HIGHER EDUC ATION

R-1

Department of Education

HIGHER EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Appropriations Language....................................................................................................R-1

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

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers .........................................................................R-6

Summary of Changes .........................................................................................................R-7

Authorizing Legislation......................................................................................................R-12

Appropriations History ......................................................................................................R-18

Significant Items in FY 2019 Appropriations Reports ........................................................R-19

Summary of Request........................................................................................................R-21

Activities:

Aid for institutional development ...................................................................................R-25

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions ..............................................................................R-59

Consolidated Minority-Serving Institutions Grant...........................................................R-70

Other aid for institutions:

International education and foreign language studies:

 Domestic programs................................................................................................R-74

 Overseas programs................................................................................................R-88

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher 

education................................................................................................................R-93

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions...........................R-99

Assistance for students:

Federal TRIO programs .........................................................................................R-105

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs....................R-117

Graduate assistance in areas of national need.......................................................R-124

Child care access means parents in school ...........................................................R-129

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education..............................................R-134

Teacher quality partnership.........................................................................................R-138
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-1

Appropriati ons Language

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, titles [II, ]1III, IV, V, [VI,]

2

and 

VII of the HEA, [the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961,]

3

and section 

117 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, [$2,312,356,000] 

$1,534,487,000: [Provided, 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:]

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:]

5

 [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 of the HEA may be used for evaluation:]

6

 

(Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2019.)

TITLE III GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. [305]304. (a) An institution of higher education that maintains an endowment fund 

supported with funds appropriated for title III or V of the HEA for fiscal year [2019]2020 may 

use the income from that fund to award scholarships to students, subject to the limitation in 

section 331(c)(3)(B)(i) of the HEA. The use of such income for such purposes, prior to the 

enactment of this Act, shall be considered to have been an allowable use of that income, 

subject to that limitation.7
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-2

(b) Subsection (a) shall be in effect until titles III and V of the HEA are reauthorized.8 

SEC. 307. Section 402H(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a–18(b)) is 

amended —

(a) in paragraph (2) —

(1) by striking "shall" and inserting "may" in the material before clause (i) in

subparagraph (A); and

(2) by inserting "the rigorous evaluation of the programs authorized by this

chapter, which may also include" after "primary purpose" in subparagraph (B);

and

(b) by striking paragraph (3) in its entirety and redesignating paragraph (4) as

paragraph (3).

(Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2019.)9

NOTE

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

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

R-3

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 ...[II,] This citation is deleted because no funds are 

requested for Teacher Quality Partnership in 

fiscal year 2020.

2...[VI,] This citation is deleted because no funds are 

requested for the Title VI International 

Education and Foreign Language Studies: 

Domestic Programs in fiscal year 2020.

3

[the Mutual Educational and Cultural 

Exchange Act of 1961,]

This citation is deleted because no funds are 

requested for the International Education and 

Foreign Language Studies: Overseas 

Programs in fiscal year 2020.

4

[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. This citation is 

deleted because no funds are requested for 

the Title VI International Education and 

Foreign Language Studies: Domestic and 

Overseas Programs in fiscal year 2020.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-4

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

5

[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. This 

citation is deleted because no funds are 

requested for the Title VI International 

Education and Foreign Language Studies: 

Domestic and Overseas Programs in fiscal 

year 2020.

6

[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 of the HEA 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 for evaluation. 

This citation is deleted because no funds are 

requested for GEAR UP in fiscal year 2020. 

TITILE III GENERAL PROVISIONS

7 SEC. [305]304. (a) An institution of higher 

education that maintains an endowment fund 

supported with funds appropriated for title III 

or V of the HEA for fiscal year [2019]2020

may use the income from that fund to award 

scholarships to students, subject to the 

limitation in section 331(c)(3)(B)(i) of the 

HEA. The use of such income for such 

purposes, prior to the enactment of this Act, 

shall be considered to have been an 

allowable use of that income, subject to that 

limitation.

This language permits institutions of higher 

education supported by funds authorized by 

title III or V of the HEA to use the income 

from their endowment fund to award 

scholarships to students.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-5

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

8

(b) Subsection (a) shall be in effect until 

titles III and V of the HEA are reauthorized.

This language recognizes that the preceding 

proviso shall remain in effect until the HEA is 

reauthorized.

9 SEC. 307. Section 402H(b) of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a–

18(b)) is amended —

(a) in paragraph (2) —

(1) by striking "shall" and inserting "may" in 

the material before clause (i) in

subparagraph (A); and

(2) by inserting "the rigorous evaluation of the 

programs authorized by this

chapter, which may also include" after 

"primary purpose" in subparagraph (B); and

(b) by striking paragraph (3) in its entirety and 

redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).

This language restores the Department’s 

ability to conduct impact evaluations to 

assess overall program effectiveness of the 

Federal TRIO Programs using the most 

rigorous methodological approaches.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-6

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2018 2019 2020

Discretionary:

Disc apprAppropriation................................................. $2,246,551 $2,312,356 $1,534,487

Mandatory: 

Mand apprAppropriation ............................................. 255,000 255,000 0

Mand apprSequester (P.L. 112-25)............................... -16,830 -15,810 0

Total, adjusted mandatory appropriation .......... 238,170 239,190 0

Total, adjusted discretionary and 

mandatory appropriation................................

2,484,721 2,551,546 1,534,487
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-7

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2019 Discretionary........................................................................ $2,312,356

2019 Mandatory ........................................................................... 239,190

2020 Discretionary........................................................................1,534,487

2020 Mandatory ........................................................................... 0 

Net change ............................................................................. -1,017,059

Discretionary:

2019 base

Change

from base

Increases:

Program:

Funding is requested for a new Consolidated MinorityServing Institution (MSI) Grant proposal to merge six 

existing Title III and V programs that have similar 

purposes and activities into a single new authority that 

would continue to provide funding for programs that 

specifically serve large numbers of minority students. 0 +$147,906

Subtotal, discretionary increases +147,906

Decreases:

Program:

Discretionar y: Decrease funding for individual HEA Title III and V 

program authorities because funding is requested under 

new MSI Consolidated Grant proposal.

 Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving Institutions $15,930 -15,930

 Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions 11,475 -11,475

 Strengthening Asian American and Native 

American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 3,864 -3,864

 Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal

Institutions 3,864 -3,864

 Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions 124,415 -124,415

 Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for 

Hispanic Americans 11,163 -11,163
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-8

Summary of Changes—Continued

(dollars in thousands)

Discretionary:

2019 base

Change

from base

Decreases:

Program:

Discretionar y: Eliminate funding for the Strengthening Institutions 

Program (SIP) because the Administration believes the 

SIP program is duplicative of approximately 9 other 

Title III and V programs that provide both discretionary 

and mandatory funding for a wide range of authorized 

institutional support activities including strengthening 

infrastructure and enhancing fiscal stability. $99,875 -$99,875

Discretionar y: Decrease funding for the Strengthening Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities program to refocus 

scarce Federal funds on higher priority programs and 

activities while maintaining the fiscal discipline required to

reduce the Federal deficit. 31,854 -4,255

Discretionar y: Decrease funding for the Minority Science and 

Engineering Improvement Program to refocus scarce 

Federal funds on higher priority programs and activities 

while maintaining the fiscal discipline required to reduce 

the Federal deficit. 11,135 -1,487

Discretionar y: Eliminate funding for International Education and Foreign 

Language Studies: Domestic Programs to refocus 

Federal education investments on flexible formula grant

programs serving the Nation’s most vulnerable student 

populations while reducing or eliminating funding for 

programs that are duplicative, ineffective, or more 

appropriately supported with State, local or private funds. 65,103 -65,103

Discretionar y: Eliminate funding for International Education and Foreign 

Language: Overseas Programs to refocus Federal 

education investments on flexible formula grant programs

serving the Nation’s most vulnerable student populations

while reducing or eliminating funding for programs that 

are duplicative, ineffective, or more appropriately 

supported with State, local or private funds. 7,061 -7,061
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-9

Summary of Changes—Continued

(dollars in thousands)

Discretionary:

2019 base

Change

from base

Decreases:

Program:

Discretionar y:Decrease funding for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary 

Career and Technical Institutions to refocus scarce 

Federal funds on higher priority programs and activities 

while maintaining the fiscal discipline required to reduce 

the Federal deficit. $9,564 -$1,278

Discretionar y: Decrease funding for the Federal TRIO Programs to a 

level at which the Department would still be able to fully 

fund all TRIO continuation awards and allocate significant 

funding to States through the proposal to transition TRIO 

from a series of competitive grant programs to a proposed 

State formula grant program. 1,060,000 -110,000

Discretionar y:Eliminate funding for Gaining Early Awareness and 

Readiness for Undergraduate Programs because many of 

the activities supported under GEAR UP can be 

supported through other programs, and there is limited 

rigorous evidence that the program is effective. 360,000 -360,000

Discretionar y: Eliminate funding for Graduate Assistance in Areas of 

National Need program because it is a high cost program 

that serves a small number of graduate students and is 

more appropriately supported through other Federal 

programs, as well as through institutional and other 

non-Federal resources. 23,047 -23,047

Discretionar y: Decrease funding for the Child Care Access Means 

Parents in School program to return the program to its 

funding level before the increases enabled by the 

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. 50,000 -34,866

Discretionar y: Eliminate funding for the Fund for the Improvement of 

Postsecondary Education because the Administration

believes that the awards made under the Open Textbook 

Pilot in fiscal years 2018 and 2019 are sufficient to provide 

a meaningful demonstration of the potential for open 

source textbooks to improve the quality of instruction while 

generating significant savings for students. 5,000 -5,000
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-10

Summary of Changes—Continued

(dollars in thousands)

Discretionary:

2019 base

Change

from base

Decreases:

Program:

Discretionar y: Eliminate funding for the Teacher Quality Partnership 

program because the Administration has determined that 

funding to support partnerships that enhance professional 

development activities and training for current and 

prospective teachers and staff may be provided through 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) formula 

grant funds (e.g., Title I, Title III), as well as from competitive 

grant programs. 

$43,092 -$43,092

Subtotal, discretionary decreases -925,775

Mandatory:

Decreases:

Program:

Mandator y: Eliminate funding for the mandatory Strengthening Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities program because the 

authorization of funding expires at the end of fiscal year 2019. 28,140 -28,140

Mandator y: Eliminate funding for the mandatory Strengthening Alaska 

Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions program 

because the authorization of funding expires at the end of

fiscal year 2019. 14,070 -14,070

Mandator y: Eliminate funding for the mandatory Strengthening 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities program 

because the authorization of funding expires at the end of

fiscal year 2019. 79,730 -79,730

Mandator y: Eliminate funding for the mandatory Strengthening 

Predominantly Black Institutions program because the 

authorization of funding expires at the end of fiscal year 2019. 14,070 -14,070

Mandator y: Eliminate funding for the mandatory Strengthening Asian 

American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving 

Institutions program because the authorization of funding 

expires at the end of fiscal year 2019. 4,690 -4,690

Mandator y: Eliminate funding for the mandatory Strengthening Native 

American-serving Nontribal Institutions program because the 

authorization of funding expires at the end of fiscal year 2019. 4,690 -4,690
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-11

Summary of Changes—Continued

(dollars in thousands)

Mandatory:

2019 base

Change

from base

Decreases:

Program:

Mandator y: Eliminate funding for the mandatory developing Hispanicserving Institutions STEM and Articulation programs because 

the authorization of funding expires at the end of fiscal year 

2019. $93,800 -$93,800

Subtotal, mandatory decreases -239,190

Net change -1,017,059
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

HIGHER EDUC ATION

R-12

R-12

R-12

Authorizing Legislation

Activity

2019

Authorized

footnote 2019 

Estimate

Footnot

e 2020

Authorized

Footnot

e 2020

Request

Footnot

e

Aid for institutional development:

Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities 

(HEA-III-A-316).................................................................... 0 $31,854 To be determined1 $27,599

Strengthening historically Black colleges and universities 

(HEA-III-B-323) ................................................................... 0 282,420 To be determined1 282,420

Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions

(HEA-III-B-326).................................................................... 0 73,037 To be determined1 73,037

Strengthening HBCU Master’s Program (HEA-VII-A-4-723) 0 8,657 To be determined1 8,657

Minority science and engineering improvement 

(HEA-III-E-1)........................................................................ 0 11,135 To be determined1 9,648

Consolidated MSI Grant (proposed legislation).......................... 0 0 To be determined1 147,906

Other aid for institutions:

Model comprehensive transition and postsecondary 

programs for students with intellectual disabilities into 

higher education (HEA-VII-D-2)........................................... 0 11,800 To be determined1 11,800

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical

institutions (Carl D. Perkins CTEA section 117)................... 9,763 9,564 9,8992 8,286

Federal TRIO programs (HEA IV-A-2-1).................................... 0 1,060,000 To be determined1 950,000

Child care access means parents in school (HEA-IV-A-7) ......... 0 50,000 To be determined1 15,134

Unfunded authorizations

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

Teacher quality partnership (HEA II-A) ...................................... 0 43,092 0 0

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

Aid for institutional development:

Strengthening institutions (HEA-III-A-311).............................. 0 99,875 0 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

R-13

Authorizing Legislation

Activity

2019

Authorized

footnote 2019 

Estimate

Footnot

e 2020

Authorized

Footnot

e 2020

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving 

institutions (HEA-III-A-317).................................................. 0 $15,930 0 0

Strengthening predominantly Black institutions 

(HEA-III-A-318).................................................................... 0 11,475 0 0

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal institutions 

(HEA-III-A-319).................................................................... 0 3,864 0 0

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific 

Islander-serving institutions (HEA-III-A-320)........................ 0 3,864 0 0

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

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

Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and Universities 

(HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory)................................................ $30,0003 28,1403 0 0

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving 

institutions (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory).............................. 15,0003 14,0703 0 0

Strengthening historically Black colleges and universities 

(HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory)................................................ 85,0003 79,730

3 0 0

Strengthening predominantly Black institutions 

(HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory)............................................... 15,0003 14,0703 0 0

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific 

Islander-serving institutions (HEA-III-F-371)(mandatory)..... 5,0003 4,6903 0 0

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal 

institutions (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) ................................. 5,0003 4,6903 0 0

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions:

Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation programs 

(HEA III-F-371(b)(2)(B)) (mandatory)...................................

100,0003 93,8003 0 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

R-14

Authorizing Legislation

Activity

2019

Authorized

footnote 2019 

Estimate

Footnot

e 2020

Authorized

Footnot

e 2020

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations

Assistance for students:

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate 

programs (HEA-IV-A-2-2) .................................................... 0 $360,000 40 0

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

Loan repayment for civil legal assistance attorneys 

(HEA-IV-B, section 428L) .................................................... 0 0 0 0

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions:

Developing Hispanic-serving institutions (HEA-V-A)............... 0 124,415 0 0

Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic 

Americans (HEA-V-B-512) (discretionary) ........................... 0 11,163 0 0 

International education and foreign language studies:

Domestic programs (HEA-VI-A and B).................................... 0 65,103 0 0

Overseas programs (MECEA-102(b)(6)) ................................ Indefinite 7,061 Indefinite 0

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

Science and technology advanced foreign language 

Education (HEA-VI-D-637) .................................................. 0 0 0 0

Javits fellowships (HEA-VII-A-1)................................................ 0 0 0 0

Graduate assistance in areas of national need (HEA-VII-A-2) ... 0 23,047 0 0

Thurgood Marshall legal educational opportunity program

(HEA-VII-A-3) ......................................................................... 0 0 0 0

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

(HEA-VII-B) ............................................................................ 0 5,000 0 0

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

College access challenge grant program

(HEA-VII-E) (discretionary)..................................................... 0 0 0 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

R-15

Authorizing Legislation

Activity

2019

Authorized

footnote 2019 

Estimate

Footnot

e 2020

Authorized

Footnot

e 2020

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations

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

(mandatory)............................................................................ 0 0 0 0

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

Mathematics and science scholars program (HEA-VIII-B) ......... 0 0 0 0

Business workforce partnerships for job skill training in high 

growth occupations or industries (HEA-VIII-C)........................ 0 0 0 0

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

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

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

Improving college enrollment by secondary schools 

(HEA-VIII-H) ........................................................................... 0 0 0 0

Early childhood education professional development and 

career task force (HEA-VIII-I) ................................................. 0 0 0 0

Improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

education with a focus on Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian students (HEA-VIII-J) .............................................. 0 0 0 0

Pilot programs to increase college persistence and success 

(HEA-VIII-K) ........................................................................... 0 0 0 0

Student safety and campus emergency management

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

Education disaster and emergency relief loan program

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

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

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

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

Jobs to careers (HEA-VIII-P) ..................................................... 0 0 0 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

R-16

Authorizing Legislation

Activity

2019

Authorized

footnote 2019 

Estimate

Footnot

e 2020

Authorized

Footnot

e 2020

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations

Rural development grants for rural-serving colleges and 

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

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

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

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

Math to success program (HEA-VIII-W)..................................... 0 0 0 0

School of veterinary medicine competitive grant program

(HEA-VIII-X) ........................................................................... 0 0 0 0

Early Federal Pell Grant commitment demonstration

program (HEA-VIII-Y) ............................................................. 0 0 0 0

Master’s degree programs at HBCUs and PBIs

(HEA VIII-AA-897) .................................................................. 0 0 0 0

Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic 

Americans (HEA-VIII-AA-898) ................................................ 0 0 0 0

Grants to states for workplace and community transition 

training for incarcerated individuals (Higher Education 

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

B.J. Stupak Olympic scholarships (Higher Education 

Amendments of 1992, Section 1543)...................................... 0 0 0 0

Underground railroad program (Higher Education 

Amendments of 1998-VIII-H).................................................. 0 0 0 0

Total definite authorization......................................................... $255,000 0

Total appropriation..................................................................... $2,551,546 $1,534,487

Total discretionary appropriation................................................ 2,312,356 1,534,487

Portion of discretionary request subject to reauthorization..... 1,534,487

Portion of the discretionary request not authorized................ 0 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

R-17

Authorizing Legislation

Activity

2019

Authorized

footnote 2019 

Estimate

Footnot

e 2020

Authorized

Footnot

e 2020

Request

Footnot

e

Total mandatory appropriation................................................... $239,190 0

Portion of the mandatory request not authorized ................... 0 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2020.

2 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2013; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2020.

3 Mandatory funds made available in fiscal year 2009 and each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2019.

4 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-18

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate to 

Congress footnot

e

House 

Allowance foot

note

Senate 

Allowance

F

o

o

t

n

o

t

e

AppropriationFootnote

2011 Discretionary $2,131,493 $2,177,9151$2,243,8952$1,903,9443

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

2012 Discretionary 2,277,069 1,628,05241,903,94641,869,656

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

2013 Discretionary 1,950,590 1,869,65651,911,34851,881,098

2013 Mandatory 428,000 428,000 428,000 406,173

2014 Discretionary 2,182,799 N/A61,906,39411,925,408

2014 Mandatory 428,000 428,000 397,184

2015 Discretionary 2,025,457 N/A61,968,79971,924,839

2015 Mandatory 4,902,000 255,000 236,385

2016 Discretionary 2,072,045 1,909,04282,038,51081,982,185

2016 Mandatory 2,266,842 255,000 255,000 237,660

2017 Discretionary 2,189,20091,976,66691,986,79292,055,4399

2017 Mandatory 2,060,121 2,060,121 2,060,121 237,405

2018 Discretionary 1,545,305 2,038,12610 2,048,43910 2,246,55110

2018 Mandatory 255,000 255,000 255,000 238,170

2019 Discretionary 1,485,848 2,300,55111 2,260,55111 2,312,35611

2019 Mandatory 255,000 255,000 255,000 239,190

2020 Discretionary 1,534,487

2020 Mandatory 0

1

The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution.

2

The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only.

3

The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10).

4

The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill; the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee Action only.

5

The levels for the House and Senate allowance reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee.

6

The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action.

7

The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

8

The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 appropriations bills, which 

proceeded in the 14th Congress only through the House Committee and Senate Committee.

9

The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2017 

appropriations bill; the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017.

10 The level for the House allowance reflects floor action on the Omnibus appropriations bill; the Senate allowance 

reflects Committee action on the regular annual 2018 appropriations bill; the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141).

11 The levels for the House and Senate Allowance reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2019 appropriations 

bill; the Appropriation reflects enactment of the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and 

Education Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245).
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-19

Significant Items in FY 2019 Appropriations Reports

Federal TRIO Programs

Senate: The Committee notes there is concern about the Department’s planned allocation 

of the $60,000,000 increase provided in fiscal year 2018 for TRIO. The 

Committee directs the Department to include in its fiscal year 2020 CJ 

information on how these increased funds were allocated, including a detailed 

budget justification. Further, the Committee expects funding allocations like this 

to be included in the Department’s operating plan required under section 516 of 

this act in future fiscal years.

Response: The Department has included the requested information in the fiscal year 2020 

CJ for the Federal TRIO programs.

Explanatory 

Statement: The Committee is concerned with the Department's planned allocation of the 

$60,000,000 increase provided in fiscal year 2018 for TRIO, especially given 

language in the House report which specified the funding should be allocated as 

it was in fiscal year 2017. The Committee expects funding allocations such as 

these to be included in the Department's operating plan in future fiscal years.

JOINT STATEMENT: The conferees reiterate concerns communicated in both 

the House and Senate reports related to the allocation of the fiscal year 2018 

funding for TRIO programs. The Department's plan disregarded House direction 

to allocate funding in the same ratio as the prior fiscal year. In addition, there is 

also concern that the Department may be placing burdensome requirements for 

the existing awardees in order for them to receive any additional funding. The 

conferees direct the Department to include in its fiscal year 2020 Congressional 

Justification information about how these additional funds were awarded, 

including a detailed budget justification. Additionally, the conferees expect plans 

for funding allocations by activity within the TRIO programs to be included in the 

operating plan required under section 516 of this Act. Last, the conferees direct 

the Department to brief the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and the Senate on final funding allocations at least 30 days prior 

to the awarding of additional funding and/or the posting of a Notice Inviting 

Applications for New Awards.

Response: The Department has included the requested information in the fiscal year 2020 

CJ for the Federal TRIO programs and has provided the briefing regarding plans 

for allocating fiscal year 2019 TRIO funds, as directed by the conferees.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-20

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs

Explanatory

Statement: The conferees direct the Department to announce Notices Inviting Applications 

for New Awards for State Grants and Partnership Grants in the Federal Register. 

In such notice for State grants, the conferees direct the Department to uphold the 

long-standing guidance that States may only administer one active State GEAR 

UP grant at a time. The Secretary is directed to provide written guidance in the 

Federal Register notifying applicants that only States without an active State 

GEAR UP grant, or States that have an active State GEAR UP grant that is 

scheduled to end prior to October 1, 2019, will be eligible to receive a new State 

GEAR UP award funded in whole or in part by this appropriation.

Response: Given the small amount of funding available for new awards in fiscal year 2019 

and the need to rebalance GEAR UP funding towards State awards to comply 

with the requirements in Section 404B(a) of the HEA, the Department is planning 

to conduct a GEAR UP State competition only in fiscal year 2019. As in the fiscal 

year 2018 GEAR UP State competition, the Department will follow the directive 

and stipulate that only States without an active GEAR UP grant may apply for 

funding in fiscal year 2019.

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

Senate: In addition, the Committee directs the Department to require any institution of 

higher education receiving a grant through the Open Textbook Pilot to report to 

the Secretary regarding the effectiveness of the project in expanding the use of 

open textbooks and in achieving savings for students; the impact of the project 

on expanding the use of open textbooks at institutions of higher education 

outside of the institution receiving the grant; open textbooks created or adapted 

under the grant, including instructions on where the public can access each open 

textbook; the impact of the project on instruction and student learning outcomes; 

and all project costs, including the value of any volunteer labor and institutional 

capital used for the project. Such reports should be made publicly available.

Response: The Department plans to comply with this directive.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-21

Summary of R equest

Click here for accessible version

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2020 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent

 1. Aid for institutional development:

(a) Strengthening institutions (HEA III-A, section 311) D 98,886 99,875 0 (99,875) -100.00%

(b) Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities (HEA III-A, section 316) D 31,539 31,854 27,599 (4,255) -13.36%

(c) Mandatory strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities 

(HEA III-F, section 371) M 28,020 28,140 0 (28,140) -100.00%

Subtotal 59,559 59,994 27,599 (32,395) -54.00%

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

section 317) D 15,772 15,930 0 (15,930) -100.00%

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

institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 14,010 14,070 0 (14,070) -100.00%

Subtotal 29,782 30,000 0 (30,000) -100.00%---

(f) Strengthening HBCUs (HEA III-B, section 323) D 279,624 282,420 282,420 0 0.00%

(g) Mandatory strengthening HBCUs (HEA III-F, section 371) M 79,390 79,730 0 (79,730) -100.00%

Subtotal 359,014 362,150 282,420 (79,730) -22.02%

(h) Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions (HEA III-B, section 326) D 72,314 73,037 73,037 0 0.00%

(i) Strengthening HBCU masters program (HEA,Title VII, section 723) D 8,571 8,657 8,657 0 0.00%

(j) Strengthening predominantly Black institutions (HEA III-A, section 318) D 11,361 11,475 0 (11,475) -100.00%

(k) Mandatory strengthening predominantly Black institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 14,010 14,070 0 (14,070) -100.00%---

Subtotal 25,371 25,545 0 (25,545) -100.00%

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

institutions (HEA III-A, section 320) D 3,826 3,864 0 (3,864) -100.00%

(m) Mandatory strengthening Asian American- and Native American Pacific 

Islander-serving institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 4,670 4,690 0 (4,690) -100.00%

Subtotal 8,496 8,554 0 (8,554) -100.00%

(n) Strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions (HEA III-A, section 319) D 3,826 3,864 0 (3,864) -100.00%

(o) Mandatory strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 4,670 4,690 0 (4,690) -100.00%

Subtotal 8,496 8,554 0 (8,554) -100.00%

(p) Minority science and engineering improvement (HEA III-E-1) D 11,025 11,135 9,648 (1,487) -13.35%

Subtotal, Aid for institutional development 681,514 687,501 401,361 (286,140) -41.62%

Discretionary D 536,744 542,111 401,361 (140,750) -25.96%

Mandatory M 144,770 145,390 0 (145,390) -100.00%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Higher Education

For most mandatory programs, with the exception of Pell Grants, Credit Liquidating, and Credit Reestimates, the levels shown in the 2019 Appropriation column reflect the 6.2 percent reduction 

that went into effect on October 1, 2018, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). 

Cat 

Code

2018 

Appropriation 

2019 

Appropriation

2020 

President's 

Budget

2020 President's Budget Compared 

to 2019 Appropriation

R-21
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-22

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2020 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent

 2. Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions:

(a) Developing Hispanic-serving institutions (HEA V-A) D 123,183 124,415 0 (124,415) -100.00%

(b) Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation programs (HEA III-F, section 371(b)(2)(B)) M 93,400 93,800 0 (93,800) -100.00%

(c) Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans (HEA V, section 512) D 11,052 11,163 0 (11,163) -100.00%

Subtotal 227,635 229,378 0 (229,378) -100.00%

Discretionary 134,235 135,578 0 (135,578) -100.00%

Mandatory 93,400 93,800 0 (93,800) -100.00%

 3. Consolidated MSI Grant (proposed legislation) D 0 0 147,906 147,906 ---

 4. Other aid for institutions:

(a) International education and foreign language studies:

(1) Domestic programs (HEA VI-A and B) D 65,103 65,103 0 (65,103) -100.00%

(2) Overseas programs (MECEA section 102(b)(6)) D 7,061 7,061 0 (7,061) -100.00%

Subtotal 72,164 72,164 0 (72,164) -100.00%

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

higher education (HEA VII-D-2) D 11,800 11,800 11,800 0 0.00%

(d) Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions (CTEA section 117) D 9,469 9,564 8,286 (1,278) -13.36%

 5. Assistance for students:

(a) Federal TRIO programs (HEA IV-A-2, Chapter 1) D 1,010,000 1,060,000 950,000 (110,000) -10.38%

(b) Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

(GEAR UP) (HEA IV-A-2, Chapter 2) D 350,000 360,000 0 (360,000) -100.00%

(c) Graduate assistance in areas of national need (HEA VII-A-2) D 23,047 23,047 0 (23,047) -100.00%

(d) Child care access means parents in school (HEA IV-A-7) D 50,000 50,000 15,134 (34,866) -69.73%

 6. Fund for the improvement of post secondary education (FIPSE) (HEA VII-B) D 6,000 5,000 0 (5,000) -100.00%

 7. Teacher quality partnership (HEA II-A) D 43,092 43,092 0 (43,092) -100.00%

2,484,721 2,551,546 1,534,487 (1,017,059) -39.86%

Discretionary 2,246,551 2,312,356 1,534,487 (777,869) -33.64%

Mandatory 238,170 239,190 0 (239,190) -100.00%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Higher Education (continued)

Total

For most mandatory programs, with the exception of Pell Grants, Credit Liquidating, and Credit Reestimates, the levels shown in the 2019 Appropriation column reflect the 6.2 percent reduction 

that went into effect on October 1, 2018, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). 

Cat 

Code

2018 

Appropriation 

2019 

Appropriation

2020 

President's 

Budget

2020 President's Budget Compared 

to 2019 Appropriation

R-22
HIGHER EDUCATION

HIGHER EDUC ATION

R-23

R-23

Summary of Request

The Administration’s fiscal year 2020 request includes $1.5 billion in discretionary funds for 

Higher Education Programs aimed at improving student achievement and increasing access 

to a high quality education for all students.

To help close gaps among racial and socioeconomic groups in college enrollment and 

degree attainment, the request provides $549.3 million in discretionary funding for programs 

that serve high proportions of minority students. Within this total, the request includes 

$401.4 million to provide funding for the following Title III Aid for Institutional Development 

programs: Strengthening HBCUs, Strengthening Historically Black Graduate 

Institutions, Strengthening Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs, Strengthening 

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, and the Minority Science and 

Engineering Improvement program. These programs would continue as separate line 

items in the budget. The request also includes $147.9 million for the proposed Consolidated 

MSI Grant program, which would provide formula-based funding to under-resourced 

institutions that enroll large numbers of minority students. This proposed program would

streamline grant-making by consolidating six MSI programs that have similar purposes and 

activities, including the HEA Title V Aid for Hispanic-Serving Institutions programs, into a 

single institutional formula grant program, providing funds more institutions can count on and 

yielding program management efficiencies. The request does not fund the Strengthening 

Institutions program, which is duplicative of other program funding for institutional support 

activities.

The request would provide $950 million in fiscal year 2020 for the Federal TRIO Programs, 

a decrease of $110 million from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. Through this request, the 

Administration is proposing major changes to the Federal TRIO Programs to transition these

programs from a series of competitive grant programs to a single State formula program. This 

proposal would shift authority and responsibility from the Federal government to the States, 

improve alignment between Federal resources and need, and enable the Department to 

re-allocate limited staff resources from competition-related activities to grant monitoring, 

performance improvement, and program evaluation.

The request also includes $11.8 million for model comprehensive transition programs through 

the Model Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) 

program, $8.3 million for the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical 

Institutions (TCPCTI) program, and $15.1 million for the Child Care Access Means 

Parents in School program.

The request also proposes through appropriations language a new HEA pooled evaluation 

authority, similar to that of the ESEA, that would permit the Department to reserve up to 

.5 percent of funding appropriated for each HEA program, with the exception of the Pell Grant 

program, to support rigorous independent evaluations and data collection and analysis of 

student outcomes of all HEA programs.

Lastly, the Administration’s request for fiscal year 2020 eliminates a number of Higher 

Education Programs that duplicate other programs, are more appropriately supported with 

State, local, institutional, or private funds, are outside of the Department’s core mission, or 
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-24

have not shown evidence of effectiveness. These programs include the Strengthening 

Institutions Program, International Education and Foreign Language Studies programs, 

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, and Graduate 

Assistance in Areas of National Need.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-25

Activities:

Aid for institutional development

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title III and Title VII, Section 723)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined (discretionary)1; $0 (mandatory)2

Budget Authority:

Program N ame

 footnote 2019 footnote 2020 footn

ote Change footnote

Discretionary:

Strengthening Institutions SIP (Part A) $99,875 0 -$99,875

Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges and 

Universities (TCCUs) (Part A) 31,854 $27,599 -4,255

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian-serving Institutions (ANNHs) (Part A) 15,930 0 -15,930

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities (HBCUs) (Part B) 282,420 282,420 0

Strengthening Historically Black Graduate 

Institutions (HBGIs) (Part B) 73,037 73,037 0

Strengthening HBCU Master’s Degree Program 

(Section 723) 8,657 8,657 0

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions 

(PBIs) (Part A) 11,475 0 -11,475

Strengthening Asian American and Native 

American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

(AANAPISIs) (Part A) 3,864 0 -3,864

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal 

Institutions (NASNTIs) (Part A) 3,864 0 -3,864

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 

Program (MSEIP) (Part E) 11,135 9,648 -1,487

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2020.

2 Mandatory appropriations provided under Title III, Part F, Section 371 of the HEA expire at the end of fiscal year 

2019. The fiscal year 2019 funds will be carried over to fiscal year 2020 to support the final year of continuation costs 

for the following programs: Strengthening ANNH, Strengthening PBIs, Strengthening ANNAPISIs, and Strengthening 

NASNTIs. The 2019 levels for mandatory programs have been reduced by 6.2 percent which became effective on 

October 1, 2018, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25).
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-26

Budget Authority (cont’d):

Program N ame

2019 footnote 2020 footn

ote Change footnote

Mandatory (Part F, Section 371):

Strengthening TCCUs $28,140 0 -$28,140

Strengthening ANNHs 14,070 0 -14,070

Strengthening HBCUs 79,730 0 -79,730

Strengthening PBIs 14,070 0 -14,070

Strengthening AANAPISIs 4,690 0 -4,690

Strengthening NASNTIs 4,690 0 -4,690

Discretionary 542,111 $401,361 -140,750

Mandatory 145,390 1 0 -145,3901

1 Mandatory appropriations provided under Title III, Part F, Section 371 of the HEA expire at the end of 

fiscal year 2019. The fiscal year 2019 funds will be carried over to fiscal year 2020 to support the final year of 

continuation costs for the following programs: Strengthening ANNH, Strengthening PBIs, Strengthening 

ANNAPISIs, and Strengthening NASNTIs. The 2019 levels for mandatory programs have been reduced by 

6.2 percent which became effective on October 1, 2018, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 

(P.L. 112-25).

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

programs, are designed to promote equity across U.S. postsecondary education by 

strengthening institutions of higher education (IHEs) 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 support, among other activities, improvements in academic quality, 

institutional management, and administrative capacity and fiscal stability; infrastructure; and 

student support services. Specifically, the Title III programs can provide financial assistance 

to help institutions improve student graduation rates by expanding student support services; 

improve their management and fiscal operations; build endowments; and make effective use 

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

institutions that enroll large proportions of financially disadvantaged students and have low 

per-student expenditures.

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 (HBCUs). The Higher 

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

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs) and Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian-serving Institutions (ANNHs). In addition, 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 

(AANAPISI), the Native American-serving Nontribal Institutions program (NASNTI), and the 

Predominantly Black Institutions program (PBIs).
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-27

Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP)

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

grants and 5-year development grants. Under SIP, special consideration is given to 

institutions that (1) 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 (2) 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 apply to use their SIP funds to: plan, develop, 

and implement activities that encourage faculty and academic program development; 

support improvement in fund and administrative management; support joint use of libraries 

and laboratories; support construction, maintenance, renovation, and improvement of 

instructional facilities; support student services; and provide 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 may 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. These endowment funds must be matched dollar for dollar 

with non-Federal funds.

To participate in 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, as measured by enrollment of Pell Grant recipients or other

Title IV need-based aid recipients.

Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)

The TCCUs program, authorized by Part A, Section 316 of the HEA, awards 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 Land-Grant 

Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note). TCCUs do not have to wait 2 years between grants 

and thus may be funded continuously.

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 using a formula, with a minimum 

grant of $500,000. Of the remaining funds (after reservation for construction), 60 percent 

are allocated based on Indian student counts at eligible institutions and the other 40 percent 

are distributed equally among eligible TCCUs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-28

Institutions may apply to use their funds to plan, develop, and implement a wide range of 

authorized activities that include: 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.

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

endowment fund, with funds matched dollar for dollar with non-Federal funds. 

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions (ANNH)

The ANNH program, authorized by Part A, Section 317 of the HEA, makes competitive

5-year development grants that enable these institutions to improve and expand their 

capacity to serve Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students. Like TCCUs, institutions 

receiving grants under section 317 do not have to wait 2 years between grants and thus 

may be funded continuously. Institutions may apply to use their funds to plan, develop, and 

implement a wide range of activities, including: 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 6306 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). The 

term "Native Hawaiian-serving 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 6207 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965). 

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)

The Strengthening HBCUs program, authorized by Part B, Section 323 of the HEA, makes

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
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-29

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; establishment of a program of 

teacher education designed to qualify students to teach in public schools; 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; 

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 indebtedness and student assistance programs under Title IV; and 

services necessary for the implementation of other 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. Funds 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. 

Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGIs)

The Strengthening HBGIs program, authorized under Part B, Section 326 of the HEA, 

makes 5-year formula-based discretionary grants to 24 postgraduate institutions that are 

identified in the HEA. 

A grant under this section can be used for a wide range of activities, including: scholarships 

and fellowships for needy graduate and professional students; construction, maintenance, 

renovation, and improvement of instructional facilities; 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; and tutoring, counseling, and student service programs 

designed to improve academic success. Program funds may also be used for other 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.

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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-30

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. 

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 in the HEA; any amount appropriated in 

excess of $56.9 million but less than $62.9 million must be used to make grants to the six 

remaining HBGIs listed in the HEA. Any appropriated amount in excess of $62.9 million 

must be made available to each of the 24 HBGIs pursuant to a formula that is based on: 

(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 

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.

Strengthening HBCU Master’s Program

This program, authorized under Section 723 of the HEA, provides grants of up to 6 years in 

duration to specified eligible institutions to improve graduate education opportunities at the 

master's level in mathematics, engineering, physical or natural sciences, computer science, 

information technology, nursing, allied health or other scientific disciplines where African 

American students are underrepresented.

From the amount appropriated to carry out the program or 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.

A grant under this section can be used for a wide range of activities, including: purchase, 

rental, or lease of scientific or laboratory equipment for educational purposes; construction, 

maintenance, renovation, and improvement in instructional facilities; 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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-31

maintenance of an institutional endowment; funds and administrative management; 

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.

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs)

The Strengthening PBIs program, authorized by Part A, Section 318 of the HEA, makes

5-year formula-based discretionary grants to support activities outlined in Section 311(c) of 

the HEA, which include: 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 to pursue postsecondary education. No more than 

50 percent of grant funds awarded may be used for construction or maintenance of 

classroom, library, laboratory, or other instructional facilities. 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 that is based on: (1) the number of 

Pell Grant recipients enrolled; (2) the number of graduates; and (3) 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. 

The term “Predominantly Black institution” is defined as an IHE 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:

o That is at least 40 percent Black American students;

o Consisting of at least 1,000 undergraduate students;

o 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 

o 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, 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-32

according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward 

accreditation; and

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

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving 

Institutions (AANAPISI)

The AANAPISI program, authorized by Part A, Section 320 of the HEA, makes 5-year 

competitive grants to eligible IHEs, 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 

U.S. ANNAPISIs do not have to wait 2 years between grants and thus may be funded 

continuously.

Grants are intended to enable these institutions to improve and expand their capacity to 

serve Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander students and low-income 

individuals. Funds may be used for a range of activities, including: 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; establishing or improving an endowment fund; and academic instruction in 

disciplines in which Asian American and Native American Pacific Islanders are 

underrepresented. 

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTI)

This NASNTI program, authorized by Part A, Section 319 of the HEA, provides 5-year 

competitive grants to eligible IHEs, as defined under Section 312(b) of the HEA, that are not 

a Tribal College or University (as defined in Section 316 of the HEA) and have, at the time of 

application, an enrollment of undergraduate students that is not less than 10 percent Native 

American students. The term “Native American” means an individual who is of a tribe, 

people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States. NASNTIs do not have to wait 

2 years between grants and thus may be funded continuously.

Funds generally may be used to plan, develop, undertake, and carry out activities to 

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

individuals. More specifically, allowable activities include: purchase, rental, or lease of 

scientific or laboratory equipment for educational purposes, including instruction and 

research; renovation and improvement in classroom, library, laboratory, and other 

instructional facilities; support of faculty exchanges, faculty development, and faculty 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-33

fellowships to assist faculty in attaining advanced degrees in the faculty's field of instruction; 

curriculum development and academic instruction; funds and administrative management, 

and acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening funds management; 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 requires a $200,000 minimum grant for each eligible institution. Participating 

institutions are not eligible to receive funding under Part A or Part B of Title III or Part A of 

Title V of the HEA.

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP)

The MSEIP, authorized by Part E, Subpart 1 of the HEA, supports competitive 3-year grants 

to IHEs that are designed to promote long-range improvement in science and engineering 

education at predominantly minority institutions and increase the participation of 

underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities in scientific and technological careers. Only 

colleges and universities with minority enrollments of greater than 50 percent are eligible to 

receive assistance under MSEIP. MSEIP allows grantee institutions 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 Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................................ .... $573,4471

2016.............................................................................. .... 606,6562

2017.............................................................................. .... 614,001

3

2018.............................................................................. .... 681,5144

2019.............................................................................. .... 687,5015

1

Includes $143,685 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

2

Includes $144,460 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

3

Includes $144,305 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

4

Includes $144,770 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

5

Includes $145,390 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests a total of $401.4 million for the Aid for 

Institutional Development programs authorized under Title III of the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended (HEA), a decrease of $140.8 million from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. 

The Administration’s fiscal year 2020 budget proposes to consolidate six Title III and V 

programs into a single institutional formula grant program that would merge separate 

overlapping, largely duplicative grant authorities into a new program. The new Consolidated 

Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) Grant program would allocate funding to institutions using a 

formula while maintaining current funding levels and helping to ensure that MSIs (including
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-34

Hispanic-Serving Institutions) continue to receive support for critical investments in 

infrastructure, curricula, student services, and other activities currently authorized under Titles III 

and V. Additional information on the proposed consolidation may be found under the 

Consolidated MSI Grant justification on page R-71. Programs that would be consolidated 

include the following:

 Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions (ANNHs)

 Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

(AANAPISIs)

 Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTIs)

 Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs)

 Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs)

 Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (PPOHA)

Additionally, $145.4 million in fiscal year 2019 mandatory funding is available in fiscal year 2020

for the MSI programs authorized under Section 371 of the HEA. These multi-year mandatory 

funds will be carried over as the final year of authorized funding from fiscal year 2019 to support 

the final year of continuation awards under the following programs: Strengthening ANNH, 

Strengthening PBIs, Strengthening AANAPISIs, and Strengthening NASNTIs.

Aid for Institutional Development programs that are not proposed for consolidation are

Strengthening HBCUs, Strengthening HBGIs, Strengthening HBCU Master’s Programs, 

Strengthening TCCUs, and the MSEIP program. The fiscal year 2020 request would provide 

the following amounts for these programs:

 $282.4 million for the Strengthening HBCUs program, the same as the fiscal year 2019 

appropriation. In addition, the Administration requests $73 million for the Strengthening 

HBGIs program, the same as the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. The fiscal year 2020 request 

demonstrates the Administration’s continued support of HBCUs and HBGIs, which play a 

unique and vital role in providing higher education opportunities to minority and disadvantaged 

students. HBCUs enroll over 9 percent of all African American students in higher education. 

Figures compiled by National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) indicate that an 

estimated 226,843 African American students were enrolled at HBCUs in 2017. In addition, 

approximately 15 percent of African Americans who currently hold undergraduate degrees 

earned their credential from an HBCU. Grants provided under the Title III, Part B programs 

enable HBCUs and HBGIs to continue serving this population of students, encourage and 

prepare more African American students to pursue advanced study, and improve their 

academic quality, institutional management, and fiscal stability.

 $8.7 million for the Strengthening HBCU Master’s Degree Program, the same as the 

fiscal year 2019 appropriation. This request would provide funding to 18 specified HBCUs 

that make a substantial contribution to graduate education opportunities for African 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. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-35

 $27.6 million for the Strengthening TCCUs program, a decrease of $4.3 million from the 

fiscal year 2019 appropriation and the same as the fiscal year 2019 request. Funding would 

support 35 fully accredited Tribal Colleges and Universities. The majority of TCCUs are 

2-year schools, primarily located in regions of the Midwest and Southwest not served by 

other postsecondary education institutions. TCCUs play a critical role by offering a broad 

range of degree and vocational certificate programs to students for whom these educational 

opportunities would otherwise be geographically and culturally inaccessible.

 $9.6 million for MSEIP, a decrease of $1.5 million from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation 

and the same as the fiscal year 2019 request. The fiscal year 2020 request would provide 

continued support for the improvement of STEM programs at IHEs enrolling large numbers 

of minority students and would further the Department’s efforts to increase access to a 

quality higher education for individuals from underrepresented minority groups. MSIs play a 

critical role in serving underrepresented minorities. For example in 2012, HBCUs awarded 

18 percent of the 50,000 science and engineering bachelor’s degrees earned by African 

American U.S. citizens and permanent residents, and institutions enrolling large 

percentages of Hispanic students awarded about 34 percent of the 58,000 such degrees 

earned by Hispanics. 

No funds are requested for the Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP) (Section 311) in 

fiscal year 2020. SIP is duplicative of approximately 7 other Title III and V programs that 

provide discretionary funding (in addition to 7 mandatory funding streams that are set to expire 

in fiscal year 2019) for a wide range of authorized institutional support activities, including 

strengthening infrastructure and enhancing fiscal stability. Under this request, the 

Administration would provide existing SIP grantees a reasonable period of time to close out 

existing projects and draw down grant funds already awarded in prior years.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 

Footnote

2019

Footno

te

2020

Footnote

Strengthening Institutions

Strengthening Institutions Program: Number of new development awards 30 27 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Average new development awards $607 $592 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total new development award funding $18,212 $15,991 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Number of new evidence awards 7 27 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Average new evidence award $593 $592 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total new evidence award funding $4,154 $15,990 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Number of NCC development awards 42 30 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Average NCC development award $437 $748 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total NCC development award funding $18,341 $22,442 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Number of NCC evidence awards 101 95 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Average NCC evidence award $484 $468 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total NCC evidence award funding $48,879 $44,456 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-36

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 

Footnote

2019

Footno

te

2020

Footnote

Strengthening Institutions (cont’d)

Total supplemental award funding $9,300 0 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Peer review of new award applications 0 $998 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total award funding (Section 311) $98,886 $99,875 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total number of awards 180 179 0

Strengthening TCCUs Triball y Controll ed Coll eges and Universities

TCCU Discretionary funding:

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Number of new development awards 0 0 31

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Average new development award 0 0 $816

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Total new development award funding 0 0 $25,302

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Number of NCC development awards 35 35 4

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Average NCC development award $901 $910 $564

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Total NCC development award funding $31,539 $31,854 $2,257

TCCU Mandatory funding:

Strengthening TCCU s – Mandator y funding: Number of NCC development awards 35 35 0

Strengthening TCCU s – Mandator y funding: Average NCC development award $801 $804 0

Strengthening TCCU s – Mandator y funding: Total NCC development award funding $28,020 $28,140 0

Total award funding TCCUs discretionar y and mandatory funding $59,559 $59,994 $27,599

TCCU funding: Discretionary (Section 316) $31,539 $31,854 $27,599

TCCU funding:Mandatory (Section 371) $28,020 $28,140 0

TCCU Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) 70 70 35

Strengthening ANNHs

Discretionary funding: Strengthening Alaska Nat ive and N ative Hawaiian-serving Inst itutions

Strengthening ANNH - Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Number of new development awards 0 16 0

Strengthening ANNH - Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Average new development award 0 $407 0

Strengthening ANNH - Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Total new development award funding 0 $6,511 0

Strengthening ANNH - Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Number of NCC development awards 15 12 0

Strengthening ANNH - Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Average NCC development award $776 $772 0

Strengthening ANNH - Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Total NCC development award funding $11,641 $9,260 0

Total supplemental award funding $1,868 0 0

Total unobligated funding $2,263 0 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 $159 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-37

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 

Footnote

2019

Footnote

2020

Footnote

Strengthening ANNHs (cont’d)

Mandatory funding:

Strengthening ANNHs -Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available for 

obligation at the start of the fiscal year $14,229 $14,070 $7,006

Strengthening ANNH - M andator y Funding: Number of new development awards 0 6 0

Strengthening ANNH - M andator y Funding: Average new development award 0 $835 0

Strengthening ANNH - M andator y Funding: Total new development award funding 0 $5,008 0

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y Funding: Number of NCC development awards 15 4 10

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y Funding: Average NCC development award $949 $499 $701

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y Funding: Total NCC development award funding $14,229 $1,996 $7,006

Peer review of new award applications 0 $60 0

Total award funding: Strengthening ANNHs $29,782 $30,000 0

ANNH Funding: Discretionary (Section 317) $15,772 $15,930 0

ANNH Funding: Mandatory (Section 371) $14,010 $14,070 0

ANNH Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year)

0 $7,006 0

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening PBIs

30 38 10

Strengthening HBCUs

HBCU Discretionary funding:

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Number of NCC awards 97 97 97

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Average NCC award $2,883 $2,912 $2,912

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Total NCC award funding $279,624 $282,420 $282,420

HBCU Mandatory funding:

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Number of NCC awards 97 97 0

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Average NCC award $818 $822 0

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Total NCC award funding $79,390 $79,730 0

Total award funding Strengtheni ng PBIs $359,014 $362,150 $282,420

PBI Funding: Discretionary (Section 318) $279,624 $282,420 $282,420

PBI Funding: Mandatory (Section 371) $79,390 $79,730 0

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening PBIs 194 194 97
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-38

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 

Footnote

2019

Footnote

2020

Footnote

Strengthening HBGIs

Strengthening H BGIs -Number of new awards 0 24 0

Strengthening H BGIs -Average of new award 0 $3,043 0

Strengthening H BGIs –Total new award funding 0 $73,037 0

Strengthening H BGIs -Number of NCC awards 24 0 24

Strengthening H BGIs -Average NCC award $3,013 0 $3,043

Strengthening H BGIs -Total NCC award funding $72,314 0 $73,037

Strengthening H BGIs -Total award funding $72,314 $73,037 $73,037

Strengthening H BGIs -Total number of awards (Section 326) 24 24 24

Strengthening HBCU Master’s Program

HBCU M asters -Number of NCC awards 18 18 18

HBCU M asters -Average NCC award $476 $481 $481

HBCU M asters -Total NCC award funding $8,571 $8,657 $8,657

Strengthening PBIs

AAN APISI Discretionary funding:

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Number of NCC development awards 10 10 0

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Average NCC development award $1,136 $1,148 0

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Total NCC development award funding $11,3610 $11,475 0

PBIs Mandatory funding (competitive):

PBIs Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available 

for obligation at the start of the fiscal year $27,990 $28,080 $14,070

Strengthening H BGIs - Number of new awards 0 0 24

Strengthening H BGIs - Average of new award 0 0 $586

Strengthening H BGIs – Total new award funding 0 0 $14,070

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding: Number of NCC development awards 24 24 0

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding: Average NCC development award $582 $584 0

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding: Total NCC development award funding $13,965 $14,010 0

Total award funding Strengtheni ng PBIs $25,326 $25,371 $14,070

PBI Funding: Discretionary (Section 318) $11,361 $11,361 0

PBI Funding: Mandatory (Section 371) $13,965 $14,010 $14,070
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-39

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 

Footnote

2019

Footnote

2020

Footnote

Strengthening PBIs (cont’d)

Mandatory funding (competitive):

PBIs Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year) $14,0101 $14,0701 0

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening PBIs 34 34 24

Strengthening AANAPISIs

AAN APISI Discretionary funding:

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Number of NCC development awards 11 11 0

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Average NCC development award $297 $351 0

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Total NCC development award funding $3,2700 $3,864 0

Total supplemental award funding $436 0 0

Total unobligated funding $120 0 0

AAN APISI Mandatory funding:

AAN APISI Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available 

for obligation at the start of the year $9,325 $9,360 $4,690

Strengthening AAN APISIs – M andatory Funding: Number of NCC development awards 14 14 14

Strengthening AAN APISIs – M andatory Funding: Average NCC development award $333 $334 $335

Strengthening N ASNTIs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Total NCC development award funding $4,655 $4,670 $4,690

Total award funding Strengtheni ng AANAP $8,481 $8,534 $4,690

AAN APISI Funding: Discretionary (Section 320) $3,826 $3,864 0

AAN APISI Funding: Mandatory (Section 371) $4,655 $4,670 $4,690

ANNAPISI Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year) $4,6701$4,69010

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening AANAPISIs 25 25 14

1 Unobligated mandatory funding will be carried over for obligation in the succeeding fiscal year.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-40

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 

Footnote

2019

Footnote

2020

Footnote

Strengthening NASNTIs

NASNTI Discretionary funding:

Strengthening N ASNTIs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Number of NCC development awards 7 7 0

Strengthening N ASNTIs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Average NCC development award $385 $552 0

Strengthening N ASNTIs – Discr eti onar y Fundi ng: Total NCC development award funding $2,693 $3,864 0

Total supplemental award funding $91810 0

Total unobligated funding $215 0 0

NASNTI Mandatory funding:

NASNTI Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available 

for obligation at the start of the fiscal year $9,325 $9,360 $4,690

Strengthening N ASNTIs – M andator y Funding: Number of NCC development awards 12 12 12

Strengthening N ASNTIs – M andator y Funding: Average NCC development award $348 $374 $391

Strengthening N ASNTIs – M andator y Funding: Total NCC development award funding $4,177 $4,488 $4,690

Strengthening N ASNTIs – M andator y Funding: Total supplemental award funding $268 0

Strengthening N ASNTIs – M andator y Funding: Total unobligated funding $210 $182 0

Strengthening N ASNTIs – M andator y Funding: Total award funding (discretionary and mandator y) $8,481 $8,534 $4,690

NASNTIs Fundi ng: Discretionary (Section 319) $3,826 $3,864 0

NASNTIs Fundi ng:Mandatory (Section 371) $4,655 $4,670 $4,690

NASNTIs Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year) $4,6701$4,69010

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) 19 19 12

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement

MSEIP Number of new awards 10

2

23 8

MSEIP Average new award $227 $249 $146

MSEIP Total new award funding $2,267 $5,732 $1,167

MSEIP Number of NCC awards 27 21 31

MSEIP Average NCC award $221 $253 $270

MSEIP Total NCC award funding $5,977 $5,307 $8,385

1 Unobligated mandatory funding will be carried over for obligation in the succeeding fiscal year.

2

The Department funded down the fiscal year 2017 grant slate to make new awards in fiscal year 2018. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-41

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 

Footnote

2019

Footnote

2020

Footnote

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement

(cont’d)

Total supplemental award funding for MSEIP 

Capacity Competitiveness Enhancement Model $2,7811

0 0

MSEIP Peer review of new awards applications 0 $96 $96

MSEIP Total award funding $11,025 $11,135 $9,648

MSEIP Total number of awards 37 44 39

1

The Department awarded 16 supplemental awards averaging $173,800 to current grantees for the MSEIP Capacity 

Competitiveness Enhancement Model (CCEM), which focuses on leveraging federal investments through 

interagency and private-sector collaborations that enable faculty members and students to engage in cutting-edge 

STEM research and other experiences at leading governmental and nongovernmental STEM sites nationwide.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information for grantees, 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 fiscal year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by 

those served by the programs. 

The Department has identified a handful of critical indicators for which annualized data are 

available across all Title III institutions, including grantees. Such indicators include enrollment, 

persistence, and a number of outcome areas related to graduation. 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. 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

R-42

Persistence Rates at Title III Institutions

56

71

55

55

62

63

66

85

76

66

76

65

73

81

58

60

0 25 50 75 100

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP 

National Rate

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP

National Rate

Institution

2018 Persistence %

Graduation Rates at Title III Institutions

29

27

22

22

19

34

42

62

40

35

52

8

46

60

24

23

0 25 50 75 100

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP 

National Rate

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP

National Rate

Institution

2017 Graduation %

4-year

2-year

4-year

2-year
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-43

Additional information: AANAPISI grantee institutions had the highest persistence rates in 

2018 for 4-year and 2-year Title III institutions (85 percent and 71 percent, respectively), 

exceeding the national rate of 81 percent and 63 percent, respectively. In addition, 

AANAPISI-grantee institutions had the highest graduation rates for 4-year grantee institutions—

62 percent versus the national rate of 60 percent in 2017. 

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% +11.3 (5-year change)

2018 +1.3 -10.0 (5-year change)

Additional information: The data used to calculate this performance measure 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

assesses progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). The initial target of 

6.4 percent for 2013 reflects the anticipated percentage increase in enrollment over the period 

fiscal year 2008-2013 based on actual enrollment data from grantees receiving continuation 

funding in fiscal year 2008 which, at the time, was 5.1 percent. 

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

2015 74.5% 75.0% 62.5% 57.0%

2016 74.5 75.5 62.5 57.0

2017 75.0 75.0 63.0 59.0

2018 75.0 73.0 63.0 60.0

2019 75.5 63.5
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-44

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

2015 52.0% 47.5% 24.5% 19.5%

2016 52.5 49.5 25.0 21.0

2017 53.0 46.0 25.0 23.0

2018 53.5 25.0

2019 53.5 25.0

Additional information: Persistence at 4-year SIP institutions fell short of meeting the target 

set for 2018 and is 8 percentage points lower than persistence rates at all 4-year public and 

(81 percent). In addition, the current performance level for 2-year SIP institutions is 

3 percentage points lower than the rate for all 2-year public and private schools nationally 

(63 percent). Persistence data for 2019 will be available in December 2019.

The targets on the 4-year graduation measure will serve to gradually narrow the gap between 

program and national (60 percent) performance. Graduation rates at 2-year SIP-grantee 

institutions is comparable to the graduation rate at TCCUs, but falls short of the national 

graduation rate at 2-year public and private institutions (34 percent). Graduation data for 

2017-2018 will be available in December 2019.

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% (5-year change)

2013 +24.0% +15.3 (5-year change)

2018 +1.3 -20.4 (5-year change)

Additional information: The data used to calculate this performance measure 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 

assesses progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). The initial target of 

24 percent for 2013 reflects the anticipated percentage increase in enrollment over the period 

fiscal year 2008-2013 based on actual enrollment data from grantees receiving continuation 

funding in fiscal year 2008 (30 institutions). 

Enrollment trends can be affected both by changes in population and by changing rates of 

enrollment. While overall enrollment increased at TCCUs and at degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions between 2004 and 2014, during the most recent part of this period, 

enrollment has been on the decline. Thus, the Department set the target for 2018 based on 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-45

NCES’ projection for the change in total undergraduate enrollment at degree-granting 

institutions from 2013-2018. 

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

2015 50.0% 52.0% 52.0% 45.0%

2016 50.5 56.0 52.0 44.5

2017 51.0 56.0 53.0 47.0

2018 51.0 65.0 53.0 58.0

2019 51.5 53.5

2020 51.5 54.5

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

2015 17.0% 14.0% 28.0% 21.5%

2016 17.0 11.0 28.0 19.0

2017 18.0 8.0 28.5 24.0

2018 18.0 28.5

2019 18.5 28.5

2020 18.5 28.5

Additional information: The 2018 persistence rate at 4-year and 2-year TCCUs exceeds the 

targets set for 2018. This is likely due to the fact that data are preliminary and subject to change 

during the subsequent data collection year through the IPEDS.

Likewise, the 2017 data for graduation rates at TCCUs differ greatly from the prior year’s data. 

Institutions have an opportunity to revise their IPEDS data if they believe it was inaccurately 

reported in the prior year through IPEDS. The 2017 graduation rate at 4-year TCCUs failed to 

meet the target set for 2017. Graduation data for 2017-2018 will be available in 

December 2019. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-46

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% (5-year change)

2013 0% +13.4 (5-year change)

2018 +1.3 -14.8 (5-year change)

Additional information: The data used to calculate this performance measure 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 

assesses progress against targets periodically (every 5 years). The initial target set for 2013 

reflects the anticipated percentage increase in enrollment over the performance period of fiscal 

year 2008-2013 based on actual enrollment data from grantees receiving continuation funding in 

fiscal year 2008 (11 institutions), i.e., grantees from the fiscal years 2004-2007 competitions. 

The target of “0” for 2013 reflects the fact that the Department did not anticipate an increase in 

enrollment over the performance period. The Department set a target for 2018 based on NCES’ 

projection for the change in total undergraduate enrollment at degree-granting institutions from 

2013-2018. 

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

2015 77.5% 72.0% 71.0% 55.0%

2016 77.5 74.0 71.0 62.0

2017 78.0 75.0 71.5 60.0

2018 78.0 76.0 71.5 62.0

2019 78.0 71.5

2020 78.0 71.5
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-47

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

2015 47.5% 50.0% 16.5% 16.5%

2016 47.5 50.0 16.5 17.0

2017 48.0 52.0 16.5 19.0

2018 48.0 16.5

2019 48.5 17.0

2020 48.5 17.0

Additional information: The 2018 persistence rate at 4-year ANNH-grantee institutions is 

1 percentage point higher than the 2017 rate, and the persistence rate at 2-year institutions is 

2 percentage points higher than the 2017 rate; however, both rates failed to meet the targets

set for 2018 for 4-year and 2-year ANNH-grantee institutions. Graduation rates at 4-year and 

2-year ANNH-grantee institutions exceeded the targets set for 2017. Graduation data for 

2017-2018 will be available in December 2019. 

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% (5-year change)

2013 +8.0% -0.3 (5-year change)

2018 +1.3 -7.1 (5-year change)

Additional information: The data used to calculate this performance measure 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 

assesses progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). The initial target of 

8 percent for 2013 reflects the anticipated percentage increase in enrollment over the period 

fiscal year 2008-2013 based on actual enrollment data from HBCUs receiving funding in 

fiscal year 2008 (96 institutions). 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-48

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

2015 69.5% 67.0% 57.5% 51.5%

2016 69.5 66.0 57.5 57.0

2017 70.0 66.0 58.0 56.0

2018 70.0 66.0 58.0 55.0

2019 70.5 58.5

2020 70.5 58.5

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

2015 40.0% 34.0% 17.5% 16.5%

2016 40.0 33.0 17.5 18.0

2017 41.0 35.0 18.0 22.0

2018 41.0 18.5

2019 41.5 19.0

2020 41.5 19.0

Additional information: The 2018 persistence rates at 4-year HBCUs (66 percent) and 2-year 

HBCUs (55 percent) currently lag behind national persistence rates for 4-year public and private 

schools is (81 percent) and 2-year public and private schools (63 percent). Both 4-year and 

2-year HBCUs missed the targets set for 2018 by 4 percentage points and 3 percentage points, 

respectively. Persistence data for 2019 will be available December 2019.

The graduation rate for 4-year HBCUs falls short of the target set for 2017 by 6 percentage 

points and the national rate. Graduation data for 2017-2018 will be available in December 

2019. The graduation rate at 2-year HBCUs exceeds the target set for 2017 by 4 percentage 

points and is comparable to the rates at PBIs (22 percent). 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-49

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% (5-year change)

2013 +13.0% +22.0 (5-year change)

2018 +3.2

Degree Completion Measure: The number of PhDs, first professional, and Master’s degrees 

awarded at HBGIs.

Year Target Actual

2015 6,700 6,883

2016 6,800 7,258

2017 6,900 7,215

2018 7,000

2019 7,100

2020 7,000

Additional information: The data used to calculate this performance measure 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 

assesses progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). Student enrollment at the 

original 18 HBGIs in 2008 (11,144) was used to calculate the percentage change against 

student enrollment at those HBGIs in the base year 2003 (9,860). Student enrollment for 2013 

is for the 5-year grant period 2009-2013 and includes 6 additional HBGIs added in 2008 when 

the HEA was reauthorized. These include: Alabama State University, Prairie View A&M 

University, Delaware State University, Langston University, Bowie State University, and the 

University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law. Student enrollment at the 

24 HBGIs grew by nearly 23 percent, from 12,744 in 2008 to 15,632 in 2014, exceeding the 

target set for 2013 for student enrollment by 8 percentage points. The next enrollment period, 

fiscal years 2013-2018, was based on NCES’ projection for the change in total graduate 

enrollment at degree-granting institutions during this time.

The program’s performance exceeded the target set for 2017 for degree completion. Data for 

2018 will be available in December 2019. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-50

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change of the number of full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at PBIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 +15.6% (1-year change)

2016 -28.1 (5-year change)

2021 +7.1%

Additional information: This program received its first year of funding in 2008. Data for the 

2013 persistence rate and the 2012 graduation rate are from PBI grantees who received a new 

award in 2010 and 2011 in the discretionary and mandatory PBI programs. For enrollment, the 

percentage change is calculated against the base year. Future progress will be assessed 

against targets every 5 years. Student enrollment at PBI-grantee institutions in 2011 (59,908) 

was used to calculate the percentage change against student enrollment at PBIs in the base 

year 2008 (56,629). However, the change in enrollment at grantee institutions decreased by 

28 percent between 2011 and 2016; student enrollment at 19 grantee institutions decreased by 

750 or more students during this time and one institution closed its doors. Program targets 

will be based on NCES’ projection for the change in total undergraduate enrollment at 

degree-granting institutions. The target for 2021 is NCES’ projection for the change in total 

undergraduate enrollment at all degree-granting institutions from 2016-2021.

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

2015 73.0% 70.0% 55.0% 53.0%

2016 73.0 67.5 55.0 52.0

2017 73.5 76.0 55.5 53.0

2018 73.5 75.5 55.5 55.0

2019 74.0 56.0

2020 74.0 56.0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-51

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

2015 30.0% 26.0% 14.0% 13.5%

2016 30.0 40.0 14.0 18.5

2017 30.5 39.0 14.5 22.0

2018 30.5 14.5

2019 31.0 15.0

2020 31.0 15.0

Additional information: The persistence rates at 4-year PBIs exceeded the target set for 2018

by 2 percentage points; however, lags behind the national 2018 persistence rate by 

6 percentage points. The 2017 graduation rate at 4-year and 2-year PBIs exceeded the targets

set for 2017. Graduation data for 2017-2018 will be available in December 2019. 

Although the funding for discretionary (formula) and mandatory (competitive) PBI programs are 

awarded to different institutions and support significantly different activities, the Department 

believes 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 are combined.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change of the number of full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at AANAPISIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 +3.4% (1-year change)

2016 +5.5 (5-year change)

2021 +7.1%

Additional information: This program received its first year of funding in 2008. Recent data 

are from 17 grantees who received discretionary and mandatory funding from the AANAPISI 

programs—eight 2-year institutions and nine 4-year institutions. 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 2011 (68,687) was used to calculate the percentage change 

against student enrollment at AANAPISIs in the base year 2008 (63,000). The change in 

enrollment for fiscal years 2011-2015 was 5.5 percent.

Targets will be based on NCES’ projection for the change in total undergraduate enrollment at 

degree-granting institutions. The target for 2021 projects the change in total undergraduate 

enrollment at degree-granting institutions from 2016-2021.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-52

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

2015 80.5% 82.0% 70.5% 72.0%

2016 81.0 84.0 71.0 69.5

2017 81.0 84.5 71.0 70.0

2018 81.5 85.0 71.5 70.5

2019 81.5 71.5

2020 82.0 72.0

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

2015 49.0 60.5 23.0 23.0

2016 49.5 62.0 23.0 25.0

2017 49.5 62.0 23.5 27.0

2018 50.0 23.5

2019 50.0 24.0

2020 50.5 24.0

Additional information: The performance rate of AANAPISI-grantee institutions not only 

exceeded the 2018 target set for persistence at 4-year grantee institutions, but also exceeded the 

national persistence rate for 4-year public and private schools (81 percent). In addition, 4-year 

AANAPISI-grantee institutions exceeded the national graduation rate for 4-year public and private 

schools (60 percent) by 2 percentage points. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-53

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change of the number of full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at NASNTIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 +16.7% (1-year change)

2016 +0.5 (5-year change)

2021 7.1%

Additional information: This program received its first year of funding in 2008. Recent data in 

the NASNTI program are from 13 grantees who received funding in the discretionary NASNTI 

program in 2010—ten 2-year institutions and three 4-year institutions. 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 2013 (20,637) was used to calculate the 

percentage change against student enrollment at NASNTIs in the base year 2011 (20,844). 

The change in enrollment for fiscal years 2011-2016 was 0.5 percent. Enrollment rates at 

current grantee institutions are on the decline.

Targets will be based on NCES’ projection for the change in total undergraduate enrollment at 

degree-granting institutions. The target for 2021 projects the change in total undergraduate 

enrollment at degree-granting institutions from 2016-2021.

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

2015 72.0% 67.0% 53.0% 52.0%

2016 72.0 67.5 53.0 57.5

2017 73.0 68.0 53.5 57.0

2018 73.0 66.0 53.5 56.0

2019 73.5 54.0

2020 73.5 54.0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-54

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

2015 34.5% 41.0% 21.0% 24.0%

2016 34.5 40.0 21.0 28.0

2017 35.0 42.0 21.5 29.0

2018 35.0 21.5

2019 35.5 22.0

2020 35.5 22.0

Additional information: The 4-year persistence rate at NASNTI-grantee institutions failed to 

meet the target set for 2018 and is lower than the 2017 persistence rate. The 2-year 

persistence rate at NASNTI-grantee institutions exceeded the target set for 2018 and is 

comparable to the 2-year persistence rate at HBCUs and PBIs (55 percent).

Both the 4-year and 2-year graduation rates exceed the targets set for 2017 and are 

2 percentage points and 1 percentage point higher than the 2016 rates, respectively. 

Graduation data for 2017-2018 will be available in December 2019. 

MSEIP Performance Measures

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.

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, the Department used IPEDS data to determine whether the percentage of 

bachelor’s degrees conferred that were in STEM fields increased between 2005 and 2014. 

Specifically, data examined were:
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-55

 The percentage of bachelor’s degrees conferred by the 2005 cohort of MSEIP grantees 

in 2005 and 2014 that were in STEM fields.

 The percentage of bachelor’s degrees conferred by all Title IV eligible institutions in 

2005 and 2014 that were in STEM fields.

In addition, the same percentages for the two largest underrepresented racial/ethnic groups 

were examined.

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. 

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.

Measure: Number and percentage of bachelor’s degrees conferred that are in STEM fields, 

2005, 2010, and 2015.

Number and percent age of B.A. degrees

2005

MSEIP

Grantees

2010

MSEIP

Grantees

2015

MSEIP 

Grantees

2005

All Title IV

IHEs

2010

All Title IV

IHEs

2015

All Title IV 

IHEs

All Students: Number of 

STEM degrees 4,430 4,896 4,970 227,131 253,431 337,430

All Students: Number of 

degrees 23,866 32,663 27,888 1,411,002 1,620,629 1,840,490

All Students: Percent of 

degrees that are in STEM 

fields 15.7% 15.0% 17.8% 16.1% 15.6% 18.3%

Black or African American 

Students: Number of STEM 

degrees 915 847 1,792 16,405 16,196 35,805

Black or African American 

Students: Number of 

degrees 7,193 6,956 10,380 127,978 152,404 226,900

Black or African American 

Students: Percent of degrees 

that are in STEM fields 12.7% 12.2% 17.3% 12.8% 10.6% 15.8%

Hispanic Students: Number 

of STEM degrees 1,237 1,713 1,808 15,596 19,607 21,138

Hispanic Students: Number 

of degrees 9,407 12,688 11,610 111,616 147,205 182,778

Hispanic Students: Percent 

of degrees that are in STEM 

fields 13.1% 13.5% 15.6% 14.0% 13.3% 11.6%
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-56

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 and 2014 

percentages. These percentages are comparable to that of those at all Title IV institutions in 

2005, 2010, and 2015. Overall, the percentages of STEM degrees awarded to “all students” in 

2005, 2010, and 2015 were higher than the comparable percentages of STEM degrees 

awarded to both Black or Hispanic students, and the percentages did not change appreciably 

between 2005 and 2015.

Efficiency Measures

The Department developed a common efficiency measure for the AID 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

2015 $420 $413

2016 415 470

2017 410 434

2018 405

2019 400

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate degree at TCCUs.

Year Target Actual

2015 $32,600 $28,004

2016 32,550 20,697

2017 32,500 21,769

2018 28,500

2019 28,500

2020 28,000

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate degree 

at ANNH-serving Institutions.

Year Target Actual

2015 $2,725 $2,427

2016 2,700 2,329

2017 2,675 2,296

2018 2,400

2019 2,225

2020 2,200
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-57

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate degree 

at HBCUs.

Year Target Actual

2015 $7,265 $6,950

2016 7,190 6,702

2017 7,115 5,834

2018 7,000

2019 6,900

2020 6,800

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per graduate degree at HBGIs.

Year Target Actual

2015 $9,165 $9,194

2016 9,068 8,719

2017 8,975 10,023

2018 8,900

2019 8,825

2020 8,750

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate degree at PBIs.

Year Target Actual

2015 $1,020 $1,320

2016 1,010 1,162

2017 1,000 1,113

2018 990

2019 900

2020 875

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate degree at 

AANAPISIs.

Year Target Actual

2015 $290 $141

2016 285 130

2017 280 133

2018 175

2019 125

2020 100
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-58

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate degree at NASNTIs.

Year Target Actual

2015 $1,005 $501

2016 995 490

2017 985 536

2018 550

2019 500

2020 450

Additional information: These measures are calculated as the appropriation for the program 

divided by the number of undergraduate and graduate degrees awarded. 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 efficiency measures exceeded the targets set for 

2016 on all but two Title III programs (SIP and PBIs). 
HIGHER EDUCATION

HIGHER EDUC ATION

R-59

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))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined (discretionary)1; $0 (mandatory)2

Budget Authority:

Program footnote 2019 footnote 2020 footnote Change

Developing Hispanic-serving 

Institutions (discretionary) 

(HEA V-A) $124,415 0 -$124,415

Promoting Postbaccalaureate 

Opportunities for Hispanic 

Americans (discretionary) 

(HEA V-B) 11,163 0 -11,163

Developing Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions Science, 

Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics and 

Articulation (mandatory) 

(HEA III-F) 93,800 0 -93,800 2

Total 229,378 0 -229,378 2

Discretionary 135,578 0 -135,578 2

Mandatory 2

93,8002 0 -93,800 2

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; no appropriations language or reauthorizing legislation is sought 

for fiscal year 2020.

2 Mandatory appropriations provided under Title III, Part F, Section 371 of the HEA expire at the end of fiscal year 

2019. The fiscal year 2019 funds will be carried over to fiscal year 2020 to support the final year of this HSI STEM 

grantee cohort. The 2019 levels for mandatory programs have been reduced by 6.2 percent, which became effective 

on October 1, 2018, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25).
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-60

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions program, authorized under Title V of HEA, 

provides competitive grants to Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) to expand educational 

opportunities for, and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic students. The program 

supports efforts to expand and enhance academic offerings, program quality, and institutional 

stability of colleges and universities that are educating the majority of Hispanic college students 

and helping large numbers of Hispanic students and other low-income individuals complete 

postsecondary degrees. HSIs are defined as “eligible institutions” if they: (1) have belowaverage educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent undergraduate student; 

(2) include in its enrollment a significant percentage of financially needy students, as measured 

by enrollment of Pell Grant recipients or other Title IV need-based aid recipients; and (3) have 

an enrollment of undergraduate full-time equivalent students that is at least 25 percent Hispanic. 

Grants are awarded for a period of up to 5 years. Grantees may use their funds to plan, 

develop, and implement a wide range of authorized activities, including activities that 

encourage: faculty and academic program development; better management of funds and 

administration; construction and maintenance of instructional facilities; student services 

designed to improve college completion; establishment of a program of teacher education; 

establishment of community outreach programs that encourage elementary and secondary 

school students to develop an interest in pursuing postsecondary education; and creation or 

improvement of 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 with the Federal contribution matched dollar-for dollar by non-Federal funds. 

HSI grantees are not eligible to receive funding under Part A or Part B of Title III.

The program makes individual development grants to help institutions address unique 

challenges to building capacity and improving performance and cooperative arrangement 

development grants that promote joint efforts between two or more IHEs to resolve common 

challenges to institutional effectiveness. In addition, the Department may award 1-year planning 

grants for the preparation of plans and grant applications under this program.

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 STEM fields and to support the development of model transfer and articulation agreements 

between 2-year HSIs and 4-year IHEs in such fields. 

The Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans program, authorized 

under Title V of HEA, seeks to expand the number of Hispanic students entering 

postbaccalaureate education and attaining advanced degrees. The program is designed to help

institutions of higher education that are educating large numbers of Hispanic and low-income 

students increase their postbaccalaureate academic offerings and enhance program quality. To 

be eligible for a grant under this program, an institution of higher education must be an HSI that 

offers a program that leads to a postbaccalaureate certificate or degree. Grants are awarded 

for up to 5 years and participating institutions also may receive funds under Title V, Part A.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-61

The program statute authorizes a wide variety of institutional and student support activities,

including: 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 services, mentoring, 

and student financial assistance; supporting faculty development, exchanges, 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 related 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:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................................ .... $201,9231

2016.............................................................................. .... 210,6662

2017.............................................................................. .... 210,5663

2018.............................................................................. .... 227,6354

2019.............................................................................. .... 229,3785

1

Includes $92,700 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

2

Includes $93,200 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

3

Includes $93,100 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

4

Includes $93,400 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

5 Includes $93,800 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration does not include separate funding for the Aid for 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions programs because it is included in the Administration’s proposal to 

consolidate six existing Title III and V programs into a single new $147.9 million institutional 

formula grant program that would provide funding to institutions that meet the eligibility criteria 

for these six programs. The Administration believes HSIs provide critical support for activities 

designed to improve the educational outcomes at institutions with a significant share of lowincome, Hispanic, and other minority students, but can more efficiently be supported under the 

proposed Consolidated MSI Grant program. The Consolidated MSI Grant program would 

ensure continued support for HSIs, which would make up the majority of institutions served 

under the proposal, while eliminating redundant activities, reducing the Federal role, improving 

alignment between Federal resources and actual institutional needs, and enabling the 

Department to re-allocate limited staff resources from competition-related activities to grant 

monitoring and performance improvement. Under this proposal, during the transition to the 

Consolidated MSI Grant, the Department would continue supporting continuation awards to 

HSIs with current grants under both the Developing HSIs and PPOHA programs. More 

information is available in the request for the Consolidated MSI Grant Program.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-62

In addition to the funding available to HSIs under the Consolidated MSI Grant proposal, 

$93.8 million in fiscal year 2019 mandatory funding is available in fiscal year 2020 to support the 

final year of continuation awards under the HSI STEM and Articulation program authorized 

under Section 371 of the HEA; these multi-year mandatory funds are carried over as the final 

year of authorized funding from fiscal year 2019.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018

Footnote

2019

Footnote Fo Footnote

2020

Footnote

Developing HSIs

Devel oping H SIs: Number of new awards 34 42 0

Devel oping H SIs: Average new award $598 $579 0

Devel oping H SIs: Total new award funding $20,346 $24,438 0

Devel oping H SIs: Number of NCC awards 184 183 0

1

Devel oping H SIs: Average NCC award $534 $543 0

1

Devel oping H SIs: Total NCC award funding $98,223 $99,327 0

1

: Supplements 4,613 0 0

Devel oping H SIs: Peer review of new award applications 0 $650 0

Devel oping H SIs: Total award funding $123,183 $124,415 0

1

Devel oping H SIs: Total number of awards 218 225 0

1

218 225 0

1

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for 

Hispanic Americans

Devel oping H SIs: Number of New awards 0 20 0

Devel oping H SIs: Average New award 0 $553 0

Devel oping H SIs: Total New award funding 0 $11,063 0

Devel oping H SIs: Number of NCC awards 19 0 0

2

Devel oping H SIs: Average NCC award $509 0 0

2

Devel oping H SIs: Total NCC award funding $11,052 0 0

2

2Peer review of new award applications 0 $100 0

2Total program funding 11,052 11,163 0

2

1

The Department is expecting to make 126 NCC awards under this program in FY 2020, totaling $72,067 thousand. 

Funding for these awards is shown in the request for the Consolidated MSI Grant program.

2

The Department is expecting to make 20 NCC awards under this program in FY 2020, totaling $11,063 thousand. 

Funding for these awards is shown in the request for the Consolidated MSI Grant program.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-63

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018

Footnote

2019

Footnote Fo Footnote

2020

Footnote

HSI STEM and Articulation Programs

Mandatory funding:: HSI STEM and Articul ation Programs

NASNTI Total mandatory (Section 371) funds 

available for obligation at the start of the 

fiscal years

$186,500 $187,200 $93,800

Number of NCC awards STEM and Articulation Programs M andator y fundi ng 91 91 91

Average NCC award STEM and Articulation Programs Mandator y funding $1,024 $1,026 $1,099

Total NCC award funding STEM and Articul ati on Pr ograms M andatory fundi ng $92,537 $93,400 $93,800

Supplements 500 0 0

Total Unobligated Funding 63 0 0

Total Program funding 93,100 93,400 93,800

NASNTIs Mandatory (Section 371) estimated 

carryover (mandatory funds remaining at 

the end of the fiscal year) $93,400

1

$93,800

1

0

1 Unobligated mandatory funding carried over for obligation in the succeeding fiscal year.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information for grantees, 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 fiscal year 2020 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-64

Objective: Increase the enrollment, persistence, and graduation rates at grantees from 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions.

HSI Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number 

of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolling at HSIs receiving grants under this 

program.

Year Target Actual

2013 +11.0% +27.1

2018 +1.3 -4.9

Additional Information: This measure uses National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) fall enrollment data for all full-time 

degree-seeking undergraduate students to track 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 grantee 

institutions in 2018 (629,663) was used to calculate the percentage change against student 

enrollment at those same institutions in the base year 2013 (661,996). In 2017, the Department 

developed the 2018 target of 1.3 percent based on NCES’ projection for the change in total 

undergraduate enrollment at degree-granting institutions from 2013-2018. Over the 5-year 

grant period of the 2013 grantee institutions, enrollment decreased by 4.9 percent, falling short 

of the 1.3 percent target.

HSI Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 4-year HSI grantees who were in their first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HSI.

HSI Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 2-year HSI grantees 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

2015 78.5% 79.0% 66.0% 65.0%

2016 78.5 76.5 66.0 66.5

2017 79.0 73.3 66.0 67.5

2018 79.0 80.0 66.5 67.1

2019 79.0 66.5

2020 79.0 66.5
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-65

HSI Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year HSI grantees graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

HSI Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year HSI grantees graduating within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2015 46.5% 45.0% 22.5 23.0%

2016 46.5 47.1 22.5 22.5

2017 47.0 53.3 23.0 23.8

2018 47.0 23.0

2019 47.5 23.5

2020 47.5 23.5

Additional Information: 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.

PPOHA Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the 

number of graduate and professional students enrolled at grantee institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 +2.5% -0.6%

2019 +4.4

Additional Information: The long-term measure for change in enrollment assesses the 

percentage change in enrollment at the PPOHA grantee institutions over a 5-year period. There 

are no intermediate annual targets. Future progress will be assessed against targets 

periodically (about every 5 years). For 2013, the measure was calculated as the percentage 

change in the number of graduate students enrolling at PPOHA grantee institutions, using the 

2008 baseline of 100,570 students. During this period, total graduate enrollment at PPOHA 

grantee institutions decreased to 99,969 in 2013, or 0.6 percent from 2008. 

The Department has set the target for 2019 based on NCES projections for total post 

baccalaureate enrollment growth at degree-granting institutions between 2014 and 2019. Thus 

far, enrollment for fiscal years 2014-2018 for these institutions has increased by 1.2 percent 

(from 52,805 to 52,196).
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-66

PPOHA Degree Completion Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, 

of the number of master's, doctoral and first-professional degrees and post baccalaureate

certificates awarded at HSI grantee institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 20.0% 63.0%

2019 5.8

Additional Information: The long-term measure for change in graduate degrees assesses the 

percentage change in graduate degrees and certificates awarded over a 5-year period. For 

2013, the measure was calculated as the percentage change in the number of degrees and

certificates awarded at the grantee institutions. The change from 2008 to 2013 was 63 percent, 

based on a 2008 baseline of 18,108 degrees and certificates and the 29,580 degrees and 

certificates in 2013. The Department has set a target for 2019 based on NCES projections for 

the growth in master’s and doctoral degrees conferred between 2014 and 2019. 

HSI STEM Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the 

number of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at HSI grantee institutions.

Year Target Actual

2016 -0.8%

2021 4.5%

Additional Information: The Department has established an enrollment measure that focuses 

on changes in enrollment. The measure uses the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) fall enrollment data 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. Student enrollment at HSI STEM grantee institutions in 2016 (522,042) was 

used to calculate the percentage change against student enrollment at HSIs in the base year 

2011 (526,069). 

The Department has established a 2021 target of 4.5 percent based on NCES’ projection for the 

change in total undergraduate enrollment at degree-granting institutions from 2016-2021. Thus 

far, enrollment for fiscal years 2016-2018 for these institutions has increased by .7 percent (from 

572,406 to 576,242).
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-67

HSI STEM Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degreeseeking undergraduate students at 4-year HSI grantees who were in their first year of 

postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same 

HSI.

HSI STEM Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degreeseeking undergraduate students at 2-year HSI grantees 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

2015 78.5% 78.0% 66.0% 65.5%

2016 78.5 78.5 66.0 67.0

2017 79.0 80.6 66.0 66.2

2018 79.0 79.7 66.5 66.8

2019 79.5 66.5

2020 79.5 67.0

HSI STEM Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degreeseeking undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year HSI grantee institutions graduating within 

6 years of enrollment.

HSI STEM Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degreeseeking undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year HSI grantee institutions graduating within 

3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2015 46.5% 46.5% 22.5% 22.5%

2016 46.5 52.7 22.5 23.7

2017 47.0 52.8 23.0 25.6

2018 47.0 23.0

2019 47.5 23.5

2020 48.0 24.0

Additional Information: 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-68

Efficiency Measures

Developing HSIs: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate 

degree at HSI grantee institutions.

Year Target Actual

2015 $1,250 $417

2016 1,235 353

2017 1,220 317

2018 500

2019 500

2020 475

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 notes that it is difficult to 

attribute increases or decreases under this measure to the Federal share of funds due to the 

limited amount of the Federal contribution. Given that the average cost per successful outcome 

for 2012-2015 was significantly lower than the established targets, the Department revised its 

targets, beginning in 2018, to more accurately reflect actual performance.

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 grantee institutions.

Year Target Actual

2015 $2,215 $568

2016 650 553

2017 625 550

2018 600

2019 575

2020 550

Additional Information: 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 2017, when PPOHA obligations totaled

$9.7 million, grantee institutions awarded 17,599 graduate degrees. Grantees have 

outperformed the initial targets, which were set based on eligible institutions. Given that the 

average cost per successful outcome for 2012-2015 was significantly lower than the established 

targets, the Department revised its targets, beginning in 2016, to more accurately reflect actual 

performance. The PPOHA efficiency measure can also be used to assess overall program 

performance over time. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-69

HSI STEM: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost for undergraduate and graduate 

degrees at institutions in the Hispanic-Serving Institutions STEM and Articulation Programs.

Year Target Actual

2015 $489

2016 $610 472

2017 600 474

2018 590

2019 580

2020 570

Additional Information: The HSI STEM efficiency measure is calculated by dividing the 

appropriation for the HSI STEM program by the number of undergraduate and graduate 

degrees awarded at grantee institutions. In fiscal year 2017, when HSI STEM obligations 

totaled $93.2 million, grantee institutions awarded 196,795 undergraduate and graduate 

degrees.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-70

Consolidated Minority-Serving Institutions Grant

Consolidated Minority-Serving Institutions Grant

(Proposed Legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority:

Progra footnote 2019 footnote 2020 Footnote Change

Consolidated MSI Grant 

Proposal 0 $147,906 +$147,906

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Consolidated Minority-Serving Institutions (MSI) Grant program would provide formulabased funding to Minority-Serving Institutions to develop and implement projects to improve and 

expand the institutions’ capacity to serve minority and low-income students. The institutions of 

higher education that meet the eligibility requirements, including the minority enrollment 

thresholds, for at least one of the following currently authorized programs, would be eligible for 

formula allocations under this program:

 Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions (ANNHs)

 Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

(AANAPISIs)

 Strengthening Native American-serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTIs)

 Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs)

 Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) 

 Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (PPOHA)

Under the proposal, Consolidated MSI Grant funding would be allocated using a formula that 

would take into consideration factors such as: (1) the number of Pell Grant recipients enrolled

and (2) the number of Pell Grant recipients who graduate. Under the proposal, institutions would 

need to meet the same eligibility requirements—including the minority enrollment thresholds—

that currently apply under these 6 programs. As under current law, no institution that receives 

funds under this proposal could concurrently receive funding under Part B of Title III of the 

Higher Education Act (HEA). 

Institutions receiving awards under the Consolidated MSI Grant program could use funding to 

undertake the same wide range of activities of institutional and student support activities 

currently authorized in Titles III and V of the HEA. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Consolidated MSI Grant

R-71

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $147.9 million for the proposed Consolidated 

MSI Grant program, which would consolidate six programs currently authorized in Titles III and 

V of the HEA into a single institutional formula grant program. The fiscal year 2020 request is a 

decrease of $22.8 million from the 2019 appropriation for the six antecedent programs, and is 

the same as the fiscal year 2019 request, reflecting the President’s government-wide 

commitment to increase support for national security and public safety without adding to the 

Federal budget deficit. Fiscal year 2020 funds would first be used to fully pay all continuation 

awards under the six consolidated programs; remaining funds would be allocated through the 

proposed institutional formula. 

Currently, the HEA authorizes numerous Title III and Title V programs that have similar, and in 

some cases identical, purposes and activities, with most funds awarded through competitions 

that are administratively burdensome for both applicants and the Department. Rather than 

continuing to invest significant MSI and Department staff time and resources into individual 

grant competitions, the Administration proposes to streamline these multiple, complex award 

processes, reduce burden on applicants and grantees, and lower Federal administrative costs 

by consolidating the following six Title III and V programs into a single new institutional formula 

grant program that would continue to provide strong support to institutions that serve large 

numbers of minority students:

 Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions (ANNHs)

 Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

(AANAPISIs)

 Strengthening Native American-serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTIs)

 Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs)

 Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) 

 Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (PPOHA)

The proposed consolidated institutional formula grant program would ensure continued support 

for MSIs, including HSIs, while eliminating redundant authorities, reducing the Federal role, 

improving alignment between Federal resources and institutional needs, and enabling the 

Department to re-allocate limited staff resources from competition-related activities to grant 

monitoring and performance improvement. The proposal also would enable the Department to 

administer these programs in a more efficient and equitable way while continuing to meet 

institutional needs, and reducing administrative burden for grantees and the Department alike. 

The Administration anticipates that its proposed institutional allocation formula would include 

key factors to target funds to institutions with the highest need and a track record of success. 

For example, the formula may include: (1) the number of Pell Grant recipients enrolled and 

(2) the number of Pell Grant recipients who graduate. Current eligibility requirements—

including the minority enrollment thresholds—for the six categories of institutions funded under 

existing programs would continue to apply. The Administration is also considering a 

requirement for institutions to meet a minimum Pell graduation rate threshold to maintain 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Consolidated MSI Grant

R-72

eligibility for funding. The consolidated program would retain the wide range of allowable 

activities currently authorized by the HEA for the antecedent programs. 

Finally, the Administration is also proposing a new authority, aligned with the Pooled Evaluation 

authority under the ESEA, that would enable the Department to reserve up to .5 percent of 

funding annually appropriated for certain HEA programs for rigorous program evaluation, data 

collection, and analysis of outcome data. This new authority would provide essential resources 

to support performance improvement and evidence-building in all HEA programs, including the 

Consolidated MSI Grant program. If Congress does not enact this proposed HEA-wide 

evaluation authority, the Administration would seek a separate, program-specific set-aside of 

0.5 percent under the proposed Consolidated MSI Grant program to support technical 

assistance, data collection, and rigorous program evaluation.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures

Footnote Fo Footnote

2020

Footnote

Consolidated MSI Grant Formula Allocation

Devel oping H SIs: Number of new awards TBD

Devel oping H SIs: Average new award TBD

Devel oping H SIs: Total new award funding $43,8521

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

Devel oping H SIs: Number of NCC awards 126

Devel oping H SIs: Average NCC award $572

Devel oping H SIs: Total NCC award funding $72,067

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans

Devel oping H SIs: Number of NCC awards 20

Devel oping H SIs: Average NCC award $553

Devel oping H SIs: Total NCC award funding $11,063

Strengthening ANNHs

Devel oping H SIs: Number of NCC awards 12

Devel oping H SIs: Average NCC award $772

Devel oping H SIs: Total NCC award funding $9,260

Strengthening PBIs

Devel oping H SIs: Number of NCC awards 10

Devel oping H SIs: Average NCC award $1,148

Devel oping H SIs: Total NCC award funding $11,475

1

The total number of new awards cannot be determined at this time; however, the Department expects to award 

169 non-competing continuation awards.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Consolidated MSI Grant

R-73

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures

Footnote Fo Footnote

2020

Footnote

Strengthening AANAPISIs

Number of NCC awards STEM and Articulation Programs M andator y fundi ng 1

Average NCC award STEM and Articulation Programs Mandator y funding $300

Total NCC award funding STEM and Articul ati on Pr ograms M andatory fundi ng $300

Strengthening NASNTIs

Number of NCC awards STEM and Articulation Programs M andator y fundi ng 0

Average NCC award STEM and Articulation Programs Mandator y funding 0

Total NCC award funding STEM and Articul ati on Pr ograms M andatory fundi ng 0

Total Program Funding $147,906

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department would continue to use existing performance measures for MSIs receiving 

continuation awards under existing authorities until the end of their project periods, and would 

develop performance measures for the Consolidated MSI Grant program based closely on the 

measures used for the antecedent programs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-74

Other aid for institutions:

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES:

DOMESTIC PROGRAM S

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic

programs

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VI, Parts A and B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

Program N ame footnote 2019 footnote 2020 footnote Change footnote

$65,103 $65,103 0 -$65,103

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is not sought for fiscal year 2020.

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 originated in the National 

Defense Education Act of 1958, as a response to the need to strengthen instruction in the areas 

of international studies and foreign languages that were insufficiently taught in the United 

States. 

Funds are used to support a broad range of activities under ten Domestic Programs, at all 

levels, including primary and secondary education through a variety of K-12 outreach and 

teacher training collaborations. Grants are awarded to institutions of higher education (IHEs) to 

support centers, programs, and fellowships to increase the number of experts in foreign 

languages and international studies, meet national needs, and strengthen the teaching of 

foreign languages and international education at all levels. Prior to each grant cycle, the 

Department must consult with and receive recommendations from other relevant Federal 

Agencies to determine the “areas of national need” for expertise in foreign languages and world

areas.

When awarding grants, the Department is required to take into account a variety of factors, 

including: the degree to which applicants’ proposed activities address national needs and 

inform the public; the applicants’ record placing students into postgraduate employment, 

education, or training in areas of national need; and the applicants’ proposed plans and 

strategies to increase this number. Emphasis is placed on less commonly taught languages 

and the regions where those languages are used.

The Department is required to assist grantees in developing a survey to administer to students 

who have completed programs under Title VI to determine postgraduate employment, 

education, or training. Grantees must administer this survey once every 2 years and report their 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-75

survey results to the Department. The first report, published in 2015, tracked the postgraduation career trajectory of FLAS fellowship recipients from 2010 to 2012. The Department 

produced a second report in 2017 that tracked FLAS recipients from 2010 to 2014. Subsequent 

surveys will continue to track this cohort in addition to new FLAS graduates. The next report is 

expected to be available later this year. 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.

The program authorization requires that institutions receiving 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.

The Domestic Programs include the following program investment areas:

The National Resource Centers (NRCs) Program supports IHEs or consortia of such institutions 

in establishing, operating, and strengthening comprehensive or undergraduate centers of 

excellence to train students, specialists, and other scholars. Activities may include: supporting 

instructors of less commonly taught languages; bringing visiting scholars and faculty to the 

Center to teach, conduct research, or participate in conferences or workshops; maintaining 

important library collections and related training and research facilities; conducting advanced 

research on issues in world affairs that concern one or more countries; establishing linkages 

between IHEs and other academic, governmental, and media entities; operating summer 

institutes in the U.S. 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 help students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

fields achieve foreign language proficiency. NRCs are funded for up to 4 years, with funds 

awarded on an annual basis pending satisfactory performance by the Centers and availability of 

funds.

The Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program supports academic year and 

summer fellowships for graduate- and undergraduate-level training at IHEs offering high quality,

performance-based modern language programs, in combination with area studies, international 

studies, or the international aspects of professional studies. Students apply to IHEs that receive 

fellowship allocations from the Department. To be eligible for fellowships, students must be:

 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-76

Before awarding a fellowship for use outside the U.S., an institution must obtain approval from 

the Department. A fellowship may be approved for use outside the U.S. if: (1) the student is 

enrolled in an overseas modern foreign language program approved by the institution where the 

student is enrolled in the U.S.; or (2) the student is engaged in research that cannot be 

effectively done in the U.S. 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 

government service in areas of national need, as well as in areas of need in the education, 

business, and nonprofit sectors.

The 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: development of a global or international studies program that is 

interdisciplinary in design; development of a program that focuses on specific 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; establishment of internship opportunities for faculty and students in 

domestic and overseas settings; and development of study abroad programs.

All 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 describe: how the applicant will provide information 

to students regarding federally funded scholarship programs in related areas; 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; how the applicant will 

encourage service in “areas of national need,” as identified by the Department.

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 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.

The International Research and Studies (IRS) Program provides grants to institutions, public 

and private agencies, organizations, and individuals to conduct research and studies to improve 

and strengthen instruction in modern foreign languages, area studies, and other international 

fields. An applicant may apply for IRS funds to conduct research and studies, including the 

following activities: (1) studies and surveys to determine the need for increased or improved 

instruction in modern foreign languages and area studies and other international fields; 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-77

(2) research and studies on more effective methods of instruction and achieving competency in 

modern foreign languages, area studies, or other international fields; and (3) development and 

publication of specialized materials.

The Centers for International Business Education (CIBE) Program supports 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 international business contexts; 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 resources to local businesses and chambers of commerce 

by offering programs and providing research designed to meet the international training needs 

of such businesses; and serve other faculty, students, and IHEs and K-12 schools with 

additional teacher and student outreach programs located within their respective regions. 

CIBEs are eligible for 4 years of support. 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.

The Language Resource Centers Program supports IHEs or consortia of IHEs in improving the 

teaching and learning of foreign languages. The activities carried out by the Centers must 

support effective dissemination, whenever appropriate, and may include: conducting and 

disseminating research on new and improved teaching methods (including the use of advanced 

educational technology) to the education community; 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; 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; development and dissemination of 

materials designed to serve as a resource for foreign language teachers at the elementary and 

secondary school levels; and operation of intensive summer language institutes. LRCs are 

eligible for up to 4 years of support.

The American Overseas Research Centers Program makes grants to consortia of U.S. IHEs 

that operate overseas, facilitating research and scholarship in a particular region of the world. 

They 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

R-78

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................................... .... $65,103

2016................................................................................. .... 65,103

2017................................................................................. .... 65,103

2018................................................................................. .... 65,103

2019................................................................................. .... 65,103

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests no funding for the Title VI Domestic Programs,

a decrease of $65.1 million from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. This request reflects the 

Administration’s commitment to refocusing Federal education investments on flexible formula

grant programs serving the Nation’s most vulnerable student populations while reducing or 

eliminating funding for programs that are duplicative, ineffective, or more appropriately 

supported with State, local or private funds. A number of other Federal agencies offer programs 

that are similar and potentially duplicative of the Department’s Title VI programs. These include:

 Department of Defense:

o The National Security Education Program provides funds for undergraduate and 

graduate student study abroad in areas less commonly visited by U.S. students.

o Language Flagship Grants to Institutions of Higher Education and Language Flagship 

Fellowships support undergraduate language flagship programs at Flagship Centers 

enabling students from all majors to work towards professional-level language 

proficiency in foreign languages.

 Central Intelligence Agency:

o The Undergraduate Scholarship Program offers major-related career experience for 

undergraduate students, including those majoring in foreign language, area studies, 

international affairs, national security studies, geography/GIS, and linguistics.

o The Central Intelligence Agency Undergraduate Co-Op/Intern Program and Graduate 

Studies Program provide students pursuing degrees in a variety of liberal arts degree 

programs the opportunity to work as Open Source Collection and Exploitation Officers, 

Foreign Language Specialists, Intelligence Analysts, Collection Management Officers, 

and Staff Operations Officers.

 The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) supports academic 

involvement in international development projects, training in the U.S. for technical and 

professional personnel from developing countries, and linkages with universities in 

developing nations.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-79

In addition, there is a significant private market presence for language learning programs, 

including innovative online tools, as well as hundreds of similar programs maintained and 

operated by institutions of higher education across the country. Consequently, the

Administration believes there no longer is a critical need for Title VI domestic programs. 

However, under this request, the Administration would provide existing Domestic Program 

grantees a reasonable period of time to close out existing projects and draw down grant funds 

already awarded in prior years.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

National Resource Centers (NRC) Program:

NRCs Number of new awards 96 0 0

NRCs Average new award $237 0 0

NRCs Total new award funding $22,743 0 0

NRCs Number of NCC awards 0 96 0

NRCs Average NCC award 0 $237 0

NRCs Total NCC award funding 0 $22,743 0

NRCs Total award funding $22,743 $22,743 0

NRCs Total number of awards 96 96 0

Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) 

Fellowships:

FLAS Academic year graduate fellowships 673 673 0

FLAS Average academic year fellowship $33 $33 0

FLAS Academic year undergraduate fellowships 291 291 0

FLAS Average academic year fellowship $15 $15 0

FLAS Summer fellowships 534 534 0

FLAS Average summer year fellowship $8 $8 0

FLAS Number of new awards 105 0 0

FLAS Average new award $294 0 0

FLAS Total new award funding $30,852 0 0

FLAS Number of NCC awards 0 105 0

FLAS Average NCC award 0 $294 0

FLAS Total NCC award funding 0 $30,852 0

FLAS Total award funding $30,852 $30,852 0

FLAS Total number of awards 105 105 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-80

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Undergraduate International Studies

and Foreign Language (USIFL) Program:

UISFLNumber of new awards 21 10 0

UISFL Average new award $80 $92 0

UISFL Total new award funding $1,684 $920 0

UISFLNumber of NCC awards 5 21 0

UISFL Average NCC award $134 $79 0

UISFL Total NCC award funding $670 $1,667 0

FLAS Total award funding $2,354 $2,587 0

FLAS Total number of awards 26 31 0

International Research and Studies (IRS) Program:

IRS Number of new awards 0 8 0

IRS Average new award 0 $89 0

IRS Total new award funding 0 $712 0

IRS Number of NCC awards 8 0 0

IRS Average NCC award $71 0 0

IRS Total NCC award funding $712 0 0

CIBE Total award funding $712 $712 0

CIBE Total number of awards 8 8 0

Centers for International Business Education 

(CIBE):

CIBE Number of new awards 15 0 0

CIBE Average new award $305 0 0

CIBE Total new award funding $4,571 0 0

CIBE Number of NCC awards 0 15 0

CIBE Average NCC award 0 $305 0

CIBE Total NCC award funding 0 $4,571 0

CIBE Total award funding $4,571 $4,571 0

CIBE Total number of awards 15 15 0

Language Resource Centers (LRC) Program:

LRC Number of new awards 16 0 0

LRC Average new award $172 0 0

LRC Total new award funding $2,747 0 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-81

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

11Language Resource Centers Program (cont’d)

LRC Number of NCC awards 0 16 0

LRC Average NCC award 0 $172 0

LRC Total NCC award funding 0 $2,747 0

LRC Total award funding $2,747 $2,747 0

LRC Total number of awards 16 16 0

American Overseas Research Centers (AORC) 

Program:

AORC Number of NCC awards 10 10 0

AORC Average NCC award $65 $65 0

AORC Total NCC award funding $650 $650 0

AORC Total award funding $650 $650 0

AORC Total number of awards 10 10 0

Total award funding:

Domestic Total new award funding $62,597 $1,632 0

Domestic Total NCC award funding $2,032 $63,230 0

Program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination $295 $191 0

Peer review of new award applications $179 $50 0

Total Domestic funding $65,103 $65,103 0

Total Domestic awards 276 281 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information for grantees, 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 fiscal year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by 

those served by the programs.

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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-82

Objective: Provide 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.

Measure: Percentage of priority languages defined by the Department taught at NRCs.

Year Target Actual

2015 83.0%

2016 78.0

2017 62.0

2018

2019 TBD

2020 TBD

Additional information: Grantees are required to submit annual performance reports via the 

International Resource Information System (IRIS), the Web-based performance reporting 

system for the IEFLS programs. Data for this measure is obtained through NRC grantee 

language course uploads. The percentage of priority languages defined by the Department 

taught at NRCs is calculated by taking the total number of distinct priority language courses 

uploaded by institutions and dividing the total number of priority languages defined by the 

Department. Currently, 48 languages, or 62 percent, of 78 critical languages are being taught in 

Title VI institutions. The Department plans to establish targets after 2018 data become 

available in summer.

Measure: Percentage of NRC grants teaching intermediate or advanced courses in priority 

languages as defined by the Department.

Year Target Actual

2015 59.0%

2016 56.0

2017 51.0

2018

2019 TBD

2020 TBD

Additional information: Grantees are required to submit annual performance reports via the 

International Resource Information System (IRIS), the Web-based performance reporting 

system for the IEFLS programs. Data for the measure is obtained from grantee NRC language 

course uploads. The percentage of NRC grants teaching intermediate or advanced courses in 

priority languages is calculated by taking the total number of priority language courses uploaded 

by institutions where level equals 3 and dividing the total number of priority languages defined 

by the Department. Currently, 40 of the 78 priority languages are teaching intermediate or 

advanced courses in Title VI institutions. The Department plans to establish targets after 2018 

data become available in summer 2019. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-83

Measure: Percentage of less and least commonly taught languages as defined by the 

Department of Education taught at NRCs.

Year Target Actual

2015 36.0%

2016 35.0

2017 24.0

2018

2019 TBD

2020 TBD

Additional information: Grantees are required to submit annual performance reports via the 

International Resource Information System (IRIS), the Web-based performance reporting 

system for the IEFLS programs. Data for this measure is obtained from grantee NRC language 

course uploads. The percentage of less and least commonly taught languages is calculated by 

taking the total distinct least commonly taught language courses uploaded by institutions and 

dividing the total least commonly taught languages. During fiscal year 2017, 70 languages of 

287 were taught in Title VI institutions. The Department plans to establish targets after 2018 

data become available in summer 2019. 

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.

Measure: Percentage of FLAS masters and doctoral graduates who studied priority languages 

as defined by the Department. 

Year Target Actual

2015 83.0%

2016 83.0

2017 83.0

2018

2019 TBD

2020 TBD

Additional information: The measure is created by taking the total master’s and doctorate 

fellows who are studying a priority language and dividing the number by the total master’s and 

doctoral fellows. In fiscal year 2017, 1,088 out of 1,314, or 83 percent of FLAS masters and 

doctoral fellows were studying a priority language. The Department plans to establish targets 

after 2018 data become available in summer 2019. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-84

Measure: Percentage of FLAS graduated fellows who secured employment that utilizes their 

foreign language and area studies skills within 8 years after graduation based on FLAS tracking 

survey (long-term measure).

Year Target Actual

2012 77.0%

2014 80.0

2016

2018

2020 TBD

Additional information: Data are obtained from the Survey of Post-Graduates for International 

Education Fellowship Recipients. Grantees must administer this survey once every 2 years and 

report their survey results to the Department. The most recent data are based on a survey that 

tracked FLAS fellowship recipients from 2010 to 2014 who have since graduated. This report 

follows on the first report, published in 2015, which covered FLAS fellows who graduated in 

2010–2012. This report adds FLAS fellows who graduated in 2012–2014 to the ones who 

graduated in 2010–2012. When asked to what extent the fellows’ current primary employment 

related to the fields in which they received their degrees, of the fellows that were surveyed, 

80 percent of respondents reported that their principal jobs were “closely related” (51 percent)

or “somewhat related” (29 percent) to the fields in which they received their degrees. Twenty 

percent responded that their principal jobs were “not related” to the fields in which they received 

their degrees and 5 percent of fellows were unemployed. Data for 2016 will be available 

December 2019 and future targets will be established.

Other Performance Measures

The Department established additional performance measures in an effort to increase 

transparency and accountability for the IFLE programs. These include a number of long-term 

measures for which data will not be available until 2020. However, the Department experienced 

difficulties compiling and reporting grantee performance data for these measures. The

Department is currently working to identify and address these reporting issues. These measures 

include the following:

 Percentage of NRCs that increased the number of certificate, minor, or major degree 

programs in the priority and/or LCTLs, area studies, or international studies during the 

course of the 4-year grant period (long-term measure).

 Percentage of NRCs that increased the number of intermediate or advanced level language 

courses in the priority and/or LCTLs during the course of the grant period (long-term 

measure).

 Percentage of FLAS fellows who increased their foreign language reading, writing, and/or 

listening/speaking scores by at least 1 proficiency level (annual measure). 

 Percentage of UISFL projects that added or enhanced courses in international studies in 

critical world areas and priority foreign languages (annual measure).

 Percentage of UISFL consortium projects that established certificates and/or undergraduate 

degree programs in international or foreign language studies (annual measure).
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-85

 Percentage of CIBE program participants who advanced in their professional field 2 years 

after their participation (intermediate measure).

 Percentage of CIBE projects that established or internationalized a concentration, degree, or 

professional program with a focus on or connection to international business over the course 

of the CIBE grant period (long-term measure).

 The percentage of CIBE projects whose business industry participants increased export 

business activities (annual measure).

 Percentage of LRC products or activities judged to be successful by LRC customers with 

respect to quality, usefulness, and relevance (annual measure).

 Percentage of LRC products judged to be successful by an independent expert review panel 

with respect to quality, relevance, and usefulness (annual measure).

 Number of individuals conducting postgraduate research utilizing the services of AORCs.

 Percentage of AORCs program participants who advanced in their professional field 2 years 

after their participation (intermediate measure).

Efficiency Measures

The Department also has developed the following efficiency measures:

 Cost per NRC that increased the number of intermediate or advanced level language 

courses in the priority and/or LCTLs during the course of the grant period (long-term 

measure).

 Cost per FLAS fellowship program fellow who increased his/her reading, writing, and/or 

listening/speaking language score by at least one proficiency level (annual measure). 

 Cost per CIBE doctoral or Master's graduate employed in international business-related 

fields, including teaching in a business school or program within 8 years after graduation as 

measured by the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) Tracking Survey 

(long-term measure).

 Cost per LRC project that increased the number of training programs for K-16 instructors of 

LCTLs (annual measure).

Efficiency measures for the remaining Domestic Programs have not been finalized. 

Other Performance Information

 In February 2019, the Department released an International and Foreign Language 

Education Annual Report for 2017 that highlights the results of the IFLE programs and 

provides a snapshot of the ways in which funded programs have benefited the nation’s 

students, educators, institutions, and the nation at large. The Report provides a brief update 

on each IFLE program and summarizes the results of the most recent (fiscal year 2017) 

program competitions. More information is available at the following link: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/2017ifleannualreport.pdf.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-86

 A number of studies have been conducted over the years to evaluate aspects of the 

Domestic Programs, including the following:

o When Congress reauthorized the HEA, by way of the Higher Education Opportunity Act 

of 2008 (HEOA), it directed the Department to assist grantees in developing a survey to 

administer to students who have completed programs authorized by Title VI of the HEA 

to determine postgraduate employment, education, or training. The most recent report is 

based on a survey that tracked FLAS fellowship recipients from 2010 to 2014 who have 

since graduated. This report follows on the first report, published in 2015, which covered 

FLAS fellows who graduated in 2010–2012. This report adds FLAS fellows who 

graduated in 2012–2014 to the ones who graduated in 2010–2012. Subsequent surveys 

will continue to track this cohort in addition to new FLAS graduates. The survey data for 

this cohort demonstrate that graduated FLAS fellows tend to use their training in their 

jobs. 

 Key findings of this report were as follows:

 FLAS fellows studied 95 languages during their first fellowship; 60 percent of the 

languages studied were considered priority languages.

 Slightly over one-quarter of fellows used their fellowship to study at overseas 

institutions.

 More than three-quarters of respondents are working in fields that are related to 

the area of study during their fellowship.

 Sixty percent indicated that knowledge of a foreign language is a requirement or 

a key asset to their current job, and 64 percent reported that knowledge of 

area/international studies is a requirement or a key asset to their current job.

 More than 60 percent reported using their area/international studies training in 

their current work on a regular basis with 37 percent reporting daily use.

 Sixty-eight percent reported that they were “unlikely to achieve advanced 

language proficiency” without the FLAS fellowship.

Data for the 2014-2016 cohort is currently being analyzed and will be ready later in 

2019. It will be repeated in 2020 adding FLAS fellowship recipients from 2016–2018, 

with a view toward both generating longitudinal data and improving on survey design 

and administration

o A 2008 study of the Department’s graduate fellowship programs 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 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 indicate:

 FLAS fellows studied a wide variety of languages. South Asian 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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-87

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 (speaking and listening were rated on a 5-point scale; 

reading and writing on a 6-point scale) with FLAS support both at the start and upon 

completing FLAS-supported study at a variety of levels. 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.

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 

limitations, the data indicate positive outcomes.

.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-88

OVERSEAS PROGRAM S

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas

programs

(Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Section 102(b)(6))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

Program N ame footnote 2019 footnote 2020 footnote Change footnote

$7,061 $7,061 0 -$7,061

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). Grants are provided on an annual basis to eligible institutions that, 

in turn, support projects of varying duration under the following programs:

Group Projects Abroad (GPA) Program supports short-term projects, group training, research, 

and curriculum development in modern foreign languages and area studies for American 

teachers, college students, and faculty for periods from 1 to 12 months. In addition, the GPA 

program supports Advanced Overseas projects designed to provide advanced language training 

to students in foreign countries for a period of up to 12 months. Projects can 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. 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. Fellowships are 

from 6 to 12 months in length.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

R-89

Seminars Abroad (SA)-Special Bilateral Projects 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 are specifically designed to increase the supply of specialists in area, 

international, and language studies. These programs also improve public access to knowledge 

of other countries and languages by supporting activities such as: 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 less commonly taught foreign languages, and those areas of 

the world in which those languages are spoken. Emphasis is placed on languages and regions 

defined as high priority by the Administration.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015................................................................................. .... $7,061

2016................................................................................... .... 7,061

2017................................................................................... .... 7,061

2018................................................................................... .... 7,061

2019................................................................................... .... 7,061

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST 

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests no funding for the Overseas Programs, a 

decrease of $7 million from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation, consistent with the 

Administration’s goal of rightsizing the Federal role in education by reducing or eliminating 

funding for programs that duplicate other programs; are ineffective; or are more appropriately 

supported with State, local or private funds. 

Other Federal agencies and organizations offer programs that are similar to and/or duplicative 

of the Department’s Fulbright-Hays programs, including those administered by the Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs (BECA) at the Department of State. BECA programs support 

studies or internships abroad, intensive summer language institutes in critical languages and for 

cultural enrichment, and opportunities for international graduate study, advanced research, 

university teaching, and primary and secondary school teaching. Additionally, the American 

Councils for International Education organization administers many programs for overseas 

language and culture study in all world regions.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

R-90

In addition, there is a significant private market presence for language learning programs, 

including innovative online tools, as well as hundreds of similar programs maintained and 

operated by institutions of higher education across the country. Consequently, the 

Administration believes there no longer is a critical need for the Overseas Programs. Under the

request, the Department would provide existing Overseas Program grantees a reasonable 

period of time to close out existing projects and draw down grant funds already awarded in prior 

years.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Group Projects Abroad:

 Short-Term Projects:

GPA Number of new projects 13 25 0

GPA Average new project $82 $50 0

GPA Total new project funding $1,071 $1,250 0

 Advanced Overseas Projects:

GPA Number of new projects 6 15 0

GPA Average new project $240 $93 0

GPA Total new project funding $1,437 $1,400 0

GPA Total GPA project funding $2,508 $2,650 0

GPA Total number of GPA projects 19 40 0

GPA Total number of GPA participants 425 500 0

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad:

DDRA Number of new fellows 100 90 0

DDRA Average new fellowship $37 $37 0

DDRA Number of new awards 42 40 0

DDRA Average new award $89 $87 0

DDRA Total new award funding $3,745 $3,466 0

Seminars Abroad—Special Bilateral Projects:

Semi nars Number of new awards 3 3 0

Semi nars Average new award $166 $206

Semi nars Total new award funding $498 $617 0

Semi nars Total number of participants 48 48 0

Department of State administrative costs $182 $200 0

Program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination $58 $58 0

Peer review of new award applications $70 $70 0

Total Overseas funding $7,061 $7,061 0

Total Overseas participants 573 638 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

R-91

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department established program performance measures for the International Education 

and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) programs, including the Overseas Programs, to improve 

the quality of program-level outcome data and increase transparency and accountability for the 

programs. However, the Department experienced difficulties compiling and reporting grantee 

performance data for these measures. Although data are not available, the Department is

currently working to identify and address these reporting issues in 2019.

The Department intends to use the following program performance measures for the Overseas 

Programs. Data will be based on pre- and post-grant scores on standardized, instructor-led 

examinations.

 Percentage of DDRA fellows who increased their foreign language scores in speaking, 

reading, and/or writing by at least one proficiency level (annual measure).

 Percentage of GPA participants in the Advanced Language Program who increased their 

reading, writing, and/or listening/speaking foreign language scores by one proficiency level 

(Long-Term Projects).

Grantees are required to submit annual performance reports via the International Resource 

Information System (IRIS), the Web-based performance reporting system for the IEFLS 

programs.

Efficiency Measures

The Department also has developed the following efficiency measures. Data will be collected 

from grantee institutions via their performance reports.

 Cost per DDRA fellow who found employment that utilized their language and area studies 

skills within 8 years. 

 Cost per GPA participant who increased his/her foreign language score in reading, writing, 

and/or listening/speaking by at least one proficiency level.

Other Performance Information

 In February 2019, the Department released an International and Foreign Language 

Education Annual Report for 2017 that highlights the results of the IFLE programs and 

provides a snapshot of the ways in which funded programs have benefited the nation’s 

students, educators, institutions, and the nation at large. The Report provides a brief update 

on each IFLE program and summarizes the results of the most recent (fiscal year 2017) 

program competitions. More information is available at the following link: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/2017ifleannualreport.pdf.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

R-92

 A 2008 study of the Department’s graduate fellowship programs revealed several key 

findings regarding the DDRA program. The data gathered through this study indicated that:

o DDRA fellows took less time to complete their degrees than other doctoral recipients 

did, which may be related to DDRA fellows having been enrolled full-time at higher 

rates than most doctoral students.

o Over 90 percent of DDRA fellows completed their degrees, with only 1 percent 

dropping out of their programs and the remainder planning to complete their 

degrees.

o DDRA fellows who were awarded fellowships late in their graduate school careers 

finished their doctoral degrees at a rate of 93 percent.

o DDRA fellows studied a wide variety of languages: only 20 percent of fellows studied 

European languages and more students studied South or East Asian languages than 

languages from any other geographic region. Nearly two-thirds studied a language 

deemed “critical” by the Department.

o Nearly all (89 percent) DDRA fellows worked in jobs that used the expertise they had 

gained through their fellowship-funded research, and all fellows in these jobs 

described them as part of a career they had pursued for an average of 4 years and 

were continuing to pursue.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-93

MODEL TRANSITION PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES INTO HIGHER EDUCATION

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 2020 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$11,800 $11,800 0

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2020.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Model Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities into Higher Education 

(TPSID) support competitive grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs) (as defined under 

section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)), or consortia of IHEs, to 

create or expand high-quality, inclusive model comprehensive transition and postsecondary 

programs for students with intellectual disabilities. Funds from this program also support a 

national Coordinating Center (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. The Center 

assists in developing, evaluating, funding, conducting outreach, and supporting continuous 

improvement activities for model transition programs.

Grants under this program are awarded for 5 years. All grant recipients must partner with one 

or more local educational agencies to support students with intellectual disabilities who are 

eligible for special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). IHEs 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 a variety of activities, including student support services; academic enrichment, socialization, 

or living skills programs; integrated work experiences; development of individualized instruction 

plans; evaluation of the model program, in cooperation with the Center; program sustainability; 

and development of a program credential.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

R-94

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................................... .... $11,800

2016................................................................................. .... 11,800

2017................................................................................. .... 11,800

2018................................................................................. .... 11,800

2019................................................................................. .... 11,800

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $11.8 million for TPSID, the same as the fiscal 

year 2019 appropriation. Funds appropriated in fiscal year 2020 would support a competition 

for new awards to institutions of higher education, as well as the Coordinating Center. 

Among all students with disabilities, students with intellectual disabilities are the least likely to 

have college enrollment listed as a goal on their Individualized Education Program (IEP) in high 

school, and are among the least likely (along with students with multiple disabilities) to enroll in 

postsecondary education within 4 years after high school. According to the 2011 report, “PostHigh School Outcomes of Young Adults With Disabilities up to 8 Years After High School” from 

the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), only 29 percent of students with 

intellectual disabilities enrolled in postsecondary education settings, the lowest rate of all 

disability categories after 8 years, and of these students, only 7 percent enrolled in 4-year 

colleges. Among those youth with disabilities who do attend college, students with intellectual 

disabilities are less likely than others to successfully find employment, live independently, or see 

friends at least weekly.

TPSID programs identify, promote, and demonstrate innovative strategies to serve students with 

intellectual disabilities in areas such as access to academically inclusive college courses,

participation in internships and integrated competitive employment, and engagement in social 

and personal development activities. 

The current TPSID Coordinating Center is Think College, a project of the Institute for 

Community Inclusion at the University of Massachusetts Boston. In the most recent annual 

report for the 2015-2020 cohort, released in 2019, Think College reported that TPSID served a 

total of 843 students on 48 campuses across 19 states in the third year of data collection, i.e., 

fiscal year 2018. TPSID reported successes in a number of areas, including continued growth 

in enrollments in inclusive courses, the number and percentage of students completing 

programs, and the percentage of students who held paid jobs when they exited the TPSID 

program. Additionally, the percentage of TPSID students attending programs approved as 

Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs (CTPs) increased from 42 percent to 

63 percent in from Year 2 to Year 3.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

R-95

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 fo

ot

n

ot

e 2019 footnote 2020

footnote

Number of new awards 0 0 25

Average new award 0 0 $388

Total new award funding 0 0 $9,700

Number of non-competing 

continuation (NCC) awards 25 25 0

Average NCC award $392 $392 0

Total NCC award funding $9,800 $9,800 0

Coordinating Center $2,000 $2,000 $2,000

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 0 $100

Total $11,800 $11,800 $11,800

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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 

fiscal year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program.

Goal: To promote the successful transition of students with intellectual disabilities into 

higher education.

Objective: Increase 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.

Measure: The percentage of students with intellectual disabilities 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.

Year Target Actual

2016 85% 72%

2017 85 75

2018 85 77

2019 85

2020 85
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

R-96

Additional Information: Possible credentials include certificates specifically for TPSID 

students granted by an IHE, specialized certificates granted by a program, certificates available 

to all students, specialized certificates issued from a Local Educational Agency (LEA), and 

Bachelor or Associate degrees available to all students. Reporting year 2018 represents the 

third year of the second cohort (i.e., 2015-2020) of TPSID grantees. Of the 267 students who 

exited a TPSID program during fiscal year 2018, 206 students (77 percent) received a 

meaningful credential. 

Objective: Increase the percentage of TPSID grant recipients that meet Department-approved, 

Center-developed standards for necessary program components.

Measure: The percentage of TPSID grant recipients that meet Department-approved, 

Center-developed standards for necessary program components, including Academic Access, 

Career Development, Campus Membership, Self-Determination, Alignment with College 

Systems and Practices, Coordination and Collaboration, Sustainability, and Ongoing Evaluation.

Year Target Actual

2016 90% 88%

2017 90 63

2018 90 75

2019 90

2020 90

Additional Information: The Center developed the Think College Standards for Inclusive 

Higher Education in 2012. These eight standards include 18 quality indicators and 

87 benchmarks and provide an evaluation framework for TPSID performance in areas of 

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

R-97

The Center looks at the TPSID grantees as a cohort in this measure, determining the 

percentage of standards that are met by all projects. In 2018, which corresponds to the third

year of the second cohort, 100 percent of TPSIDs met six of the eight standards (75 percent). 

This decrease from the prior year is largely the result of a single grantee that did not meet three 

of the eight standards in its second year. The following table provides a breakout of the 

individual standards and the percentage of grantees that met each, respectively, by year.

Standard

FY 

2016

FY 

2017

FY 

2018

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.

100% 96% 100%

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 92 92

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. 

100 100 100

4. Self-Determination: To facilitate the development of selfdetermination 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. 

100 100 100

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. 

100 100 100
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

R-98

Standard

FY 

2016

FY 

2017

FY 

2018

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 programspecific services of the comprehensive postsecondary education 

program. 

100% 100% 100%

7. Sustainability: To facilitate sustainability the comprehensive 

postsecondary education program should use diverse sources of funding 

and have a planning and advisory team. 

100 100 100

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 96 96

The Department will continue to refine this measure for the fiscal year 2020 competition. The 

Department is also in the process of identifying additional performance measures, including 

long-term and efficiency measures, for the evaluation of TPSID grantees. Data from the current 

25 grantees from the second cohort (2015-2020) as well as the 27 grantees from the first cohort 

(2010-2015) will inform measurement development and refinement.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-99

TRIBALLY CONTROLLED POSTSECONDARY CAREER AND TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical

institutions

(Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, Section 117)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $9,899

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$9,564 $8,286 -$1,278

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program makes grants to tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions 

to provide career and technical education to Indian students. The program was reauthorized by 

the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act with no significant 

changes.

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 selfsustaining 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

R-100

Funds may be used by a grantee to train faculty; purchase equipment; provide instructional 

services, child-care and other family support services, and student stipends; and for institutional 

support.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015................................................................................. .... $7,705

2016................................................................................... .... 8,286

2017................................................................................... .... 8,286

2018................................................................................... .... 9,469

2019................................................................................... .... 9,564

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $8.3 million for the Tribally Controlled 

Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions (TCPCTI) program, a decrease of $1.3 million 

from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation and the same as the fiscal year 2019 request. The 

request would provide significant resources for the program while also maintaining the fiscal 

discipline necessary to support the President’s goal of increasing support for national security 

and public safety without adding to the Federal budget deficit. Funds would be used to improve 

eligible institutions’ academic and career and technical education offerings consistent with the 

purposes of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, as reauthorized 

and amended by the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act,

and for institutional support and capital expenditures.

This program currently makes awards to two institutions: Navajo Technical College (Navajo 

Tech) and United Tribes Technical College (UTTC). While UTTC is located in an urban setting 

and serves a diverse Indian student population and 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 the skills needed to succeed in a postsecondary setting. 

Typical sources of institutional support, such as student tuition, endowments, and State 

assistance are not sufficient to meet student needs. Furthermore, according to Navajo Tech 

and UTTC officials, these institutions receive limited support from the tribes they serve because 

they are not the primary postsecondary institutions for those tribes. Consequently, these 

institutions rely on Federal assistance to help them provide postsecondary career and technical 

education services to their students.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

R-101

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Range of awards $2,541-$6,928 $2,566-$6,998 $2,223-$6,063

Number of awards $1,800 $1,000 2 $800 2 2

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 

fiscal year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program. 

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

2015 90% 83% 58% 42%

2016 95 76 60 42

2017 88 99 62 26

2018 88 62

2019 88 62

2020 88 62

Additional information: The source of data is grantee reports. UTTC reported that there has 

been a significant increase in the number of students who “stop out,” or leave the program to 

return later, in order to earn income. The Department reset targets in 2015 based on actual 

performance over the preceding 5 years; in particular, it reset targets for Navajo Tech given the 

changes in rigor due to its new status as a university and expected changes in performance due 

to these changes. Data for 2018 will be available in summer of 2019.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

R-102

Measure: The percentage of students who are retained in postsecondary CTE programs.

Year Target Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Actual Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target Percentage, 

UTTC

Actual 

Percentage, UTTC

2015 85% 78% 65% 72%

2016 87 70 65 72

2017 82 66 58 35

2018 82 58

2019 82 61

2020 83 61

Additional information: The source of data is grantee reports. The measure is based on 

students who complete CTE programs and students who have not yet completed, but have 

been retained, in CTE programs. The Department reset targets in 2015 based on actual 

performance over the preceding 5 years; in particular, it reset targets for Navajo Tech given the 

changes in rigor due to its new status as a university and expected changes in performance due 

to these changes. Data for 2018 will be available in summer of 2019.

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

2015 85% 78% 80% 68%

2016 85 76 82 68

2017 83 70 76 88

2018 83 76

2019 83 76

2020 83 84

Additional information: The source of data is grantee reports. The percentage of students who 

meet State- or program-established industry-validated CTE skills standards 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 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. The Department reset targets in 2015 based on actual 

performance over the preceding 5 years; in particular, it reset targets for Navajo Tech given the 

changes in rigor due to its new status as a university and expected changes in performance due 

to these changes. Data for 2018 will be available in summer of 2019.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

R-103

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

2015 70% 55% 85% 80%

2016 73 86 87 81

2017 77 74 82 75

2018 79 79

2019 79 79

2020 84 79

Additional information: The source of data is grantee reports. 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. The 

Department reset targets in 2015 based on actual performance over the preceding 5 years; in 

particular, it reset targets for Navajo Tech given the changes in rigor due to its new status as a 

university and expected changes in performance due to these changes. Data for 2018 will be 

available in summer of 2019.

Efficiency Measures

The Department adopted cost per participant as the efficiency measure for this program. The 

Department considered calculating the cost per successful outcome (which would be a more 

meaningful indicator of cost-effectiveness), but the recipients do not use the same 

methodology to determine degree completion, which limits the comparability of the data. In 

addition, there continue to be reliability concerns about these data due to challenges in 

obtaining an accurate student count. The Department developed guidance to help grantees 

improve the comparability and reliability 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: Annual cost per participant (whole dollars).

Year

Cost per participant, 

Navajo Tech

Cost per participant, 

UTTC

2012 $3,104 $4,128

2013 2,950 2,950

2014 3,172 3,172

2015 4,086 4,086

2016 4,150 4,150

2017 4,089 4,089
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

R-104

Additional information: The statutory definition of Indian student count is an aggregate of the 

enrollment counts for each term: summer school, fall, spring, and continuing education; this 

means that an individual student may be included more than once in the total count. Since 

funding is distributed on an annual basis, the Department calculates the cost per participant by 

dividing the reported Indian student count by two to adjust for students who are counted multiple 

times. Data for fiscal year 2018 will be available by the fall of 2019. Note that the validity of the 

student count data provided by the recipients is uncertain.

.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-105

Assistance for students:

FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS

Federal TRIO programs

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2019 2020 Change

$1,060,000 $950,000 -$110,000

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2020.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal TRIO Programs consist primarily of five discretionary grant programs—Talent 

Search, Upward Bound, Student Support Services, Educational Opportunity Centers, and 

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, firstgeneration college students (or individuals with disabilities for the Student Support Services 

program).

Talent Search identifies and assists individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds who are 

between 11 and 27 years of age by providing them with academic, career, and financial 

counseling and encouraging them to graduate from high school (or return to school, for those 

who have dropped out) and enroll in a postsecondary education program. Projects must 

provide a variety of supports and services, including: 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 academic tutoring services; 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

R-106

Upward Bound provides services to high school students that are designed to generate the 

skills and motivation needed to pursue and complete a postsecondary education. Projects 

provide the same services as Talent Search projects, except that Upward Bound projects may 

provide an on-campus residential summer component and work-study positions that expose

students to careers requiring a postsecondary degree. In addition to regular projects, Upward 

Bound supports projects that focus on math and science and also on veterans. The Upward 

Bound Math and Science program establishes mathematics and science centers that encourage 

students to pursue postsecondary degrees specifically in those fields. The Veterans Upward 

Bound projects are designed to assist veterans in preparing for a program of postsecondary 

education.

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, graduation, and transfer rates from 2-year to 

4-year institutions. All projects must provide a range of supports and services, including: 

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 (English learner) 

students, homeless students, and students in foster care; and grant aid (not to exceed 

20 percent of a project’s 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 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.

The two largest programs, in terms of funding, are Upward Bound (which includes Veterans 

Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science) and Student Support Services, which 

together accounted for over three-fourths of all TRIO funding in 2018, while Talent Search 

serves the largest number of students. TRIO programs vary greatly in service intensity, with 

annual per-student costs ranging from a high of $9,133 for the McNair program to a low of $267

for the Educational Opportunity Centers. Most projects are located at 2- and 4-year 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-107

postsecondary institutions, although nonprofit organizations operate a substantial number of 

Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Center projects.

Number of Participants, Participants per Project and Cost per Participant (FY 2018) 

Award Type

Number of 

Participants

Average number of 

participants

per project

Federal

cost per participant

Talent Search 309,905 655 $511

Upward Bound 70,914 73 5,014

Veterans Upward Bound 8,157 132 2,254

Upward Bound Math and Science 13,184 62 5,134

Educational Opportunity Centers 193,530 1,382 267

Student Support Services 202,880 190 1,590

McNair 5,242 28 9,133

Percentage of Funds by Institution Type (FY 2018)

 Institution Type

Talent 

Search

Upward 

Bound1

Educational 

Opportunity 

Centers

Student 

Support 

Services McNair

Postsecondary Institutions

Public, 4-year 43.3% 47.8% 42.5% 41.9% 75.0%

Public, 2-year 28.7 26.3 28.1 46.0 0.0

Private, 4-year 9.8 15.0 5.1 11.7 25.0

Private, 2-year 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0

Total, Postsecondary 81.8 89.2 75.6 100.0 100.0

Other organizations2 18.2 10.8 24.4 0.0 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, private profit-making organizations, Indian Tribes, and private elementary and secondary 

schools.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-108

In addition, TRIO funding supports training for project staff members, dissemination of best 

practices, evaluation activities, and administrative expenses.

Funding for 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, but stipulates 

that the primary purpose of such evaluations must be the identification of successful practices 

and places limitations on the Department’s ability to use experimental design methodologies in 

conducting evaluations of overall program effectiveness. 

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 applicants and grantees.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015 ...................................................................................... . $839,752

2016 ........................................................................................ 900,000

2017 ........................................................................................ 950,000

2018 ..................................................................................... 1,010,000

2019 ..................................................................................... 1,060,000

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $950 million for the Federal TRIO programs, a 

decrease of $110 million from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation and the same as the fiscal year

2019 request. The request retains the Administration’s fiscal year 2019 budget proposal to 

transition the Federal TRIO Programs from a set of competitive grant programs into a single 

State formula grant program that would support all existing TRIO activities, as well as those 

authorized under Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR 

UP), to help low-income and other disadvantaged students progress through the academic 

pipeline from middle school through college. The request would allow for all TRIO continuation 

awards to be fully funded and still have substantial funding remaining for formula grants to 

States for new awards. 

The TRIO State formula grant consolidation proposal supports a number of the Administration’s 

most important objectives in rightsizing the Federal role in education, including shifting authority 

and responsibility from the Federal government to the States, improving alignment between 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-109

Federal resources and need, investing in activities that are most supported by evidence, and 

enabling the Department to re-allocate limited staff resources from competition-related activities 

to other core activities such as grant monitoring, technical assistance, performance 

improvement, and program evaluation. 

Under this proposal, States would be responsible for determining how to allocate TRIO dollars 

among currently authorized TRIO activities (along with additional activities currently authorized 

under GEAR UP) as well as activities that best meet the needs of their eligible students and are 

most supported by evidence of effectiveness. States would also be empowered to follow their 

own preferred approach to determining subgrant allocations among institutions of higher 

education, local educational agencies, schools, and eligible nonprofit organizations. For 

example, States would decide whether to continue awarding prior experience (PE) points to

current grantees or whether to fund high-cost per student activities focused on assisting a small 

number of students in enrolling in graduate school (such as those funded under McNair).

Restructuring the TRIO programs would also streamline a complex, resource-intensive Federal 

grant-making process that puts new applicants at a significant competitive disadvantage and 

generally results in a large number of awards to the same grantees each year. Across the TRIO 

competitions conducted between 2015 and 2017, approximately 83 percent of new funding was 

awarded to prior grantees; in those same competitions, prior grantee applicants were more than 

three times more likely than new applicants to win awards. 

The proposed TRIO formula would require the Department to award funds based on statutory 

criteria such as each State’s relative share of the population (in a particular age range) at or

below 150 percent of the poverty line. The formula would also include “base allocations” to

initially hold all States harmless according to the amounts they have historically received 

(through grantee recipients located in their States) on average, over some designated time 

period. The formula would include a set-aside for Freely Associated States and Outlying Areas, 

as well as for project staff training activities, data collection, and rigorous program evaluation.

The Department also would protect existing grantees during the transition to formula-based 

allocations by reserving sufficient funding to make continuation awards to existing grantees 

through the end of their approved project periods. In each year of the phase-in period, funding 

not needed for continuation awards would be distributed based on the formula. Accordingly, the 

majority of the amount requested for TRIO in fiscal year 2020 would be used to fully fund 

continuation awards, with the remaining funding distributed through a formula. 

Finally, improving our understanding of the TRIO programs through comprehensive, rigorous 

evaluation methods is essential for maximizing the value of more than $1 billion expended 

annually on programs that help ensure access to, and success in, postsecondary education for 

over 800,000 disadvantaged students each year. For this reason, the Administration proposes 

to remove the current statutory provisions limiting the agency’s ability to rigorously evaluate the 

effectiveness of the TRIO programs. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-110

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures

2018

Funding

footnote

2019

Funding

footnote

2020

Request

footnote

2018

Awards

footnote

2019

Awards

footnote

2020

Awards

footnote

Talent Search (TS)

TS: Continuation awards $158,260 $165,516 $165,507 473 473 473

M STEM Supplements 0 18,920 0 0 473 0

TS: Total 158,260 184,436 165,507 473 473 473

Upward Bound (UB)

UB: New awards 4,370 0 0 12 0 0

UB: Continuation awards 324,643 344,481 344,477 955 967 967

M STEM Supplements 26,579 0 0 686 0 0

(UB)Total 355,592 344,481 344,477 967 967 967

Veterans Upward Bound (VUB)

VUB: New awards 275 0 0 1 0 0

VUB: Continuation awards 18,109 19,225 19,225 61 62 62

VUB: Total 18,384 19,225 19,225 62 62 62

Upward Bound Math and 

Science (UBMS)

UBMS: New awards 550 0 0 2 0 0

UBMS: Continuation awards 60,405 63,743 63,743 210 212 212

M STEM Supplements 6,732 0 0 170 0 0

UBMS: Total 67,688 63,743 63,743 212 212 212

Educational Opportunity 

Centers (EOC)

EOC: Continuation awards 51,682 54,139 54,139 140 140 140

EOC: Total 51,682 54,139 54,139 140 140 140

Student Support Services(SSS)

SSS: Continuation awards 304,157 336,380 24,139 1,069 1,069 63

SSS: Total 304,157 336,380 24,139 1,069 1,069 63

McNair Postbaccalaureate (MPB)

MPB: New awards 278 0 0 1 0 0

MPB: Continuation awards 47,827 50,062 50,062 186 187 187

MPB: Total 48,105 50,062 50,062 187 187 187
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-111

Output Measures

2018

Funding

footnote

2019

Funding

footnote

2020

Request

footnote

2018

Awards

footnote

2019

Awards

footnote

2020

Awards

footnote

Staff Training (ST)

ST: New awards $3,078 0 0 12 0 0

ST: Continuation awards 0 $3,219 0 0 12 0

ST: Total 3,078 3,219 0 12 12 0

Total awards

Domestic Total new awards 8,552 0 0 28 0 0

Domestic Total Continuation awards 965,084 1,036,764 $721,292 3,094 3,122 2,104

STEM Supplements 33,311 18,920 0 856 473 0

State Formula Distribution 0 0 226,708 0 0 59

Evaluation 746 0 2,000

Administrative expenses:

Peer review of new award

 applications 79 2,616 0

Other expenses 2,229 1,699 0

Total 2,307 4,316 0

Total 1,010,000 1,060,000 950,000 3,122 3,122 2,163

In fiscal year 2018, consistent with the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018, the Department reviewed grant applications submitted under the fiscal 

year 2017 UB, UBMS, VUB, and McNair competitions that were initially deemed ineligible due to 

budget errors. These applications were assessed by non-Federal peer reviewers using the 

same criteria, policies and procedures, and cutoff scores that were used for the fiscal year 2017 

competitions. Of the 40 applications with budget errors that were reviewed in fiscal year 2018, 

16 were successful and received new awards, including 12 UB grants (out of 20 applications 

reviewed); 2 UBMS grants (out of 8 applications reviewed); 1 VUB grant (out of 9 applications 

reviewed); and 1 McNair grant (out of 3 applications reviewed). 

In addition, the Department used approximately $33 million of the fiscal year 2018 funding to 

make one-year supplements of up to $40,000 to existing UB and UBMS projects to support new 

or enhanced activities designed to improve student outcomes in Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Math Education, with a particular focus on Computer Science. The 

Department made a total of 856 such supplements, including 686 supplements totaling 

$26.6 million to UB projects and 170 supplements totaling $6.7 million to UBMS projects. UB 

and UBMS grantees are using this supplemental funding to support creative approaches to 

enhance student mastery of key prerequisites necessary to enter postsecondary programs of 

study in STEM fields. The proposed initiatives include a wide range of approaches to engaging

students with academic study, mentoring and practical application of STEM principles, including 

providing coursework in computer science, critical thinking and problem solving; and 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-112

partnerships with research facilities, major corporations and organizations that will provide 

internships and work-based learning experiences. 

Finally, consistent with the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018, the Department also allocated approximately $40 million to provide a 

4.25 percent across-the-board increase to all existing TRIO grantees.

In fiscal year 2019, the Department will use the vast majority of the funding to support 

continuation awards across all programs. With the funds remaining, the Department is currently 

planning to make additional across-the-board award increases to all TRIO grantees and an 

additional round of supplements to enable Talent Search grantees to augment their activities 

designed to promote improve student outcomes in STEM, with a particular focus on computer 

science. 

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 

fiscal year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program.

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

2015 80.5% 78.7% 81.0% 84.9% 61.5% 58.0%

2016 81.0 77.6 81.5 84.1 61.5 57.1

2017 81.0 77.3 82.0 84.6 62.0 56.7

2018 81.0 82.0 62.0

2019 81.0 82.5 62.0

2020 81.0 84.0 62.0

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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-113

 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 have received a regular secondary school 

diploma or an alternative award such as a high school equivalency certificate. 

 For the Upward Bound program, including the Math and Science projects, this measure 

tracks the percentage of Upward Bound participants with a regular secondary school 

diploma who subsequently enroll in postsecondary education. 

 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 received a secondary school diploma or its equivalent during the 

reporting year, high school graduates or high school equivalency graduates not already 

enrolled in postsecondary education, 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

2015 37.0% 41.2%

2016 37.5 43.1

2017 38.0 43.6

2018 38.5

2019 39.0

2020 41.0

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

2015 45.0% 50.4%

2016 47.0 55.9

2017 49.0 56.9

2018 50.0

2019 51.0

2020 53.0

Additional information: Grantees provide data on college completion in their Annual 

Performance Reports (APR). Bachelor’s degree completion was calculated as the percentage 

of full-time, first-time freshman participants at four-year grantee institutions who received a 

bachelor’s degree (or an equivalent degree) from the same grantee institution within six years. 

In 2016–17, 56.9 percent of full-time, first-time freshmen from the 2011–12 cohort obtained a 

bachelor’s degree or an equivalent degree from the same grantee institution within six years of 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-114

entering college. For 2-year institutions in 2016-17, 43.6 percent of full-time, first-time freshmen 

from the 2014-15 cohort completed an Associate’s degree and/or transferred to a 4-year 

institution. 

Measure: The percentages of TRIO McNair participants enrolling and persisting in graduate 

school.

Year Enrolling Target Enrolling Actual Persisting Target Persisting Actual

2015 70.0% 69.7% 84.0% 81.4%

2016 70.0 68.7 84.5 84.4

2017 71.0 68.1 85.0 80.6

2018 71.0 85.0

2019 71.0 85.0

2020 71.0 85.0

Additional information: The methodology for this enrollment measures counts as successes 

those McNair participants who enroll in graduate school within 3 years of postsecondary 

graduation. The reporting year in the table above represents the 3-year point of measurement. 

That is, 68.1 percent of McNair participants who graduated with their baccalaureate degree in 

2014 had enrolled in graduate school by 2017. The persistence measure tracks the percentage 

of McNair participants who enrolled in graduate school and were still enrolled at the beginning of 

their second year.

Efficiency Measures

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

2015 $470 $460 $4,585 $4,273 $1,680 $1,671

2016 470 468 4,570 4,292 1,670 1,693

2017 465 524 4,555 4,422 1,660 1,694

2018 465 4,540 1,650

2019 460 4,525 1,640

2020 460 4,510 1,640

Additional Information: The efficiency measure for the TRIO programs is the average annual 

cost per successful outcome, which is calculated by dividing the program’s funding by the 

number of successful outcomes in each program in a given year. The definition of “successful 

outcome” varies by program; as a result, it is difficult to make valid comparisons across TRIO 

programs based on these data. For Talent Search and Upward Bound, participants are 

considered successful if they persist to the next grade level, graduate high school, or enroll in 

postsecondary school. For Student Support Services, participants are counted as successful if 

they graduate, transfer, or persist to the following academic year.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-115

Measure: The Federal cost of each McNair program baccalaureate recipient who enrolls in 

graduate school within 3 years.

Year Target Actual

2015 $32,000 $34,991

2016 31,000 29,816

2017 30,000 26,301

2018 30,000

2019 30,000

2020 30,000

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. 

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. The Administration’s proposal 

to remove the current statutory provisions limiting the agency’s ability to rigorously evaluate the 

effectiveness of the TRIO programs is intended to maximize the usefulness of TRIO evaluation 

investments going forward. 

Descriptions of past studies are available at the following link: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#postsecondary. Summaries of

current TRIO evaluations are provided below:

Upward Bound: The Institute of Education Sciences began a new evaluation of Upward Bound 

promising practices in 2013, as required by section 402H(b)(1) of the Higher Education 

Act. The study is testing the use of practices aimed at improving college fit by evaluating the 

effectiveness of a professional development program for Upward Bound project staff on college 

enrollment outcomes for participating Upward Bound students. The intervention includes tools 

and resources, including information packets and a well-specified set of in-person college 

guidance strategies informed by recent research. The effort leverages work in the field to 

design effective informational materials on college costs and outcomes, application fee waivers,

and guidance on colleges to which individual students could consider applying based on their 

location and standardized test scores. The training component is designed so that it can be 

used with regular high school counselors or Upward Bound project staff to maximize the return 

on investment in the demonstration. The evaluation builds on the developing body of research 

suggesting that low-income students may not be attending colleges that match their academic 

abilities and career objectives, in part because they do not have adequate information about 

their college options. 

In October 2018, the Department published the first report (available at this link: 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20194002/pdf/20194002.pdf), which found that UB participants in 

the treatment group were 10 percentage points more likely to apply to four or more colleges and 

to those with a selectivity level of at least “Very Competitive.” The intervention had no effect on 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-116

overall FAFSA completion rates, but may have increased early FAFSA submission for some 

subgroups. The next report will examine the effects on selectivity of students’ college choices, 

and their persistence in college. It is scheduled to be released in fall 2019. More information is 

available at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_upward.asp

Educational Opportunity Centers: In the spring of 2017, the Institute of Education Sciences 

announced a new evaluation to examine the effectiveness of a low cost approach to providing 

information designed to overcome key barriers to college enrollment to participants through a 

systematic set of timely and personalized text messages. The study, which is currently 

scheduled to be released in the fall of 2022, will evaluate the impact of the intervention on EOC 

participants’ FAFSA completion and college enrollment rates. More information is available at 

the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_postsec.asp 
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-117

GAINING EARLY AWARENESS AND READINESS FOR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

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 2020 Authorization: 0

1

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$360,000 0 -$360,000

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015. No appropriations language or reauthorizing legislation is 

sought for fiscal year 2020.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) provides 

6-year and 7-year grants to States and partnerships that support early college preparation and 

awareness activities at the State and local levels to ensure low-income middle and secondary 

school students are prepared to succeed in 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, GEAR UP 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. These projects may also use funds to support 

efforts to expand rigorous curricula and coursework, such as Advanced Placement, International 

Baccalaureate, and dual or concurrent enrollment programs in order to reduce the need for 

remedial coursework at the postsecondary level. Second, GEAR UP projects provide 

scholarships, which must meet the minimum Pell grant amount, 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 in 2008 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 with services starting no later than the 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-118

7

th grade. 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 and receive 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 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. The statute also specifies additional authorized activities for 

States, such as providing technical assistance to GEAR UP partnership grantees located in the 

State, providing professional development opportunities to individuals working with GEAR UP 

students, capacity-building strategies for partnership applicants to apply for a GEAR UP grant, 

and dissemination of best practices to improve services for eligible students. 

Partnership Grants—Partnerships must include one or more degree granting institutions of 

higher education, one or more local educational agencies, and may include at least two 

community organizations or entities such as businesses, professional associations, State 

agencies, or other public or private organizations. Partnerships receiving funds are required to 

provide an early intervention component to: (1) 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 at least 50 percent of 

its enrolled students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; or (2) 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.

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 allocated between States and Partnerships at the Department’s discretion. Additionally, 

the statute allows up to 0.75 percent of the funds appropriated to be used to conduct a national 

evaluation of the GEAR UP program.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

footnote

2015..................................................................................... . $301,639

2016....................................................................................... 322,754

2017....................................................................................... 339,754

2018....................................................................................... 350,000

2019....................................................................................... 360,000
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-119

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests no funding for GEAR UP, a decrease of

$360.0 million from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. Many of the activities supported under 

GEAR UP duplicate those provided by the Federal TRIO programs, including Talent Search and 

Upward Bound, as well as similar early intervention and college preparation activities that may 

be carried out under the $15.9 billion Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program 

authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The proposed elimination of 

GEAR UP is consistent with the Department’s overall effort to eliminate duplicative programs

and programs for which evidence of effectiveness is limited in order to reallocate scarce Federal 

resources to higher priority programs. 

The Administration’s proposal to transition the Federal TRIO programs into a single State 

formula grant program, first proposed as part of the President’s 2019 Budget, would provide 

$950 million for activities to help low-income and other disadvantaged students progress 

through the academic pipeline from middle school through college. The proposal would shift 

authority and responsibility from the Federal government to the States, improve alignment 

between Federal resources and need, invest in activities that are most supported by evidence, 

and enable the Department to re-allocate limited staff resources from competition-related 

activities to areas that are critical to help ensure appropriate use of limited taxpayer resources,

such as grant monitoring and oversight, performance improvement, and program evaluation. 

The Administration believes that restructuring the Federal TRIO programs into a single State 

formula grant program, including by incorporating additional activities authorized under GEAR 

UP, would yield significant program management efficiencies and support more effective uses 

of Federal resources. More information is available in the request for the Federal TRIO 

programs.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 footnote 2019 footnote 2020

State Grants:

State:Number of new awards 6 8 0

State:Average new award $3,400 $3,535 0

State:Total new award funding $20,400 $28,276 0

State:Number of continuation awards 33 32 0

State:Average continuation award $3,256 $3,529 0

State:Total continuation award funding $107,747 $112,940 0

State:Total award funding $128,147 $142,216 0

State:Total number of awards 39 40 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-120

Output Measures 2018 footnote 2019 footnote 2020

Partnership Grants:

Partnershi p:Number of new awards 55 0 0

Partnershi p:Average new award $1,995 0 0

Partnershi p:Total new award funding $109,709 0 0

Partnershi p:Number of continuation awards 67 118 0

Partnershi p:Average continuation award $1,667 $1,843 0

Partnershi p:Total continuation award funding $111,662 $217,501 0

Partnershi p:Total award funding $221,370 $217,501 0

Partnershi p:Total number of awards 122 118 0

Total award funding:

DomesticTotal new award funding $130,109 $28,116 0

Domestic Total continuation award 

funding $219,409 $330,441 0

Evaluation 0 $1,000 0

Peer review of new award 

applications 369 100 0

Web data collection $113 $183 0

Total program funding $350,000 $360,000 0

Total number of awards 161 158 0

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. The Department has not established targets 

for 2020 because the Administration’s request does not include funding for this program.

Goal: To significantly increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to 

enter and succeed in postsecondary education.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-121

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

2015 88.0% 83.9%

2016 88.0 77.1

2017 89.0 92.7

2018 89.0

2019 89.0

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 GEAR UP participants who persisted until the 12th grade while the numerator 

includes participants who both persisted until the 12th grade and graduated. The figures are 

based on data submitted by grantees in their Final Performance Reports. As a result, each year 

of data captures a different subset of grantees serving a fluctuating number of students, which 

could account for some of the annual variation in performance. The Department is exploring 

potential changes to the methodology to be inclusive of a larger set of grantees and students.

Measure: The percentage of former GEAR UP high school graduates who immediately 

enrolled in college.

Year Target Actual

2015 61.0% 57.6%

2016 62.0 55.5

2017 62.0 61.7

2018 63.0

2019 63.0

Additional Information: This measure indicates the percent of GEAR UP students who 

graduated from high school and enrolled in postsecondary education the following September. 

The figures are based on data submitted by grantees in their Final Performance Reports. 

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 

8

th 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

2015 34% 58.3% 53% 67.7%

2016 55 53.6 54 58.1

2017 55 67.7 54 72.8

2018 56 71.2 55 71.2

2019 60 60
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-122

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 percentage 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 lower. The Department increased the 2019 targets to be more 

ambitious. 

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 calculates this measure by dividing the annual funding 

supporting closeout grantees (grantees serving cohorts of 12th graders) by the total number of 

postsecondary enrollees they produce. Using this methodology, the annual cost per successful 

outcome for the GEAR UP cohort that submitted Final Performance Reports in 2017 was 

$2,674. The Department provided approximately $9.0 million per year to the grantees in this 

cohort, which produced 3,354 postsecondary enrollees in the final year of their grants. 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. The Department is exploring alternative methodologies to 

measuring efficiency in this program. 

Other Performance Information

In 2001, the Department began 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 

no evidence of an association between GEAR UP participation and either grades or school 

behavior, nor was there any evidence of an association between attending a GEAR UP school 

and the strength of student intentions to attend college or expectations for postsecondary 

education. The study did find a positive association between GEAR UP participation and 

students’ and parents’ knowledge of postsecondary opportunities, and with parents’ involvement 

in their children’s education. The study is available at the following link: 

(http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/gearup/early-outcomes.pdf). The Department

initiated a follow up study designed to assess the impact of GEAR UP participation on high 

school graduation and college enrollment rates, but methodological issues, including very low 

survey response rates, prevented the Department being able to publish any meaningful results.

Current evaluation

In fiscal year 2014, the Department began using GEAR UP evaluation funds to undertake a 

rigorous study of college access strategies designed to improve GEAR UP students’ college 

enrollment and completion. The findings from this evaluation will be useful to GEAR UP 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-123

grantees as they search for promising practices to incorporate into their projects, and also to 

policymakers seeking to enhance current college access efforts.

Specifically, the Department used approximately $5.5 million of fiscal year 2014 and 2015 funds 

to test a low-cost communication strategy that targets GEAR UP high school seniors intending 

to enroll in college, providing them with a series of electronic communications through text 

messages and emails throughout the summer and into the fall of their first expected year of 

college. The messages remind students about key college-related tasks they need to complete, 

customized to the specific activities and deadlines of the colleges or universities in which they 

intend to enroll. The reminders focus on matriculation-related tasks such as award letters, fees, 

orientation and registration timelines and requirements, and early steps in college, such as 

meeting with advisors, connecting with campus support services, and FAFSA renewal. In 

addition, the messages assist program participants in ensuring that they obtain scholarship 

funds made available through their GEAR UP projects. The Department expects to publish a 

report assessing the intervention’s impact on rates of college enrollment, FAFSA renewal, and 

first year college persistence by the fall of 2019. If the findings on college enrollment and 

persistence warrant further follow up, the Department could analyze and report on longer term 

persistence outcomes in the spring of 2020.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-124

GRADUATE ASSISTANCE IN AREAS OF NATIONAL NEED

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part A, Subpart 2)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: 0

1

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$23,047 0 -$23,047

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015. No appropriations language or reauthorizing legislation is 

sought for fiscal year 2020.

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 identifying the specific strategies they will use to identify and support talented 

students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds. To be eligible for a fellowship, 

students must be pursuing a doctoral degree or the highest degree in the academic field at the 

institution of higher education (IHE) they are attending, have excellent academic records, and 

demonstrate financial need.

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 such areas fulfill a compelling national interest, the 

extent to which other Federal programs support post-baccalaureate studies in such areas, and 

the most significant impact that can be made with available resources. 

Institutions use program funds to award fellowships for 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
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

R-125

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.

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 classroom instruction.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................................... .... $29,293

2016................................................................................. .... 29,293

2017................................................................................. .... 28,047

2018................................................................................. .... 23,047

2019................................................................................. .... 23,047

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests no funding for the Graduate Assistance in 

Areas of National Need program (GAANN), a decrease of $23.0 million from the fiscal year 

2019 appropriation, consistent with the Administration’s goals of reducing the Federal role in 

education while also reallocating scarce Federal resources to higher priority programs. While 

GAANN provides significant financial support to the graduate students receiving fellowships, the 

program operates at a high cost per student and, as a result, provides support to a limited 

number of graduate students. The Department believes such fellowships can be more 

efficiently and more appropriately supported through other Federal programs, such as programs 

implemented by the National Science Foundation, as well as through institutional aid and other 

non-Federal resources. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018

footnote

2019

footnote

2020

Footnote

Number of new awards 74 14 0

Number of new fellowships 370 61 0

Average new award $249 $218 0

Total new award funding $18,432 $3,055 0

Number of NCC awards 18 74 0

Number of NCC fellowships 90 370 0

Average NCC award $248 $249 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

R-126

Output Measures 2018

footnote

2019

footnote

2020

Footnote

Total NCC funding $4,460 $19,992 10

Average institution payment $16 $16 0

Average stipend $34 $34 0

Total average fellowship $50 $50 0

Peer review of new award applications $155 0 0

Total number of awards 92 88 0

Total number of fellowships 460 431 0

Total program funding $23,047 $23,047 0

1

Includes $1,586 thousand for paying FY 2020 out year costs; these funds are excluded from average NCC award 

calculation.

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. The Department has not established targets 

for 2020 because the request does not include funding for this program.

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

2015 60 67%

2016 60 75

2017 60 65

2018 60

2019 65

Additional Information: The data used to calculate performance for this measure come from 

the program’s final performance reports, the Department’s Grants and Payments database, and 

the GAANN program database. The data are calculated by dividing the number of GAANN 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

R-127

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. 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. 

Measure: Median time to degree completion (years).

Year Target Actual

2015 5.0 5.2

2016 5.0 5.1

2017 5.0 4.9

2018 5.0

2019 5.0

Additional Information: Data collected through annual performance reports show that the 

program had a median time to completion of 4.9 years in 2017. According to the 2017 data 

provided by the National Science Foundation’s annual “Survey of Earned Doctorates,” the 

median time to doctoral degree completion, measured from initial enrollment in graduate school,

was 6.2 years for the physical sciences, 6.7 years for engineering, and 6.8 years for life 

sciences. It is important to note that these figures are not directly comparable to those of 

GAANN because the GAANN completion rate includes students in non-doctoral programs who 

are likely to complete their degrees in a shorter number of years than doctoral students. 

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.

Measure: Cost per PhDs and those who pass preliminary exams.

Year Target Actual

2015 68,500 $74,775

2016 68,500 N/A

2017 68,500 56,951

2018 68,500

2019 68,000

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 data are 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. 

As the efficiency measure is based on data from a relatively small number of students, 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

R-128

significant year-to-year fluctuations may be expected. This may reduce the usefulness of the 

measure at the program level. No data is provided for 2016 because there was no 2011 

GAANN cohort.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-129

CHILD CARE ACCESS MEANS PARENTS IN SCHOOL

Child care access means parents in school

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 7)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

Program N ame footnote 2019 footnote 2020 footnote Change footnote

$$15,034 $50,000 $$ $15,134 -$34,866

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2020.

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, and may not be used to supplant funds for current child care services.

An institution is eligible to receive a grant 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.

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
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

R-130

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 Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................................... .... $15,134

2016................................................................................. .... 15,134

2017................................................................................. .... 15,134

2018................................................................................. .... 50,000

2019................................................................................. .... 50,000

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests $15.1 million for the Child Care Access Means 

Parents in School program, a decrease of $34.9 million from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation 

and the same as the fiscal year 2019 request. This level would fund non-competitive 

continuation grants for previous awardees. The 2020 Budget returns the program to its funding 

level before the increases enabled by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. The Administration 

remains committed to investing in child care, and the 2020 Budget focuses its increased 

investment in a new, one-time $1 billion investment through the Department of Health and 

Human Services to build the supply of child care and stimulate employer investment in child 

care.

A National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report entitled “Persistence and Attainment of 

2011–12 First-Time Postsecondary Students After 3 Years,” indicates that single parents 

enrolled in 2-year and 4-year institutions are at significantly greater risk of not completing a 

certificate or degree. One significant barrier to completion for low-income students and single 

parents is the lack of convenient and affordable quality child care services.

Fiscal year 2019 funding would continue to support grantees at reduced levels 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

R-131

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Number of new awards 139 166 0

Average new award $187 $139 0

Total new award funding $25,925 1$23,000 20

Number of NCC awards 58 123 363

Average NCC award $148 $156 $42

Total NCC award funding $8,604 $19,244 $15,134

Frontload outyear costs $15,285 $7,456 0

Peer review of new award applications $186 $300 0

Total award funding $50,000 $50,000 $15,134

Total number of awards 197 289 363

1

In addition to conducing a competition for new awards in 2018, the Department funded down the fiscal year 2017 

grant slate to make new awards (16 awards totaling $4,058 thousand).

2

In addition to conducing a competition for new awards in 2019, the Department is planning to fund down the 

fiscal year 2018 grant slate to make new awards (28 awards totaling $4,517 thousand).

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 

fiscal year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program.

The Department recently dropped a performance measure that focused on completion rates at 

4-year 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. The Department does not plan to replace this 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

R-132

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

2015 66.7% 67.2% 66.1%

2016 75.9 77.6 73.9

2017 74.4 74.8 74.0

2018 73.9% 80.5% 60.7%

2019 74.5 80.8 61.2

2020 74.5 80.8 61.2

Additional information: The overall persistence rate in 2017 for students participating in the 

CCAMPIS program is 74.4 percent (2,746 out of 3,690 student participants). Outyear targets 

are consistent with current retention rates compiled by NCES/IPEDS for first-time degreeseeking undergraduates at degree-granting postsecondary institutions. Program performance 

data for 2018 will be available in December 2019.

Measure: Percentage of CCAMPIS program participants enrolled at 2-year CCAMPIS grantee 

institutions receiving child care services who graduate from postsecondary education within 

3 years of enrollment.

Year 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2015 19.5%

2016 19.4

2017 22.0

2018 22.0%

2019 22.0

2020 22.0

Additional information: Outyear targets are intended to reduce gap in graduation rates for 

institutions participating in the CCAMPIS program and 2-year public institutions nationally 

(22 percent) participating in Title IV Federal financial aid programs. Targets are based on 

students receiving associate’s degrees or certificates from their initial institutions of attendance 

only using data compiled by NCES/IPEDS. Program performance data for 2018 will be 

available in December 2019.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

R-133

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

2015 $6,213

2016 5,572

2017 5,625

2018 $4,500

2019 4,500

2020 4,500

Additional information: For 2017, the cost per successful outcome of $5,625 was calculated 

by dividing the program allocation of $15.4 million by 2,746; the total number of students 

receiving child care services who remain in postsecondary education at the end of the academic 

year at 4-year and 2-year CCAMPIS-grantee institutions (includes 87 grantees from 2013 and 

2014 cohorts). Program performance data for 2018 will be available in December 2019.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-134

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part B)

(dollars in thousands) 

FY 2020 Authorization: 0

1

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$5,000 $0 -$5,000

1

 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; no appropriations or reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal 

year 2020.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) provides assistance to 

support institutional reforms and innovative strategies designed to improve institutional 

effectiveness and to expand postsecondary opportunities. Under FIPSE, the Department has 

flexibility to carry out a wide range of activities to support innovative programs with the potential 

to transform postsecondary education. In recent years, Congress has provided funding for 

FIPSE for the Open Textbook Pilot (in fiscal years 2018 and 2019, as outlined in explanatory 

language in appropriations bills) and First in the World (fiscal years 2014 and 2015). In some 

cases, Congress also has provided funding under FIPSE for programs authorized elsewhere in 

the HEA. Discretionary grants and contracts are awarded to institutions of higher education and 

other public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies.

Most recently, the Open Textbook Pilot supports projects at institutions of higher education to 

create new open textbooks or expand their use while maintaining or improving instruction and 

student learning outcomes. This pilot program emphasizes the development of projects that 

demonstrate the greatest potential to achieve the highest level of savings for students through 

sustainable, expanded use of open textbooks in high-enrollment courses or in programs that 

prepare individuals for in-demand fields.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

R-135

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................................... .... $67,775

2016.......................................................................................... .... 0

2017.......................................................................................... .... 0

2018................................................................................... .... 6,000

2019................................................................................... .... 5,000

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests no funding for FIPSE, a decrease of $5 million 

from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. The Administration believes that the awards made 

under the Open Textbook Pilot in fiscal years 2018 and 2019, which provided nearly $10 million 

to support three large consortia involving 20 institutions of higher education, are sufficient to 

provide a meaningful demonstration of the potential for open source textbooks to improve the 

quality of instruction while generating significant savings for students. Consequently, the 

Administration plans to monitor the implementation and performance of the grants already 

supported, but does not seek funding for additional pilot projects.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Open Textbook Pilot

 Number of new awards 1 2 0

 Average new award $4,950 $2,500 0

 Total new award funding $4,950 $5,000

1

0

Pilot Program for Cybersecurity 

Education Technological Upgrades for 

Community Colleges

 Number of new awards 11 0 0

 Average new award $99 0 0

 Total new award funding $1,027 20 0

Contracts

Peer review of new award applications $23 0 0

1

The Department used the $5 million provided in FY 2019 to provide the majority of the funding requested by the 

next two applicants on the FY 2018 slate. 

2

After funding field reader costs and the top ranked applicant in the Open Textbook Pilot competition, the 

Department had approximately $27 thousand remaining. These funds were allocated to provide additional funding for 

technological upgrades to community colleges with Cybersecurity education programs. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

R-136

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Total FIPSE funding $6,000 $5,000 0

Total number of awards 12 2 0

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. The measures and data presented below 

relate to the performance of FIPSE grantees that the Department funded under the First in the 

World initiative (FITW) in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. The Department has not established 

targets for 2020 because 2019 is the final year of the project periods for these grantees and the 

request does not include funding for this program. As described in detail below, the Department 

has established a new set of performance measures for the Open Textbook Pilot and will begin 

collecting data for these measures in fiscal year 2019.

Goal: To improve educational outcomes for students by developing, identifying, and 

scaling up effective practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on rates of 

college completion, persistence and other student outcomes. 

Objective: To promote rigorous evaluation of FITW-funded projects that will generate significant 

new information about the effectiveness of diverse programs, practices, or strategies to improve 

rates of college persistence and completion.

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Validation grant 

with ongoing well-designed and independent evaluations that will provide evidence of their 

effectiveness at improving student outcomes and would meet the What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) Standards with or without reservations.

Year Target Actual

2015 100% N/A 

2016 100 N/A

2017 100 100%

2018 100

2019 100

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Development 

grant with ongoing well-designed and independent evaluations that will provide evidence of their 

effectiveness at improving student outcomes and would meet the What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) Standards with or without reservations.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

R-137

Year Target Actual

2015 100% N/A

2016 100 N/A

2017 100 92.5%

2018 100

2019 100

Additional Information: The data is based on the most updated grantee evaluation plans and 

reflects the assessment of the Department’s evaluation technical assistance provider as to the 

quality of the study designs of all FITW-funded projects. The Department made a total of 

42 FITW grants across fiscal years 2014 and 2015, including 40 Development grants and 

2 Validation grants. Both Validation grants are conducting independent evaluations that were 

on track to meet WWC standards as of December of 2017. Of the 40 Development grants, 

37 grants were conducting independent evaluations that were on track to meet WWC standards 

as of December of 2017. Fiscal year 2014 FITW grantees are expected to submit their final 

evaluations by October of 2019; fiscal year 2015 FITW grantees will submit their final 

evaluations by October 2020. 

The Department included the following set of measures in the 2018 Notice Inviting Applications 

for the Open Textbook Pilot program:

 The number of students who enrolled in courses that use open textbooks developed through 

the grant;

 The number of students who completed courses which used the open textbooks developed 

through the grant;

 Student and faculty evaluations of the quality of the open textbooks compared with other 

kinds of textbooks they have used, the ease of use of these materials and the cost savings 

associated with the use of open textbooks;

 The average cost savings per student;

 The total cost savings for students who used open textbooks compared to students in the 

same course of study who used traditional textbooks;

 The number and percentage of courses among consortium members that adopted the use 

of open textbooks, where appropriate, as opposed to those that continued to use paper or 

electronic textbooks; and the number of institutions outside of the consortium that adopted 

the use of the open textbooks produced through the grant.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-138

TEACHER QUALITY PARTNERSHIP

Teacher quality partnership

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: 0

1

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$43,092 0 -$43,092

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; no reauthorization is sought for fiscal year 2020.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) program seeks to improve student achievement and the 

quality of teachers working in high-need schools and early childhood education (ECE) programs 

by improving the preparation of teachers and enhancing professional development activities for 

teachers; holding teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing effective teachers; 

recruiting highly qualified individuals, including minorities; and attracting talented professionals 

from outside the teaching pipeline into the classroom. Projects may also include a component 

to train school leaders in high-need or rural local educational agencies (LEAs) or a component 

to partner with a public broadcast television station or another entity that develops digital 

education content, to improve the quality of teacher preparation programs. The program is 

intended to help create a variety of effective pathways into teaching and support our Nation’s 

teaching force in improving student outcomes.

Only partnerships may apply for funding under this program. Partnerships must include a 

high-need LEA; a high-need school or high-need ECE program (or a consortium of high-need 

schools or ECE programs served by the partner LEA); a partner institution of higher education 

(IHE); a school, department, or program of education within the partner IHE; and a school or 

department of arts and sciences within the partner IHE. A partnership may also include, among 

others, the Governor of the State, the State educational agency, the State board of education, 

the State agency for higher education, or a business.

In order to maximize resources and avoid duplication, applicants are required to explain how 

they plan to coordinate activities under the TQP program with other federally funded programs 

aimed at improving teacher effectiveness (e.g., Teacher Quality State Grants under Title II of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Teacher and School Leader 

Incentive Grants program).
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

R-139

The following three types of grants are eligible for funding through the program:

Pre-Baccalaureate Preparation of Teachers program (Pre-Baccalaureate)—Grants are provided 

to implement a wide range of reforms in teacher preparation programs and, as applicable,

preparation programs for early childhood educators. These reforms may include, 

among other things, implementing curriculum changes that improve and assess how well 

prospective teachers develop teaching skills; using teaching and learning research so that 

teachers implement research-based instructional practices and use data to improve classroom 

instruction; developing a high-quality and sustained preservice clinical education program that 

includes high-quality mentoring or coaching; creating a high-quality induction program for new 

teachers; implementing initiatives that increase compensation for qualified early childhood 

educators who attain 2-year and 4-year degrees; developing and implementing high-quality 

professional development for teachers in partner high-need LEAs; developing effective 

mechanisms, which may include alternative routes to certification, to recruit qualified individuals 

into the teaching profession; and strengthening literacy instruction skills of prospective and new 

elementary and secondary school teachers.

Teaching Residency program—Grants are provided to develop and implement teacher 

residency programs that are based on models of successful teaching residencies and that serve 

as a mechanism to prepare teachers for success in high-need schools and academic subjects. 

Grant funds must be used to support programs that provide rigorous graduate-level course work 

to earn a master’s degree while undertaking a guided teaching apprenticeship; learning 

opportunities alongside a trained and experienced mentor teacher; and clear criteria for 

selecting mentor teachers based on measures of teacher effectiveness. Programs must place 

graduates in targeted schools as a cohort in order to facilitate professional collaboration. 

Programs must also provide a 1-year living stipend or salary to members of the cohort, which 

must be repaid by any recipient who fails to teach full time at least 3 years in a high-need school 

and subject or area.

School Leadership program—Grants are provided to develop and implement effective school 

leadership programs to prepare individuals for careers as superintendents, principals, early 

childhood education program directors, or other school leaders. Such programs must promote 

strong leadership skills and techniques so that school leaders are able to:

 Create a school climate conducive to professional development for teachers;

 Understand the teaching and assessment skills needed to support successful classroom 

instruction; 

 Use data to evaluate teacher instruction and drive teacher and student learning; 

 Manage resources and time to improve academic achievement; 

 Engage and involve parents and other community stakeholders; and 

 Understand how students learn and develop in order to increase academic achievement.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

R-140

Grant funds must also be used to develop a yearlong clinical education program, a mentoring 

and induction program, and programs to recruit qualified individuals to become school leaders. 

Partnerships may apply for funding under the Pre-Baccalaureate program, the Teaching 

Residency program, or both, and may also seek separate funding under the School Leadership 

program. In addition, grant funds are available to develop digital education content to carry out 

the activities for Pre-baccalaureate or Teaching Residency programs, but not for School 

Leadership programs. Partnerships are eligible to receive grants for up to 5 years and must 

provide matching funds from non-Federal sources equal to at least 100 percent of the grant 

amount.

Program funds also can be used to support evaluations of program activities; the Department 

last used funds for this purpose in 2010 when it awarded a contract for an evaluation of teacher 

residency programs supported through grants awarded in 2009 and 2010. Results from that 

evaluation are discussed in the “Other Performance Information” section below.

The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, also allows the Department to use program 

funds to support the State teacher quality accountability reporting system, as authorized by 

sections 205–207. The State teacher quality accountability reporting system gathers data from 

all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the outlying areas, and the Freely 

Associated States on such topics as the completion rates for traditional and alternative route 

teacher preparation programs, as well as State teacher assessments and certifications. These 

data are reported to Congress and the Nation through the Secretary’s annual report on teacher 

quality, and they provide critical information on both the progress toward the Nation's goal of a 

highly qualified teacher in every classroom, and the areas needing further improvements 

(http://title2.ed.gov). 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015................................................................................. .... 40,592

2016................................................................................. .... 43,092

2017................................................................................. .... 43,092

2018................................................................................. .... 43,092

2019................................................................................. .... 43,092

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests no funding for the Teacher Quality Partnership 

(TQP) program. Instead, the request includes a significant increase for the Education 

Innovation and Research program to support the Administration’s goal of elevating the teaching 

profession—treating teachers like professionals who can identify their own needs and select 

professional development that addresses those needs—and improving teacher quality. The 

TQP authority is overly restrictive and does not provide States, school districts, and institutions 

of higher education the flexibilities that they need to meaningfully design systems of teacher 

preparation, recruitment, and induction that meet their staffing needs. In addition, funding to 

support partnerships that enhance professional development activities and training for current 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

R-141

and prospective teachers and staff may be provided through ESEA formula grant funds (e.g., 

Title I, Title III). Finally, there is no reliable evidence demonstrating that this program is any 

more effective than other State- and locally driven initiatives designed to train and retain highly 

effective teachers in critical shortage areas.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2018

Footnote

2019

footnote

2020

Partnership Grants:

New partnership grants $14,981 $22,538 0

Continuations partnership grants 27,560 20,000 0

Subtotal partnership grants 42,541 42,538 0

State teacher quality accountability 

reports

479 479 0

Peer review of new award applications 72 75 0

Program totals:

New total 14,981 22,538 0

Continuations total 28,039 20,479 0

Peer review of new award 

applications

 72 75 0

Total 43,092 43,092 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets. 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 increase the quality of teachers in high-need schools and early childhood 

education programs.

Objective: To increase the number of new teachers graduating from high-quality teacher 

preparation programs. 

Measure: The percentage of program completers who: (1) attain initial certification/licensure 

by passing all necessary licensure/certification assessments and attain a bachelor’s degree 

(pre-baccalaureate program) within 6 years or a master’s degree (residency program) within 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

R-142

2 years, or (2) attain highly competent early childhood educator status with a bachelor’s degree 

within 6 years or an associate’s degree within 3 years.

Interim Measure: The percentage of program participants who did not graduate in the previous 

reporting period and who persisted in the postsecondary program in the current reporting 

period.

Year

PreBaccalaureate

Target

PreBaccalaureate

Actual

Residency

Target

Residency

Actual

2015 Baseline 82% Baseline 97%

2016 85% N/A 95% N/A

2017 85 81% 95 72%

2018 85 95

2019 85 95

Additional information: In general, data from grantees under the TQP program has 

demonstrated a high level of persistence among program participants. Data for this measure 

was derived from annual performance reports for cohorts in at least their second year of 

operation. As there were no grantees under this program in their second or later year of 

operation during 2016, no data were reported for that year. 

Objective: To increase the retention rate of new teachers in high-need school districts.

Measure: The percentage of beginning teachers who are retained in teaching in the partner 

high-need local educational agency or early childhood education program 3 years after initial 

employment.

Year

PreBaccalaureate

Target

PreBaccalaureate

Actual

Residency

Target

Residency

Actual

2015 Baseline 78% Baseline 88%

2016 80% N/A 90% N/A

2017 80 63% 90 55%

2018 80 90

2019 80 90

Additional information: Performance on this measure decreased significantly in 2017, and the 

Department is in the process of determining potential causes, particularly given that there has 

not been an equivalent decrease in short-term (1-year) retention rates. The Department 

anticipates a more extensive analysis of trends over time to be completed by summer 2019. 

Other Performance Information

In 2010, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) awarded a contract for an evaluation of the 

teacher residency projects supported through the TQP program to Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. This implementation study addressed the following research questions:
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

R-143

 How do teachers who complete teacher residency projects compare to other novice 

teachers and to all teachers in their district?

 What is the retention rate of the residency project teachers compared to their novice 

colleagues who weren’t prepared through a teacher residency project?

 What are the characteristics of the teacher residency projects (e.g., length of overall 

program, nature of required coursework and apprenticeship activities, characteristics of their 

assigned mentor teacher, criteria for selecting program participants)?

 What are the characteristics of the teacher applicants and participants in the teacher 

residency projects?

The study (http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20154002), which was 

published in 2014, determined that TQP projects provided residents with an average of 

450 hours of coursework (the equivalent of 10 college courses) focusing on content, pedagogy, 

classroom management, and student assessment. Sixty-eight percent of residents reported 

spending 4 or 5 full days per week in their mentor’s classroom during the first half of their 

residency, during which time residents averaged 21 days fully in charge of instruction. During 

the second semester, 78 percent of residents reported spending 4 or 5 days in their mentor’s 

classroom. During that same semester, residents averaged 37 days fully in charge of 

instruction. Eighty-three percent of residents reported that their fieldwork reinforced what they 

learned in their coursework and 68 percent reported that their coursework was well integrated 

with their classroom experiences. Additionally, novice residency program teachers reported 

feeling more prepared than other novice teachers in the same district. 

Individuals completing residency programs were more likely than other teachers to have made a 

distinct career change when they joined their programs, but were otherwise largely 

demographically similar to non-residency teachers. Residency teachers also had similar 

retention rates as non-residency teachers in the same district from spring 2012 to fall 2012 

(92 percent versus 90 percent).

The study also found that mentors had significant prior teaching experience (10 years, on 

average) and significant prior mentoring experience (3.5 semesters, on average). Mentors also 

received extensive training—averaging 37 hours—from residency programs prior to beginning 

their role as mentors.

A follow-up report published in 2015 (https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154015/) found that 

residency teachers were no more likely than non-residency teachers to remain in their school 

from spring 2012 to fall 2013 (62 percent versus 60 percent). However, residency teachers in

their first year of teaching in spring 2012 were more likely than non-residency teachers in their 

first year in spring 2012 to remain in the same district through fall 2013 (81 percent versus 

66 percent). These residency teachers, while remaining in the same district, tended to move to 

schools that were higher achieving and had fewer numbers of black students.