average, spend 

approximately $4,300 per year per participant except for the Veterans projects, which do not 

have the residential summer component, and which had an average per participant annual cost 

of $2,100 in 2012. Most projects are located at colleges, although non-profit organizations 

operate a substantial number of Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Center projects.

Number of Participants, Participants per project and Cost per Participant (FY 2012) 

Award Type

Number of 

Participants

Average number of 

participants

per project

Federal

cost per participant

Talent Search 313,641 691 $434

Upward Bound 62,320 76 $4,303

Veterans Upward Bound 6,831 134 $2,107

Upward Bound Math/Science 10,265 62 $4,300

Educational Opportunity Centers 189,131 1,501 $243

Student Support Services1 202,750 197 $1,432

McNair 4,482 28 $8,316

_____________________________

1

 Thirty-six Student Support Services projects exclusively serve students with disabilities. These projects tend to 

have somewhat higher average costs per participant.

Percentage of Funds by Institution Type (2012)

 Institution Type

Talent 

Search

Upward 

Bound1

Educational 

Opportunity 

Centers

Student 

Support 

Services McNair

Postsecondary Institutions

Public, 4-year 40.7 46.5 41.0 39.4 73.6

Public, 2-year 29.4 26.9 26.2 45.9 0.0

Private, 4-year 9.7 18.0 5.2 13.9 26.4

Private, 2-year 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0

Total, Postsecondary 79.8 91.0 72.4 99.8 100.0

Other organizations2 20.2 9.0 27.6 0.2 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 _____________________________

1 Includes regular Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math and Science, and Upward Bound Veterans. 2 Other includes nonprofit organizations, State agencies, local educational agencies, county and city 

governments, for-profit institutions, Indian Tribes, and private elementary and secondary schools.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-124

In addition, TRIO funding supports training for project staff members, dissemination of best 

practices, evaluation activities, and administrative expenses.

Funding for TRIO Staff Training grants supports professional development activities and 

opportunities to improve the competency of project directors and staff members. Training is 

offered on such topics as: legislative and regulatory requirements for operating funded projects; 

assisting students in receiving adequate financial aid; the design and operation of model 

programs; the use of appropriate educational technology in the operations of funded projects; 

and strategies for recruiting and serving students with limited-English proficiency or with 

disabilities; homeless children and youth; foster care youth; or other disconnected students. 

Funding for Evaluation activities helps to improve the effectiveness of TRIO programs and 

projects. The statute requires rigorous evaluation of TRIO programs and projects. The 

evaluation must examine the characteristics of the programs and projects that most benefit 

students.

Finally, up to 0.5 percent of the funds appropriated for TRIO may be used by the Department to 

support administrative activities that include obtaining additional qualified readers to review 

applications; increasing the level of oversight monitoring; supporting impact studies, program 

assessments, and reviews; and providing technical assistance to potential applicants and 

grantees. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

(dollars in thousands)

2009 ...................................................................................... $905,089 1

2010 ........................................................................................ 910,0891

2011 ........................................................................................ 883,5221

2012 ........................................................................................ 839,932

2013 ........................................................................................ 839,9322

______________

1 Includes $57,000 thousand in mandatory funds provided under Section 402C(g) of the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended. 2 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $839.9 million for the Federal TRIO programs in 2014, same 

as the 2012 level. This request reflects the Administration’s belief that the TRIO programs play 

an important role in assisting low-income students and students whose parents never 

completed college to enter and complete postsecondary education programs. Most of the funds 

would be used to support continuation awards to grantees that were successful in the 2010 

Student Support Services competition, the 2011 Talent Search and Educational Opportunity 

Centers competitions, and the 2012 Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math-Science, Veterans 

Upward Bound, and McNair competitions. This level would enable the Department to maintain 

approximately the same number of TRIO projects in fiscal year 2014 as in previous years. It 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-125

would also continue the Department’s efforts in the 2012 Upward Bound competition to place a 

greater emphasis on increasing productivity by having projects make inroads into serving and 

transforming the lowest-performing schools. These reforms will help expand the reach of TRIO 

projects and expand their effects on the schools that need the greatest help in sending more

students on to postsecondary education. The request also includes $1.2 million to maintain 

Administrative Support for the TRIO programs, including the costs of collecting and analyzing 

grantee performance data, $1.4 million for a new Staff Training competition to help provide

TRIO professionals with the skills necessary to run effective projects, and $4.3 million, shown as 

“undistributed” in the program output measures, to support supplemental UB awards to 

successful grantees selected to participate in the UB evaluation, or for some alternative use. 

Additionally, the Department will continue to work with the TRIO community over the next year 

to standardize data collection and develop strategies to strengthen the program’s design in 

order to increase college access and completion in anticipation of Higher Education Act (HEA)

reauthorization in 2014.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures

2012

Funding

footnote

2013

Funding

footnote

2014

Funding

footnote

2012

Awards

footnote

2013

Awards

footnote

2014

Awards

footnote

Talent Search (TS)

(TS)Continuation Awards $135,9691 135,8932 $135,515 4541 4532 452

(TS)Total 135,969 135,893 135,515 454 453 452

Upward Bound (UB)

(UB)New Awards 248,060 0 0 773 0 0

(UB)Continuation Awards 20,077 266,4123266,7444 53 8193 8194

(UB)Total 268,136 266,412 266,744 826 819 819

Veterans Upward Bound (VUB)

VUB:New Awards 11,440 0 0 40 0 0

VUB:Continuation awards 2,952 $14,1193 $13,8064 11 50 3 49 4

VUB:Total 14,392 14,119 13,806 51 50 49

Upward Bound Math-Science (UBMS)

UBMS:New Awards 38,309 0 0 144 0 0

UBMS:Continuation awards 5,833 43,1293 43,129 22 162 3 162

UBMS:Total 44,141 43,129 43,129 166 162 162

Educational Opportunity Centers 

(EOC)

EOC:Continuation awards 45,902146,9252 46,9255 1261 1262 1265

EOC:Total 45,902 46,925 46,925 126 126 126

Student Support Services (SSS)

SSS:Continuation awards 290,3266 291,241 291,241 1,0286 1,028 1,028

SSS:Total 290,326 291,241 291,241 1,028 1,028 1,028
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-126

Measures

2012

Funding

footnote

2013

Funding

footnote

2014

Funding

footnote

2012

Awards

footnote

2013

Awards

footnote

2014

Awards

footnote

McNair Postbaccalaureate (MPB)

MPB:New Awards $31,331 0 0 132 0 0

MPB:Continuation awards 5,939 $35,9403 $35,7014 26 1523 1514

MPB:Total 37,270 35,940 35,701 158 152 151

Staff Training (ST)

ST:New Awards 1,400 0 1,400 6 0 5

ST:Continuation awards 0 1,400 0 0 6 0

ST:Total 1,400 1,400 1,400 6 6 5

Undistributed 5 0 4,262

Evaluation 0 3,161 TBD

Administrative expenses:

Peer review of new award

 applications 906 0 TBD

Other expenses 1,484 1,712 1,209

Total 2,390 1,712 TBD

Total 839,932 839,932 839,932 2,815 2,796 2,792

_____________________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

1 Includes awards to grantees that were successful in the 2011 competition but are receiving their first award 

from that competition in FY 2012 because they received an NCC award from their prior grant in FY 2011. 2 Includes awards to grantees that were successful in the 2011 competition but are receiving their first award 

from that competition in FY 2013 because they received NCC awards from their prior grant in FY 2011 and FY 2012. 3 Includes awards to grantees that were successful in the 2012 competition but are receiving their first award 

from that competition in FY 2013 because they received NCC awards from their prior grant in FY 2012. 4 Includes awards to grantees that were successful in the 2012 competition but are receiving their first award 

from that competition in FY 2014 because they received NCC awards from their prior grant in FY 2012 and FY 2013. 5 Includes award to grantee that was successful in the 2011 competition but is receiving its first award from 

that competition in FY 2014 because it received NCC awards from their prior grant in FY 2011, FY 2012, and FY 2013.

 6 Includes awards to grantees that were successful in the 2010 competition but are receiving their first awards 

from that competition in FY 2014 because they received NCC awards from their prior grant in FY 2010 and FY 2011.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2014

and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-127

Goal: Increase the percentage of low-income, first-generation college students who 

successfully pursue postsecondary educational opportunities.

Objective: Increase postsecondary enrollment rates of low-income, first-generation individuals 

in the academic pipeline.

Measure: The percentage of participants enrolling in college.

Year

Talent 

Search 

Target

Talent 

Search 

Actual

Upward 

Bound 

Target

Upward 

Bound 

Actual

Educational 

Opportunity 

Centers 

Target

Educational 

Opportunity 

Centers 

Actual

2009 79.5 80.5 75.0 82.8 59.5 59.8

2010 79.5 80.2 75.0 83.8 60.0 60.3

2011 80.0 80.1 76.0 60.5 59.6

2012 80.0 76.0 61.0

2013 80.5 78.0 61.5

2014 80.5 80.5 61.5

Additional information: This measure looks at the percentage of participants who enroll in 

college. Targets are set and data are calculated independently for each of the three programs 

for which this measure is relevant. Data are provided by the grantees in their Annual 

Performance Reports. 

• For Talent Search, the measure looks at the percentage of “college ready” participants who 

enrolled in programs of postsecondary education during the reporting period or the next fall 

term. “College ready” participants are those who are high school seniors or are enrolled in 

an alternative education program at an academic level equivalent to that of a high school 

senior, adults who had graduated from high school or received a high school equivalency 

diploma, postsecondary dropouts, and potential postsecondary transfers. The measure thus 

does not show the percentage of all students ever served by Talent Search who ultimately 

are admitted to college.

• The Upward Bound program, including the Math and Science projects, uses a different 

method to calculate the percentage of Upward Bound participants who subsequently enroll in 

postsecondary education. For Upward Bound, the percentage is calculated by dividing the 

number of students enrolling in postsecondary education during the reporting year by the 

number of students with an Expected High School Graduation Year during that reporting year 

(Expected High School Graduation Year is defined as the year a student would be expected 

to graduate assuming a normal 4 year progression). The 2014 target has been increased to 

make it more ambitious. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-128

• For Educational Opportunity Centers, the Department defines the cohort of participants 

comprising the denominator in the postsecondary enrollment calculation in the following way: 

participants who are high school seniors or the equivalent in alternative education programs, 

high school graduates, recipients of high school equivalency credentials, postsecondary 

dropouts, or potential postsecondary transfers.

Objective: Increase postsecondary persistence and completion rates of low-income, firstgeneration individuals in the academic pipeline.

Measure: The percentage of Student Support Services participants completing an Associate’s 

degree at their original institution or transferring to a 4-year institution within 3 years.

Year Target Actual

2009 28.0 36.5

2010 28.0 36.1

2011 28.5 40.7

2012 33.0

2013 34.0

2014 36.0

Measure: The percentage of Student Support Services first-year students completing a 

Bachelor's degree at their original institution within 6 years.

Year Target Actual

2009 29.5 42.3

2010 29.5 42.2

2011 30.0 49.3

2012 40.0

2013 41.0

2014 42.0

Additional information: Grantees provide data on college completion in their Annual 

Performance Reports (APR). The Department’s implementation of a web-based annual 

performance report system that flags inconsistencies for grantees as they enter their data has 

led to more accurate reporting. A continuing shortcoming of these measures is that they only 

measure degree completion of participants who remain at the grantee institution because the 

Department is unable to track the students who transfer and complete their degrees at other 

institutions. It is likely that some students complete their education at a different institution, and 

that the measures, therefore, understate performance. The Department has increased the 2013 

targets to make them more ambitious. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-129

Measure: The percentages of TRIO McNair participants enrolling and persisting in graduate 

school.

Year Enrolling Target Enrolling Actual Persisting Target Persisting Actual

2009 39.5 69.5 79.5 84.1

2010 40.0 69.8 80.0 85.1

2011 40.0 71.7 80.0 86.6

2012 50.0 81.0

2013 69.0 82.0

2014 69.0 83.0

Additional information: The “Actual” figures for persistence differ slightly from those reported 

in previous years due to the correction of a clerical error. The Department is formally changing 

the enrollment measure to count as successes those McNair participants who enroll in graduate 

school within 3 years of postsecondary graduation, as research indicates that a substantial 

number of individuals who pursue graduate degrees begin their graduate programs within 

3 years of receiving their baccalaureate degrees.1

 The Department has re-calculated data from 

prior years to allow for comparisons across years. The reporting year in the table above 

represents the 3-year point of measurement. That is, 71.7 percent of McNair participants who 

graduated with their baccalaureate degree in 2008 had enrolled in graduate school by 2011. 

The Department has increased the 2013 target to make it more ambitious. 

Efficiency Measures

In previous years, the Department used a common efficiency measure for the TRIO Student 

Support Services, Upward Bound, and Talent Search programs to track the average annual cost 

per successful outcome. The actual measure used was the gap between the cost per student 

served, which is the annual funding for the program divided by the number of participants, and 

the cost per successful outcome. However, the Department believes that this measure is 

unnecessarily confusing. Consequently, the Department has simplified the efficiency measure 

for these programs, changing it to the “cost per successful outcome.” The Department plans to 

establish targets for these new efficiency measures in fiscal year 2013.

Cost per successful outcome: The definition of a “successful outcome” varies by program. 

As a result, it is difficult to make valid comparisons across TRIO programs based on these data. 

The program-specific definitions are provided below.

• In 2011, the cost per successful outcome for Student Support Services—in which a 

successful outcome is defined as graduation, transfer, or postsecondary persistence—was 

approximately $1,735. This figure was calculated by dividing the total program funding by 

the number of SSS participants that graduated, transferred, or persisted in postsecondary 

school. The 2011 cost per successful outcome increased from 2010 ($1,620).

 1 Nevill, S.C., and Chan, X (2007). The Path Through Graduate School: A Longitudinal Examination 

10 Years After Bachelor’s Degree (NCES 2007-162). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.: National 

Center for Education Statistics, p. 18
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-130

• For Upward Bound (UB), participants are considered successful if they persist in high 

school, re-enter high school, or enroll in postsecondary school. The cost per successful 

outcome figures are obtained by dividing the program’s total funding by the number of 

successful participants. For 2011, this figure was approximately $4,602, an increase from 

2010 ($4,563). 

• For Talent Search, the Department recently revised the methodology for determining what 

counts as a “success.” The new definition is consistent with the definition of “success” in 

Upward Bound. For 2010, the cost per successful outcome was approximately $412; in 

2011, the cost per successful outcome increased slightly to $420.

Measure: The cost per successful outcome.

Year

Talent 

Search 

Target

Talent 

Search 

Actual

Upward 

Bound 

Target

Upward 

Bound 

Actual

Student 

Support 

Services 

Target

Student 

Support 

Services 

Actual

2009 $414 $4,776 $1,558

2010 412 4,563 1,620

2011 420 4,602 1,735

2012

2013

2014

Additional information: The measures for these indicators are calculated using data from 

Annual Performance Reports. 

For the McNair program, the efficiency measure is the Federal cost of each McNair program 

baccalaureate recipient who enrolls in graduate school within 3 years. The measure uses the 

Federal funding for the fiscal year in which the cohort of baccalaureate recipients was 

established, adjusted for those projects that were not funded in any 1 of the subsequent 

3 years. The funding is divided by the number of students in the cohort of baccalaureate 

recipients who have enrolled in graduate school at any time during the subsequent 3 years.

Measure: The Federal cost of each McNair program baccalaureate recipient who enrolls in 

graduate school within 3 years.

Year Target Actual

2009 39,000 27,809 

2010 38,000 31,422

2011 38,000 32,672 

2012 35,000

2013 33,000

2014 33,000

Additional information: This measure is calculated by dividing the McNair funding allocation 

from the year in which participants graduated college by the number of college graduates from 

that cohort that enrolled in graduate school within 3 years. Note that the definition of success 

used in the McNair efficiency measure is particularly exclusive. For instance, participants who 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-131

achieved their BA with the help of the McNair program but did not subsequently enroll in 

graduate school are not counted as successes according to this measure. The Department 

decreased the targets for future years, starting in 2012, to make them more ambitious. 

Other Performance Information

The Department has invested significant resources in evaluations and studies of the Federal 

TRIO Programs. Each TRIO evaluation and study was conducted independently by outside 

contractors that reported to the Department’s evaluation offices.

• Talent Search: The national evaluation of the implementation of the Talent Search program, 

completed in 2004, provided descriptive information for 1999-2000 projects and reported 

that nearly three-quarters of participants were both from low-income families and potential 

first-generation college students, two-thirds were members of racial/ethnic minority groups, 

and nearly 70 percent were in the traditional age range for high school students. (See 

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/talentsearch/index.html)

An additional study, initiated in 1998 and completed in 2006, examined outcomes in three 

States—Florida, Indiana, and Texas—that were selected because of the availability of data 

in their administrative records. Twenty-two of the 31 Talent Search projects in these three 

States that were operating in 1995-96 were included in the study. The study relied on quasiexperimental matching techniques using administrative data; thus, it is not possible to 

attribute differences in outcomes to participation in the Talent Search program. In addition, 

the results are not representative of the Nation or the States, and participants with data may 

have been less disadvantaged, on average, than typical Talent Search students. (Less than 

half of the participants in the Texas sample were economically disadvantaged, as were 

participants in two of the five Florida projects.) However, the data do provide limited 

information on the outcomes of students who participated in Talent Search compared to 

outcomes for similar students who did not participate in the program.

 Talent Search participants were more likely than comparison students to apply 

for Federal financial aid. The difference in financial aid applications for Talent 

Search participants and nonparticipants was 17, 14, and 28 percentage points, 

respectively for Florida, Indiana, and Texas.

 Talent Search participants were more likely than nonparticipants to enroll in a 

public college or university in their State. Initial enrollment in postsecondary 

institutions was higher by 14, 6, and 18 percentage points, respectively for 

Florida, Indiana, and Texas.

 Since the study was not a randomized experiment, it is not possible to attribute 

differences in outcomes solely to participation in Talent Search. However, the 

study concludes that some of the differences in first-time applications for financial 

aid and initial postsecondary enrollment can be attributed to participation in 

Talent Search. The study findings also suggest that assisting low-income 

students who have college aspirations to overcome information barriers – an 

important objective of the Talent Search program – may be effective in helping 

these students achieve their aspirations.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-132

• Upward Bound: The evaluation of Upward Bound, based on a random assignment design in 

a sample of 67 Upward Bound projects, was initiated in 1991. The final report, which was 

released in January 2009, did not provide evidence that Upward Bound has effects on most 

key outcome measures for the average participant. The study found that approximately 

81 percent of Upward Bound participants and 79 percent of students who applied to 

participate in Upward Bound but who did not receive either Upward Bound or Upward Bound 

Math-Science services enrolled in some type of postsecondary institution. The difference 

between the 81 percent of participants and the 79 percent of applicants who enrolled in 

postsecondary education is not statistically significant. The study also did not find that 

program participation increased the chances of completing a postsecondary program 

(38 percent of participants, compared to 35 percent of nonparticipants, completed any type 

of degree, certificate, or license) or completing a 4-year college program (21 percent of 

Upward Bound participants compared to 22 percent of nonparticipants completed a 

bachelor’s degree.)

The evaluation, however, did find that Upward Bound increased postsecondary enrollment 

and completion rates for some subgroups of students. For the subgroup of students with 

lower educational expectations—that is, the students who did not expect to complete a 

bachelor’s degree—Upward Bound increased the rate of postsecondary enrollment by 

6 percentage points and postsecondary completion by 12 percentage points. The 

evaluation also found that longer participation in Upward Bound was associated with higher 

rates of postsecondary enrollment and completion.

The Department began a new evaluation of Upward Bound, which was being conducted by 

an independent contractor under the auspices of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 

in September 2006. However, Congress cancelled the evaluation due to concerns over the 

use of a randomized control design. IES recently began a new study of Upward Bound 

promising practices, as required by section 402H(b)(1) of the Higher Education Act. Given 

the limitations the statute placed on study design, the initial phase of the study focused on 

the availability of extant data and possible methodological approaches for a quasiexperimental evaluation to assess the efficacy of various implementation strategies in 

Upward Bound. After completing a portion of the initial phase of the study, IES has 

concluded that no quasi-experimental study would yield reliable results and meet the 

Department’s program evaluation standards. Consequently, the Department is exploring 

alternative options for providing information on promising practices.

• Upward Bound/Math/Science: The study of Upward Bound Math/Science (UBMS) 

examined the extent to which participants enroll in postsecondary institutions and pursue 

college majors in math and science fields. The study includes descriptive data gathered 

from a 1998 survey of project directors and outcome information for students who 

participated in the program in 1993-1995. The descriptive study found that the projects, 

which were primarily hosted by 4-year colleges, hired staff with strong math and science 

qualifications, and often provided students with same-race role models. Approximately 

60 percent of the students were female and nearly three-quarters were members of 

racial/ethnic minority groups.

To assess program impact, UBMS participants were compared to a comparison group of 

students that had applied for regular Upward Bound but did not participate in Upward 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-133

Bound/Math/Science. Some of the comparison group students did participate in regular 

Upward Bound and some did not; the differences in outcomes between UBMS participants 

and comparison group students participating in regular Upward Bound were analyzed 

separately. Propensity score matching was used to control for demographic differences 

between UBMS and comparison group. The final report, released in the spring of 2010, 

indicates that Upward Bound Math/Science participants were more likely to enroll in and 

complete postsecondary education than comparison students. Furthermore, UBMS 

participants were more likely to enroll in selective postsecondary institutions. In addition, 

UBMS participants took more math and science credits than comparison students. 

However, UBMS students were no more likely than comparison students to major in math or 

science.

• Student Support Services: The final report of the national evaluation of Student Support 

Services (SSS), which was initiated in 1990, was released in 2010. The quasi-experimental 

study, which was based on a random cross-section of projects, examined the extent to 

which Student Support Services projects improved key student outcomes, such as 

persistence, transfers from 2-year to 4-year institutions, and degree completion. The study 

did not find differences between students who received services from SSS and those that 

did not. This finding is of limited validity, however, because it does not account for the fact 

that non-SSS students may have received support services elsewhere. The report does 

indicate that participation in supplemental services, generally—whether or not they were 

offered directly by SSS projects—was related to improved student outcomes and that higher 

service levels were associated with better student outcomes. This finding is important 

because the descriptive portion of the report revealed that the function of many SSS 

projects is to coordinate campus-wide support services, referring students to the proper 

providers as needed.

• Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement: The study of the Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement is a descriptive analysis of McNair participants’ educational 

and employment outcomes. The study, which was released in March 2008, found that 

approximately 6 percent of participants served from 1989 to 1998 had earned a doctoral 

degree by 2003, with the largest number of degrees in the life sciences (26 percent), 

followed by the social sciences (24 percent). Another 6 percent of participants earned 

professional degrees, e.g., degrees in law, medicine, or pharmacy. More of the students 

included in the analyses may have completed degrees later: approximately 14 percent of 

students participating from 1989 through 1993, who thus had more years to complete their 

degrees before the 2003 data collection, completed doctorates.

• The Department recently completed the TRIO Promising and Innovative Practices Studies 

for both the Student Support Services and the Upward Bound programs. However, the 

Department concluded that these studies do not meet the Department’s methodological 

standards. Consequently, the Department is not planning to release reports from the 

studies.

On September 8, 2008, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report summarizing 

findings from a review of how the Department’s Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)

awarded prior experience points in the 2006 Educational Opportunity Centers and Talent 

Search grant competitions. The report recommended that OPE cease awarding prior 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-134

experience points for grantees that do not meet certain minimum program requirements and 

cease awarding partial prior experience points. The report further recommended that the 

Department improve its quality controls and use clearly documented data to support the 

calculations of prior experience (PE) points. The Department addressed these

recommendations by revising program regulations governing the awarding of PE points—

published October 26, 2010—and by implementing a fully transparent, equitable, and objective 

process for calculating each grantee’s PE points. As stated in the program regulations for each 

of the Federal TRIO programs, an applicant that is eligible for PE points will not receive any PE 

points for the assessment year if the project served less than 90 percent of the number of 

participants the project was funded to serve in that year. 

For all TRIO grant competitions since the OIG report was issued (the fiscal year 2010 Student 

Support Services competition, the fiscal year 2011 Talent Search and Educational Opportunity 

Centers grant competitions, and the fiscal year 2012 Upward Bound and McNair grant 

competitions), the Department has successfully implemented improved processes for 

calculating PE points. The Department uses a grantee’s annual performance report (APR) data 

that are submitted electronically and the grantee’s approved project objectives to calculate the 

PE points earned. By using technology to ensure consistent and fair evaluations of a grantee’s 

performance, the Department has substantially improved the quality and consistency of the PE 

assessments by eliminating calculation and transposition errors inherent in a manual process. 

Further, to ensure transparency in how the results of these analyses are reported to grantees, 

the Department prepares individualized grantee PE reports that summarize the Department’s 

policies and procedures used in assessing a grantee’s prior experience, clearly display each of 

the PE calculations, and provide individualized explanations when full points are not awarded.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-135

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 2)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

Period of Fund Availability2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

$302,244 $302,244 1$302,244 0

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) provides 

6-year grants to States and partnerships to support early college preparation and awareness 

activities at the State and local levels to ensure low-income elementary, middle, and secondary 

school students are prepared for and pursue postsecondary education. Applicants may also 

apply for an optional seventh year of funding to provide services at an institution of higher 

education to follow students through their first year of college attendance. 

GEAR UP has two major service components. First, projects provide a comprehensive set of 

early intervention services including mentoring, tutoring, academic and career counseling, and 

other college preparation activities like exposure to college campuses and financial aid 

information and assistance. Second, projects provide college scholarships to participating 

students. In making awards to State applicants, the Department must give priority to funding 

entities that have carried out successful GEAR UP programs prior to enactment of the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act, have a prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention 

programs, and ensure that students previously served by GEAR UP programs receive services 

through the completion of secondary school. States and partnerships must provide matching 

funds of at least 50 percent of the total project costs with cash or in-kind contributions from 

nonfederal sources accrued over the full duration of the grant award. The Department may 

authorize a reduction in the required match for partnerships under certain circumstances. 

GEAR UP supports two types of grants:

State Grants—States receiving funds are required to provide both an early intervention and a 

scholarship component, targeted to low-income students in grades K-12. At least 50 percent, 

but not more than 75 percent, of the grant funds must be used to provide scholarships to 

participating students. Conversely, at least 25 percent, but not more than 50 percent, of the 

funds must be used for early intervention services. State grantees must, unless they request a 

waiver, hold in reserve funds for scholarships equivalent to the effective minimum Pell grant 

amount multiplied by the number of students the project is serving that the State estimates will 

enroll in an eligible institution of higher education. The State must make these funds available

to eligible students who meet certain benchmarks. These scholarships are portable and may be
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-136

used outside the State in which the GEAR UP program is located. States must provide all 

students served by the program with a personalized 21st Century Scholar Certificate to indicate 

the amount of Federal financial aid that they may be eligible to receive for college. 

Partnership Grants—Partnerships receiving funds are required to provide an early intervention 

component to at least one cohort or grade level of students beginning no later than the 7th

grade, in a school that has a 7th grade and in which at least 50 percent of the students enrolled 

are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch—or to an entire grade level of students, not later than 

the 7th grade, who reside in public housing. Partnerships must ensure that services will 

continue to be provided through the 12th grade. Partnerships may also provide scholarships. 

Partnerships must provide all students served by the program with a personalized 21st Century 

Scholar Certificate to indicate the amount of Federal financial aid that they may be eligible to 

receive for college. Partnerships must include one or more degree granting institutions of 

higher education, one or more local educational agency, and at least two community 

organizations or entities such as businesses, professional associations, State agencies, or other 

public or private organizations. 

Of the amount appropriated for GEAR UP, not less than 33 percent must be used to fund State 

grants and not less than 33 percent must be used to fund Partnership grants, with the remainder 

being awarded at the Department’s discretion, taking into consideration the number, quality, and 

promise of applications and, to the extent practicable, the geographic distribution of grants and 

the distribution of grants between urban and rural applicants. Additionally, up to 0.75 percent 

may be used to conduct a national evaluation of the GEAR UP program.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2009. ..................................................................................$313,212

2010. ....................................................................................323,212

2011. ....................................................................................302,816

2012. ....................................................................................302,244

2013. ....................................................................................302,244 1

______________ 1

 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $302.2 million for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for 

Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) in fiscal year 2014, the same as the fiscal year 2012 level. 

The Administration’s budget request for GEAR UP is based on the demonstrated promise of the 

program’s approach with some indications that GEAR UP is making progress in achieving its 

near-term objectives, such as increasing students’ and parents’ knowledge of postsecondary 

opportunities and increasing rigorous course-taking. GEAR UP supports State efforts and builds 

partnerships within communities, targets entire cohorts of students in high-poverty middle schools, 

provides students with a full range of services through the 12th grade, and in some cases through 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-137

the first year of college, and offers financial support to attend college. By targeting entire grades 

of students no later than the 7th grade, serving them throughout middle and high school, and 

providing them with significant scholarship funding, GEAR UP offers a unique approach to 

ensuring that low-income students have the skills and resources to attend college. Early 

evaluation findings suggest that GEAR UP has some positive impacts through the 8th grade. 

Furthermore, the considerable State and local investments GEAR UP requires, through both the 

creation of partnerships and matching contributions, help ensure that the program will have a 

sustainable impact on the educational outcomes of low-income middle and high school students.

Most of the requested funds will be used to support continuation awards for State and Partnership 

grantees that were successful in the fiscal year 2011 competition. With the remaining funds, the 

Department will use approximately $57 million for a new competition for State and Partnership 

awards. This competition would further align the program with the Administration’s college 

completion agenda, potentially including an emphasis on effective college selection counseling. 

The Department believes a stronger emphasis on college selection is particularly important as 

research indicates that significant numbers of low-income students do not end up choosing 

colleges that match their levels of academic preparation. This phenomenon, known as “undermatching,” can negatively impact students’ likelihood of graduating, as students who select an 

institution for which they are overqualified tend to earn degrees at lower rates than their peers 

who select colleges for which they are appropriately matched. The competition may also 

encourage projects to assist high school students identified as likely to need remedial instruction 

in the future. Funds will also be used to support the web data collection contract and the 

evaluation component of the College Savings Account Demonstration Project, which was initiated 

in fiscal year 2013. The Administration is requesting appropriations language permitting the 

Department to exceed the statutory cap on evaluation spending to build additional evidence about 

effective college access and completion strategies.

The Department will continue to work with the GEAR UP community and grantees over the next 

year to standardize data collection, including through the use of third party data systems, and 

strengthen the program’s design in order to increase college access and completion in 

anticipation of HEA reauthorization in 2014.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

State Grants:

State:Number of new awards 7 2 6

State:Average new award $4,390 $4,407 $4,833

State:State:Total new award funding $30,729 $8,815 $29,000 1

State:Number of NCC awards 27 34 29

State:Average NCC award $3,729 $3,865 $3,815

State:Total NCC award funding $109,624 2 $122,478 $119,442

State:Total award funding $140,353 2 $131,292 $148,442

State:Total number of awards 34 36 35
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-138

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Partnership Grants:

Partnershi p:Number of new awards 4 4 23

Partnershi p:Average new award $1,214 $839 $1,209

Partnershi p:Total new award funding $4,856 $3,356 $27,809 1

Partnershi p:Number of NCC awards 94 91 64

Partnershi p:Average NCC award $1,645 $1,717 $1,925

Partnershi p:Total NCC award funding $154,633 $156,250 $123,191

Partnershi p:Total award funding $159,489 $159,606 $150,999

Partnershi p:Total number of awards 98 95 87

Savings Account Demonstration 

Supplements 0 $8,936 0

Evaluation $2,267 $2,267 $2,267 1

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 7 400

Web data collection $127 $135 $135

Undistributed 7 0 0

Total program funding $302,244 $302,244 $302,244

Total number of awards 132 131 3 122 . .

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

1 The Department has not determined the distribution of funding between State and Partnership 

awards in FY 2014 or the amount to be set aside for evaluation, so this number may change.

 2 Includes $8,936 thousand used to cover 2013 continuation costs for high-performing grantees that 

were originally funded in fiscal year 2011. This was done to ensure sufficient funds would be available in 

fiscal year 2013 for Savings Account supplements. These funds are excluded from the “average NCC 

award” calculations.

 

3

 Does not include the supplemental awards made to States participating in the College Savings 

Account Demonstration Project. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2014

and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-139

Goal: To significantly increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to 

enter and succeed in postsecondary education. 

Objective: Increase the rate of high school graduation and enrollment in postsecondary 

education of GEAR UP students.

Measure: The percentage of GEAR UP high school seniors who graduated from high school.

Year Target Actual

2009 74.0 N/A

2010 86.0 N/A

2011 86.0 85.2

2012 86.0

2013 87.0

2014 87.0

Additional Information: This measure indicates the percentage of GEAR UP high school 

seniors that graduated from high school. That is, the denominator used in the calculation includes 

only those GEAR UP participants that persisted until the 12th grade. In the notice inviting 

applications for the 2011 State and Partnership grant competitions, the Department indicated that 

it plans to change the methodology for this performance measure to match the adjusted cohort 

graduation rate methodology, recently established as the standard for the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act Title I program. Since there were no new cohorts served in fiscal years 

2003 and 2004, there were no GEAR UP students expected to graduate in 2009 or 2010. 

Consequently, no data are available for this measure for 2009 and 2010. The figure reported for 

2011 relates to the 2005 cohort. 

Measure: The percentage of former GEAR UP high school graduates who immediately enrolled 

in college.

Year Target Actual

2009 66.0 N/A

2010 59.0 N/A

2011 59.0 60.1

2012 60.0

2013 60.0

2014 61.0

Additional Information: This measure indicates the percent of GEAR UP students who 

graduated from high school and enrolled in postsecondary education the following September. 

Data from NCES put the performance data into context. According to NCES, 70.1 percent of all 

high school completers enrolled in postsecondary education immediately following high school 

graduation in 2009. In that same year, 54.1 percent of low-income students enrolled in 

postsecondary education immediately following high school graduation, according to the same 

NCES research. Since there were no new cohorts served in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, there 

were no GEAR UP students expected to enroll in college in 2009 or 2010. Consequently, no data 

are available for this measure for 2009 and 2010. The figure reported for 2011 relates to the 

2005 cohort. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-140

Objective: Increase the academic performance and preparation for postsecondary education of 

GEAR UP students.

Measure: The percentage of GEAR UP students who enrolled in pre-algebra by the end of the 

7th grade who passed the course and the percentage of GEAR UP students enrolled in Algebra I 

by the end of the 9th grade who passed the course.

Year Pre-algebra Target Pre-algebra Actual Algebra I Target Algebra I Actual

2009 35 27 50 53

2010 32 35 50 52

2011 32 30 50 57

2012 33 51

2013 33 51

2014 34 53

Additional Information: This measure tracks completion rates for two mathematics classes that 

research has shown are key indicators of college readiness. Data for this measure, collected 

through Annual Performance Reports, reflect student completion levels from the prior year. It 

should be noted that, as the measure tracks only the percent of those students who are enrolled 

that pass the class, the percentage of the entire cohort who are on the path to college-readiness 

is likely to be considerably lower. 

Efficiency Measures

The efficiency measure for this program is the cost of a successful outcome, where success is 

defined as enrollment in postsecondary education by GEAR UP students immediately following 

high school graduation. The Department is still determining how best to calculate this measure 

but one option is to divide the annual funding supporting closeout grantees (grantees serving 

cohorts that would be expected to graduate and enroll 12th graders in a particular reporting year) 

by the total number of postsecondary enrollees they produce. For instance, the 123 grantees that 

began serving 7th graders in 2005 would be expected to enroll their participants in college during 

the 2011-12 school year. Using this methodology, the annual cost per successful outcome for this 

GEAR UP cohort was $1,671. The Department provided approximately $192 million per year to 

the grantees in this cohort, which produced 114,983 postsecondary enrollees. It is important to 

note that this measure uses the strictest possible definition of “successful outcome.” For instance, 

students from this cohort who graduate high school with the help of GEAR UP programs but do 

not enroll in postsecondary education are not considered “successes” under this methodology. 

Other Performance Information

Prior evaluation:

In 2001, the Department initiated an evaluation on the early effects of the GEAR UP program. 

This study, which was released in 2008, reported on the program’s impact on participants 

attending middle schools and their parents, and the effects of GEAR UP on middle schools and 

on the sustainability of the program’s activities after Federal funds are no longer available. The 

study did not report on two key outcomes of interest—secondary school graduation and 

postsecondary enrollment—because the data were not yet available. Overall, the study found 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-141

that GEAR UP had significant impacts on students’ and parents’ knowledge and behavior and on 

the academic offerings at GEAR UP schools. Regarding GEAR UP students and their parents, 

the study included the following findings: 

• Students in GEAR UP middle schools were offered and took more rigorous academic courses 

than students in the non-GEAR UP schools, particularly above-grade-level science and 

algebra courses.

• GEAR UP especially affected the overall academic rigor of courses taken by African American 

students, who took more high-level classes than their non-GEAR UP peers.

• GEAR UP had a positive effect on students’ knowledge concerning the postsecondary 

education opportunities available to them. This was particularly true for African American 

students. GEAR UP students were more likely to visit college campuses and receive 

information about getting ready for college.

• GEAR UP had positive effects on improving parents’ knowledge about postsecondary

education opportunities and on parents’ involvement in their children’s education. GEAR UP 

increased parents’ expectations about college for their child.

• GEAR UP schools provided more services than non-GEAR UP schools. Tutoring and 

academic activities, to individuals or in small groups, remained at the core of GEAR UP 

services. GEAR UP increased the amount of guidance counseling that students received.

Impacts were not found for other outcomes such as grade point averages, but that seems 

consistent with an increase in rigorous course-taking behavior. The study also did not find any 

impact on school attendance or disciplinary problems, or on students’ academic expectations, 

which were already high.

The study noted that GEAR UP middle schools are more likely than non-GEAR UP middle 

schools to offer honors and above grade level classes. This finding is significant because the 

study also found that enrolling in higher level classes is usually not the student’s decision, but a 

function of the availability of such courses and decisions made by guidance counselors using 

teacher recommendations, standardized test scores or class grades.

The study also included findings that may be useful in shaping program improvements and 

guiding the Department’s technical assistance efforts. GEAR UP grants provide services to 

cohorts of students in both middle and high school. The study found that many grantees 

encountered difficulties in transitioning their projects from middle school into high school. The 

study also noted that the difficulties experienced by grantees, such as inadequate staffing and 

administrative barriers, were similar to those experienced 2 years earlier when the grants were 

initially implemented in the middle school. Projects experiencing the smoothest transitions tended 

to provide services to high school students that were similar to those provided to middle school 

students. The study also found evidence that some aspects of GEAR UP will be sustained in 

middle schools beyond Federal funding. The prospects for sustainability appear strongest in 

those projects with strong partnerships, school administrative commitment, and the ability to 

secure financial resources from other sources.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-142

Current evaluations: 

• The Department is concluding an evaluation designed both to identify promising practices and 

to build grantees’ capacity to evaluate their own projects. Through a contractor, the 

Department issued planning awards to 44 GEAR UP grantees in fiscal year 2010 to design 

evaluations of specific interventions. After peer reviewers assessed these 44 plans, the 

contractor issued 12 implementation awards to the grantees with the most sophisticated 

proposed evaluation strategies; 11 of these grantees have provided reports on their respective 

intervention to the Department. While the contractor provided guidance to grantees in 

developing individual evaluation reports, these reports were intended to be independent 

reports that summarized the implementation of the strategy/service and the rigorous 

evaluation undertaken by each grantee, with an emphasis on significant outcomes or lessons 

learned about what worked and why. The contractor was also tasked with writing an 

Executive Summary that described the activities that were undertaken to help build evaluation 

capacity within the GEAR UP program. In this summary, the contractor included a 

comprehensive overview of each phase undertaken, discussing the major components of 

each phase, the technical support provided to grantees, and any challenged encountered at 

each phase. The summary also included a careful review of each grantee report covering 

specific goals, accomplishments, limitations, and lessons learned. 

• In addition, the Department is concluding an evaluation activity designed to assist GEAR UP 

grantees in obtaining and using longitudinal student-level data to improve the services 

delivered by their projects. GEAR UP grantees have traditionally used only their own project 

data to complete their annual performance reports and to guide their own project improvement 

strategies. However, as student-level longitudinal data becomes more readily available, from 

States, districts, and other sources, GEAR UP grantees have opportunities to access new 

information that can be used to measure student performance, better align program services 

with student needs, identify factors that contribute to student success, and track student 

outcomes over time. In order to aid GEAR UP grantees in accessing and utilizing these 

additional sources of data, the Department, through an independent contractor, reviewed 

proposals from 25 grantees and selected 9 grantees to receive data utilization awards. 

Through the help of a contractor, these grantees will produce reports summarizing how they

used their data to improve practices within their project. The project also established an online resource center to ensure that grantees have access to the most current information 

about data access and data analysis and to facilitate the sharing of information about 

strategies for acquiring and analyzing data. 

The Department has elected not to exercise the option year period under this contract but 

plans to use the funds that were initially reserved for this option year to support more 

comprehensive program evaluation and technical assistance activities that will have a broader

impact on more GEAR UP grantees and that will provide the Department comparable data for 

program improvement and accountability purposes.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-143

Upcoming evaluation:

In January of 2013, the Department published a notice inviting applications to participate in a 

College Savings Account Demonstration project. All State grantees that received new awards in 

fiscal year 2011 or 2012 are eligible to apply for supplemental grants to support college savings 

accounts for participating students. Successful applicants are required to participate in a rigorous 

evaluation that will assess the effectiveness of pairing college savings accounts with additional 

services already provided through GEAR UP. The Department awarded this evaluation contract 

at the end of fiscal year 2012.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-144

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part A, Subpart 2)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: $35,000

Budget Authority:

2012 2013 2014 

Change 

from 2012

$30,909 $30,9091 $30,909 0

 1

Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) provides fellowships, through 3-year 

grants to degree-granting postsecondary institutions, to graduate students of superior ability and 

high financial need studying in areas of national need. The Department may also award grants 

to non-degree-granting institutions that have formal arrangements for the support of doctoral 

dissertation research with degree-granting institutions. Applicants must set forth policies and 

procedures to ensure that they will seek talented students from traditionally underrepresented 

backgrounds. Recipients must have excellent academic records and financial need and must 

be pursuing a doctoral degree or the highest graduate degree in the academic field at the 

institution of higher education that they are attending.

After consultation with appropriate agencies and organizations, such as the National Science 

Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security, the 

Department designates those fields of study that are considered “areas of national need” by 

taking into account the extent to which those areas fulfill a compelling national interest, the 

extent to which other Federal programs support post-baccalaureate studies in those areas, and 

the most significant impact that can be made with available resources. The designated areas of 

national need for fiscal year 2012 were: area studies; biological sciences/life sciences; 

chemistry; computer and information sciences; engineering; foreign languages and literatures; 

mathematics; nursing; physics; and educational evaluation, research, and statistics.

Institutions use program funds to award fellowships of up to 5 years of study. Each fellowship 

consists of a student stipend to cover living costs, and an institutional payment to cover each 

fellow's tuition and other expenses. The stipend is the lesser of demonstrated need or the level 

of support provided by the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowships 

program. The institutional payment is adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-145

Institutions must match 25 percent of the Federal grant amount. The institutional match may be 

used for the following: to provide additional fellowships to graduate students not already receiving 

institutional or GAANN fellowships; to meet the cost of tuition, fees, and other instructional costs 

that are not covered by the institutional payment; and to supplement the stipend received by a 

fellow in an amount not to exceed the fellow's financial need. Institutions must also provide 

fellows with at least 1 year of supervised training in instruction for students.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

• .......

iscal Y

 (dollars in thousands)

2009....................................................................................... 31,030

2010....................................................................................... 31,030

2011....................................................................................... 30,968

2012....................................................................................... 30,909

2013....................................................................................... 30,9091

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $30.9 million for the GAANN program for fiscal year 2014, level 

with fiscal year 2012. Through its support of study in key disciplines, GAANN helps address the 

problem of insufficient numbers of students pursuing graduate-level education in critical 

scientific and technical fields and other areas of national need. GAANN provides students with 

exceptional promise and high financial need with the resources that they need to pursue 

graduate studies. This request recognizes the role that graduate education plays in the 

advancement of national prosperity, particularly in areas of national need, and demonstrates the 

Administration’s commitment to educational achievement at the graduate level.

The funds requested would be used to make 17 new awards and cover the continuation costs of 

awards previously made under the GAANN and Javits fellowship programs. The Administration 

proposed consolidating these programs in its fiscal year 2012 request and Congress responded 

by eliminating separate funding for the Javits fellowship program in the 2012 appropriation bill. 

The funds provided in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill for Javits fellowships were used to 

cover the fiscal year 2012 continuation costs for the Javits fellowships. For 2014, the 

Administration requests appropriations language, identical to the language requested by the 

Administration for 2013, to use funds provided for GAANN to support the final year of 

continuations for Javits fellowships.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-146

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 footnotes2013 2014

Number of new awards 136 27 17

Number of new fellowships 479 111 60

Average new award $156 $184 $159

Total new award funding $21,278 $5,010 $2,700

Number of NCC awards 64 136 163

Number of NCC fellowships 210 479 590

Average NCC award $146 $158 $162

Total NCC funding $9,328 $21,449 $26,400

Average institution payment $14 $15 $15

Average stipend $30 $30 $30

Total average fellowship $44 $45 $45

Peer review of new award 

applications $266 0 $309

Funds returned to Treasury $36 1 $40 1 0 1

Number of NCC Javits fellowships 0 2 100 33

Average NCC Javits fellowship 0 $45 $45

Total NCC Javits funding 0 $4,450 $1,485

Total number of awards 200 263 3 213 3

Total number of fellowships 689 690 683

Total program funding $30,909 $30,909 $30,909

 NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

1 Awards are statutorily required to be equivalent in size to the National Science Foundation fellowships. 

Therefore, a portion of the program’s appropriation remains unspent after the maximum number of fellowships of the 

predetermined size are awarded. Each year, these remaining funds expire and are returned to Treasury. 2 The funds provided in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill for Javits fellowships were used to cover the fiscal 

year 2012 continuation costs for the Javits fellowships. 3 This figure represents the number of GAANN awards plus the number of Javits fellowships.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. Even though we are proposing to use GAANN funds in 2013 and 2014 to cover the 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-147

costs of Javits fellowships, neither the targets for 2013 and 2014 nor any of the data reported 

reflect the performance of Javits fellows.

Goal: To increase the number of persons trained at the highest academic level.

Objective: To increase the number of students of superior academic ability completing the 

terminal degree in designated areas of national need in order to alleviate that need.

Measure: The percentage of GAANN fellows completing the terminal degree in the designated 

areas of national need.

Year Target Actual

2009 48 60

2010 58 65

2011 58 67

2012 59

2013 59

2014 60

Additional Information: The data used to calculate this performance measure come from the 

program’s final performance reports, the Department’s Grants and Payments database, and the 

GAANN program database. The measure is calculated by dividing the number of GAANN 

fellows in the last year of their fellowships who have successfully completed their doctoral studies 

by the total number of GAANN fellows who are in the last year of their fellowships. Because a 

fellow can receive no more than 5 years of funding and most doctoral students take 6-7 years to 

complete their doctoral programs, advancing to candidacy is used as a proxy for degree 

completion where appropriate.

For example, in 2008, 39 percent of the fellows who were considered successful had advanced 

to candidacy and 23 percent had completed degrees. Use of such proxy data may inflate the 

performance data, as most, but not all, doctoral candidates who advance to candidacy actually 

complete their doctoral degrees. In fiscal year 2011, GAANN fellows exceeded the target 

completion rate for the seventh year in a row. 

In 2008, the Department completed a comprehensive evaluation of all of the Department's 

graduate fellowship programs, including the GAANN program. It found that 78 percent of 

GAANN fellows completed the degree they were pursuing within 10 years of receiving their 

award between 1997-1999, with an additional 9 percent still enrolled or otherwise pursuing their 

degrees. In contrast, the study cited national data from the Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study indicating that 62 percent of U.S. students who enrolled in a graduate degree 

program completed that degree program within 10 years. As such, the study’s findings seem to 

confirm the validity of the annual performance report data.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-148

Measure: Median time to degree completion.

Year Target Actual

2009 5.9 4.9

2010 5.1 5.0

2011 5.1 4.9

2012 5.0

2013 5.0

2014 5.0

Additional Information: This measure, along with the measure on the percent completing, 

shows that the program supports fellows who have a high likelihood of successfully completing 

their degree in a relatively short period of time. Data collected through annual performance 

reports show that the program had a median time to completion of 4.9 years in 2011. According 

to the most recent national data provided by the National Opinion Resource Center’s annual 

Survey of Earned Doctorates, the median time to doctoral degree completion for all graduate 

programs in the United States was 7.7 years in 2009. During that same period, the average 

time to completion was 6.7 years for the physical sciences, 6.9 years for engineering, and 

7.0 years for life sciences. These figures are not directly comparable to those of the GAANN 

program, insofar as they begin counting years to completion at first enrollment into graduate 

education, not necessarily doctoral work. Moreover, the GAANN completion rate does include 

students completing Master’s programs who are likely to complete their degrees in a few years. 

However, research shows that students with high financial need, such as those served by the 

GAANN program, typically take longer to complete terminal graduate degrees than the national 

student body as a whole. As such, achieving a level of performance that is comparable or 

better than the national average for graduate students suggests that the program is successfully 

meeting its performance goal. Notably, the median time to completion for GAANN fellows has 

held steady around 5.0 years since 2007. 

In 2008, the Department’s comprehensive evaluation of all of the Department's graduate 

fellowship programs, including the GAANN program, found that GAANN fellows pursuing a 

doctoral degree who received a grant between 1997 and 1999 completed their degrees in an 

average of 6 years. The study also found that GAANN doctoral fellows completed their degrees 

in less time than the averages of 8 to 9 years reported by doctorate recipients in the 1990s and 

early 2000s on the Survey of Earned Doctorates. The study’s findings seem to confirm the 

validity of the performance data.

Efficiency Measure

The efficiency measure for this program is the cost of a successful outcome, where success is 

defined as terminal graduate program completion. This measure is directly tied in with the 

program’s performance measures.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-149

Measure: Cost per PhDs and those who pass preliminary exams.

Year Target Actual

2009 91,000 73,268

2010 N/A N/A

2011 70,000

2012 69,500

2013 69,000

2014 68,500

The data used to calculate the efficiency measure come from the program’s final performance 

reports, the Department’s Grants and Payments database, and the GAANN program database. 

The efficiency measure is calculated by dividing the total amount of Federal funds provided to 

support a cohort of fellows for the 3 years of the grant period by the number of GAANN fellows 

who complete their degree or successfully advance to candidacy during the 5-year fellowship 

period. For example, the cost reported for 2009 was derived by dividing the total Federal 

funding for the 2004 cohort, which was $28.4 million, by the total number of fellows who either 

completed their degree or passed preliminary exams by 2009, which was 388, for an efficiency 

measure of $73,268. Under the program’s funding structure, no new fellowships are awarded 

every third year, which is why there are no data or targets for 2010. As the efficiency measure 

is based on data from a relatively small number of students, significant year-to-year fluctuations 

may be expected. This may reduce the usefulness of the measure at the program level. 

However, given the improvements in cost per outcome since 2005, more ambitious targets have 

been established for 2011 through 2014.

The efficiency measure data, along with data from other performance measures, were part of 

grantee-level analyses that the Department posted to its website in 2008. Grantee-level data 

analyses will be used to identify institutions that may benefit from technical training in areas 

such as data collection and reporting. It may also be used to identify high performers that other 

grantees may look to as examples for improving program performance outcomes. Additionally, 

data from the grantee-level analyses may be used to compare the relative efficiency of the 

GAANN program over time, as well as in relation to other programs that provide graduate 

fellowships.

Other Performance Information

A study of the Department’s graduate fellowship programs was initiated in 2004. The study was 

designed to provide information on educational and employment outcomes of participants in the 

Department’s graduate fellowship programs, including the GAANN program. The final report 

was published in September 2008. In order to be able to examine completion and employment 

outcomes for GAANN fellows, the study tracked the characteristics and progress of two cohorts 

of GAANN fellows, from the years 1997-1998. The study noted the following characteristics of 

GAANN fellows:

• GAANN awards are concentrated in a relatively small number of institutions of higher 

education. For example, of the approximately 2,000 institutions that granted a master’s 

degree or higher in 2004, only about 4 percent had enrolled a GAANN fellow between 1997 

and 1999;
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-150

• GAANN fellows included relatively more women (40 percent), more White students 

(80 percent), more Black students (7 percent), and fewer Asian students (8 percent) than all 

graduate students in comparable fields in the years that the study examined;

• About 19 percent of fellows studied in biological sciences, 19 percent in physics, 18 percent 

in engineering, 18 percent in mathematics, 14 percent in chemistry, 8 percent in computer 

and information science, and about 3 percent in other fields;

• Three quarters of fellows first received GAANN funding during their first year of graduate 

study. Twenty-one percent reported that their funding ended their first year of graduate 

study, 22 percent their second year, 24 percent their third year, and 34 percent in the fourth 

year or after; and

• Slightly over three-quarters of fellows received additional funding from their institutions; 

45 percent in equal or lower amounts and the remaining in amounts greater than the 

GAANN funding.

The study also investigated the extent to which fellowship recipients completed their doctoral 

studies and obtained employment in areas that correspond to their fields of study. Of the 

GAANN fellows receiving awards between 1997 and 1999:

• About three-quarters (78 percent) had completed the degree supported by the GAANN 

fellowship within 10 years. In addition, another 9 percent were still pursuing these degrees, 

and 13 percent had stopped working on them. In contrast, national data from the 

Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study show that 10 years after completing their 

bachelor’s degrees, 62 percent of U.S. students who enrolled in a graduate degree program 

completed that degree, 15 percent were still enrolled, and 23 percent had dropped out;

• The average time to degree completion among GAANN doctoral fellows was 6 years and 

66 percent of fellows who completed their degree did so within 7 years. The study found 

that GAANN doctoral fellows completed their degrees in less time than the averages of 8 to 

9 years reported by doctorate recipients in comparable fields in the period that the study 

examined, according to the Survey of Earned Doctorates;

• A majority of fellows (88 percent) had worked in jobs in which they used the expertise they 

had gained through the GAANN-supported study. Of these fellows, 97 percent considered 

that work to be part of a long-term career they were pursuing; and

• When fellows were asked what they expected to be doing in the next 3 years, the majority 

(88 percent) reported they planned to be working in a job related to the expertise they 

gained with fellowship support.

These data indicate that GAANN fellows have higher graduation rates and complete their 

studies in less time than the national average for comparable academic fields. Furthermore, the 

study found that the overwhelming majority of GAANN fellows complete their studies and go on 

to find employment in areas that correspond to their field of studies.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-151

Finally, the study probed participants’ perceptions of the extent to which the GAANN fellowships 

influenced their decisions to enter their field of study and remain in their chosen career field. 

The data on the self-reported perception of program participants found that:

• Nearly all fellows (93 percent) first learned of the GAANN fellowship after they had chosen a 

major field of study to pursue in graduate school;

• Nearly all fellows (96 percent) believed that the GAANN fellowship had been somewhat or 

very helpful in finishing their degree, and 76 percent believed it was somewhat or very 

helpful in obtaining employment in their desired field.

These data highlight the fact that fellowship recipients do not perceive that the program 

influenced their choice of studies, but do believe that it was helpful in ensuring that they 

completed their course of studies and found employment in areas that correspond to their field 

of studies. A recent national survey by the Council of Graduate Schools found that 80 percent 

of doctoral completers credited financial support, such as fellowships and grants, as one of the 

main factors that contributed to their doctoral completion.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-152

Child care access means parents in school

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 7)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

Change

2012 2013 2014 from 2012

$15,970 $15,9701 $15,970 0

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program is designed to support 

the participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education through campus-based child 

care services. Under this program, discretionary grants of up to 4 years in duration are awarded 

competitively to institutions of higher education. Priority is given to child care programs that 

(1) leverage significant local or institutional resources and (2) utilize a sliding fee scale.

Institutions may use the funding to support or establish a campus-based child care program 

primarily serving the needs of low-income students enrolled at the institution. Grants may also 

be used to provide before and after school services. The authorizing statute defines a 

“low-income student” as a student eligible to receive a Pell Grant during the year of enrollment 

at the institution or who would otherwise be eligible to receive a Pell Grant, except that the 

student fails to meet the requirements of: (1) Section 401(c)(1) of the Higher Education Act 

(HEA) because the student is enrolled in a graduate or first professional course of study; or 

(2) Section 484(a)(5) of the HEA because the student is in the United States for a temporary 

purpose. Grants are only to be used to supplement existing child care services or start a new 

program. Funds may not be used for grants that supplant funds for current child care services.

An institution is eligible to receive a grant for a fiscal year if the total amount of Pell Grant funds 

awarded to students at the institution for the preceding fiscal year equals or exceeds $350,000. 

When the appropriation for the program reaches $20 million, this amount decreases to 

$250,000. The maximum grant award cannot exceed 1 percent of the total amount of all Pell 

Grant funds awarded to students enrolled at the institution during the preceding fiscal year. The 

minimum grant amount is $10,000. This amount increases to $30,000 when the program’s 

appropriation reaches $20 million.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

T-153

Grantees must submit annual reports to the Department regarding their activities. The reports 

must contain data on the population served by the grant; information on campus and community 

resources and funding used to help low-income students access child care services; information 

on progress made toward accreditation of any child care facility; and information on the impact 

of the grant on the quality, availability, and affordability of campus-based child care services. 

An institution receives a continuation award only if the Department determines, on the basis of 

the annual reports, that the institution is making a good faith effort to ensure that low-income 

students have access to affordable, quality child care services.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2009.. ..................................................................................$16,034

2010.. ....................................................................................16,034

2011.. ....................................................................................16,002

2012.. ....................................................................................15,970

2013.. ....................................................................................15,9701

 1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $16 million for the CCAMPIS program, the same as the fiscal year 

2012 appropriation. The CCAMPIS program helps to ensure that low-income student parents 

enroll in, persist in, and complete postsecondary education by helping to meet their needs for 

affordable and convenient child care.

Data from the National Center for Education Statistics Descriptive Summary of 2003-04 

Beginning Postsecondary Students: Three Years Later, a longitudinal study (2004-2006),

indicated that by 2006, some 56 percent of students who were single parents when they first 

began at a 4-year institution were no longer enrolled and had not completed any certificate or 

degree, compared to 15 percent of dependent students (students under 24, unmarried, and with

no dependents of their own). Similarly, research shows that at 2-year public institutions, 

60 percent of beginning postsecondary students who were single parents in 2003-2004 were no 

longer enrolled and had not completed any certificate or degree—23 percentage points higher 

than the rate for dependent students. One barrier to completion for students with dependents, 

especially low-income students and single parents, is the lack of convenient and affordable 

quality child care services.

Fiscal year 2014 funding maintains support to enable institutions to sustain or establish 

campus-based child care programs; establish emergency back-up care and provide summer 

child care and before and after school services; subsidize the costs of child care for low-income 

students; and establish programs involving parents.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

T-154

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Number of new awards 0 100 55

Average new award 0 $103 $101

Total new award funding 0 $10,294 $5,576

Number of NCC awards 153 55 100

Average NCC award $104 $100 $103

Total NCC award funding $15,970 $5,517 $10,294

Peer review of new award applications 0 $159 $100

Total award funding $15,970 $15,970 $15,970

Total number of awards 153 155 155

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To support the participation of low-income parents in the postsecondary 

education system through the provision of campus-based child care services. 

Objective: Increase access for low-income parents to postsecondary institutions.

Measure: Percentage of CCAMPIS program participants enrolled at CCAMPIS grantee 

institutions receiving child care services who remain in postsecondary education at the end of 

the academic year, as reported in the annual performance report.

Year 4-year/2-year

Target

4-year/2-year

Actual

4-year

Target

4-year

Actual

2-year

Target

2-year

Actual

2010 90.5 95.1 86.7

2011

2012

2013

2014 TBD TBD TBD
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

T-155

Additional information: The overall persistence rate in 2010 for students served by the 

2006 CCAMPIS cohort of grantees is 90.5 percent (3,218 out of 3,555 student participants). 

The persistence rate for 2010 is calculated by dividing the total number of participants in the 

program in the fall of 2009 by the number of students who, as of the end of the 2010 summer 

term, were either still attending, had transferred from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution of 

higher education, or had graduated. The Department is currently analyzing data for 2011 based

on annual performance reports from new grantees in the fiscal year 2009 competition. Data for 

2012 will be available in May 2013.

The Department dropped the performance measure that focused on completion rates at 4-year 

CCAMPIS grantee institutions. The methodology used for this measure was problematic 

because the denominator included students who had not been in school long enough to 

graduate even if they persisted without interruption. Instead, the CCAMPIS program will report 

data for graduation rates at 2-year CCAMPIS grantee institutions only. The new measure will 

be the percentage of CCAMPIS grantee participants enrolled at 2-year CCAMPIS grantee 

institutions who graduate within 3 years of enrollment. The new 2-year graduation measure is 

consistent with the Department’s standard graduation rate for 2-year institutions, calculated as 

the percentage of recipients who graduated from their postsecondary institution within 

150 percent of normal completion time. This means graduating within 3 years of beginning 

studies at a 2-year institution. The Department is currently analyzing data for 2011 based on 

annual performance reports from new grantees in the fiscal year 2009 competition. Once the 

Department has completed its analysis of the 2011 and 2012 data (which is expected to be 

available in May 2013), the Department will establish targets for the new completion measure. 

CCAMPIS grantees at 4-year institutions will continue to be required to submit completion rate 

data for students served by their projects, however, the data will not be aggregated to obtain 

completion rates at 4-year CCAMPIS grantee institutions.

The Department revised the annual performance report (APR) data form grantees use to submit 

performance data to the Department. The CCAMPIS project director and a certifying official at 

the institution will be required to certify that the information reported in the APR is accurate, 

complete, and readily verifiable. All student participants will be assigned a unique CCAMPIS 

participant identification (ID) number that will be used to track them throughout their 

postsecondary education. Grantees will use the same number for each participant each time

annual data is reported to the Department. Also, grantees will code whether each participant

has:

• Completed the term without completing his/her studies, graduating, transferring, or 

withdrawing during the term or at the end of the term;

• Earned a certificate/diploma, associate’s, bachelor’s, or teaching credential during or at the 

end of the term;

• Transferred from a 2-year institution of higher education to a 4-year institution or from one 

4-year institution to another 4-year institution during or at the end of the term;

• Officially withdrawn from the grantee-institution during the term;
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

T-156

• Not returned/dropped out/stopped out from the grantee-institution (without official notification 

to the institution) during the term;

• No further need for CCAMPIS funded services (examples: student is no longer eligible for 

Pell Grants; family member cares for the child; child aged out of care; etc.); and

• Participated in the CCAMPIS program while enrolled at the grantee-institution or declined 

CCAMPIS participation at any point while enrolled.

The CCAMPIS program serves a wide variety of student-parents with various needs. Multiple 

factors make it difficult to track students. Some students may not need services from year-toyear because their child is of school age, because they obtained alternative childcare from 

family members, or because of changes to the timing and number of hours required to attend 

class. The Department believes these revisions to the APR will yield more accurate persistence 

and completion data than what has been collected in the past. 

Efficiency Measure

The efficiency measure tracks student cost per successful outcome.

Measure: Federal cost per CCAMPIS student enrolled at CCAMPIS-grantee institutions 

receiving child care services who remain in postsecondary education at the end of the academic 

year, as reported in the annual performance report.

Year Target Actual

2010 $4,983

2011

2012

2013 TBD

2014 TBD

Additional information: For 2010, the cost per successful outcome of $4,983 was calculated 

by dividing the program allocation of $16,034,000 by 3,218, the total number of students 

persisting at 4-year and 2-year CCAMPIS-grantee institutions from the 2006 competition. The 

Department is currently analyzing data for 2011 for grantees from fiscal year 2009 competition.

Data for 2012 will be available May 2013.

Other Performance Information

Data from the 2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) showed that: 

• The majority of Pell Grant recipients with children under 12, like Pell Grant recipients overall 

and Pell Grant recipients with no children, were non-White, female, and single, widowed, or 

divorced. Pell Grant recipients with children of child care age were more likely than those 

without children to be women (81 versus 57 percent, respectively); Black, non-Hispanic 

(29 versus 21 percent); and married (32 versus 4 percent).
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

T-157

• Approximately 49 percent of Pell Grant recipients with children under age 5 and 31 percent of 

those whose youngest child was 5 to 11 reported using child care. Among Pell Grant 

recipients with children, those who reported using child care were more likely to be single 

parents than those not using child care, 72 percent compared to 54 percent.

• Child care was a major expense for Pell Grant recipients who used it. Average monthly child 

care expenditures for Pell Grant recipients with children under age 5 was higher than child 

care expenditures for those with children 5 to 11 ($390 versus $288 per month), or an 

average of $4,680 versus $3,450 per year, if annualized. 

Data from the 2009 and 2010 Grantee Performance Reports submitted in 2011 showed that:

• Forty-six percent of the institutions served are 2-year public institutions, 51 percent are 

4-year public institutions, and the remaining 3 percent are 4-year private institutions.

• Nearly all CCAMPIS participants were Pell Grant recipients (89 percent) and the vast majority 

were female (85 percent). In terms of race/ethnicity, the largest proportion of participants 

was White (48 percent), and a sizable minority were Hispanic or Latino (22 percent). 
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-158

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

(Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2014)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority:

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

607 $6072 $67,607 +$67,000

__________________

1 The Administration proposes to continue funding this program in fiscal year 2014 through appropriations 

language.

2

 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P. L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation program, first funded in fiscal year 2000, provides 

funds for data collection and evaluation activities for Higher Education Act (HEA) programs. 

The funding enables the Department to obtain data on performance measures needed to 

measure progress and to carry out evaluations of performance for HEA programs that do not 

have funds available for such activities, or where funding set-asides are not sufficient to cover 

costs. The Department makes a determination each year about the specific kinds of information 

that are needed to assess the performance of individual programs and gives priority to those 

that are most critical.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

(dollars in thousands)

2009 .......................................................................................... $609

2010 .............................................................................................609

2011 ............................................................................................ 608

2012 ............................................................................................ 607

2013 ............................................................................................. 6071

__________________

1

 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P. L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests funding of $67.6 million for GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation 

(GPRA/HEA) activities in fiscal year 2014, an increase of $67 million from the 2012 amount. The 

funding would allow the Department to conduct evaluations for programs authorized under the 
HIGHER EDUCATION

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

T-159

Higher Education Act that do not have funds available for such activities, or for where funding 

set-asides are not sufficient to cover costs; to collect and analyze data needed to measure 

program progress; and to conduct demonstrations and evaluations of alternative strategies for 

providing student aid.

The Administration is requesting an additional $67 million above the 2012 level to conduct 

research, evaluations, and demonstrations to test approaches for providing student financial aid 

in ways that promote postsecondary access, program completion, and high-quality, affordable 

education programs. In 2014, the Department plans to spend more than $180 billion on student 

aid. Given the size of this investment, the Department must understand how grants and loans 

are helping students to access postsecondary education and earn credentials. Research and 

experimentation are key to making student aid design and delivery more effective, so that 

students achieve their goals and the Nation remains globally competitive.

The Administration is requesting appropriations language that would allow the Department to 

use the funds for data collection, evaluation, research, and demonstration activities. The 

appropriations language also would allow the Department to conduct a wider array of 

experiments by paying for postsecondary tuition, fees, textbooks, and related costs for students 

who are participating in the funded studies. This would allow the Department to pay for 

expenses that normally would be covered by Pell grants for students who are not-Pell eligible 

because they do not have a high school diploma or its equivalent, such as high school students 

in dual enrollment programs.

Two specific projects that would be supported in 2014 are:

• Evaluation of the Experimental Sites Study. The Department used the 2012 GPRA/HEA 

funds, in combination with funding from Student Aid Administration and the Department of 

Labor, to support the evaluation of the Pell grant expansions under the Experimental Sites 

Study. The study was designed to assess the effects of offering Pell grants for job training 

to students who are income-eligible but would not quality for Pell grant funding, either 

because they already had a bachelor’s degree or because they planned to enroll in shorterterm training than currently allowed under the program. This 5-year study will examine the 

effects of expanded access to Pell grants on students’ employment and earnings. The 

Department plans to use the 2013 GPRA/HEA funding for the second year of the contract, 

with an additional $767,000 provided in 2014.

• Dual Enrollment Programs. The Department would use approximately $32 million of the 

requested GPRA/HEA funds, together with $10 million from Career and Technical Education 

(CTE) National Programs, on a demonstration and evaluation of dual enrollment programs. 

The demonstration would provide support to about 20,000 high school and adult students to 

allow them to earn postsecondary credit while they are still in high school or studying for a 

high school equivalency credential. Funding from GPRA/HEA would provide grants for 

tuition, fees, and supplies for students who are not eligible for Pell grants because they do 

not have a high school diploma.

Under CTE National Programs, the Department would make competitive awards to 

partnerships of institutions of higher education, local educational agencies that operate highneed public schools or adult education providers, and State and local agencies with 
HIGHER EDUCATION

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

T-160

responsibility for secondary and adult education and workforce training. (See the 

description in CTE National Programs in the Career, Technical, and Adult Education

account.) The partnerships would be eligible to apply for support services grants, and, on 

behalf of their students, grants to pay for any required tuition, fees, books, and supplies for 

postsecondary coursework for students who are not eligible for Pell grants because they are 

still enrolled in high school or do not have a high school diploma. The Department would 

give priority to dual-enrollment programs that demonstrate a cost-effectiveness approach. 

The amount of funding used for this project would depend on the number of partnerships 

and students, but at $1,500 per student, serving 20,000 students would cost $30 million.

Additional funding of approximately $2 million in 2014 would support an evaluation of the 

project that would test whether providing student aid increases access to dual enrollment 

programs and whether the programs improve college enrollment, credential attainment, and 

future earnings. The Department’s evaluation will build on earlier research that offers 

preliminary evidence suggesting dual enrollment programs lead to higher rates of college 

enrollment and completion.

The remaining funds would be used to evaluate the impact of one or more strategies for 

improving postsecondary access and outcomes. Strategies that might be tested include:

• Evaluating the impacts of different loan counseling models on borrower behavior. Strategies 

could include altering the timing, content delivery, and type of counseling provider. Schools 

provide counseling services before students take out loans to help them learn about 

repayment options, but the intensity and quality of counseling vary widely. An evaluation 

could identify effective counseling or other information dissemination practices that help 

borrowers better understand their debt obligations, limit their borrowing, avoid delinquency 

and default, and improve their repayment rates.

• Examining the effectiveness of risk-sharing in the Pell Grant program to encourage 

increased success for low-income students. Participating institutions would be eligible to 

receive additional funding for their Pell Grant students, but would only be able to keep the 

funds once each student meets certain milestones each semester, such as staying enrolled 

for a minimum amount of time, passing midterm examinations, or completing a course.

• Examining the impacts of consumer information on aid application and college selection. 

Consumer information made available to students through the College Scorecard and the 

Financial Aid Shopping Sheet is designed to help students and families make informed 

decisions about postsecondary institutions that provide the best value for them. An 

information experiment could help identify what types of consumer information (e.g., 

earnings by program) presented at different points in the college selection process have an 

impact on student aid behavior, including borrowing, and choice of college.

Multiple offices across the Department will collaborate to design and implement the dual 

enrollment demonstration and complete plans for additional studies, with one of the evaluation 

offices taking the lead for the evaluations to ensure high-quality research.
HIGHER EDUCATION

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

T-161

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Student financial assistance experimental sites study $607 $607 $767

Dual enrollment study and evaluation 0 0 32,000

Loan counseling study and evaluation 0 0 TBD

Risk sharing study and evaluation 0 0 TBD

Consumer information study and evaluation 0 0 TBD

Other activities, such as improvement of program

 performance measures

 0 0 TBD

Total 607 $607 $67,6077

_________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P. L. 112-175.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation program funds are used for data collection, analysis, or 

evaluation studies for programs authorized under HEA. These activities have played an 

important role in reporting performance data, making program improvements, informing 

budgetary decisions, and conducting program assessments.