HIGHER EDUCATIONUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2011 PRESIDENT’S 

hBUDGET

Department of Education

S-- HIGHER EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language........................................................................................................... S-1

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

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers................................................................................. S-5

Summary of Changes................................................................................................................ S-6

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................... S-9

Appropriations History ............................................................................................................. S-15

Significant Items in FY 2015 Appropriations Reports ............................................................... S-16

Summary of Request............................................................................................................... S-18

Activities:

Aid for institutional development ........................................................................................... S-23

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions ...................................................................................... S-63

Other aid for institutions:

International education and foreign language studies:

Domestic programs......................................................................................................... S-73

Overseas programs ........................................................................................................ S-88

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education ..................................................... S-93

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education .. S-99

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions....................................S-103

Assistance for students:

Federal TRIO programs ....................................................................................................S-108

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs...............................S-119

Graduate assistance in areas of national need..................................................................S-126

Child care access means parents in school.......................................................................S-132

Teacher quality partnership .................................................................................................S-138

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation...................................................................................S-145

America’s college promise...................................................................................................S-149

College opportunity and graduation bonus...........................................................................S-151
HIGHER EDUCATION

Appropriations Language

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, titles [II, ]

1 III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII 

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

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, [$1,924,839,000] $2,072,045,000: 

Provided, That $30,000,000 shall be used for data collection, evaluation, research, and 

demonstration activities relating to programs under the HEA, including such activities that are 

designed to test approaches for providing grant, loan, or work assistance under title IV of the 

HEA in ways that promote access to, and completion of, affordable and high quality 

postsecondary education programs:2 Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision 

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

the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 may be used to support visits and 

study in foreign countries by individuals who are participating in advanced foreign language 

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

who plan to apply their language skills and knowledge of these countries in the fields of 

government, the professions, or international development:3

 Provided further, That of the funds 

referred to in the preceding proviso up to 1 percent may be used for program evaluation, 

national outreach, and information dissemination activities:4

 Provided further, That 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:5 Provided further, That up to 2.5 percent of the funds made 

available under this Act for part B of title VII of the HEA may be used for technical assistance 

and the evaluation of activities carried out under such section:6 Provided further, That 

notwithstanding chapter 1 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV of the HEA, the Secretary may 

reserve up to $20,000,000 of the funds made available for section 402A(g) of the HEA to 

T-- S-1
support the demonstration and rigorous evaluation of college access and completion strategies 

through cooperative agreements with entities that received fiscal year 2015 awards under 

section 402A.

7 (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2015.)

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.

S-- S-2
HIGHER EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

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

requested for Teacher Quality Partnerships in 

fiscal year 2016.

2 Provided, That $30,000,000 shall be used 

for data collection, evaluation, research, and 

demonstration activities relating to programs 

under the HEA, including such activities that 

are designed to test approaches for providing 

grant, loan, or work assistance under title IV 

of the HEA in ways that promote access to, 

and completion of, affordable and high quality 

postsecondary education programs:

This language authorizes and provides funds 

for data collection, evaluation, research, and 

demonstration activities for programs 

authorized under the higher education act 

that do not have authority for such activities, 

or where funding is insufficient to cover costs. 

Funds also will provide support for activities 

that are designed to test approaches for 

providing grant, loan, or work assistance 

under title IV of the Higher Education Act 

(HEA) in ways that promote access to, and 

completion of, affordable and high-quality 

postsecondary education programs.

3 Provided further, That notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, funds made available 

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

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

and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 may be 

used to support visits and study in foreign 

countries by individuals who are participating 

in advanced foreign language training and 

international studies in areas that are vital to 

United States national security and who plan 

to apply their language skills and knowledge 

of these countries in the fields of government, 

the professions, or international development:

This language permits International Education 

programs authorized under title VI of the Higher 

Education Act (HEA) and the Mutual 

Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 

(MECEA) to use funds for visits and study in 

foreign countries by individuals (in addition to 

teachers and prospective teachers) who plan to 

apply their language skills and knowledge in 

world areas that are vital to United States 

national security in the fields of government, the 

professions, or international development.

4 Provided further, That of the funds referred 

to in the preceding proviso up to 1 percent 

may be used for program evaluation, national 

outreach, and information dissemination 

activities: 

This language authorizes the use of funds for 

program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination activities at a level 

that is up to 1 percent of the amount 

appropriated for International Education 

programs authorized by title VI of the HEA and 

section 102(b)(6) of the MECEA.

S-- S-3
HIGHER EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

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:

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. 

6 Provided further, That up to 2.5 percent of 

the funds made available under this Act for 

part B of title VII of the HEA may be used for 

technical assistance and the evaluation of 

activities carried out under such section:

This language permits the Department to use 

2.5 percent of the funds appropriated for the 

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecdonary 

Education for technical assistance and 

evaluation.

7 Provided further, That notwithstanding 

chapter 1 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV of 

the HEA, the Secretary may reserve up to 

$20,000,000 of the funds made available for 

section 402A(g) of the HEA to support the 

demonstration and rigorous evaluation of 

college access and completion strategies 

through cooperative agreements with entities 

that received fiscal year 2015 awards under 

section 402A.

This language authorizes the Department to 

use up to $20,000,000 of the funds 

appropriated for the Federal TRIO Programs 

to engage in cooperative agreements with 

TRIO grantees to support the demonstration 

and evaluation of college access and 

completion strategies without regard to TRIO 

statutory requirements.

S-- S-4
HIGHER EDUCATION

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2014 2015 2016

Discretionary:

Disc apprAppropriation................................................................. $1,925,408 $1,924,839 $2,072,045

Mandatory: 

Mand apprAppropriation ................................................................ 428,000 255,000 2,266,842

Mand apprSequester (P.L. 112-25) ............................................... -30,816 -18,615 0

Total, adjusted mandatory appropriation ............... 397,184 236,385 2,266,842

Total, comparable discretionary and

mandatory appropriation ..................................... 2,322,592 2,161,224 4,338,887

S-- S-5
HIGHER EDUCATION

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2015 Discretionary .................................................................... $1,924,839

2015 Mandatory ........................................................................ 236,385

2016 Discretionary .................................................................... 2,072,045

2016 Mandatory ........................................................................ 2,266,842

Net change................................................................................ +2,177,663

Discretionary:

Increases: 2015 base

Change 

from base

Program:

 Increase funding for the Promoting Postbaccalaureate 

Opportunitites for Hispanic Americans to support additional 

programs that support eligible HSIs that offer a 

postbaccalaureate certificate or postbaccalaureate 

degree-granting programs. $8,992 +$1,573

Program Increase funding for International Education and Foreign 

Language Studies Domestic Programs to support additional 

programs that strengthen the American education system in the 

area of foreign languages and international studies. 65,103 +2,000

Program Increase funding for International Education and Foreign 

Language Studies Overseas Programs to support additional 

programs that strengthen the American education system in the 

area of foreign languages and international studies. 7,061 +2,000

Program Increase funding for the Fund for the Improvement of 

Postsecondary Education to support the third year of the First in 

the World Program, which provides funding to support the 

development and evaluation of innovative strategies designed to 

improve college completion, particularly for high need students. 67,775 +132,225

M Increase funding for the Federal TRIO Programs to support a 

new TRIO Demonstration initiative designed to enable the 

Department to enter into cooperative agreements with TRIO 

grantees, and consortia thereof, to support the implementation 

and rigorous evaluation of college success strategies. 839,752 +20,000

S-- S-6
HIGHER EDUCATION

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

Discretionary:

Increases: Change

Program: 2015 base from base

Increase funding for GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation 

to support data collection, evaluation, research, and 

demonstration activities for programs authorized under the 

Higher Education Act (HEA) that do not have authority to set

aside funds for such activities, or where funding is 

insufficient to cover costs. Funds will also support activities 

that are designed to test approaches for providing grant, 

loan, or work assistance under title IV of the HEA in ways 

that promote access to, and completion of, affordable and 

high-quality postsecondary education programs. 0 +$30,000

Subtotal, discretionary increases +187,798

Decreases:

Program:

ProgramEliminate funding for Teacher Quality Partnerships because the 

Administration proposes to consolidate the program 

intoTeacher and Principal Pathways in the Innovation and 

Improvement account. $40,592 -40,592

Subtotal, discretionary decreases -40,592

Increases:

Program:

Program Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities program to return funding to 

the fiscal year 2016 authorized level. 27,810 +2,190

Program Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Alaska Native 

and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions program to return funding 

to the fiscal year 2016 authorized level. 13,905 +1,095

Program Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening HBCUs program 

to return funding to the fiscal year 2016 authorized level. 78,795 +6,205

Program Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Predominantly 

Black Institutions program to return funding to the fiscal year 2016 

authorized level. 13,905 +1,095

S-- S-7
HIGHER EDUCATION

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

Mandatory:

Increases: Change

Program: 2015 base from base

Program Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Asian 

American- and Native American Pacific Islander-serving 

Institutions program to return funding to the fiscal year 2016 

authorized level. $4,635 +$365

Program Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Native 

American-serving Nontribal Institutions program to return 

funding to the fiscal year 2016 authorized level. 4,635 +365

Program Increase funding for the mandatory developing Hispanicserving Institutions STEM and Articulation programs to return 

funding to the fiscal year 2016 authorized level. 92,700 +7,300 Progr am 

Increase to initiate a new mandatory America’s College 

Promise program to provide funds to create partnerships with 

states to make 2 years of community college free for 

responsible students by helping them waive tuition in highquality programs, while promoting key reforms to help more 

students complete at least 2 years of college. 0 +1,364,842

ProgramIncrease to initiate a new mandatory College Opportunity and

Graduation Bonus program to reward colleges that 

successfully enroll and graduate a significant number of 

low-and moderate-income students on time and encourage all 

institutions to improve their performance. 0 +647,000

Subtotal, mandatory increases +2,030,457

Subtotal, discretionary and mandatory increases +2,218,255

Subtotal, discretionary and mandatory decreases -40,592

Net change +2,177,663

S-- S-8
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Estimate

Footnot

e 2016 

Authorized

Footnote 2016 

Request

Footnot

e

Aid for institutional development:

Strengthening institutions (HEA-III-A-311) Indefinite $80,462 To be determined 1 $80,462

Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and

universities (HEA-III-A-316) Indefinite 25,622 To be determined 1 25,622

Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and 

Universities (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) $30,0002 27,8102 $30,0002 30,0002

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving institutions (HEA-III-A-317) Indefinite 12,833 To be determined1 12,833

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving institutions (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 15,0002 13,9052 15,0002 15,0002

Strengthening historically Black colleges and 

universities (HEA-III-B-323) Indefinite 227,524 To be determined1 227,524

Strengthening historically Black colleges and 

universities (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 85,0002 78,7952 85,0002 85,0002

Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions

(HEA-III-B-326) Indefinite 58,840 To be determined1 58,840

Strengthening predominantly Black institutions

(HEA-III-A-318) 75,000 9,244 To be determined1 9,244

Strengthening predominantly Black institutions 

(HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 15,0002 13,9052 15,0002 15,0002

Strengthening Asian American and Native American

Pacific Islander-serving institutions (HEA-III-A-320) Indefinite 3,113 To be determined1 3,113

Strengthening Asian American and Native American 

Pacific Islander-serving institutions (HEA-III-F-371)

(mandatory) 5,0002 4,6352 5,0002 5,0002

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal 

institutions (HEA-III-A-319) Indefinite 3,113 To be determined1 3,113

S-9

S-9
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Estimate

Footnot

e 2016 

Authorized

Footnote 2016 

Request

Footnot

e

Aid for institutional development:

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal 

institutions (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) $5,0002 $4,6352 $5,0002 $5,0002

Minority science and engineering improvement 

(HEA-III-E-1) Indefinite 8,971 To be determined1 8,971

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions:

Developing Hispanic-serving institutions (HEA-V-A) Indefinite 100,231 To be determined1 100,231

Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation 

programs (HEA III-F-371(b)(2)(B)) (mandatory) 100,0002 92,7002 100,0002 100,0002

Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for

Hispanic Americans (HEA-V-B-512) (discretionary) Indefinite 8,992 To be determined1 10,565

Other aid for institutions:

International education and foreign language studies:

Domestic programs (HEA-VI-A and B) Indefinite 65,103 To be determined1 67,103

Overseas programs (MECEA-102(b)(6)) Indefinite 7,061 Indefinite 9,061

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education 

(HEA-VII-B) Indefinite 67,775 To be determined1 200,000

Model comprehensive transition and postsecondary

programs for students with intellectual disabilities into 

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

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and 

technicalinstitutions (Carl D. Perkins CTEA section 117) Indefinite 7,705 Indefinite 7,705

Assistance for students:

Federal TRIO programs (HEA-IV-A-2-1) Indefinte 839,752 To be determined1 859,752

Gaining early awareness and readiness for 

undergraduate programs (HEA-IV-A-2-2) Indefinite 301,639 3To be determined1 301,639 3

Graduate assistance in areas of national need 

(HEA-VII-A-2) Indefinite 29,293 To be determined1 29,293

S-10

S-10
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Estimate

Footnot

e 2016 

Authorized

Footnote 2016 

Request

Footnot

e

Child care access means parents in school 

(HEA-IV-A-7) Indefinite $15,134 To be determined1 $15,134

Teacher quality partnerships (HEA II-A) Indefinite 40,592 To be determined1 0

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation (Department of

Education Appropriations Act) 0 0 $30,000430,0004

America’s College Promise (proposed 

legislation)(mandatory) 0 0 To be determined1 1,364,842

College opportunity and graduation bonus (proposed 

legislation)(mandatory) 0 0 To be determined1 647,000

Unfunded authorizations:

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

Hawkins Centers of Excellence (HEA-II-B-2) 

(discretionary) 0 0 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

Science and technology advanced foreign language

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

International education and foreign language studies:

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

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

Thurgood Marshall legal educational opportunity 

program (HEA-VII-A-3) 0

0 0 0

Master’s degree programs at historically Black 

Colleges and universities (HEA-VII-A-4-723) 0 0 0 0

S-11

S-11
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Estimate

Footnot

e 2016 

Authorized

Footnote 2016 

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations (cont’d):

Master’s degree programs at predominantly Black

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

Demonstration projects to support postsecondary 

faculty, staff, and administrators in educating students 

with disabilities (HEA-VII-D-1) 0 0 0 0

Model demonstration program to support improved

Access to postsecondary instructional materials for 

students with print disabilities (HEA-VII-D-3) 0 0 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

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

S-12

S-12
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Estimate

Footnot

e 2016 

Authorized

Footnote 2016 

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations (cont’d):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Path 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

S-13

S-13
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Estimate

Footnot

e 2016 

Authorized

Footnote 2016 

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations (cont’d):

Master’s degree programs at HBCUs and PBIs

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

Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for

Hispanic Americans (HEA-VIII-AA-898) (mandatory) 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 $285,000

Total appropriation $2,120,632 $4,338,887

Total discretionary appropriation 1,884,247 2,072,045

Portion of discretionary request subject to reauthorization 2,042,045

Portion of the discretionary request not authorized 0 30,000

Total mandatory appropriation 236,385 2,266,842

Portion of the mandatory request not authorized 0 2,011,842

 1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016. 2 Mandatory funds made available in fiscal year 2009 and each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2019. 3 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. 4 The Administration proposes to carry out this activity through appropriations language in fiscal year 2016.

S-14

S-14
HIGHER EDUCATION

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate to 

Congress

House 

Allowance foot

note

Senate 

Allowance

F

o

o

t

n

o

t

e Appropriation Footno

te

2007 $1,108,711 N/A1 N/A1 $1,951,0531,2

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

2008 Mandatory 378,000 378,000 378,000

2009 Discretionary 1,733,684 2,080,8813 1,856,21433 2,100,150

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

Recovery Act Supplemental 

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

2010 Discretionary 2,050,191 2,294,882 2,106,7494 2,255,665

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

2011 Discretionary 2,131,493 2,177,9155 2,243,8954 1,903,9446

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

2012 Discretionary 2,277,069 1,628,0527 1,903,9467 1,869,656

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

2013 Discretionary 1,950,590 1,869,6568 1,911,3488 1,881,098

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

2014 Discretionary 2,182,799 N/A9 1,906,3949 1,925,408

2014 Mandatory 428,000 428,000 397,184

2015 Discretionary 2,025,457 N/A9 1,968,79910 1,924,839

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

2016 Discretionary 2,072,045

2016 Mandatory 2,266,842

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

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

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

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

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

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

Committee Action only. 8 The 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. 9 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 10The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

U-- S-15

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Significant Items in FY 2015 Appropriations Reports

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

Senate: The Committee notes the high level of interest in the FITW competition held in fiscal 

year 2014 and requests a report no later than December 1, 2014, providing the 

following information about that competition: number of applicants; number of

applicants and awardees that applied under the competitive priority, including how 

many applicants and awardees each submitted as supporting evidence correlational 

studies, randomized control trials, or quasi-experimental design studies; analysis of 

geographic distribution of applicants and awardees; and the number of applicants

and awardees that partnered with public and private organizations and agencies as 

well as a description of the types of partner organizations and agencies.

Of the amount recommended for the initiative, the Committee includes $20,000,000 

to continue the set-aside for minority-serving institutions, as defined in titles III and V 

of the HEA.

Managers’ The agreement requests that a report be submitted to the House and Senate

Statement: Committees on Appropriations no later than March 2, 2015, providing the

following information about the fiscal year 2014 First in the World competition:

number of applicants; number of applicants and awardees that applied under the

competitive priority, including how many applicants and awardees each submitted

as supporting evidence correlational studies, randomized control trials, or 

quasiexperimental design studies; analysis of geographic distribution of applicants 

and awardees; and the number of applicants and awardees that partnered with 

public and private organizations and agencies as well as a description of the types of

partner organizations and agencies.

The agreement includes up to $16,000,000 to continue the set aside for minorityserving institutions, as defined in titles III and V of the HEA.

Response: The Department will comply with the Manager’s Statement directive.

Model Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual 

Disabilities (TPSID)

Senate: Of the funds provided, the Committee includes no less than $2,000,000 to support a 

national coordinating center to conduct and disseminate research on strategies to 

promote positive academic, social, employment, and independent living outcomes for 

students with intellectual disabilities. The Committee expects that the coordinating

center will establish a comprehensive research and evaluation protocol for TPSID 

programs; administer a mentoring program matching current and new TPSID 

grantees based on areas of expertise; and coordinate longitudinal follow-up data 

collection and technical assistance to TPSID grantees on programmatic components

and evidence-based practices. The coordinating center should also provide technical 

assistance to build the capacity of K–12 transition services as well as postsecondary 

education inclusive practices, among other activities.

U-- S-16
HIGHER EDUCATION

Significant Items in FY 2015 Appropriations Reports (continued)

Model Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual 

Disabilities (TPSID) (continued)

Managers’

Statement: The agreement includes $11,800,000 for the Model Comprehensive Transition and

Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID): Of that 

amount, the agreement includes no less than $2,000,000 to support a national 

coordinating center to conduct and disseminate research on strategies to promote 

positive academic, social, employment, and independent living outcomes for 

students with intellectual disabilities. The coordinating center will establish a 

comprehensive research and evaluation protocol for TPSID programs; administer a 

mentoring program matching current and new TPSID grantees based on areas of 

expertise; and coordinate longitudinal follow-up data collection and technical 

assistance to TPSID grantees on programmatic components and evidence-based 

practices. The coordinating center will also provide technical assistance to build the 

capacity of K-12 transition services as well as postsecondary education inclusive 

practices, among other activities.

Response: The Department will comply with this directive.

GPRA Data/Higher Education Act Program Evaluation

Senate: The Committee directs that $1,000,000 provided for data collection and evaluation

activities will support a new Postsecondary and Adult Data Quality Initiative [DQI]. 

The Committee urges the Department to collaborate with DOL when creating the 

Postsecondary and Adult DQI, as DOL has expertise in developing longitudinal data 

systems that integrate workforce and education data through implementation of the 

Workforce DQI.

Response: The 2015 appropriations act did not provide funding for this program.

U-- S-17
Summ

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2016 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

Flick Oere for MccessiNle version 

(in POousMnds of dollMrs) 2016

FMPegory 2014 201D PresidenP's 

AccounP, ProgrMm Mnd AcPiviPy Fode AppropriMPion AppropriMPion BudgeP AmounP PercenP

Higher Education

1B Aid for insPiPuPionMl developmenP:

(M) SPrengPOening insPiPuPions (HEA III-A, secPion 311) G 7E,13E 80,462 80,462 0 0B000%

(N) SPrengPOening PriNMlly conProlled colleges Mnd universiPies (HEA III-A, secPion 316) G 2D,23E 2D,662 2D,662 0 0B000%

(c) MMndMPory sPrengPOening PriNMlly conProlled colleges Mnd universiPies 

(HEA III-F, secPion 371) M 27,840 27,810 30,000 2,1E0 7B87D%

SuNPoPMl D3,07E D3,472 DD,662 2,1E0 4B0E6%

(d) SPrengPOening AlMskM NMPive Mnd NMPive HMRMiiMn-serving insPiPuPions (HEA III-A,

secPion 317) G 12,622 12,833 12,833 0 0B000%

(e) MMndMPory sPrengPOening AlMskM NMPive Mnd NMPive HMRMiiMn-serving 

insPiPuPions (HEA III-F, secPion 371) M 13,E20 13,E0D 1D,000 1,0ED 7B87D%

SuNPoPMl 26,D42 26,738 27,833 1,0ED 4B0ED%

(f) SPrengPOening HBFUs (HEA III-B, secPion 323) G 223,783 227,D24 227,D24 0 0B000%

(g) MMndMPory sPrengPOening HBFUs (HEA III-F, secPion 371) M 78,880 78,7ED 8D,000 6,20D 7B87D%

SuNPoPMl 302,663 306,31E 312,D24 6,20D 2B026%

(O) SPrengPOening OisPoricMlly BlMck grMduMPe insPiPuPions (HEA III-B, secPion 326) G D7,872 D8,840 D8,840 0 0B000%

(i) MMsPers degree progrMms MP HBFUs Mnd predominMnPly BlMck 

insPiPuPions (HEA VIII, secPion 8E7) M 10,672 0 0 0 ---

(j) SPrengPOening predominMnPly BlMck insPiPuPions (HEA III-A, secPion 318) G E,0E2 E,244 E,244 0 0B000%

(k) MMndMPory sPrengPOening predominMnPly BlMck insPiPuPions (HEA III-F, secPion 371) M 13,E20 13,E0D 1D,000 1,0ED 7B87D%

SuNPoPMl 23,012 23,14E 24,244 1,0ED 4B730%

(l) SPrengPOening AsiMn AmericMn- Mnd NMPive AmericMn PMcific IslMnder-serving 

insPiPuPions (HEA III-A, secPion 320) G 3,062 3,113 3,113 0 0B000%

(m) MMndMPory sPrengPOening AsiMn AmericMn- Mnd NMPive AmericMn PMcific 

IslMnder-serving insPiPuPions (HEA III-F, secPion 371) M 4,640 4,63D D,000 36D 7B87D%

SuNPoPMl 7,702 7,748 8,113 36D 4B711%

(n) SPrengPOening NMPive AmericMn-serving nonPriNMl insPiPuPions (HEA III-A, secPion 31E) G 3,062 3,113 3,113 0 0B000%

(o) MMndMPory sPrengPOening NMPive AmericMn-serving nonPriNMl insPiPuPions (HEA III-F, secPion 371) M 4,640 4,63D D,000 36D 7B87D%

SuNPoPMl 7,702 7,748 8,113 36D 4B711%

(p) MinoriPy science Mnd engineering improvemenP (HEA III-E-1) G 8,E71 8,E71 8,E71 0 0B000%

SuNPoPMl, Aid for insPiPuPionMl developmenP D77,3D4 D73,447 D84,762 11,31D 1BE73%

GiscrePionMry G 422,842 42E,762 42E,762 0 0B000%

MMndMPory M 1D4,D12 143,68D 1DD,000 11,31D 7B87D%

NOTES: G = discrePionMry progrMm; M = mMndMPory progrMm; FY = fiscMl yeMr 

AccounPs Mre sOoRn under POe MdminisPering office POMP OMs primMry responsiNiliPy for mosP progrMms in POMP MccounP; OoRever, POere mMy Ne some progrMms POMP Mre MdminisPered Ny MnoPOer officeB

For mMndMPory progrMms, POe levels sOoRn in POe 2014 AppropriMPion column reflecP POe 7B2 percenP sequesPer POMP RenP inPo effecP OcPoNer 1, 2013, Mnd POe levels sOoRn in POe 201D AppropriMPion column

reflecP POe 7B3 percenP sequesPer POMP RenP inPo effecP OcPoNer 1, 2014, pursuMnP Po POe BudgeP FonProl AcP of 2011 (PBIB 112-2D)B

GePMil mMy noP Mdd Po PoPMls due Po roundingB 

2016 PresidenP's BudgeP

FompMred Po 201D AppropriMPion

ary 

S-18

V-- S-18
of Request

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2016 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

Flick Oere for MccessiNle version 

Higher Education (continued)

2B Aid for HispMnic-serving insPiPuPions:

(M) Geveloping HispMnic-serving insPiPuPions (HEA V-A) G E8,D83 100,231 100,231 0 0B000%

(N) MMndMPory developing HSI STEM Mnd MrPiculMPion progrMms (HEA III-F, secPion 371(N)(2)(B)) M E2,800 E2,700 100,000 7,300 7B87D%

(c) PromoPing posPNMccMlMureMPe opporPuniPies for HispMnic AmericMns (HEA V, secPion D12) G 8,84D 8,EE2 10,D6D 1,D73 17B4E3%

(d) MMndMPory promoPing posPNMccMlMureMPe opporPuniPies for HispMnic AmericMns

 (HEA VIII, secPion 8E8) M 10,672 0 0 0 ---

SuNPoPMl 210,E00 201,E23 210,7E6 8,873 4B3E4%

GiscrePionMry 107,428 10E,223 110,7E6 1,D73 1B440%

MMndMPory 103,472 E2,700 100,000 7,300 7B87D%

3 OPOer Mid for insPiPuPions:

(M) InPernMPionMl educMPion Mnd foreign lMnguMge sPudies:

(1) GomesPic progrMms (HEA VI-A Mnd B) G 6D,103 6D,103 67,103 2,000 3B072%

(2) OverseMs progrMms (MEFEA secPion 102(N)(6)) G 7,061 7,061 E,061 2,000 28B32D%

SuNPoPMl 72,164 72,164 76,164 4,000 DBD43%

(N) Fund for POe ImprovemenP of PosPsecondMry EducMPion:

(1) Fund for POe ImprovemenP of PosPsecondMry EducMPion (HEA VII-B) G 3,274 7,77D 0 (7,77D) -100B000%

(2) FirsP in POe WorldCFollege FomplePion IniPiMPive (HEA VII) G 7D,000 60,000 200,000 140,000 233B333%

(3) TrMining for reMlPime RriPers (HEA VIII) G 1,126 0 0 0 ---

SuNPoPMl 7E,400 67,77D 200,000 132,22D 1EDB0E4%

(c) Model PrMnsiPion progrMms for sPudenPs RiPO inPellecPuMl disMNiliPies inPo

OigOer educMPion (HEA VII-G-2) G 10,384 11,800 11,800 0 0B000%

(d) TriNMlly conProlled posPsecondMry cMreer Mnd PecOnicMl insPiPuPions (FTEA secPion 117) G 7,70D 7,70D 7,70D 0 0B000%

 4B AssisPMnce for sPudenPs:

(M) FederMl TRIO progrMms (HEA IV-A-2, FOMpPer 1) G 838,2D2 83E,7D2 8DE,7D2 20,000 2B382%

(N) GMining eMrly MRMreness Mnd reMdiness for undergrMduMPe progrMms

(GEAR UP) (HEA IV-A-2, FOMpPer 2) G 301,63E 301,63E 301,63E 0 0B000%

(c) GrMduMPe MssisPMnce in MreMs of nMPionMl need (HEA VII-A-2) G 2E,2E3 2E,2E3 2E,2E3 0 0B000%

(d) FOild cMre Mccess meMns pMrenPs in scOool (HEA IV-A-7) G 1D,134 1D,134 1D,134 0 0B000%

DB TeMcOer quMliPy pMrPnersOip (HEA II-A) 1 G 40,DE2 40,DE2 0 (40,DE2) -100B000%

 6B GPRA dMPMCHEA progrMm evMluMPion (GepMrPmenP of EducMPion AppropriMPions AcP) G D7D 0 30,000 30,000 ---

 7B Follege Mccess cOMllenge grMnP progrMm (HEA VII-E) M 13E,200 0 0 0 ---

 8B AmericM's Follege Promise (proposed legislMPion) M 0 0 1,364,842 1,364,842 ---

EB Follege opporPuniPy Mnd grMduMPion Nonus (proposed legislMPion) M 0 0 647,000 647,000 ---

ToPMl 2,322,DE2 2,161,224 4,338,887 2,177,663 100B761%

GiscrePionMry 1,E2D,408 1,E24,83E 2,072,04D 147,206 7B648%

MMndMPory 3E7,184 236,38D 2,266,842 2,030,4D7 8D8BE62%

NOTES: G = discrePionMry progrMm; M = mMndMPory progrMm; FY = fiscMl yeMr 

AccounPs Mre sOoRn under POe MdminisPering office POMP OMs primMry responsiNiliPy for mosP progrMms in POMP MccounP; OoRever, POere mMy Ne some progrMms POMP Mre MdminisPered Ny MnoPOer officeB

For mMndMPory progrMms, POe levels sOoRn in POe 2014 AppropriMPion column reflecP POe 7B2 percenP sequesPer POMP RenP inPo effecP OcPoNer 1, 2013, Mnd POe levels sOoRn in POe 201D AppropriMPion column

reflecP POe 7B3 percenP sequesPer POMP RenP inPo effecP OcPoNer 1, 2014, pursuMnP Po POe BudgeP FonProl AcP of 2011 (PBIB 112-2D)B

GePMil mMy noP Mdd Po PoPMls due Po roundingB 

1 TOe 2016 PresidenP’s BudgeP RequesP proposes Po consolidMPe TeMcOer QuMliPy PMrPnersOip inPo TeMcOer Mnd PrincipMl PMPOwMys in POe InnovMPion Mnd ImprovemenP MccounPB

V-- S-19
HIGHER EDUCATION

Summary of Request

The Administration’s request for fiscal year 2016 includes a combination of discretionary and 

mandatory funding that would make available a total of $4.3 billion for programs in the 

Higher Education account—$2.1 billion in discretionary funding to support a comprehensive set of 

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

Americans with postsecondary degrees or industry-recognized certificates; and 2 billion in 

mandatory funding for two new initiatives designed to improve affordability, quality, and success in 

higher education. Lastly, although not part of the budget request for 2016, mandatory funding 

totaling $255 million, is available for existing programs authorized by Titles III and Title V of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).

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

low-income students and others, the request would provide a total of $429.8 million in discretionary 

funding for Title III for the Aid for Institutional Development programs, the same as the 2015

appropriation. The request for Title III demonstrates the Administration’s commitment to assisting 

institutions that enroll a large proportion of minority and disadvantaged students by providing funds 

to improve institutions’ academic programs and administrative and fundraising capabilities. Within 

this amount, the Administration requests $80.5 million for the Strengthening Institutions 

Program. The Administration is also requesting $227.5 million for Strengthening Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); $58.8 million for Strengthening Historically Black 

Graduate Institutions (HBGIs); and $9.2 million for Strengthening Predominantly Black 

Institutions (PBIs). African Americans have historically lacked access to quality education 

compared to their White cohorts. The Strengthening HBCUs, Strengthening HBGIs, and 

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

provide greater access to academic programs at both undergraduate and graduate levels to African 

Americans.

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

Colleges and Universities program; $12.8 million for the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving Institutions program; $3.1 million for the Native American-serving Nontribal 

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

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

Native and Native Hawaiian, and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander students. 

Lastly, the Administration is requesting $9 million for the Minority Science and Engineering 

Improvement Program to help improve science and engineering programs at postsecondary 

institutions with predominantly minority enrollments.

The Administration requests a total of $110.8 million in discretionary funding for Aid for Hispanicserving Institutions to ensure that Hispanic students have access to high quality postsecondary 

education and to closing the gap between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in areas of 

academic achievement, high school graduation, postsecondary enrollment, and life-long learning. 

The request includes $100.2 million in discretionary funding for Developing Hispanic-serving 

Institutions (HSIs), the same as the 2015 appropriation and $10.6 million, an increase of 

$1.6 million, for the Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans.

W-- S-20
HIGHER EDUCATION

Summary of Request (continued)

For the International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) programs, the 

Administration requests a total of $76.2 million, $4 million or 5.5 percent, more than the 

2015 appropriation. The IEFLS programs are designed to help meet the Nation's security 

and economic needs through the development of expertise in foreign languages and area 

and international studies. More specifically, the request for IEFLS includes $67.1 million for 

the Domestic Programs, an increase of $2 million, and $9.1 million, an increase of $2 million, 

for the Overseas Programs.

The Administration requests $859.8 million for the Federal TRIO Programs, $20 million more than 

the 2015 appropriation. The request includes appropriations language to allow the Department to 

use the additional $20 million to support a new TRIO Demonstration initiative designed to enable 

the Department to enter into cooperative agreements with TRIO grantees, and consortia thereof, to 

support the implementation and rigorous evaluation of college success strategies. The TRIO 

request also includes funding for the Student Support Services, Upward Bound, Upward Bound 

Math and Science, Veterans Upward Bound, Talent Search, Educational Opportunity Centers, and 

McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement programs. The TRIO programs are the Administration’s 

oldest college preparation and student support programs and they have a long history of providing 

support to low-income students and students whose parents never completed college. In addition, 

the Administration’s request for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs (GEAR UP) would maintain funding at the fiscal year 2015 appropriation level of 

$301.6 million. The TRIO and GEAR UP programs are designed to increase postsecondary access 

by providing low-income students with the necessary tools to enroll in and successfully complete 

college.

The Administration also requests $200 million for the Fund for the Improvement of 

Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) for fiscal year 2016, a $132.2 million increase over the fiscal 

year 2015 level. These funds would support the third year of First in the World (FITW), an 

evidence-based program that provides funding to support the development and evaluation of 

innovative strategies designed to improve college completion, particularly for high need students. The 

increase would enable the Department to expand the FITW program to support projects under 

three evidence tiers: development, validation, and scale up. As in 2014 and 2015, the 

Administration would set aside a portion of the 2016 funding, up to 30 percent, or $60 million at the 

requested level, for awards to MSIs.

To provide students with additional financial resources, the Department requests $29.3 million for 

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) to provide merit-based scholarships 

and fellowships for graduate students.

The Administration requests funding of $30 million for GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation

(GPRA/HEA) activities in fiscal year 2016. The funding would allow the Department to conduct 

evaluations, data collection, research, and demonstration activities. Multiple offices across the 

Department will collaborate to design and implement the studies, with one of the evaluation offices 

taking the lead for the evaluations to ensure high-quality research. These activities have played an 

important role in reporting performance data, making program improvements, informing budgetary 

decisions, and conducting program assessments of alternative strategies for providing services.

S-21
HIGHER EDUCATION

Summary of Request (continued)

The President’s fiscal year 2016 request proposes the following new mandatory initiatives and 

comprehensive reforms to improve affordability, quality and success in higher education:

• $1.4 billion for America’s College Promise, a total of $60.3 billion over the next decade,

a proposed grant program for States to make community college free for responsible students, 

enabling them to earn a certificate, an associate’s degree or up to 2 years’ worth of credits 

towards a bachelor’s degree without paying any tuition and fees. 

• $647 milion, or a total of $7 billion over the next decade, for the College Opportunity and 

Graduation Bonus program that will reward colleges that successfully enroll and graduate a 

significant number of low- and moderate-income students on time and encourage all institutions 

to improve their performance. Eligible institutions may receive a grant that will support 

innovation, interventions, and reforms to further increase college access and success based 

upon the number of Pell Grant recipients they graduate on time.

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

funds that are not included in the Department’s fiscal year 2016 budget request:

• $230 million for existing programs under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act—

$85 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, $30 million for Tribally Controlled 

Colleges and Universities, $15 million for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving 

Institutions, and $100 million for Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions.

• $25 million for other programs that support minority-serving institutions—$15 million for 

Predominantly Black Institutions, $5 million for Asian American and Native American Pacific 

Islander-serving Institutions, and $5 million for Native American-serving Nontribal Institutions.

W-- S-22
HIGHER EDUCATION

Activities:

Aid for institutional development

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title III)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined (discretionary) 1

, $155,000 (mandatory)

Budget Authority:

Program

Program 2015 2016 Change

Strengthening Institutions (Part A discretionary) $80,462 $80,462 0

Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges

and Universities 

TCCUs (Part A discretionary) 25,662 25,662 0

TCCUs (Part F mandatory) 27,810 30,000 +$2,190

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian-serving Institutions

ANNH (Part A discretionary) 12,833 12,833 0

ANNH (Part F mandatory) 13,905 15,000 +1,095

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges

and Universities

HBCUs (Part B discretionary) 227,524 227,524 0

HBCUs (Part F mandatory) 78,795 85,000 +6,205

Strengthening Historically Black Graduate

Institutions (Part B discretionary) 58,840 58,840 0

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions

(Part A discretionary) 9,244 9,244 0

(Part B mandatory) 13,905 15,000 +1,095

Strengthening Asian American and Native

American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

 (Part A discretionary) 3,113 3,113 0

 (Part B mandatory) 4,635 5,000 +365

Strengthening Native American-serving

Nontribal Institutions 

 (Part A discretionary) 3,113 3,113 0

 (Part B mandatory) 4,635 5,000 +365

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement

Program (Part E discretionary) 8,971 8,971 0

 Total 573,447 584,762 +11,315

Discretionary 429,762 429,762 0

Mandatory 143,685 2155,0002 11,315 2

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016.

2 Mandatory appropriations are provided under Title III, Part F, Section 371 of the HEA; these funds are, therefore,

not part of the appropriations or budget request. The levels shown for 2015 reflect the 7.3 percent sequester of 

mandatory programs that went into effect on October 1, 2014, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011.

W-- S-23

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

minority students and students from low-income backgrounds for the purpose of promoting 

equity across U.S. postsecondary education. 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 provide financial assistance to help institutions solve problems 

that threaten their ability to survive, to improve their management and fiscal operations, to build 

endowments, and to make effective use of academic and technological resources. Funding is 

targeted to minority-serving and other institutions that enroll a large proportion of financially 

disadvantaged students and have low per-student expenditures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

transferred mandatory funding for the Strengthening HBCUs and Other Minority Serving 

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

The HEOA authorizes and appropriates mandatory funding in Title VIII, Section 897 of the HEA 

for Master’s Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and 

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

(SAFRA), signed into law on March 30, 2010, amended the HEA to make mandatory funding for 

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

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

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

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

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

institutions, and have below-average educational and general expenditures per full-time 

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

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

expired. Institutions may use their Part A funds to: plan, develop, and implement activities that 

encourage faculty and academic program development; 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 

W-- S-24
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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 at a rate of one non-Federal dollar for each Federal dollar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of Title V of the HEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

receive funding each year. Under Section 371, a mandatory appropriation of $30 million is 

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

under Section 316 of the HEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

funds are distributed equally among eligible Tribal Colleges or Universities.

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

faculty and academic program development; improvement in fund and administrative 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W-- S-25
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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 

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

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

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

of Title V of the HEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvement in fund and administrative management; renovation and improvement in 

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

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

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

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

institutions. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fiscal years 2008 through 2019 to be used for the same activities authorized under Section 317 

of the HEA. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W-- S-26
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

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

amount may be used for this purpose.

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

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

increase an institution’s endowment fund.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

funding under Part A. 

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

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

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

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

purposes:

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

including instructional and research purposes; 

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

and other instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of telecommunications 

technology equipment or services; 

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

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

telecommunications program materials; 

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

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

such program, preparation for teacher certification; and

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

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

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

affairs, or nursing or allied health professions.

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

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

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

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

W-- S-27
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarke School of Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

educational materials, including telecommunications program materials; acquisition of real 

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

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

improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of students or the students' families, 

especially with regard to student indebtedness and student assistance programs under Title IV 

of the HEA; services necessary for the implementation of projects or activities that are described 

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

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

and student service programs designed to improve academic success.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Institutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W-- S-28
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PBI program activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

or Part A of Title V of the HEA.

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

• Has a high enrollment of needy students;

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

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

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

similar instruction;

• Has an enrollment of undergraduate students

- That is at least 40 percent Black American students;

- That is at least 1,000 undergraduate students;

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

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

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

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

which the institution is located;

W-- S-29
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

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

junior or community college, an associate's degree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W-- S-30
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

American Pacific Islander populations and subpopulations; establishing partnerships with 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

authorized under Section 320.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

expires.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or Part A of Title V of the HEA.

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

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

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

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

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

W-- S-31
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

students or the students’ families.

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

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

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

and engineering education at predominantly minority institutions and to increase the

participation of underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities in scientific and technological

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

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

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

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

purchase of scientific equipment, or development of research capabilities.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:Fisc

Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

2013.................................................................................. 566,5602

2014.................................................................................. 577,3543

2015.................................................................................. 573,4474

 .

1 Includes $166,500 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 2 Includes $158,009 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 

3 Includes $154,512 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 4 Includes $143,685 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 

 

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST 

For fiscal year 2016, the Administration requests $429.8 million in discretionary funding for the Aid 

for Institutional Development programs, the same as the 2015 appropriation. In addition, 

$155 million is available in mandatory funding in fiscal year 2016 for programs authorized under 

Section 371 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended; these funds are not part of the fiscal 

year 2016 budget request. An important strategy in closing the gap in educational attainment 

between low-income and minority students and their high-income, non-minority peers is to 

strengthen the quality of educational opportunities in institutions dedicated to serving low-income 

and minority students. A significant number of postsecondary education institutions serving high 

percentages of minority students and students from low-income backgrounds face challenges that 

threaten their continued operation and ability to provide a high-quality education. The Administration 

is committed to assisting institutions enrolling a large proportion of disadvantaged students by 

providing funds to support, among other activities, improvements in academic quality, institutional 

management, administrative capacity and fiscal stability, infrastructure, and student support 

services. Grant funds may be used to plan, develop, and implement activities that encourage faculty 

and academic program development; 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.

W-- S-32
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

Given the key role that the institutions supported by the Title III programs serve in providing 

postsecondary educational opportunities to low-income and minority students, it is best for 

students if Title III funds are used in ways that are proven to improve student outcomes. For 

this reason, as with other higher education programs, the Department has begun to 

encourage the use of evidence-based practices in the Title III programs. Since fiscal 

year 2012, competitions for the Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP) have included 

priorities for projects that propose evidence-based practices. In fiscal year 2016, the 

Department plans to explore with institutions similar evidence related priorities ine other Title 

III programs with competitions in that year.

• The Administration requests $80.5 million for the Part A, Section 311 Strengthening 

Institutions Program (SIP), the same as the fiscal year 2015 appropriation. This funding level 

would continue to support the Administration’s commitment to assisting institutions that 

provide educational opportunities to low-income and minority students. SIP became the first 

HEA Title III program to include a priority for supporting programs, practices, or strategies for 

which there is strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness. SIP used the evidence priority 

in the awarding of new grants in each of the fiscal years 2012-2014. For the fiscal year 2015 

SIP competition, the Department plans to continue this effort by including a competitive 

preference priority for projects supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness as defined 

by the What Works Clearinghouse. A competitive preference priority for practices supported 

by evidence would also likely be included in the fiscal year 2016 SIP competition. The 

Department is currently collecting information about the 2012-2014 grantees who received 

awards based on the evidence priority.

Data collected through annual performance reports will enable the Department to determine 

the amount of funding that sustained activities supported by the evidence that met the 

priority, the number of students being served by activities supported by the evidence that met 

the priority, the number of students served by other activities in the grant, any relationships to 

that of the institution’s population, and whether the research evidence that earned grantees 

the extra points is consistent with what the grantees are actually implementing (in terms of 

target population, scope/intensity of the intervention).

The Department will incorporate findings around the effectiveness of the evidence priority

when making decisions about priorities for fiscal year 2016. The Department recently 

published revisions to Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) 

(FR Vol. 78, No. 156 dated August 13, 2013) to improve the Department’s ability to evaluate 

the performance of discretionary grant programs and grantee projects; support, where 

appropriate, projects that have evidence of effectiveness; review grant applications using 

selection factors that promote policy objectives related to project evaluation, sustainability, 

productivity, and strategy to scale; and reduce burden on grantees in selecting 

implementation sites, implementation partners, or evaluation service providers for their 

proposed projects. 

W-- S-33
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

• The request includes $25.7 million for the Part A, Section 316 Strengthening Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs) program, the same as the fiscal year 2015 

level. There are 34 fully accredited Tribal Colleges and Universities in the United States. 

Three additional universities are in Associate Status, meaning a tribal college seeking formal 

accreditation candidacy status. TCCUs are located mainly in the Midwest and Southwest. 

The majority of TCCUs are 2-year schools. TCCUs are located primarily in remote areas not 

served by other postsecondary education institutions. They offer a broad range of degree 

and vocational certificate programs to students for whom these educational opportunities 

would otherwise be geographically and culturally inaccessible.

A serious problem at all TCCUs is physical infrastructure. Many of the schools were 

established in old and dilapidated buildings that were formerly post offices, warehouses or 

elementary schools. Many of these facilities are insufficient, technologically deficient, and 

unsuited for continued use as academic buildings. Grantees may conduct constructionrelated activities to improve facilities under their approved individual development grants.

Over the previous decade, the total enrollment in TCCUs increased by 55 percent, from 

13,680 in fall 2000 to 21,225 in fall 2010. However, enrollment decreased to 18,881 in 2012 

(2,344 fewer students when compared to enrollment in 2010). In 2012, nearly 14,765

students in TCCUs were American Indian/Alaska Native, representing 78.2 percent of total 

enrollment.

Approximately 11 percent of all American Indian/Alaska Native college students were 

enrolled in TCCUs in 2012. American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment at TCCUs increased 

at a faster rate between 2000 and 2011 than did American Indian/Alaska Native college and 

university enrollment generally (29.1 percent versus 18.5 percent). The traditional 

college-age population rose 11 percent between 2000 and 2012, and the percentage of 

18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college rose from 35.5 percent in 2000 to 41 percent in 2012. 

Between 1999–2000 and 2011-2012, the number of degrees conferred at postsecondary 

institutions rose at all levels. The number of bachelor's degrees was 44 percent higher, the 

number of master's degrees was 59 percent higher, and the number of doctoral degrees 

was 42 percent higher. Despite the overall increases in college enrollment and degree 

attainment, American Indian/Alaska Native students continue to lag behind their White 

cohorts in overall educational attainment. In 2011-2012, American Indian/Alaska Natives 

earned only 0.7 percent of the bachelor’s degrees, 0.6 percent of the master’s degrees, and 

0.6 percent of doctoral degrees awarded in the United States, though American 

Indian/Alaska Natives comprise 1.7 percent of the population.

In addition, under Section 371 of the HEA, $30 million is available in mandatory funding for 

TCCUs in fiscal year 2016. The Department will award funding to all eligible TCCUs using 

the formula outlined in the program statute.

• The request includes $12.8 million for discretionary grants under Part A, Section 317 for the 

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions (ANNH) program, the 

same as the fiscal year 2015 appropriation. Like TCCUs, ANNH institutions are typically 

located in remote areas not served by other postsecondary educational institutions. Between 

1990 and 2012, American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment at institutions of higher education

W-- S-34
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

increased from 102,800 students to 172,900 students; and Asian/Pacific Islander 

enrollment increased from 572,400 to nearly 1.3 million. The Department will also award 

grants using $15 million in mandatory funding provided under Section 371 of the HEA.

• The Administration requests $227.5 million for the Strengthening Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) program under Part B, Section 323, the same as the 

fiscal year 2015 appropriation. In addition, the Administration requests $58.8 million for the

Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGIs) program under Part B, 

Section 326, the same as the fiscal year 2015 appropriation. The fiscal year 2016 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. The Nation’s 105 designated HBCUs make up nearly 3 percent of 

all Title IV eligible colleges and universities that grant associate’s or higher and, in 2012, 

enrolled 312,438 African American students, or nearly 10.5 percent of all African American 

students in higher education. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports 

that approximately 16 percent of the African Americans who currently hold undergraduate 

degrees earned their credential from an HBCU. 

African American enrollment at institutions of higher education almost tripled between 

1976 and 2012 from about 1 million students to nearly 3 million students. Despite the 

increases in college enrollment and degree attainment, African American students continue 

to lag behind the national average in overall educational attainment. In 2011-2012, African 

Americans earned only 10.7 percent of the bachelor’s degrees, 12.8 percent of the master’s 

degrees, and 7.8 percent of doctoral degrees awarded in the United States, though 

13 percent of the United States population identified as African American. Further, African 

American student participation in and completion of advanced programs in the physical and 

natural sciences, engineering, and mathematics continues to be low. Part B funding 

increases the capacity of HBCUs and HBGIs to provide such programs. 

Grants provided under the Title III, Part B programs enable HBCUs and HBGIs to continue 

serving a growing population of students, encourage and prepare more African American

students to pursue advanced study, and improve their academic quality, institutional 

management, and fiscal stability.

Mandatory funding of $85 million is also made available under Section 371 of the HEA for 

HBCUs in fiscal year 2016.

• The request includes $9.2 million for Part A, Section 318 Strengthening Predominantly Black 

Institutions (PBIs) program, the same as the fiscal year 2015 appropriation. PBIs are

primarily urban and rural 2-year colleges where at least 40 percent of students are African 

American and at least 50 percent are low-income or first-generation college students.

In addition, Section 371 of the HEA makes available $15 million in fiscal year 2016 for PBIs.

• The request includes $3.1 million in discretionary funds for Part A, Section 320 

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

(AANAPISIs) program, the same as the fiscal year 2015 appropriation. Most AANAPISI 

W-- S-35
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

institutions are junior and community colleges where nearly half (47 percent) of 

students are AAPI. AANAPISI-eligible institutions enroll 75 percent of low-income AAPI 

undergraduate students in higher education. They also serve communities with

disproportionately high numbers of English language learners and individuals with low 

academic achievement.

Mandatory funding of $5 million is also provided under Section 371 of the HEA for 

AANAPISIs in fiscal year 2016.

• The request includes $3.1 million in discretionary funds for Part A, Section 319 

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTIs) program, the 

same as the fiscal year 2015 appropriation. While NASNTIs are not designated as 

TCCUs, at least 10 percent of the students enrolled at these institutions are Native 

American and additionally, at least 50 percent low-income. With increasing 

enrollment at institutions of higher education, nontribal institutions of higher education 

that serve large populations of Native American students require resources to 

improve and expand their capacity to serve the unique and diverse needs of their 

Native American student population. 

In fiscal year 2016, mandatory funding of $5 million is also appropriated under

Section 371 of the HEA for NASNTIs.

• The Administration requests $9 million for the Minority Science and Engineering 

Improvement Program, the same as the fiscal year 2015 appropriation. This request 

would maintain support for the improvement of science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics programs at institutions of higher education enrolling large numbers of 

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

quality higher education for individuals from underrepresented minority groups. 

According to the “Science and Engineering Indicators 2014” (NSB 14-01), published by 

the National Science Board, between 2000 and 2011:

o The proportion of science and engineering (S&E) bachelor’s degrees awarded 

to African American students held steady at 9 percent and the proportion of S&E 

master’s degrees awarded rose from 8 percent to 10 percent. In comparison, 

African Americans comprise 13 percent of the U.S population and 15 percent of 

postsecondary enrollment. 

o The proportion of S&E bachelor’s degrees awarded to Hispanic students rose from 

7 percent to 10 percent and the proportion of S&E master’s degrees awarded rose 

from 5 percent to 8 percent. In comparison, Hispanics comprise 16 percent of the 

U.S. population and 15 percent of postsecondary enrollment.

o The proportion of S&E master’s degrees awarded to American Indians/Alaska 

Natives from 0.5 percent to 0.6 percent. In comparison, American Indians/Alaska 

Natives comprise 1 percent of the U.S. population and 1 percent of postsecondary 

enrollment.

W-- S-36
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 Footnote2015 Footnote2016

Strengthening Institutions:

SIP Number of new development awards 35 39 30

SIP Average new development award $422 $503 $452

SIP Total new development award funding $14,781 $19,5981 $13,568

SIP Number of new evidence awards 5 --- ---

SIP Average new evidence award $1,644 --- ---

SIP Total new evidence award funding $8,218 --- ---

SIP Number of NCC development awards 130 123 126

SIP Average NCC development award $384 $395 $414

SIP Total NCC development award funding $49,890 $46,186 $52,216

SIP Number of NCC evidence awards 6 11 11

SIP Average NCC evidence award $1,042 $1,261 $1,261

SIP Total NCC evidence award funding $6,250 $13,874 $13,874

SIP Peer review of new award applications 0 $804 $804

SIP Total award funding (Section 311) $79,139 2

 $80,462 $80,462

SIP Total award funding 176 167 163

Strengthening TCCUs:

TCCU Discretionary funding:

TCCU Number of new development awards 0 34 0

TCCU Average new development award 0 $754 0

TCCU Total new development award funding 0 $25,622 0

TCCU Number of NCC development awards 34 0 34

TCCU Average NCC development award $742 0 $754

TCCU Total NCC development award funding $25,239 0 $25,622

TCCU Mandatory funding:

TCCU Number of new development awards 0 0 34

TCCU Average new development award 0 0 $882

TCCU Total new development award funding 0 0 $30,000

1 Includes funds to support projects in which applicants propose activities using strategies that are 

supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness. 2 Instead of conducting a new competition in fiscal year 2014, the Department funded down the fiscal year 

2013 grant slate to make new awards in fiscal year 2014 because a significant number of high-quality applicants 

remained on the fiscal year 2013 slate.

W-- S-37

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 Footnote2015 Footnote2016

Strengthening TCCUs (cont’d):

TCCU Number of NCC development awards 34 34 0

TCCU Average NCC development award $819 $818 0

TCCU Total NCC development award funding $27,840 $27,810 0

TCCU Total award funding $53,079 $53,432 $55,622

TCCU Discretionary (Section 316) $25,239 $25,622 $25,622

TCCU Mandatory (Section 371) $27,840 $27,810 $30,000

Total number of awards (discretionary & mandatory) 68 68 68

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving Institutions: Discretionary funding

 AIndividual development awards

 ANumber of new Alaska Native-serving awards 3 6 0

ANNH Average new Alaska Native-serving award $700 $700 0

ANNH Total new Alaska Native-serving award funding $2,099 $4,200 0

 ANumber of new Native Hawaiian-serving awards 0 6 0

ANNH Average new Native Hawaiian-serving award 0 $700 0

ANNH Total new Native Hawaiian-serving award funding 0 $4,200 0

ANNH Number of NCC Alaska Native-serving awards 6 3 9

ANNH Average NCC Alaska Native-serving award $626 $766 $700

ANNH Total NCC Alaska Native-serving award funding $3,758 $2,297 $6,299

Number of NCC Native Hawaiian-serving awards 5 0 6

 ANNH Average NCC Native Hawaiian-serving award $769 0 $754

Total NCC Native Hawaiian-serving award funding $3,843 0 $4,523

Cooperative arrangement development awards

 ANumber of new Alaska Native-serving awards 0 1 0

ANNH Average new Alaska Native-serving award 0 $1,005 0

ANNH Total new Alaska Native-serving award funding 0 $1,005 0

Number of new Native Hawaiian-serving awards 0 1 0 ANNH 

Average new Native Hawaiian-serving award 0 $1,006 0

Total new Native Hawaiian-serving award funding 0 $1,006 0

ANNH Number of NCC Alaska Native-serving awards 1 0 1

ANNH Average NCC Alaska Native-serving award $896 0 $1,005

ANNH Total NCC Alaska Native-serving award funding $896 0 $1,005

W-- S-38
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 Footnote2015 Footnote2016

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving Institutions (cont’d):

Number of NCC Native Hawaiian-serving awards 2 0 1

Average NCC Native Hawaiian-serving award $793 0 $1,006

Total NCC Native Hawaiian-serving award funding $1,585 0 $1,006

ANNH Peer review of new award applications $26 $125 0

ANNHOther (including supplemental awards) $415 0 0

Mandatory funding:

ANNH Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available for 

obligation at the start of the fiscal year $24,718 $24,300 $22,057

 AIndividual development awards

 ANumber of new Alaska Native-serving awards 1 0 0

ANNH Average new Alaska Native-serving award $473 0 0

ANNH Total new Alaska Native-serving award funding $473 0 0

ANNH Number of NCC Alaska Native-serving awards 0 1 1

ANNH Average NCC Alaska Native-serving award 0 $548 $571

NH Total NCC Alaska Native-serving award funding 0 $548 $571

Renovation development awards

 ANumber of new Alaska Native-serving awards 2 0 0

ANNH Average new Alaska Native-serving award $1,083 0 0

ANNH Total new Alaska Native-serving award funding $2,165 0 0

Number of new Native Hawaiian-serving awards 8 2 2

ANNH Average new Native Hawaiian-serving award $1,453 $1,408 $1,742

Total new Native Hawaiian-serving award funding $11,623 $2,815 $3,483

Number of NCC Native Hawaiian-serving awards 0 8 8

ANNH Average NCC Native Hawaiian-serving award 0 $1,735 $1,392

Total NCC Native Hawaiian-serving award funding 0 $13,880 $11,134

ANNH Peer review of new award applications $62 0 0

ANNH Total award funding: $26,542 $26,738 $27,833

ANNH Discretionary (Section 317) $12,622 $12,833 $12,833

ANNH Mandatory (Section 371) $13,920 $13,905 $15,000

ANNH Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year) $10,395 1 $7,057 1 $8,869 1

NNH Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory 28 30 30

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

W-- S-39

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 Footnote2015 Footnote2016

Strengthening HBCUs:

HBCU Discretionary funding:

HBCU Number of NCC awards 96 96 96

HBCU Average NCC award $2,331 $2,371 $2,371

HBU Total NCC award funding $223,783 $227,524 $227,524

HBCU Mandatory funding:

HBCU Number of new awards 0 0 96

HBCU Average new award 0 0 $885

HBCU Total new award funding 0 0 $85,000

HBCU Number of NCC awards 96 96 0

HBCU Average NCC award $822 $821 0

HBCU Total NCC award funding $78,880 $78,795 0

HBCU Total award funding $302,663 $306,319 $312,524

HBCU Discretionary (Section 323) $223,783 $227,524 $227,524

HBCU Mandatory (Section 371) $78,880 $78,795 $85,000

HBCU Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) 192 192 192

Strengthening HBGIs:

HBGI Number of new awards 19 0 0

HBGI Average new award $1,850 0 0

HBGI Total new award funding $35,142 0 0

HBGI Number of NCC awards 5 24 24

HBGI Average NCC award $4,740 $2,452 $2,452

HBGI Total NCC award funding $23,698 $58,840 $58,840

HBGI Total award funding (Section 326) $57,872 $58,840 $58,840

HBGI Total number of awards 24 24 24

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions

PBIs Discretionary funding (formula-based):

PBIs Number of new development awards 0 0 35

PBIs Average new development awards 0 0 $264

PBIs Total new development awards 0 0 $9,244

PBIs Number of NCC development awards 35 35 0

PBIs Average NCC development award $260 $264 0

PBIs Total NCC development award funding $9,092 $9,244 0

W-- S-40
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 Footnote2015 Footnote2016

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions

(cont’d):

PBIs Mandatory funding (competitive):

Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available 

for obligation at the start of the fiscal year $28,155 $27,825 $28,905

\\\\\PBIs Number of new development awards 0 27 0

PBIs Average new development awards 0 $515 0

 PBIs Total new development awards 0 $13,905 0

PBIs Number of NCC development awards 27 0 27

PBIs Average NCC development award $516 0 $556

Total NCC development award funding $13,920 0 $15,000

PBIs Total award funding $23,327 $23,012 $22,997

PBIs Discretionary (Section 318) $9,092 $9,244 $9,244

PBIs Mandatory (Section 371) $14,235 $13,920 $13,905

PBIs Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(mandatory funds remaining at the end of the 

fiscal year) $13,920 1 $13,905 1 $15,000 1

5 CUTotal number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) 62 62 62

Strengthening Asian American and Native

American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions:

AAN APISI Discretionary funding:

AAN APISI Number of new development awards 0 8 0

AAN APISI Average new development award 0 $385 0

AAN APISI Total new development award funding 0 $3,082 0

AAN APISI Number of NCC development awards 8 0 8

AAN APISI Average NCC development award $336 0 $389

AAN APISI Total NCC development award funding $2,684 0 $3,113

AAN APISI Other (including supplemental awards) $318 0 0

AAN APISI Peer review of new awards applications 0 $31 0

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

W-- S-41

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 Footnote2015 Footnote2016

Strengthening Asian American and Native

American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions (cont’d):

PISI Mandatory funding:

AAN APISI Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available for 

obligation at the start of the year $9,385 $9,275 $9,635

PBIs Number of new development awards 0 0 11

PBIs Average new development awards 0 0 $417

PBIs Total new development awards 0 0 $4,589

AAN APISI Number of NCC development awards 11 11 0

AAN APISI Average NCC development award $383 $356 0

AAN APISI Total NCC development award funding $4,217 $3,919 0

AAN APISI Other (including supplemental awards) $515 $721 0

Peer review of new awards applications 0 0 $46

AAN APISI Total award funding $7,807 $7,753 $7,748

AAN APISI Discretionary (Section 320) $3,062 1$3,113 $3,113

AAN APISI Mandatory (Section 371) $4,745 2$4,640 $4,635

ANNAPISI Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(mandatory funds remaining at the end of the 

fiscal year $4,640 3 $4,635 3 $5,000 3

AAN APISI Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) 19 19 19

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal 

Institutions:

NASNT I Discretionary funding:

NASNT I Number of new development awards 0 8 0

NASNT I Average new development award 0 $385 0

NASNT I Total new development award funding 0 $3,082 0

NASNT I Number of NCC development awards 6 0 8

NASNT I Average NCC development award $374 0 $346

NASNT I Total NCC development award funding $2,241 0 $3,113

NASNT I Other (including supplemental awards) $821 0 0

1 Of this amount, $13,838 will remain unobligated at the end of the fiscal year. This amount remains after 

satisfying all requests for supplemental funding from continuation grantees. 2 Of this amount, $60,512 will remain unobligated at the end of the fiscal year. This amount remains after

satisfying all requests for supplemental funding from continuation grantees. 3 Unobligated mandatory funding will be carried over for obligation in the succeeding fiscal year.

W-- S-42

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 Footnote2015 Footnote2016

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal 

Institutions (cont’d):

NASNT I Peer review of new awards applications 0 $31 0

NASNT I Mandatory funding:

NASNT I Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available for 

obligation at the start of the fiscal year $9,385 $9,275 $9,635

PBIs Number of new development awards 0 0 11

PBIs Average new development awards 0 0 $417

PBIs Total new development awards 0 0 $4,589

NASNT I Number of NCC development awards 13 13 0

NASNT I Average NCC development award $365 $357 0

NASNT I Total NCC development award funding $4,745 $4,640 0

NASNT I Other (including supplemental awards) 0 0 0

Peer review of new awards applications 0 0 $46

NASNT I Total award funding (discretionary and mandatory) $7,807 $7,753 $7,748

NASNT I Discretionary (Section 319) $3,062 $3,113 $3,113

NASNT I Mandatory (Section 371) $4,745 $4,640 $4,635

NASNT I Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(mandatory funds remaining at the end of the 

fiscal year) $4,640 1 $4,635 1 $5,000 1

MSEIP Total number of awards (discretionary and mandatory) 19 21 21

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 

Program:

MSEIP Number of new awards 13 12 12

MSEIP Average new award $232 $255 $233

MSEIP Total new award funding $3,019 2$3,061 $2,801

MSEIP Number of NCC awards 25 26 25

MSEIP Average NCC award $238 $224 $243

MSEIP Total NCC award funding $5,952 $5,820 $6,080

NASNT I Peer review of new awards applications 0 $89 $89

SEIP Total award funding $8,971 $8,971 $8,971

1 Total number of awards 38 38 37

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

2

 Instead of conducting a new competition in fiscal year 2014, the Department intends to fund down the 

fiscal year 2013 grant slate to make new awards in fiscal year 2014 because a significant number of high-quality 

applicants remain on the fiscal year 2013 slate.

W-- S-43

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, 

GPRA goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment 

of the progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is 

based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those 

requested in FY 2016 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by 

those served by the programs.

AANAPISI grantee institutions had the highest persistence rates in 2013 for 4-year and 

2-year Title III institutions (81 percent and 71 percent, respectively), exceeding the national 

rate of 80.1 percent and 59.6 percent, respectively. In addition, AANAPISI grantee 

institutions had the highest graduation rates for 4-year and 2-year grantee institutions—

49 percent and 31 percent versus national rates of 59.7 percent and 21.8 percent in 2012, 

respectively. The performance results at AANAPISI grantee institutions do not provide a 

clear picture because many diverse subgroups make up the AANAPI population. The 

educational results of low-achievement subgroups are overshadowed by others in the same 

category that have high-achievement levels. All national persistence and graduation rates 

reflected below are estimates based on preliminary data from NCES/Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) and subject to minor changes.

Persistence Rates at Title III Institutions

52

71

53

50

63

60

66

81

66

65

76

49

75

80

48

56

0 25 50 75 100

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP 

National Rate

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP

National Rate

Institution

2014 Persistence %

4-year

2-year

W-- S-44
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

Graduation Rates at Title III Institutions

18

30

13

14

14

22

37

49

29

34

48

16

45

60

17

17

0 25 50 75 100

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP 

National Rate

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP

National Rate

Institution

2013 Graduation %

Goal: To improve the capacity of minority-serving institutions, which traditionally have 

limited resources and serve large numbers of low-income and minority students, to 

improve student success, and to provide high-quality educational opportunities for their 

students.

Objective: Maintain or increase the enrollment, persistence, and graduation rates at minorityserving institutions.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP) 

institutions.

Year Target Actual

2008 5.1% (4-year change)

2013 6.4% 11.3% (5-year change)

2018 TBD

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 

4-year

2-year

W-- S-45
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

against the base year. There are no intermediate annual targets. The Department will only 

assess 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. The actual enrollment data 

generating the percentage changes displayed under actual values in the table above are as 

follows:

Awards from 2004-2007 

(147 grantees)

Awards from 2008-2012 

(150 grantees)

Awards from 2013-2017 

(155 grantees)

2004 382,890 2008 435,686 2013 581,340

2005 391,272 2009 454,477 2014 559,964

2006 363,609 2010 493,315

2007 395,897 2011 511,882

2008 402,507 2012 499,414

2013 484,943

Change 5.1% Change 11.3%

Student enrollment at SIP-grantee institutions in 2008 was used to calculate the percentage 

change against student enrollment at SIP-grantee institutions in the base year 2004. Likewise, 

student enrollment at SIP-grantee institutions in 2013 was used to calculate the percentage 

change against student enrollment in the base year 2008. Enrollment data for 2018 will 

reflect the anticipated percentage increase in enrollment for the full set of SIP institutions 

receiving continuation grants in fiscal year 2018, i.e., grantees who receive new awards in 

fiscal years 2013-2017. Even though the SIP program awarded approximately the same number 

of grants in 2004-2007 and 2008-2012, the average enrollment rates vary greatly. This is more 

than likely due to the length of time used to measure each cohort—the average enrollment rate for 

the 2008 data year is measured over 4 years, while the average enrollment rate for the 2013 data 

year is measured over 5 years. Only 6 institutions received funding from both the 2004-2007 

period and the 2008-2012 period.

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

2011 72.0% 74.0% 62.0% 57.0%

2012 73.0 73.0 62.0 57.0

2013 74.0 72.0 62.0 55.0

2014 74.0 74.5 62.0 56.0

2015 74.5 62.5

2016 74.5 62.5

W-- S-46
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2011 50.0% 46.0% 23.0% 20.0%

2012 50.5 46.0 23.0 19.0

2013 51.0 45.0 24.0 17.0

2014 51.5 24.0

2015 52.0 24.5

2016 52.5 25.0

Additional information: Persistence at 4-year SIP institutions falls short of the target set for 2014 

and is 5.6 percentage points lower than persistence rates at all 4-year public and private schools 

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

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

(59.6 percent). Persistence data for 2015 will be available in December 2015.

The targets on the 4-year graduation measure for fiscal year 2011 and beyond will serve to 

gradually narrow the gap between program and national (59.7 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 (21.8 percent). 

Graduation data for 2013-2014 will be available in December 2015.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of fulltime 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 TBD

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 will only assess 

progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). The initial target of 24 percent

W-- S-47
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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). The actual enrollment data generating the percentage changes 

displayed under actual values in the table above are as follows:

Awards from 2003-2007 

(30 grantees)

Awards from 2008-2012 

(32 grantees)

Awards from 2013-2017 

(34 grantees)

2003 7,776 2008 9,741 2013 11,419

2004 9,249 2009 9,433 2014 12,845

2005 9,608 2010 11,674

2006 9,038 2011 12,759

2007 9,294 2012 11,581

2008 9,666 2013 11,228

Change 24.3% Change 15.3%

Student enrollment at TCCUs in 2008 was used to calculate the percentage change against 

student enrollment at TCCUs in the base year 2003. Likewise, student enrollment at TCCUs 

institutions in 2013 was used to calculate the percentage change against student enrollment in the 

base year 2008. Enrollment for data year 2018 will reflect the anticipated percentage increase in 

enrollment for the TCCUs receiving funding in fiscal year 2018, i.e., grantees who receive funding 

in fiscal years in 2013-2017. The 2013 data year includes 2 additional TCCUs—Tohono O’odham 

Community College and Ilisagvik College—than student enrollment from data year 2008. 

Enrollment data for 2018 will reflect the anticipated percentage increase in enrollment for TCCUs 

receiving funding in fiscal year 2018 with the addition of 2 additional TCCUs— Keweenaw Bay 

Ojibwa Community College and College of the Muscogee Nation.

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

2011 49.0% 50.0% 51.0% 41.0%

2012 49.0 48.0 51.0 43.0

2013 50.0 50.0 52.0 43.0

2014 50.0 49.0 52.0 48.0

2015 50.0 52.0

2016 50.5 52.0

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year TCCUs graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

W-- S-48
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2011 37.0% 11.0% 27.0% 16.0%

2012 16.5 13.0 28.0 22.0

2013 17.0 16.0 28.0 17.0

2014 17.0 28.0

2015 17.0 28.0

2016 17.0 28.0

Additional information: The 2014 persistence rate at 4-year TCCUs is 3 percentage points 

higher than the 2013 rate and fall short of the target set for 2014. However, the persistence rate at 

2-year TCCUs falls short of the target set for 2014 of 52 percent, but 5 percentage points above 

the 2013 persistence rate.

Although, the 2013 graduation rates at 4-year TCCUs exceed the 2012 rates by 3 percentage 

points, they fall short of the target by 1 percentage point. The 4-year and 2-year graduation rates 

fail to meet the national rate (21.3 percent) by 5 and 4 percentage points, respectively. Graduation 

data for 2013-2014 will be available in December 2015. Performance data for these measures are 

derived from electronic annual performance reports from program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. 

IPEDS data are reported by all institutions participating in these programs and are subject to 

NCES consistency and validity checks.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of fulltime 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 TBD

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 will only assess 

progress against targets periodically (about 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 

W-- S-49
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

enrollment over the performance period. The actual enrollment data generating the percentage 

changes displayed under actual values in the table above are as follows:

Awards from 2003-2007 

(11 grantees)

Awards from 2008-2012 

(11 grantees)

Awards from 2013-2017 

(9 grantees)

2003 13,638 2008 23,438 2013 24,632

2004 13,739 2009 23,933 2014 21,414

2005 13,717 2010 25,606

2006 13,695 2011 26,343

2007 13,529 2012 26,325

2008 13,407 2013 26,580

Change -1.7% Change 13.4%

Student enrollment at ANNH-grantee institutions in 2008 was used to calculate the percentage 

change against student enrollment at ANNH-grantee institutions in the base year 2003. Likewise, 

student enrollment at ANNH-grantee institutions in 2013 was used to calculate the percentage 

change against student enrollment in the base year 2008. Enrollment for data year 2018 will

reflect the anticipated percentage increase in enrollment for ANNH-grantee institutions receiving 

continuation funding in fiscal year 2018, i.e., grantees who receive new awards in fiscal year in 

2013-2017. Even though the both cohorts represented above awarded the same number of 

grants, one institution (the University of Hawaii at Manoa) in the 2008-2012 cohort enrolled over 

11,000 students each year between 2008-2012.

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

2011 76.0% 57.0%

2012 76.5% 75.0 59.0% 63.0

2013 77.0 75.0 59.5 64.0

2014 77.0 76.0 59.5 62.0

2015 77.5 71.0

2016 77.5 71.0

W-- S-50
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2011 30.0% 46.0% 16.0% 16.0%

2012 46.5 47.0 16.0 15.0

2013 47.0 47.0 16.0 14.0

2014 47.0 16.0

2015 47.5 16.5

2016 47.5 16.5

Additional information: The 2014 persistence rate at 4-year ANNH grantee institutions 

(76 percent) which is comparable to the 2013 persistence rate, but falls short of the national 

persistence rate at 4-year public and private schools (80.1 percent). The 2014 persistence rate at 

2-year ANNH grantee institutions (62 percent) exceeds the target set for 2013 (59.5 percent) and 

the national rate (59.7 percent). ANNH-grantees had the second highest persistence rate for 

2-year Title III institutions. 

Data for only four 2-year grantees were used to calculate the graduation rate for 2013. The 

graduation rate for 4-year ANNHs (47 percent) met the target set for 2013 (47 percent) and is 

comparable to the 4-year graduation rate at SIP grantee institutions (45 percent). Both lag behind 

national graduation rates at 4-year and 2-year public and private schools (59.7 percent and 

21.8 percent, respectively). Graduation data for 2013-2014 will be available in December 2015. 

Performance data for these measures are derived from electronic annual performance reports from 

program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported by all institutions participating in 

these programs and are subject to NCES consistency and validity checks.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at HBCUs.

Year Target Actual

2008 8.0% (5-year change)

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

2018 TBD

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 will only assess

W-- S-51
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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). The actual enrollment data generating the percentage 

changes displayed under actual values in the table above are as follows:

Awards from 2003-2007 

(97 grantees)

Awards from 2008-2012 

(96 grantees)

Awards from 2013-2017 

(94 grantees)

2003 200,369 2008 217,628 2013 222,919

2004 217,738 2009 218,676 2014 216,282

2005 220,705 2010 228,399

2006 219,454 2011 230,847

2007 216,782 2012 226,493

2008 216,207 2013 217,080

Change 8.0% Change -0.3%

Student enrollment at HBCUs in 2008 was used to calculate the percentage change against 

student enrollment at HBCUs in the base year 2003. Likewise, student enrollment at HBCUs in 

2013 was used to calculate the percentage change against student enrollment in the base year 

2008. Enrollment for data year 2018 will reflect the anticipated percentage increase in 

enrollment for HBCUs receiving funding in fiscal year 2018.

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

2011 68.0% 66.0% 56.5% 50.0%

2012 68.5 65.0 57.0 57.0

2013 69.0 65.0 57.0 53.0

2014 69.0 65.0 57.0 50.0

2015 69.5 57.5

2016 69.5 57.5

W-- S-52
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2011 40.0% 33.0% 15.0% 17.0%

2012 40.0 33.0 16.0 15.0

2013 40.0 34.0 16.5 14.0

2014 40.0 17.0

2015 40.0 17.5

2016 40.0 17.5

Additional information: The 2014 persistence rates at 4-year HBCUs (65 percent) and 2-year 

HBCUs (50 percent) currently lag behind national persistence rates for 4-year public and private 

schools is (80.1 percent) and 2-year public and private schools (59.6 percent). Both 4-year and 

2-year HBCUs missed the targets set for 2014 by 4 and 7 percentage points, respectively. 

Persistence data for 2015 will be available December 2015.

The graduation rate for 2-year HBCUs falls short of the target set for 2013 by 2.5 percentage 

points and the national rate by nearly 8 percentage points. Graduation data for 2013-2014 will 

be available in December 2015. The graduation rate at 4-year HBCUs is comparable to the 

rates at PBIs (13 percent) and ANNH-grantee institutions (15 percent). Performance data for 

these measures are derived from electronic annual performance reports from grantees and 

NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported by all institutions participating in these programs and 

are subject to NCES consistency and validity checks.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time graduate students enrolled at HBGIs.

Year Target Actual

2008 13.0%

2013 13.0% 22.0

2018 TBD

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

awarded at HBGIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 4,870 6,509

2012 4,967 6,720

2013 6,500 7,250

2014 6,600

2015 6,700

2016 6,800

W-- S-53
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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 

will only assess 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 2008-2012 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 22 percent, from 12,744 in 2008 to 15,535 in 2013, exceeding the target 

set for 2013 for student enrollment by 9 percentage points. The next enrollment period, 

fiscal years 2013-2018, will be based upon the fiscal year 2014-2017 actual experience.

The program’s performance exceeded the target set for 2013 for degree completion. Data for 

2014 will be available in December 2015. Performance data for these measures are derived 

from electronic annual performance reports from program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS 

data are reported by all institutions participating in these programs and are subject to NCES 

consistency and validity checks.

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

undergraduate students enrolled at PBIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 15.6% (1-year change)

2016 TBD

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. There are no intermediate annual 

targets. Future progress will be assessed against targets periodically (about every 5 years). 

Student enrollment at PBI grantee institutions in 2011 (59,908) was used to calculate the 

percentage change against student enrollment at PBIs in the base year 2008 (56,629). The 

target for 2016 will be developed as soon as data are available and will be used to determine 

success for the 5-year grant period 2011-2015. Thus far, the change in enrollment for fiscal 

years 2011-2014 has decreased by 6.4 percent.

W-- S-54
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2011 69.0% 52.0%

2012 72.0% 72.0 54.0% 53.0

2013 72.5 71.0 54.5 50.0

2014 73.0 66.0 54.5 52.0

2015 73.0 55.0

2016 73.0 55.0

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

2011 33.0% 14.0%

2012 29.0% 35.0 13.0% 14.0

2013 29.5 29.0 13.5 13.0

2014 29.5 13.5

2015 30.0 14.0

2016 30.0 14.0

Additional information: The 2014 persistence rates at 4-year and 2-year PBIs lag behind the 

national 2014 persistence rates; and did not meet the targets set for 2014. The 2013 graduation 

rate at 4-year PBIs meets the target set for 2013, but is nearly 6 percentage points lower than 

the 2012 rates. The graduation rate at 2-year PBIs is comparable to the rates at ANNH-grantee 

institutions (14 percent). Graduation data for 2013-2014 will be available in December 2015. 

Performance data for these measures are derived from electronic annual performance reports 

from program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported by all institutions 

participating in these programs and are subject to NCES consistency and validity checks.

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 is combined.

W-- S-55
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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 TBD

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 target for 2016 

will be developed as soon as data are available and will be used to determine success for the 

5-year grant period 2011-2015. Thus far, the change in enrollment for fiscal years 2011-2014 is 

10.8 percent.

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

2011 79.0% 69.0%

2012 80.0% 77.0 70.0% 73.0

2013 80.0 81.0 70.0 71.0

2014 80.0 81.0 70.0 71.0

2015 80.5 70.5

2016 81.0 71.0

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

2011 48.0% 27.0%

2012 48.0% 49.0 23.0% 31.0

2013 48.5 49.0 23.0 30.0

2014 48.5 23.0

2015 49.0 23.0

2016 49.5 23.0

W-- S-56
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

Additional information: The performance rate of AANAPISI-grantee institutions exceeded the 

2014 targets set for persistence and the 2013 targets set for graduation. In addition, 

AANAPISI-grantee institutions exceeded the national persistence rate for 4-year (80.1 percent) 

and 2-year (59.6 percent) public and private schools by 1.5 percent and 11.5 percentage points, 

respectively. AANAPISIs’ also exceeded the national graduation rate for 2-year public and 

private schools (21.8 percent) by nearly 9 percentage points. Although AANAPISI-grantee 

institutions failed to meet the national graduation rate for 4-year institutions, the program had 

the highest graduation rate at 4-year Title III institutions (49 percent), as well as the highest 

graduation rate at 2-year Title III institutions (31 percent). Performance data for these measures 

are derived from electronic annual performance reports from program grantees and 

NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported by all institutions participating in these programs and 

are subject to NCES consistency and validity checks.

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

undergraduate students enrolled at NASNTIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 16.7% (1-year change)

2016 TBD

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 target for 2016 will be developed as soon as data are available and will be used to 

determine success for the 5-year grant period 2011-2015. Thus far, the change in enrollment 

for fiscal years 2011-2014 is -8.7 percent.

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

2011 71.0% 51.0%

2012 71.5% 63.0 52.0% 54.0

2013 72.0 64.0 52.5 51.0

2014 72.0 66.0 52.5 52.5

2015 72.0 53.0

2016 72.0 53.0

W-- S-57
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2011 30.0% 19.0%

2012 33.5% 32.0 20.0% 18.0

2013 34.0 37.0 20.5 18.0

2014 34.0 20.5

2015 34.5 21.0

2016 34.5 21.0

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

two percentage points higher than the 2013 persistence rate; however, falls short of the target

set for 2014 by 6 percentage points. The 2-year persistence rate at NASNTI-grantee institutions 

is comparable with the persistence rate at PBIs (52.5 percent).

The 4-year graduation rate exceeds the target set for 2013, but the graduation rate at 2-year 

institutions misses that target by 2 percentage points. The 2-year graduation rate is 

comparable to the graduation rate at SIP-grantee institutions (17 percent) and TCCUs 

(17 percent). Graduation data for 2013-2014 will be available in December 2015. Performance 

data for these measures are derived from electronic annual performance reports from program 

grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported by all institutions and are subject to 

NCES consistency and validity checks.

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.

W-- S-58
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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 2010. 

Specifically, data examined were:

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

in 2005 and 2010 that were in STEM fields;

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

2005 and 2010 that were in STEM fields.

In addition, 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. 

While it would not be possible to attribute changes to the MSEIP program, given the importance 

of STEM fields to the Nation’s future, increases would be expected over time.

STEM fields can include a wide range of disciplines. However, for purposes of this data 

analysis, STEM fields include computer and information sciences; engineering; engineering 

technologies and engineering-related fields; biological and biomedical sciences; mathematics 

and statistics; physical sciences; science technology/technicians; and agriculture, agriculture 

operations, and related sciences.

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

2005 and 2010.

MSEIP g rant ees and all Tit le IV in stitution s

MSEIP grantees All Title IV Institutions Number and p ercent age of B.A. d egrees

MSEIP2005 MSEIP2010 All in stitutions2005 All in stitution s2010

All students

Number of STEM degrees 4,430 4,896 288,543 323,328

Number of degrees 23,866 32,663 1,411,002 1,620,629

Percent of degrees that are in STEM fields 15.7% 15.0% 20.4% 20.0%

Black or African American students

Number of STEM degrees 915 847 19,611 19,278

Number of degrees 7,193 6,956 127,978 152,404

Percent of degrees that are in STEM fields 12.7% 12.2% 15.3% 12.6%

Hispanic students

Number of STEM degrees 1,237 1,713 20,224 25,555

Number of degrees 9,407 12,688 111,616 147,205

Percent of degrees that are in STEM fields 13.1% 13.5% 18.1% 17.4%

W-- S-59
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

In 2005, approximately 15.7 percent of all bachelor’s degrees conferred by the 2005 cohort of 

MSEIP grantees were in STEM fields, a figure that was slightly higher than the 2010 

percentage. The percentages were lower than for all Title IV institutions, where approximately 

20 percent of all degrees conferred were in STEM fields.

Lower percentages of degrees conferred to Black or Hispanic students were in STEM fields, 

and the percentages did not change appreciably between 2005 and 2010.

Efficiency Measures

The Department developed a common efficiency measure for the Aid for Institutional 

Development programs. These calculations do not take into account Federal student financial 

aid received by these institutions. Not only has the Department revised targets for 2013 based 

on a review of actual performance data from previous years for these programs to more 

accurately reflect program outcomes, but it has also based future calculations and targets to 

include both discretionary and mandatory funding in the TCCUs, ANNH-serving institutions, 

HBCUs, PBIs, AANAPISIs, and NASNTIs programs.

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

at SIP institutions.

Year Target Actual

2011 $350 $430

2012 350 393

2013 430 391

2014 425

2015 420

2016 415

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

Year Target Actual

2011 $12,500 $29,780

2012 12,500 27,486

2013 32,950 1 28,631

2014 32,650

2015 32,600

2016 32,550

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 to accommodate the influx of mandatory funding resulting from 

SAFRA for these programs. SAFRA makes funding for minority-serving institutions available through fiscal year 2019 

under section 371 of the HEA.

W-- S-60
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

at ANNH-serving Institutions.

Year Target Actual

2011 $2,775 $3,068

2012 2,775 1,448

2013 2,775 2,389

2014 2,750

2015 2,725

2016 2,700

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

at HBCUs.

Year Target Actual

2011 $5,400 $7,205

2012 5,400 6,507

2013 7,415 1 6,401

2014 7,340

2015 7,265

2016 7,190

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 because performance in this program was worse than expected.

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

Year Target Actual

2011 $12,700 $9,655

2012 12,700 8,774

2013 9,355 1 7,982

2014 9,262

2015 9,165

2016 9,068

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 because performance in this program was better than expected.

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

Year Target Actual

2011 N/A $911

2012 $1,800 1,008

2013 1,040 1 950

2014 1,030

2015 1,020

2016 1,010

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 because performance in this program was better than expected.

W-- S-61
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

Year Target Actual

2011 N/A $238

2012 $385 202

2013 300 221

2014 295 

2015 290

2016 285

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

Year Target Actual

2011 N/A $672 

2012 $2,150 810

2013 1,0251 502

2014 1,015

2015 1,005

2016 995

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 because performance in this program was better than expected.

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

divided by the number of undergraduate and graduate degrees awarded. Given that the average 

cost per successful outcome for 2009 and 2010 for many of the Aid for Institutional Development 

programs either significantly exceeded or was significantly lower than their targets, the 

Department revised targets, beginning in 2013, to more accurately reflect actual performance. 

A similar efficiency measure has been established for the Developing HSIs program and for 

Howard University. This metric may enable the Department to assess program performance 

across institutions with similar types of missions. Performance on efficiency measures exceeded 

the targets set for 2013 for every Title III program.

W-- S-62
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title V, Parts A and B; Title III, Part F, Section 371(b)(2)(B); 

and Title VIII, Part AA, Section 898)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined (discretionary)1

; $100,000 (mandatory)

Budget Authority:

Program

2015 2016 Change

Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions 

(discretionary) (HEA V-A) $100,231 $100,231 0

Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics and 

Articulation (mandatory) (HEA III-F) 92,700 100,000 +$7,300

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for 

Hispanic Americans (discretionary) (HEA V-B) 8,992 10,565 +1,573

Total 201,923 210,796 +8,873

Discretionary 109,223 110,796 +1,573

Mandatory 92,700 2100,000 2+7,300 2

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016. 2 Mandatory appropriations are provided under Title III, Part F, Section 371 of the HEA; these funds are, 

therefore, not part of the approprations or budget request.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

provides grants to Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) to expand educational opportunities for, 

and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic students, expand and enhance the 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 institutions that have an enrollment of undergraduate full-time equivalent students that is at 

least 25 percent Hispanic.

Grants are made for a duration of up to 5 years. HSIs may use their funds to plan, develop, and 

implement activities that encourage: faculty and academic program development; better 

management of funds and administration; construction and maintenance of instructional 

facilities; student services; the establishment of a program of teacher education designed to

qualify students to teach in public schools; establishment of community outreach programs that 

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

interest to pursue postsecondary education; and creating or improving facilities for Internet or 

other distance learning academic instruction, including purchase or rental of

W-- S-63

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

telecommunications technology equipment and services. Also, HSIs may use no more than 

20 percent of the grant funds to establish or increase an institution’s endowment fund. The 

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

If an institution receives funding under this program, it cannot receive funding under Part A or 

Part B of Title III.

Individual development grants support efforts to resolve institutional problems. Cooperative 

arrangement development grants between two or more IHEs support efforts to resolve 

institutional problems common to the IHEs and enable IHEs to combine their resources to better 

achieve institutional goals and avoid costly duplication of effort. In addition, 1-year planning 

grants may be awarded for the preparation of plans and 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 fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and to develop model 

transfer and articulation agreements between 2-year and 4-year HSIs in such fields. The 

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 

to provide $100 million in mandatory funding per year for fiscal years 2010 through 2019 for this 

program.

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans program, authorized under 

Title V of HEA, seeks to expand post-baccalaureate educational opportunities for, and improve 

the educational attainment of, Hispanic students and expand post-baccalaureate academic 

offerings and enhance program quality in the institutions of higher education that are educating 

the majority of Hispanic college students and helping large numbers of Hispanic and low-income 

students complete postsecondary degrees. 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 made for a duration of up to 5 years. 

Institutions receiving grants under this program may also receive funds under Title V, Part A.

Authorized activities include: purchasing, renting, or leasing scientific or laboratory equipment 

used for educational purposes; construction, maintenance, renovation and facilities 

improvement, including telecommunications; purchasing library books, periodicals, journals, and 

other educational materials, including telecommunications program materials; supporting 

low-income postbaccalaureate students through outreach programs, academic support 

services, mentoring, and student financial assistance; supporting faculty exchanges, 

development, and research, as well as curricular development and academic instruction; the 

creation or improvement of facilities for Internet or other distance education technologies; and

collaboration with other IHEs to expand postbaccalaureate offerings. Other activities germane 

to the promotion of postbaccalaureate study at HSIs are permissible, provided that they 

contribute to the overall purpose of the program and are approved by the Department. 

W-- S-64
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

Funding levels for the Aid for HSI programs for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2011..................................................................................$225,231 1

2012....................................................................................220,943 1

2013....................................................................................209,532 2

2014....................................................................................210,900 3

2015....................................................................................201,923 4

1 Includes $111,500 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 2 Includes $105,814 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

3 Includes $103,472 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

4 Includes $100,000 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $100.2 million for the Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions

(HSIs) program, the same as the 2015 level. The Administration also requests $10.6 million for 

the Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (PPOHA) program, 

$1.6 million more than the 2015 level. In addition, mandatory funding totaling $100 million is 

provided for the HSI STEM and Articulation (HSI-STEM) program under Title III, Part F of the 

HEA. The mandatory funds are not part of the Department’s fiscal year 2016 request. 

Approximately $6.4 million in discretionary funds for the Developing HSIs program will support 

new awards, with the remaining funds supporting peer review costs and non-competing 

continuations. In fiscal year 2015, the Administration plans to give competitive preference to 

projects that will: focus on increasing postsecondary completion; support high-quality online or 

hybrid learning opportunities; promote STEM education; and improve student support services. 

The Administration plans to use similar priorities in the fiscal year 2016 Developing HSI 

competition, as well as the 2016 HSI-STEM competition, for which approximately $91.8 million 

in mandatory funds are available. 

Given the key role that the institutions supported by the Title V programs serve in providing 

postsecondary educational opportunities to low-income and minority students, it is important 

that Title V funds are used in ways that are proven to improve student outcomes. For this 

reason, as with other higher education programs, the Department is placing an increasing 

emphasis on promoting evidence-based practices in the Title V programs. For the fiscal year 

2015 Developing HSI competition, applicants will be assessed on the extent to which they will 

implement strategies that are based on a strong evidentiary theory of success. In fiscal year 

2016, the Administration plans to explore adding evidence related priorities with even higher 

evidence standards to the Developing HSI competition as well as the HSI-STEM competition.

All of the funds for the PPOHA program will support non-competing continuations. Mandatory 

funding for the PPOHA program expired in fiscal year 2014. A new cohort of grants were

awarded in fiscal year 2014 using the $10.6 million in available mandatory funds. Fiscal year 

2015 discretionary funds will be used to support the second year of this grant cohort; however, 

these funds are insufficient to cover the full cost of the continuation grants. The fiscal year 2016 

W-- S-65

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

59.8%

42.1% 36.4% 37.5%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

Asian White Black Hispanic

Percent of 18- to 24-year olds 

enrolled in degree-granting 

institutions by race/ethnicity (2012)

Enrollment

request for PPOHA includes a $1.6 million increase to support continuation awards of these 

grants at their initial funding level. 

In 2012, the latest year for which data are available, there were 54 million Hispanics in the US, 

constituting 17 percent of the total U.S. population. More than half the growth in the total US 

population between 2000 and 2010 was due to the increase in the Hispanic population. The 

Census Bureau projects that the Hispanic American population will triple between 2008 and 

2050, reaching 132.8 million, 30 percent of the overall population.

Hispanic Americans have made significant gains in education over the last several decades but 

still trail their peers. The increase in Hispanic enrollment is being driven by population growth 

and by increasing proportions of the population enrolling in colleges and universities. In 1976, 

approximately 383,800 Hispanic Americans attended degree-granting institutions of higher 

education. Since then, Hispanic enrollment has grown steadily, reaching 3.0 million in 2012. In 

1976, Hispanics represented 3.7 percent of the undergraduate enrollment; in 2012, they 

represented 14.4 percent of postsecondary enrollment and 20 percent of all students age 18 to 

24 enrolled in 2-year institutions. The enrollment of Hispanics age 18 to 24 in undergraduate 

and graduate programs grew by 5.4 percent from 2010 to 2011 and 3.1 percent from 2011 to 

2012, compared to decreases of 0.1 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively, for the general 

population aged 18 to 24. As a percentage of total US college-age students, Hispanics grew by 

0.7 percent during the same period. Hispanics are now the minority group with the largest 

number of students enrolled in postsecondary education.

Although Hispanics have made significant gains in 

education, their enrollment rates and 

degree attainment remain lower than many of 

their non-Hispanic peers. In 2012, 

only 37.5 percent of all Hispanics in the age group 

18-24 years were enrolled in degree-granting 

institutions, compared to 59.8 percent of Asian 

peers, 42.1 percent of all non-Hispanic White 

peers, and 36.4 percent of Black peers (see graph). 

In 2010-2011, Hispanics earned 9.8 percent of 

bachelor’s degrees, 7.4 percent of master’s 

degrees, and 6.1 percent of PhDs awarded in the 

United States despite constituting nearly 17 percent 

of the total national population. 

The Aid for Hispanic-serving Institutions programs provide critically needed support to carry out 

activities designed to improve the educational outcomes at institutions with a significant share of

low-income, minority, and Hispanic students. HSIs enroll only 16 percent of all postsecondary 

students, but they enroll 54 percent of all Hispanic undergraduates. Because of the unique role 

these institutions play in providing postsecondary opportunities for Hispanic students, they are 

vital to the improvement of Hispanic Americans’ educational attainment. The 2016 request, 

combined with the mandatory funding available through Title III, Part F of the HEA, is intended 

to help close the achievement gap between HSI and non-HSI institutions.

W-- S-66
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016 ootnotes

Developing HSIs

Number of new awards 38 87 11

Average new award $530 $576 $584

Total new award funding $20,141 $50,150 $6,431

Number of NCC awards 121 74 147

Average NCC award $647 $663 $631

Total NCC award funding $78,270 $49,079 $92,797

Peer review of new award applications $172 $1,002 $1,002

Total award funding $98,583 $100,231 $100,231

Total number of awards 159 161 158

Promoting Postbaccalaureate 

Opportunities for Hispanic Americans

Discretionary funding:

Number of NCC awards 21 19 19

Average NCC award $421 $473 $556

Total NCC award funding $8,845 $8,9921$10,5651

Mandatory funding:

Number of new awards 19 0 0

Average new award $559 0 0

Total new award funding $10,618 0 0

Peer review of new award applications $54 0 0

Total PPOHA award funding $19,517 $8,992 $10,565

Total number of PPOHA awards 40 19 19

HSI STEM and Articulation Programs

Mandatory funding: 

Number of new awards 0 0 109

Average new award 0 0 $842

Total new award funding 0 0 $91,7732

Number of NCC awards 109 109 0

Average NCC award $871 $851 0

Total NCC award funding $94,900 2$92,80020

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $927 2

Total HSIs award funding $213,000 $202,023 $203,496

Discretionary $107,428 $109,223 $110,796

Mandatory $105,572 2$92,8002$92,7002

Total number of HSI awards 308 289 286

1 Discretionary funds will be used to support awards made in 2014 using the final year of mandatory funds. 2 These are actual obligations made using funds that were appropriated in the previous fiscal year, as allowed by 

section 371(b)(1)(B) of the HEA.

W-- S-67

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2016 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To improve the capacity of minority-serving institutions, which traditionally have 

limited resources and serve large numbers of low-income and minority students, to 

improve student success, and to provide high-quality educational opportunities for their 

students.

Objective: Increase the enrollment, persistence, and graduation rates at Hispanic-serving 

institutions.

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolling at HSIs.

Year Target Actual

2008 11.2%

2013 11.0% 27.1 

Additional Information: The Department recast the measure of long-term enrollment to focus 

on changes in enrollment rather than the absolute numbers of students enrolled. The 

new measure, established in fiscal year 2009, uses the same National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) fall enrollment 

data for all full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students used by the former measure except 

that the new measure tracks program enrollment at the beginning of, and 1 year after the end 

of, each 5-year grant period. The percentage change is calculated against the base year. There 

are no intermediate annual targets. Student enrollment at HSIs in 2008 (860,424) was used to 

calculate the percentage change against student enrollment at HSIs in the base year 2003 

(773,859). The target of 11 percent for 2013 was used to assess success for the 5-year grant 

period 2008-2012 and was developed in late 2008. Over the 5-year grant period of the 2008 

grantee institutions, enrollment grew by 27.1 percent, exceeding the 11.0 percent target. The 

Department will set targets for 2018 in 2015.

W-- S-68
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 4-year HSIs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment 

in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HSI.

Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 2-year HSIs who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment 

in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HSI.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2011 78.0% 72.0% 64.0% 65.0%

2012 78.0 75.0 64.0 66.0

2013 78.0 75.5 65.0 65.0

2014 78.0 78.0 65.0 65.0

2015 78.0 66.0

2016 78.0 66.0

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduates students enrolled at 4-year HSIs graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduates students enrolled at 2-year HSIs graduating within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2011 45.0% 40.0% 22.0% 20.0%

2012 46.0 39.0 22.0 21.0

2013 46.0 42.0 22.0 21.0

2014 46.0 22.0

2015 46.0 22.0

2016 46.0 22.0

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. The Department plans to 

reconsider targets in 2015. 

Objective: Improve the year-to-year increase in enrollment and graduation rates in 

postbaccalaureate programs at Hispanic-serving institutions.

Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of graduate and 

professional students enrolled at HSI institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 2.5% -3.3%

Additional Information: The long-term measure for change in enrollment assesses the 

percentage change in enrollment at the grantee institutions over a 5-year period. For 2013, the 

measure was calculated as the percentage change in the number of graduate students enrolling 

W-- S-69
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

at the grantee institutions, using the 2008 baseline of 121,486 students. During the previous 5 

years, 2003-2008, enrollment at these same institutions declined. However, in 2009, the 

enrollment at the 22 grantee institutions increased by 1.3 percent over the prior year. This rate 

of growth was used to establish the 2013 enrollment target. In 2013, the total graduate 

enrollment at grantee institutions was 117,445, a 3.3 percent decrease from 2008. The 

Department plans to reconsider targets in 2015.

Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of master's, 

doctoral and first-professional degrees and postbaccalaureate certificates awarded at HSI 

institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 20% 63%

Additional Information: The long-term measure for change in graduate degrees assesses the 

percentage change in degrees and certificates awarded over a 5-year period. For 2013, the 

measure 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 plans to establish new targets in 2015.

Efficiency Measures

Developing HSIs: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate 

degree at HSIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 $950 $974

2012 950 669

2013 1,280 571

2014 1,265

2015 1,250

2016 1,250

Additional Information: The Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions efficiency measure is 

calculated by dividing the appropriation for the Developing HSIs program by the number of 

undergraduate and graduate degrees awarded. The Department established targets of $950 

per successful outcome for fiscal years 2009 through 2012. Fiscal year 2013 data show a 

marked increase in efficiency since 2011, but efficiency has varied considerably since 2008. 

This variability is due, in large part, to the fact that success is defined as a bachelor’s degree or 

higher, while many of the 2-year institutions of higher education receiving grants primarily award 

associate’s degrees. Grantee-level data analyses will be used to identify institutions that may 

benefit from technical training in areas such as data collection and reporting, as well as to 

identify promising practices for improving program performance outcomes. The Department will 

reconsider targets in 2015.

W-- S-70
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans: Cost per successful 

outcome: Federal cost per master's, doctoral and first-professional degree and 

postbaccalaureate certificate at HSI institutions.

Year Target Actual

2011 $2,215 $714

2012 2,215 693

2013 2,215 701

2014 2,215

2015

2016

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 2013, when the PPOHA program appropriation 

was $20.3 million, grantee institutions awarded 28,960 graduate degrees. Grantees have 

outperformed the initial targets, which were set based on eligible institutions. The Department 

plans to establish more ambitious targets for 2015 and beyond.

The PPOHA efficiency measure can also be used to assess overall program performance over 

time. A similar efficiency measure was established for the Title III Aid for Institutional 

Development programs as well as for Howard University. This metric may enable the

Department to assess program performance across institutions with similar types of missions.

The HSI STEM and Articulation program was initially funded by the College Cost Reduction and 

Access Act (CCRAA). Because CCRAA funding was available for only 2 years, the Department 

did not establish any performance measures for the program at that point. The passage of 

Public Law 111-152 (in March 2010) extended the mandatory funding for the HSI STEM 

program through fiscal year 2019. The following performance and efficiency measures have 

been put into place and some data have been collected. The Department plans to establish 

targets for these measures in fiscal year 2015. 

• The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of full-time degreeseeking undergraduates enrolled at HSIs.

• The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students who were 

in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the 

current year at the same institution. The persistence rate at grantee institution rate was 

71 percent in 2013 and 2014.

• The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at 

4-year HSIs graduating within 6 years of enrollment. The 6-year graduation rate at 

grantee institutions was 44 percent in 2013 and 42 percent in 2012.

• The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at 

2-year HSIs graduating within 3 years of enrollment. The 3-year graduation rate at 

grantee institutions was 21 percent in 2013 and 22 percent in 2012.

W-- S-71
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

• Federal cost for undergraduate and graduate degrees at institutions in the HispanicServing Institutions STEM and Articulation Programs. In 2013, the Federal cost per 

degree was $689.

Other Performance Information

A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study “Low-Income and Minority Serving 

Institutions: Management Attention to Long-standing Concerns Needed to Improve Education’s 

Oversight of Grant Programs” found that institutions eligible to receive Title III and V grants had 

fewer resources, including endowment holdings and revenue from tuition and fees, and lower 

per student spending on equipment than ineligible institutions. They also served more students 

who were minority, low-income, and attended part-time. Title III and V grantees reported 

challenges in all four grant focus areas: academic quality, student support, institutional 

management, and fiscal stability. While nearly all grantees reported challenges related to 

strengthening institutional management and fiscal stability, expenditures in these areas 

represented less than one-quarter of all grant funds spent (almost $385 million in fiscal year 

2006).

The HSI STEM program includes absolute priorities related to STEM and articulation activities 

and one competitive preference priority for data-based decision-making. To assess the impact 

of the adoption of these priorities on program outcomes, the Department collects data through 

the annual performance report and conducts special analyses to determine the changes that 

occur during the course of the grant period in:

• The percentage of graduates receiving STEM-related degrees from grantee institutions; 

• The number of students transferring from 2-year grantee institutions to 4-year 

institutions; and

• The use of student data on enrollment, persistence, and completion by grantee 

institutions that select the Competitive Preference Priority in conducting project activities. 

Such data may include data from State longitudinal data systems or other reliable thirdparty resources.

W-- S-72
HIGHER EDUCATION

Other aid for institutions: International educa Domestic programs tion and foreign language studies:

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VI, Parts A and B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2015 2016 Change

$65,103 $67,103 +$2,000

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) Domestic Programs are 

designed to strengthen the capability and performance of American education in foreign 

languages and in area and international studies. The IEFLS programs have their origin in the 

National Defense Education Act of 1958 as a response to the need to strengthen instruction in 

foreign languages insufficiently taught in the United States as well as in area and international 

studies. Often using interdisciplinary approaches, these programs have adapted to a changing 

world by being responsive to not only national security needs, but also in training a globally 

competent workforce with expertise in world languages and area studies.

Funds are used to support a broad range of activities under nine Domestic Programs, at all 

levels, including primary and secondary education through a variety of K-12 outreach and 

teaching training collaborations. Grants are awarded to support centers, programs, and 

fellowships in institutions of higher education to increase the number of experts in foreign 

languages and area or international studies to meet national needs and to strengthen the 

teaching of foreign languages and international education at all levels. Prior to the beginning of 

each grant cycle, the Department must consult with and receive recommendations from the 

head officials of a wide range of Federal Agencies to determine the areas of national need for 

expertise in foreign languages and world regions and make this list available to grant applicants. 

In addition, the Department must work with a variety of Federal Agency heads to submit a 

biennial report to Congress and the public identifying areas of national need in foreign language, 

area, and international studies as such studies relate to government, education, business, and 

nonprofit needs, and a plan to address those needs. In awarding grants, the Department is 

required to take into account the degree to which applicants’ activities address national needs 

and inform the public; the applicants’ records of placing students into postgraduate employment, 

education, or training in areas of national need; and the applicants’ plans to increase this 

number. Emphasis is placed on languages and regions defined as high-priority by the 

Administration.

W-- S-73

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

The Department assists grantees in developing a survey for students who have completed 

programs under Title VI Foreign Language and Areas Studies program to determine 

postgraduate employment, education, or training. Grantees must administer the survey once 

every 2 years for a period of 8 years and report the results to the Department. Up to 1 percent 

of Title VI funds may be used to carry out program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination activities relating to the Title VI programs.

The program authorization requires that institutions that receive funding under Title VI provide 

the following information to the Department, in accordance with the requirements of Section 117 

of the HEA: (1) the amount of the contribution (including cash and the fair market value of any 

property) received from any foreign government or from a foreign private sector corporation or 

foundation during any fiscal year in which the contribution exceeds $250,000 in the aggregate; 

and (2) the aggregate contribution, or a significant part of the aggregate contribution, that is to 

be used by a center or program receiving funds under Title VI.

National Resource Centers support institutions of higher education (IHEs) or consortia of such 

institutions in establishing, operating, and strengthening comprehensive and undergraduate 

centers of excellence to train students, specialists, and other scholars; maintaining important 

library collections and related training and research facilities; conducting advanced research on 

issues on world affairs that concern one or more countries; establishing linkages between IHEs 

and other academic, governmental, and media entities; operating summer institutes in the 

United States or abroad; and providing outreach and consultative services at the national, 

regional, and local levels. Funds also support faculty, staff, and student travel in foreign areas, 

regions, or countries; the development and implementation of educational programs abroad for 

students; and projects that support students in the science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics fields to achieve foreign language proficiency. National Resource Centers are 

funded for up to 4 years, with funds allocated on an annual basis pending satisfactory 

performance by the Centers and availability of funds.

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program supports academic year and summer 

fellowships for graduate- and undergraduate-level training at IHEs having offering high quality 

performance-based programs of excellence. Students apply to IHEs that have received 

fellowship allocations from the Department of Education. Students receiving fellowships must 

be individuals who are engaged:

• In an instructional program with stated performance goals for functional foreign language 

use or in a program developing such performance goals, in combination with area studies, 

international studies, or the international aspects of a professional studies program;

• In the case of an undergraduate student, in the intermediate or advanced study of a less 

commonly taught language; or 

• In the case of a graduate student, in graduate study in connection with a program described 

above, including pre-dissertation level study, preparation for dissertation research, 

dissertation research abroad, or dissertation writing.

Before awarding a fellowship for use outside the United States, an institution must obtain 

approval from the Department of Education. A fellowship may be approved for use outside the 

United States if (1) the student is enrolled in an overseas modern foreign language program 

Y-- S-74
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

approved by the institution where the student is enrolled in the United States; or (2) the student 

is engaged in research that cannot be effectively done in the United States and is affiliated with 

an IHE or other appropriate organization in the host country. Institutions are funded for up to 

4 years and, in turn, award fellowships annually to individual students on a competitive basis. 

Applications for awards must include an explanation of how the activities funded by the grant 

will reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of views and generate debate on world 

regions and international affairs; and a description of how the applicant will encourage 

government service in areas of national need, as well as in areas of need in the education, 

business, and nonprofit sectors.

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program supports IHEs or 

consortia of IHEs in establishing, operating, and strengthening instructional programs in 

international studies and foreign language at the undergraduate level. Eligible activities may 

include, but are not limited to, the development of a global or international studies program that 

is interdisciplinary in design; development of a program that focuses on issues or topics, such 

as international business or international health; development of an area studies program and 

programs in corresponding foreign languages; creation of innovative curricula that combine the 

teaching of international studies with professional and pre-professional studies, such as 

engineering; research for and development of specialized teaching materials, including 

language instruction, i.e., business French; establishment of internship opportunities for faculty 

and students in domestic and overseas settings; and development of study abroad programs.

Grantees must provide matching funds in either of the following ways: (1) cash contributions 

from the private sector equal to one-third of the total project costs; or (2) a combination of 

institutional and non-institutional cash or in-kind contributions equal to one-half of the total 

project costs. Applications for awards must include a description of how the applicant will 

provide information to students regarding federally funded scholarship programs in related 

areas; an explanation of how the activities funded by the grant will reflect diverse perspectives 

and a wide range of views and generate debate on world regions and international affairs, 

where applicable; and a description of how the applicant will encourage service in areas of 

national need, as identified by the Department of Education.

The Department may waive or reduce the required matching share for institutions that are 

eligible to receive assistance under Part A or Part B of Title III or 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.

Centers for International Business Education support IHEs or consortia of IHEs by paying the 

Federal share of the cost of planning, establishing, and operating centers that provide a 

comprehensive university approach to improving international business education by bringing 

together faculty from numerous disciplines. The Centers serve as national resources for the 

teaching of improved business techniques, strategies, and methodologies that emphasize the 

international context in which business is transacted; provide instruction in critical foreign 

languages and international fields needed to provide an understanding of the cultures and 

customs of U.S. trading partners; provide research and training in the international aspects of 

trade, commerce, and other fields of study; provide training to students enrolled in the institution 

Y-- S-75
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

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 institutions of higher 

education and K-12 schools with additional teacher and student outreach programs within their 

respective region. located within their respective regions. Grants are made for 4 years. The 

Federal share of the cost of planning, establishing, and operating the Centers cannot exceed 

90 percent, 70 percent, or 50 percent in the first, second, third and following years, respectively.

Language Resource Centers support IHEs or consortia of IHEs in improving the teaching and 

learning of foreign languages. The activities carried out by the Centers must include effective 

dissemination efforts, whenever appropriate, and may include: the conduct and dissemination 

of research on new and improved teaching methods (including the use of advanced educational 

technology) to the education community; the development, application, and dissemination of 

performance testing appropriate to an educational setting for use as a standard and comparable 

measurement of skill levels in all languages; the training of teachers in the administration and 

interpretation of the performance tests; a significant focus on the teaching and learning needs of 

the less commonly taught languages and the publication and dissemination of instructional 

materials in those languages; the development and dissemination of materials designed to 

serve as a resource for foreign language teachers at the elementary and secondary school 

levels; and the operation of intensive summer language institutes. Language Resource Centers 

are eligible for up to 4 years of support.

American Overseas Research Centers Program makes grants to consortia of IHEs to promote 

postgraduate research, faculty and student exchanges, and area studies. Funds may be used 

to pay for all or a portion of the cost of establishing or operating a center or program. Costs 

may include faculty and staff stipends and salaries; faculty, staff, and student travel; operation 

and maintenance of overseas facilities; teaching and research materials; the acquisition, 

maintenance, and preservation of library collections; travel for visiting scholars and faculty 

members who are teaching or conducting research; preparation for and management of 

conferences; and the publication and dissemination of material for the scholars and general 

public. Centers are eligible for 4 years of support.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2011...................................................................................... $66,712

2012........................................................................................ 66,586

2013........................................................................................ 63,103

2014........................................................................................ 65,103

2015........................................................................................ 65,103

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests a total of $67.1 million for the Title VI Domestic Programs, an 

increase of $2 million, or 3 percent, more than the fiscal year 2015 appropriation. In addition, 

the Administration’s budget request includes an increase of $2 million for the International 

Education and Foreign Language Studies: Overseas Programs to support a new initiative that

Y-- S-76
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

will improve the capacity of school districts to teach global competencies. The fiscal year 2016 

budget request for the Domestic Programs is responsive to the White House Fiscal Year 2016 

U.S. Government Global Engagement Resource Guidance and the Department’s International 

Strategy. The Global Engagement Guidance urges agencies to continue the process of 

realigning resources toward Sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia Pacific region, while maintaining a 

strong presence in the Middle East and North Africa, and fulfilling the potential of the 100,000 

Strong in the Americas initiative. In order to promote U.S. higher education abroad and prepare 

U.S. students for global engagement, agencies are urged to expand international university 

partnerships and to deepen efforts that help students acquire understanding of global issues, 

knowledge of other countries, cultures, and perspectives, and linguistic proficiency, as well as to 

prepare educators at all levels to teach about the rest of the world. In promoting study abroad 

and other international experiences, agencies are encouraged to pay special attention to 

underserved and underrepresented communities. The Department will strengthen and enhance 

the Domestic Programs in line with these priorities. The fiscal year 2016 request for the Title VI 

Domestic Programs will, among other things, provide continued support for activities that help to 

make world language and area studies education accessible to a much broader population of 

Americans, and ensure that these programs deliver high levels of proficiency in the languages 

key to the Nation’s economic and national security. These programs increase access by giving 

competitive preference to applicants who are or collaborate with community colleges, minority 

serving institutions, and teacher education programs. Additionally, applicants applying for 

FLAS program funding who take into account student financial need are given additional priority 

points.

Historically, the Domestic Programs have helped to develop and maintain American expertise in 

world cultures and economies, and foreign languages. It is critical for our Nation to have a 

readily available pool of international area and language experts for economic, foreign affairs, 

and defense purposes. The Title VI programs are key to the teaching and learning of languages 

vital to national interests and serve as a national resource.

The Administration also believes our Nation needs citizens with global perspective. The ability 

to compete and collaborate on the world stage requires an awareness and understanding of the 

world, the ability to communicate and collaborate with others from different cultures, and 

exposure to foreign languages. The Administration believes that a world-class education must 

integrate global competencies and is committed to increasing the global competency of all 

United States students. Effective global engagement will involve American students and equip 

them with the knowledge, skills and awareness of other countries, cultures, languages and 

perspectives. Global competencies are essential skills for all U.S. students to support U.S. 

economic competitiveness and jobs, to enable young people to work with their counterparts all 

over the world in meeting global challenges, and to foster our national security and diplomacy. 

American students and teachers of all ages should be partnered with students and faculty 

abroad, especially in priority countries, through connected classrooms, opportunities for 

research and to engage in joint projects, and exchanges.

Y-- S-77
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

The requested $2 million increase in funding for the Domestic Programs would support new 

awards in the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language (UISFL) program to 

support international studies and world language programs at undergraduate institutions, 

particularly those that receive funding under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 

as amended, (such as minority-serving institutions and community colleges). These programs 

will lead the way in expanding access to international studies and world language programs in 

the United States, help deliver the opportunities of the global economy to a broader population, 

and better equip the Nation to meet its economic and security demand for professionals.

The Administration proposes to make new grants under the UISFL program to approximately 

31 institutions for the purpose of establishing or significantly enhancing international studies and 

world language programs. The goal is to increase opportunities for many more American 

students to learn and develop proficiency in critical foreign languages, particularly those spoken 

in the Asia-Pacific and Sub-Saharan Africa regions, by increasing the capacity of institutions of 

higher education to teach such languages.

In addition, the Administration requests $650,000 to support new awards for American 

Overseas Research Centers (AORCs). This program provides grants to American overseas 

research centers that are consortia of U.S. institutions of higher education. The overseas 

centers must be permanent facilities in the host countries or regions, established to provide 

logistical and scholarly assistance to American postgraduate researchers and faculty. Typically, 

the area studies or international studies research focuses on the humanities or social sciences. 

Through a variety of grant activities, conferences, and publications, each overseas center 

facilitates research that is necessary for increased understanding of a foreign culture.

The remaining $63.6 million, or 94.8 percent of the request, will be used to support continuation 

costs for grants awarded in prior fiscal years for Domestic Programs—National Resource 

Centers (NRCs), Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) fellowships, Centers for 

International Business Education (CIBE), Language Resource Centers (LRCs), and UISFL. 

In fiscal year 2014, the Department announced in the Federal Register a number of absolute, 

competitive, and invitational priorities in these programs to catalyze a focus on key regions 

identified as high-priority for the Administration—South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Sub-Saharan 

Africa—and additionally to increase focus on the 78 priority languages selected from the 

Department’s list of Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs). The list of 78 priority 

languages was developed through annual consultations with other Federal Agencies, such as 

the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Justice, Labor, State, and Transportation.

In addition, the fiscal year 2014 competitive priorities for several programs rewarded 

applications from institutions proposing significant and sustained collaboration with minorityserving institutions and community colleges, and, specifically for the NRCs, gave additional 

points to institutions proposing to collaborate with teacher education programs in order to 

strengthen the preparation of K-12 teachers to teach world languages and about other regions 

of the world. For the first time, in fiscal year 2014, institutions were awarded extra points for 

committing to consider financial need in awarding FLAS grants to meritorious students. 

Y-- S-78
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

Fiscal year 2016 funding will be used to reinforce Administration objectives by supporting the 

continuation of grants responding to these priorities.

• $22.7 million for NRCs: NRCs are the primary mechanism for developing U.S. language 

and area studies expertise. These grants help institutions of higher education to establish, 

strengthen, and operate advanced centers for the teaching and learning of foreign 

languages and area and international studies. Fiscal year 2016 funds will be needed to 

continue support for activities that help to promote a globally competent workforce, in 

addition to producing our next generation of experts.

• $30.4 million for FLAS fellowships: FLAS fellowships support undergraduate and graduate 

training programs at many NRCs. They provide opportunities for intensive study of less 

commonly taught languages and world areas both domestically and abroad during the 

summer or the academic year. For fiscal year 2016, funding for FLAS would be maintained 

at the same level allocated in fiscal year 2015. When awarding fellows, competitive 

preference will be given to students who demonstrate financial need. In addition, the 

Administration will encourage institutions to award academic year FLAS fellowships to 

students undergoing advanced training in any of the priority languages used in sub-Saharan 

Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.

• $2.9 million for UISFL program continuation grants (in addition to $2 million for new awards): 

For the UISFL program, the Administration proposes to continue support for activities that 

strengthen and improve undergraduate instruction in international studies and foreign 

languages with preference for under-resourced institutions and minority serving institutions. 

In fiscal year 2016, the Administration expects to continue the practice, begun in fiscal 

year 2014, of giving priority to applications from institutions determined eligible under the 

Titles III and V of the HEA and to other under-resourced institutions such as community 

colleges. These grants will receive their third year of continuation funding in fiscal year 

2016.

• $4.8 million for CIBEs: The Administration proposes to maintain funding at the 2015 

appropriation level for the CIBE program. CIBEs are designed to serve as regional and 

national resources for businesses, students, and faculty at all levels. They meet the need 

for research and training in the international aspects of trade, commerce, and other fields of 

study. CIBEs prepare students for careers in the global economy by developing and 

promoting international business and economics academic programs and curricula. They 

also assist businesses in the region export and import their products and services. CIBEs 

play an integral role in maintaining and increasing U.S. business global competitiveness. 

The Administration has encouraged applicants in this program to develop, maintain, or 

enhance linkages with overseas institutions of higher education or other educational 

organizations, especially those that focus on sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Southeast 

Asia, in order to improve understanding of these societies and provide for greater 

engagement with institutions in these regions. In fiscal year 2016, the Administration

expects to continue the practice, begun in fiscal year 2014, of giving competitive preference 

to applicants who proposed to partner with businesses, industry and professional 

organizations to expand employment opportunities for international business students, such 

as internships and work-study opportunities.

Y-- S-79
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

• $2.7 million for LRCs: To strengthen our capacity across institutions and at all levels, the 

Administration proposes to continue support of LRCs to improve outreach efforts to K-12 

schools, in addition to sponsoring research, training, performance testing, educational 

technology, and materials development. In fiscal year 2016, the Administration expects to 

continue the practice, begun in fiscal year 2014, of giving competitive preference to 

applications from institutions that collaborate with institutions determined eligible for funding 

under Titles III and V of the HEA and to otherunder-resourced institutions such as 

community colleges. Competitive preference also has been given to applications that 

propose activities that focus on any of the 78 priority languages selected from the 

Department’s list of LCTLs.

This 2016 budget request for the Domestic Programs responds to the Global Engagement 

Guidance by expanding opportunities for traditionally underserved populations to participate in 

language learning and international education and by supporting the preparation of educators to 

teach about the rest of the world. In addition, this request helps to fill two key gaps in the 

Department’s international and foreign language pipeline: language and career development 

programs at the undergraduate level, particularly for a broader population of students, and 

cross-border architecture to support student and researcher mobility in the Administration’s 

priority regions of Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

The Administration is requesting a $2 million increase for a new proposal in the Overseas 

component of the International Education and Foreign Language Studies Programs (IEFLS) to 

further support the Global Engagement Guidance. This proposal would build capacity to teach 

global competencies in school districts by providing opportunities for groups of K-12 teachers, 

principals, and possibly the superintendent from a single district to study a different culture 

and/or a global issue together and investigate that issue and experience that culture first hand 

through summer study abroad. This proposal is discussed in detail in the IEFLS: Overseas 

Programs justification.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

National Resource Centers:

NRCs Number of new awards 105 0 0

NRCs Average new award $217 0 0

NRCs Total new award funding $22,743 0 0

NRCs Number of NCC awards 0 105 105

NRCs Average NCC award 0 $217 $217

NRCs Total NCC award funding 0 $22,743 $22,743

NRCs Total award funding $22,743 $22,743 $22,743

NRCs Total number of awards 105 105 105

Y-- S-80
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Foreign Language and Area Studies 

Fellowships:

FLAS Academic year graduate fellowships 681 681 681

FLAS Average academic year fellowship $33 $33 $33

FLAS Academic year undergraduate fellowships 233 233 233

FLAS Average academic year fellowship $15 $15 $15

FLAS Summer fellowships 596 596 596

FLAS Average summer year fellowship $8 $8 $8

FLAS Number of new awards 108 0 0

FLAS Average new award $281 0 0

9 Total new award funding $30,399 0 0

FLAS Number of NCC awards 0 108 108

FLAS Average NCC award 0 $281 $281

FLAS Total NCC award funding 0 $30,399 $30,399

FLAS Total award funding $30,399 $30,399 $30,399

FLAS Total number of awards 108 108 108

Undergraduate International Studies

and Foreign Language Program:

UISF LNumber of new awards 31 0 10

UISF L Average new award $94 0 $200

UISF LTotal new award funding $2,929 0 $2,000

UISF LNumber of NCC awards 3 31 31

UISF L Average NCC award $127 $94 $94

UISF L Total NCC award funding $380 $2,928 $2,928

UISF L Total award funding $3,309 $2,928 $4,928

UISF LTotal number of awards 34 31 41

Centers for International Business Education:

CIBE Number of new awards 16 0 0

CIBE Average new award $297 0 0

CIBE Total new award funding $4,751 0 0

CIBE Number of NCC awards 0 16 16

CIBE Average NCC award 0 $297 $297

CIBE Total NCC award funding 0 $4,751 $4,751

CIBE Total award funding $4,751 $4,751 $4,751

CIBE Total number of awards 16 16 16

Y-- S-81
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Language Resource Centers:

LRC Number of new awards 15 0 0

LRC Average new award $183 0 0

LRC Total new award $2,746 0 0

LRC Number of NCC awards 0 15 15

LRC Average NCC award 0 $183 $183

LRC Total NCC award funding 0 $2,746 $2,746

LRC Total award funding $2,746 $2,746 $2,746

LRC Total number of awards 15 15 15

American Overseas Research Centers:

AORC Number of new awards 0 0 10

AORC Average new award 0 0 $65

AORC Total new award funding 0 0 $650

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 $650

AORC Total number of awards 10 10 10

Total award funding:

DomesticTotal new award funding $63,322 0 $2,650

DomesticTotal NCC award funding $1,030 $64,217 $63,567

Program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination $320 $633 $600

Peer review of new award applications $364 $253 $286

Total Domestic funding $65,103 $65,103 $67,103

Total Domestic awards 288 285 295

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

Over the past year, the Department has been in the process of revising the program 

performance measures for the International Education and Foreign Language Studies programs 

authorized under Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and the Mutual 

Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (commonly known as the Fulbright-Hays Act). 

Y-- S-82
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

The new performance measures are designed to improve the quality of program-level outcome 

data, as well as to increase transparency and accountability for the IEFLS programs. The new 

performance measures are aligned to the institutional-level goals of the programs they serve.

Previous performance measures that calculated the percentage of “projects judged successful 

by the program officer, based on a review of information provided in annual performance 

reports,” “outreach activities adopted or disseminated within a year,” and “cost per high-quality 

successfully-completed project” have been retired, as they did not provide enough useful data 

on which to judge a program’s performance.

Fiscal year 2014 data will be used to establish a baseline for the new measures and will be 

available in December 2015. Targets are expected to be set beginning late in 2015. 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.

The Department intends to use the following program performance measures:

• NRCs:

 Percentage of priority languages defined by the Department of Education taught at 

NRCs.

 Percentage of NRC grants teaching intermediate or advanced courses in priority 

languages as defined by the Department of Education.

 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 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.

 Percentage of less and least commonly taught languages as defined by the Department 

of Education taught at Title VI NRCs.

• FLAS:

 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. 

 Percentage of FLAS master’s and doctoral graduates who studied priority languages as 

defined by the Department of Education.

 Percentage of FLAS fellows who increased their foreign language reading, writing, 

and/or listening/speaking scores by at least 1 proficiency level.

Y-- S-83
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

• UISFL:

 Percentage of UISFL projects that added or enhanced courses in international studies in 

critical world areas and priority foreign languages.

 Percentage of UISFL consortium projects that established certificates and/or 

undergraduate degree programs in international or foreign language studies.

• CIBE:

 Percentage of CIBE program participants who advanced in their professional field 

2 years after their participation.

 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.

• LRC:

 Percentage of LRC products or activities judged to be successful by LRC customers with 

respect to quality, usefulness, and relevance.

 Percentage of LRC products judged to be successful by an independent expert review 

panel with respect to quality, relevance, and usefulness. 

• AORC:

 Number of individuals conducting postgraduate research utilizing the services of Title VI 

AORCs.

 Percentage of AORCs program participants who advanced in their professional field 2 

years after their participation.

Efficiency Measures

The Department intends to use the following efficiency measures:

• Cost per NRC that increased the number of intermediate or advanced level language 

courses in the priority and/or LCTL s during the course of the grant period.

• Cost per FLAS fellowship program fellow who increased his/her reading, writing, and/or 

listening/speaking language score by at least one proficiency level. 

• 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 IFLE Tracking Survey.

Y-- S-84
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

• Cost per LRC project that increased the number of training programs for K-16 instructors of 

LCTLs.

Efficiency measures for the remaining Domestic Programs have not been finalized.

Other Performance Information

• The Department awarded a contract in September 2014 to support the development of a 

comprehensive program evaluation strategy (5-year plan) for the HEA Title VI programs

and the Fulbright-Hays programs. The contractor will facilitate, provide expert input to, and 

document deliberations at a number of discussion and decisions sessions to answer 

questions in order to develop a meaningful and feasible 5-year strategic plan for program 

evaluation. The Department believes evaluation, outreach and dissemination activities that 

are skillfully designed and implemented will contribute to improving the outcomes of Title VI 

and Fulbright-Hays programs and increase the impact of these programs in meeting their 

legislative purposes, thereby maximizing their service to the public.

• A number of studies have been conducted over the years to evaluate aspects of the 

Domestic Programs. A few are outlined below.

In 2007, the National Research Council of the National Academies completed its review of 

Title VI International Education programs supported under the Higher Education Act as well 

as Section 102(b)(6) Fulbright-Hays International Education programs in a study entitled

“International Education and Foreign Languages: Keys to Securing America’s Future.” The

National Research Council reviewed the adequacy and effectiveness of Title VI and 

Fulbright-Hays programs in addressing their statutory missions and in building the Nation's 

international and foreign language expertise—particularly as needed for economic, foreign 

affairs, and national security purposes. Despite its many recommendations for 

improvement, the Council recognizes that the Title VI/Fulbright-Hays programs have served 

as a foundation in the internationalization of higher education and should continue to do so. 

In addition, the Council:

o Found that within the Title VI/Fulbright-Hays programs, there was a need for better and 

more reliable data and for greater coordination within the Department and across other 

Federal agencies.

o Commented on the lack of rigorous, reliable information available on Title VI program 

performance and made recommendations for better program transparency and 

evaluation. Specifically, it found that the performance measures used by the 

Department and annual aggregate data reported by grantees provided insufficient 

information to appropriately judge program performance;

o Found that the language proficiency of Foreign Language and Area Studies fellowship 

recipients is not being adequately assessed, as the Department uses a self-evaluation 

approach to collect information about improvement in language proficiency;

Y-- S-85
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

o Concluded that the Department of Education does not have strategic coordination of 

foreign language and international programs within the Department or with other Federal 

agencies. They recommended creating a Senate-confirmed position within the 

Department to better coordinate programs within the Department and with other 

agencies;

o Commented that a key hindrance to establishing a pipeline of students who can 

eventually reach a high level of proficiency is the significant lack of K-12 teachers with 

foreign language and international expertise; and

o Stated that international education programs appear to have had little effect so far on the 

number of underrepresented minorities in international service. The Institute for 

International Public Policy Fellowship Program does not reach many students and has 

significant costs.

• A study of the Department’s graduate fellowship programs was published in September 

2008. The study was designed to provide information on academic and employment 

outcomes (as of 2006) of graduate students who received financial support through the 

Department’s graduate fellowship programs between 1997 and 1999, including the Foreign 

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:

o 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 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.

o 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.

o Regardless of their degree completion status, FLAS fellows reported that their oral and 

written language skills improved over the course of their FLAS-supported study. At the 

time of the survey, FLAS fellows rated their abilities to speak, write, and read the

languages they studied with FLAS support both at the time they began FLAS-supported 

study and at the time they completed that study at a variety of levels. They rated their 

speaking and listening ability on a 5-level scale, and their reading and writing abilities on 

6-level scales. On average, FLAS fellows reported a level 2 ability with respect to each 

of these skills at the time they began each FLAS-supported language study, and 

reported level 3 or 4 ability at the close of that study. FLAS fellowship recipients 

averaged a one-level gain in proficiency. These data compare favorably to data 

collected through IRIS on Title VI FLAS fellowship recipients.

Y-- S-86
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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 reservations and limitations, the data indicate positive outcomes.

o 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 reservations and 

limitations, the data indicate positive outcomes.

Y-- S-87
HIGHER EDUCATION

Overseas programs

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

(Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Section 102(b)(6))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2015 2016 Change

$7,061 $9,061 +$2,000

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) Overseas Programs 

provide participants with first-hand experience overseas that is designed to improve elementary, 

secondary, and postsecondary teaching and research concerning other cultures and languages, 

the training of language and area studies specialists, and the American public's general 

understanding of current international issues and problems.

Four major Overseas Programs in foreign languages and in area and international studies are 

authorized under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (commonly known 

as the Fulbright-Hays Act). Under these programs, grants are provided on an annual basis to 

eligible institutions that, in turn, support projects of varying duration.

The Group Projects Abroad (GPA) program support short-term projects, group training, 

research, and curriculum development in modern foreign languages and area studies for 

teachers, college students, and faculty for periods from 1 to 12 months. In addition, Advanced 

Overseas projects support intensive language projects designed to take advantage of the 

opportunities in foreign countries by providing advanced language training to students for a 

period of up to 36 months. Projects focus on all major world areas with the exception of 

Western Europe.

The Faculty Research Abroad (FRA) program supports opportunities for faculty members of 

institutions of higher education to study and conduct advanced research overseas. Fellowships 

are generally reserved for scholars whose academic specializations focus on the less commonly 

taught languages and all major world areas with the exception of Western Europe. The 

fellowships are from 3 to 12 months in length.

The Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) program supports opportunities for doctoral 

candidates to engage in full-time dissertation research overseas. Fellowships are generally 

reserved for junior scholars whose academic specializations focus on the less commonly taught 

languages and all major world areas with the exception of Western Europe. The fellowships are 

from 6 to 12 months in length.

X-- S-88

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

The Seminars Abroad (SA)—Special Bilateral Projects with foreign countries support training 

and curriculum development opportunities for American teachers and faculty through short-term 

overseas seminars conducted in all major world areas with the exception of Western Europe.

IEFLS programs are administered through discretionary grants and interagency agreements. 

Federal program staff, panels of non-Federal academic specialists, bi-national commissions, 

U.S. embassies, and the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board are involved in the 

merit-based selection of the Overseas Programs grantees and/or project participants.

The Overseas Programs specifically increase the supply of specialists in area, international, and 

language studies, and improve public access to knowledge of other countries and languages by 

providing to individuals and institutions of higher education measurable opportunities in the field 

of international education for: research; area, language, and international studies training;

professional growth including faculty development and teacher-training; networking with 

counterparts in the U.S. and abroad; curriculum and instructional materials development; and 

overseas experience. 

The Overseas Programs focus on 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. Current participants and graduates of the 

Overseas Programs are important sources of information and expertise on many issues that 

dominate the international environment.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2011....................................................................................... $7,465

2012......................................................................................... 7,451

2013......................................................................................... 7,061

2014......................................................................................... 7,061

2015......................................................................................... 7,061

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST 

The Administration requests $9.1 million for the Overseas programs, $2 million more than the 

fiscal year 2015 level. The requested increase would support a new initiative, Group Projects 

Abroad (GPA) – Capacity Building, which would improve the capacity of school districts to teach 

global competencies by providing opportunities for groups of K-12 teachers, principals, and 

administrators from a single district to study a different culture and/or a global issue together 

through summer study abroad. Under this program, the Department would make awards to 

20 local educational agencies in order to develop globally competent teachers well-versed in 

21st century issues. Such teachers are not typically served by the Department’s current 

international efforts, which tend to focus on postsecondary education. 

The Capacity Building program would support the goals of the President’s 2016 U.S. 

Government Global Engagement Resource Guidance and the Department’s International 

Strategy by preparing educators to teach about the rest of the world and, therefore, developing 

students’ global competencies. The Global Engagement Guidance urges agencies to continue 

Y-- S-89
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

the process of realigning resources toward Sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia Pacific region, 

while maintaining a strong presence in the Middle East and North Africa. In order to prepare 

U.S. students for global engagement, agencies are urged to deepen efforts that help students 

acquire linguistic proficiency, expand their understanding of global issues, and broaden their 

knowledge of other countries, cultures, and perspectives. The Global Engagement Guidance 

also stresses the importance of preparing educators at all levels to teach about the rest of the 

world. By introducing students to international concepts at an earlier age, the Capacity Building 

program would increase the number of young global citizens prepared to undertake advanced 

studies in global education in the future. The Department also plans to give priority to 

applications that propose projects in the regions emphasized in the Global Engagement 

Guidance.

In 2016, about 92 percent of the funds requested ($8.4 million) would be used for new awards. 

In addition to the Capacity Building initiative, funds would support new awards in 

GPA – Short-term projects, which give teachers and faculty the opportunity to benefit from 

overseas study of modern foreign languages and area studies; GPA – Advanced Overseas 

projects, which provide advanced language training in foreign countries for up to 36 months; 

and for the Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) program, which deepens research 

knowledge on and helps the Nation develop capability in areas of the world not generally 

included in U.S. curricula.

In line with the President’s Guidance and the Department’s International Strategy, in fiscal year 

2016, the Department plans to require applicants to all Overseas programs, including the new 

Capacity Building program, to focus on one or more of the following regions defined as highpriority for the Administration: Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia and Pacific Islands, South Asia, 

the Near East, East Central Europe and Eurasia, and the Western Hemisphere (Central and 

South America, Mexico, and the Caribbean). In the 2014 competitions, new awards were 

distributed among the required regions as follows: 34 percent Africa; 16 percent East Asia; 

10 percent Southeast Asia and Pacific Islands; 11 percent South Asia; 3 percent Near East; 

7 percent East Central Europe and Eurasia; and 18 percent Western Hemisphere. 

For the GPA – Short-term projects, the Department plans to give priority to projects that include 

K-12 teachers or administrators as at least 50 percent of the project participants. For the DDRA 

programs, the Department plans to give priority to applicants that use advanced language 

proficiency in one of the 78 least commonly taught languages in their research and who are in 

the fields of economics, engineering, international development, global education, mathematics, 

political science, public health, science, or technology. 

For all competitions, the Department plans to give priority to projects that focus on sub-Saharan 

Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, as well as projects that focus on any of the 78 less 

commonly taught languages. In addition, all programs will have an invitational priority for 

applications from minority-serving institutions, which often have fewer international opportunities 

than other higher education institutions. The GPA – Short-term projects will also have 

invitational priorities for applications from community colleges and applications from institutions 

that have not received awards under Title VI of the HEA or the Fulbright-Hays Act in the 

previous 5 years.

Y-- S-90
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Group Projects Abroad:

Capacity Building Projects:

GPA Number of new projects 0 0 20

GPA Average new project 0 0 $100

GPA Total new project funding 0 0 $2,000

Short-Term Projects:

GPA Number of new projects 16 17 17

GPA Average new project $86 $80 $80

GPA Total new project funding $1,374 $1,361 $1,361

Advanced Overseas Projects:

GPA Number of new projects 0 0 11

GPA Average new project 0 0 $173

GPA Total new project funding 0 0 $1,900

GPA Number of NCC projects 11 11 0

GPA Average NCC project $173 $173 0

GPA Total NCC project funding $1,900 $1,900 0

GPA Total project funding $3,274 $3,261 $5,261

GPA Total number of projects 27 28 48

GPA Total number of participants 400 412 712

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad:

DDRA Number of new fellows 84 90 90

DDRA Average new fellowship $36 $33 $33

DDRA Number of new awards 37 35 35

DDRA Average new award $82 $86 $86

DDRA Total new award funding $3,029 $3,012 $3,012

Seminars Abroad—Special Bilateral Projects:

Semi nars China Contract $396 $411 $411

Semi nars China Contract participants 16 16 16

Department of State administrative costs $250 $250 $250

Program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination $41 $56 $56

Peer review of new award applications $71 $71 $71

Total Overseas funding $7,061 $7,061 $9,061

Total Overseas participants 500 518 818

Y-- S-91
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

Over the past several years, the Department has been in the process of revising the program 

performance measures for the International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) 

programs authorized under Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and the 

Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961. The new performance measures, 

developed in fiscal year 2013, are designed to improve the quality of program-level outcome 

data, as well as to increase transparency and accountability for the IEFLS programs. Measures 

that did not provide useful data were eliminated. The new performance measures are aligned to 

the institutional-level goals of the programs they serve.

 

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.

• 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).

Fiscal year 2014 data will be used to establish a baseline for the new measures when it 

becomes available in the summer of 2015. The Department will begin to consider targets later 

in 2015. 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 intends to use the following efficiency measures developed in 2013. Data will 

be collected from grantee institutions via their performance reports. Baseline data is expected 

to be available in fiscal year 2015.

• 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.

Y-- S-92
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part B)

(dollars in thousands) 

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined 1

Budget Authority:

2015 2016 Change

$67,775 $200,000 +$132,225

__________________

1

 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016.

____________________________________________________________________________

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) supports exemplary 

projects that are models for innovative reform and improvement in postsecondary education. 

Under FIPSE, the Department has flexibility to establish specialized programs to support 

projects in areas of national need. Discretionary grants and contracts are awarded to 

institutions of higher education and other public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies. 

Most recently, the Department has supported the First in the World program (FITW) under 

FIPSE authority. FITW is a competitive grant program, modeled after the Investing in 

Innovation fund (i3), designed to identify innovative solutions to persistent and widespread 

challenges to completion in postsecondary education, particularly those that affect adult 

learners, working students, part-time students, students from low-income backgrounds, students 

of color, and first-generation students. FITW builds evidence for what works in postsecondary 

education with rigorous evaluations. 

Like i3, which supports innovation and evidence building in elementary and secondary 

education, FITW uses a multi-tier structure that links the amount of funding that an applicant 

may receive to the strength of evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed project. 

Applicants proposing practices supported by limited evidence can receive relatively small grants 

(development grants) that support the development and initial evaluation of innovative but 

untested strategies. Applicants proposing practices supported by evidence from rigorous 

evaluations can receive larger grants (validation and scale up grants), in amounts 

commensurate to the level of supporting evidence, for implementation at greater scale to test 

whether initially successful strategies remain effective when adopted in varied locations and 

with a diverse range of students. This tiered-evidence approach systematically identifies 

strategies that produce evidence of effectiveness when implemented at the largest levels of 

scale, such as across postsecondary systems, States, regions, or the country. 

Z-- S-93
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fisca (dollars in thousands)

2011 .........................................................................................$19,607

2012 ............................................................................................ 3,494

2013 ........................................................................................... 3,311

2014 .......................................................................................... 79,400 1

2015 .......................................................................................... 67,775 2

________________________

1 Includes $75,000 thousand for First in the World. 2 Includes $60,000 thousand for First in the World.

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $200 million for FIPSE for fiscal year 2016, $132.2 million more 

than the fiscal year 2015 level. Of the $200 million, $195 million would be used to make new 

FITW awards, including some large grants to implement initially proven strategies at the 

broadest level of scale and to rigorously evaluate such strategies. Most of the remaining 

$5 million would support a technical assistance contract to assist FITW grantees in conducting 

their project evaluations in order to contribute to the body of research on effective 

postsecondary strategies. 

In fiscal year 2014, the first year of the FITW program, the Department made awards only for 

the lowest tier “development grants,” relatively smaller awards for innovative but untested 

strategies. The 2014 competition drew great interest from the field, yielding 459 eligible

applications. A total of $74.6 million was awarded to 24 Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), 

including $20 million to 6 minority serving institutions (MSIs). All of these grantees are 

conducting evaluations of their interventions to assess their effectiveness. 

In 2015, the Department plans to expand the FITW program to add the middle tier of “validation 

grants,” where applicants that can demonstrate that their proposed projects are supported by 

“moderate evidence of effectiveness” will receive larger awards, up to $10 million, to replicate 

and rigorously evaluate effective strategies at multiple sites with larger numbers of students. In 

addition to validation grants, the Department also intends to make additional development 

grants and to set aside up to $16 million of the $60 million available for awards to MSIs.

The requested $132.2 million increase in fiscal year 2016 would enable the Department to add 

the “scale-up grant” tier for projects supported by “strong evidence of effectiveness.” Scale-up 

grants would support implementation and rigorous evaluation of previously validated strategies 

at large scale, such as across postsecondary systems, States, regions, or the country. The 

increase would also support additional validation and development grants, including priorities 

and larger awards for systems and consortia that collaborate with leading experts to implement 

the most promising strategies to address critical barriers. Strategically funding priority 

interventions by systems and consortia, including efforts in multiple sites, would allow for 

development, testing, and scaling of important strategies more rapidly. 

Y-- S-94
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) has identified more than 20 studies of postsecondary 

interventions producing evidence of effectiveness that would meet the requirements to serve as

the basis for grant proposals under the higher grant tiers. These studies evaluated a range of 

strategies such as: exercises to increase a sense of “social belonging,” text messages to 

remind students about application deadlines, “pro-active coaches” who engage much more 

regularly with their advisees than traditional counselors, early college programs, redesigns of 

developmental education, and comprehensive student and academic support interventions. In 

some cases, the impacts of these interventions are large; almost doubling 2-year graduation 

rates, closing the minority GPA gap by 50 percent, or increasing college enrollment by 10

percent.

1

As in 2014 and 2015, the Administration plans to set aside a portion of the requested funding in 

2016, up to 30 percent, or $60 million at the $200 million requested level, for awards to MSIs. 

MSIs enroll a significant and disproportionate share of individuals from underserved populations 

who are from low-income backgrounds, first-generation college students, and underrepresented students. To make substantial gains in college completion rates across the Nation, 

it is essential to target strategies designed to address the unique challenges faced by students 

enrolled at MSIs. The 2014 FITW competition demonstrated that there is significant MSI 

interest in this program. Half of the 459 eligible applications were submitted by MSIs, and 6 of 

the 24 awards, totaling $20 million, were awarded to MSIs without funding out of rank order. 

The request also includes appropriations language authorizing the use of FIPSE funding to 

support technical assistance and evaluation of strategies implemented under FITW. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

First in the World

Number of new awards 24 11 29

Average new award $3,110 $5,273 $6,724

Total new award funding $74,636 $58,000 $195,000

Center for the Study of Distance Education 

and Technological Advancement

Number of new awards 1 0 0

Average new award $1,484 0 0

Total new award funding $1,484 0 0

1 Walton, G.M. & Cohen, G.L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health 

outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447-1451; Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). 

Closing the social-class achievement gap: A difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ 

academic performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological Science.; Castleman, B. L., & Page, L. C. 

(2014). Freshman year financial aid nudges: An experiment to increase FAFSA renewal and college persistence.; 

Bettinger, E.P., & Baker, R. (2011). The effects of student coaching in college: An evaluation of a randomized 

experiment in student mentoring.; An, B. P. (2012). The impact of dual enrollment on college degree attainment: Do 

low-SES students benefit?; American Institutes for Research & SRI (2013). Early college, early success.; Jenkins, D., 

M. Zeidenberg, and G. Kienzl. 2009. Building Bridges to Postsecondary Training for Low-Skill Adults: Outcomes of 

Washington State’s I-BEST Program.; Scrivener, S. & Weiss, M.J. (2013). More Graduates: Two-year results from an 

evaluation of Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) for developmental education students.

Y-- S-95

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Training for Realtime Writers

Number of new awards 2 0 0

Average new award $550 0 0

Total award funding $1,100 0 0

Center for Best Practices to Support 

Single Parent Students

 Number of new awards 1 0 0

Average new award $495 0 0

 Total new award funding $495 0 0

Centers of Excellence for Veteran 

Student Success

 Number of new awards 0 12 0

Average new award 0 $413 0

 Total new award funding 0 $4,950 0

National Center for Information and 

Technical Support for Postsecondary 

Students with Disabilities

 Number of new awards 0 1 0

Average new award 0 $2,475 0

 Total new award funding 0 $2,475 0

Contracts

 Peer review of new award applications $414 $650 $800

 FITW Technical Assistance Contract 0 $1,500 $4,000

 FIPSE Database $271 $200 $200

Analysis of Federal Regulations and 

Reporting Requirements on IHEs $1,000 0 0

Total FIPSE funding $79,400 $67,775 $200,000

Total number of awards 28 24 29

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 

Z-- S-96
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

relate to the performance of FIPSE grantees that the Department funded before the program 

transitioned to FITW in 2014.

Goal: To improve postsecondary education by making grants to institutions in support of 

reform and innovation. 

Objective: Promote reforms that improve the quality of teaching and learning at postsecondary 

institutions.

Measure: The percentage of FIPSE grantees reporting project dissemination to others.

Year Target Actual

2011 92% 100%

2012 93 96

2013 93 92

2014 94

Additional information: Practical limitations prevent FIPSE from measuring project replication 

on an annual basis. Therefore, data on project dissemination efforts are used as a proxy to 

track progress toward achieving the larger program goal. The data represent the percentage of 

grantees that report in their Annual Performance Reports that they disseminate their projects to 

other institutions. The Department has not established a target beyond 2014, the last reporting 

year for the FIPSE international mobility grants. 

Measure: The percentage of grantees reporting that they have institutionalized their projects on 

their home campuses.

Year Target Actual

2011 94% 83%

2012 94 90

2013 95 90

2014 95

Additional information: The data represent the percentage of grantees that report in their 

Annual Performance Reports that they have adopted and continued their projects on their home 

campuses. The Department has not established a target beyond 2014, the last reporting year 

for the FIPSE international mobility grants. 

The Department is replacing the old FIPSE performance measures with a new set of metrics to 

better align them with the objectives of the FITW program. The Department included the 

following set of measures in the 2014 Notice Inviting Applications for the FITW program:

• The extent to which funded projects are replicated.

• The extent to which projects are institutionalized and continued after funding.

• The extent to which metrics used to assess and evaluate project results measure 

performance under the absolute priority the project is designed to address.

Y-- S-97
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

• The percentage of projects supported by FITW grants that provide evidence of their 

effectiveness at improving student outcomes, especially for low-income students.

• The percentage of projects supported by FITW grants that provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance feedback that allow for periodic assessment of 

progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

• The cost per student served by FITW grants.

• The cost per successful student outcome.

Other Performance Information

The last review of FIPSE performance was conducted in 2004 when the American Institute for 

Research found that FIPSE was successfully achieving its goals, but that a lack of emphasis on 

evaluation has resulted in evaluations of mixed quality. The study examined the performance of 

60 randomly selected projects funded under the Comprehensive Program from 1996 to 1998. It 

also convened subject-matter experts to assess project effectiveness in a wider context. 

Overall, the study confirmed that FIPSE funds a wide range of innovative and reform projects 

that tend to continue after Federal funding expires, share their work with others in the higher 

education community, and influence postsecondary education.

Y-- S-98
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 2016 Authorization: To be determined 1

Budget Authority:

2015 2016 Change

$11,800 $11,800 0 _____________________________________

1

 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Model Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities into Higher Education 

(TPSID) support competitive grants awarded to institutions of higher education or consortia of 

such institutions to create or expand high quality, inclusive model comprehensive transition and 

postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities. Grants under this program

are awarded for a period of 5 years. Institutions of higher education receiving funds under this 

program are required to match Federal funds in an amount that is no less than 25 percent of the 

award amount.

Funds may be used for: student support services; academic enrichment, socialization, or living 

skills programs; integrated work experiences; the development of individualized instruction 

plans; evaluation of the model program, in cooperation with the Coordinating Center; 

partnerships with local educational agencies to support students with intellectual disabilities 

participating in the model program who are still eligible for special education and related 

services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; program sustainability; and 

development of a program credential.

The Department is also required to reserve 3 percent of the funds, or $240,000, whichever is 

greater, for a Coordinating Center, which develops evaluation standards for TPSID grantees 

and provides technical assistance, information, and opportunities for communication among 

institutions with postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2011..................................................................................... $10,978

2012....................................................................................... 10,957

2013....................................................................................... 10,384

2014....................................................................................... 10,384

2015....................................................................................... 11,800

Y-- S-99
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $11.8 million for the Model Transition Programs for Students with 

Intellectual Disabilities in fiscal year 2016, the same as the 2015 level. The Department plans to 

make an estimated 27 new awards in fiscal year 2015. Funds appropriated in 2016 would 

support continuations for fiscal year 2015 grantees, as well as the Coordinating Center, for 

which Congress expanded the scope of work in 2015 appropriations language. In addition to 

activities required by authorizing statute, the Coordinating Center also must administer a 

mentoring program matching current and new TPSID grantees and coordinate longitudinal data 

collection, among other activities.

Among youth with disabilities who have left high school, those with intellectual disabilities are 

among the least likely to have completed a degree (72 percent), and within the group of 

completers are among the least likely to have graduated with a regular diploma (84 percent). 

They are also less likely than other students with disabilities to be engaged in school, work, or 

work preparation shortly after high school (52 percent) (NCES, “National Longitudinal Transition 

Study-2” (NLTS-2), 2005). Students with intellectual disabilities are at a disadvantage as they 

leave secondary education. Without further academic, professional, or life guidance, members 

of this population are less likely to lead independent lives (NCES, NLTS-2, 2005, 2009). A 

recent literature review suggests that youth involvement, family involvement, work experience, 

life skills instruction, and interagency involvement improve outcomes (Papay and Bambara, 

“Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals”, 2013). TPSID programs 

demonstrate innovative methods of serving students with intellectual disabilities. For instance, 

grantees use program funds to: establish peer education centers through which other college 

students provide academic and social mentoring; support Universal Design for Learning and/or 

Universal Course Design training to faculty, staff, and administrators; and establish satellite 

posts of successful vocational and social skill programs on other campuses in their community 

college network.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016 ootnotes

Number of new awards 0 27 0

Average new award 0 $359 0

Total new award funding 0 $9,703 10

Number of NCC awards 27 0 27

Average NCC award $373 0 $363

Total NCC award funding $10,073 10 $9,800 1

Coordinating Center $311 $2,000 $2,000

Peer review of new award applications 0 $97 0

 .

1 Each grantee is required to contribute a total of $4,500 to the Coordinating Center.

Y-- S-100
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Grantees submit annual performance reports to the Department, which are used to assess the 

success of TPSID grantees in meeting the program’s goal of promoting the successful transition 

of students with intellectual disabilities into higher education.

The Coordinating Center piloted an evaluation tool in 2011 and made modifications based 

on grantee feedback. The Center made the evaluation data collection system available for 

use in September 2012 and TPSID grantees completed entry of Year I (2010-2011) and 

Year II (2011-2012) data on December 31, 2012. In September 2013, the Coordinating Center 

released a report on grantees’ progress over the first 2 years of the program. The Department 

expects a report on Year III (2012-2013) to be published in early 2015.

Performance measures have been established for the Coordinating Center. The Department 

expects to have targets for these measures by summer 2015. The following preliminary data 

have been collected.

Completion and Credential Measure: The percentage of students with intellectual disabilities 

who are enrolled in programs funded under TPSID who complete the programs and obtain a 

meaningful credential, as defined by the Center and approved by the Department. Of the 

750 students who exited a TPSID program during years 1-3, 426 students (56 percent) received 

a meaningful credential.

Standards Measure: The percentage of recipients that have grants under the TPSID program 

that meet Department-approved, Center-developed standards for necessary program 

components, such as academic, vocational social, and independent living skills, evaluation of 

student progress, program administration and evaluation, student eligibility, and program credit 

equivalency. Of the 27 grantees, 25 met these standards. The following table provides a 

breakout of the individual standards and the percentage of grantees that met each.

Y-- S-101
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

Standard

Percentage of 

TPSID 

grantees 

meeting 

standard in 

2013

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%

2. Career Development: To facilitate career development leading to competitive 

employment for students with intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive 

postsecondary education program should provide students with the supports and 

experiences necessary to seek and sustain competitive employment. 

93%

3. Campus Membership: To facilitate campus membership for students with 

intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive postsecondary education program 

should provide access to and support for participation in existing social 

organizations, facilities, and technology. 

100%

4. Self-Determination: To facilitate the development of self-determination in 

students with intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive postsecondary 

education program should ensure student involvement in and control of the 

establishment of personal goals through use of person centered planning and 

have a stated process for family involvement. 

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%

6. Coordination and Collaboration: To facilitate collaboration and coordination, 

the comprehensive postsecondary education program should establish 

connections and relationships with key college/university departments and have 

a designated person to coordinate program-specific services of the 

comprehensive postsecondary education program. 

100%

7. Sustainability: To facilitate sustainability the comprehensive postsecondary 

education program should use diverse sources of funding and have a planning 

and advisory team. 

100%

8. Ongoing Evaluation: To facilitate quality postsecondary education services 

for students with intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive postsecondary 

program should conduct evaluation of services and outcomes on a regular basis.

96%

Y-- S-102
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

(Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, Section 117)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

PP\2015 2016 Change

$7,705 $7,705 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2013; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program makes grants to tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions 

to provide career and technical education to Indian students.

In order to be eligible for a grant, a tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical 

institution must:

• Be formally controlled (or have been formally sanctioned or chartered) by a governing body 

of an Indian tribe or tribes;

• Offer a technical degree- or certificate-granting program;

• Demonstrate that it adheres to a philosophy or plan of operation that fosters individual 

Indian economic opportunity and self-sufficiency by providing, among other things, programs 

that relate to stated tribal goals of developing individual entrepreneurship and self-sustaining 

economic infrastructures on reservations;

• Have been operational for at least 3 years;

• Be accredited, or be a candidate for accreditation, by a nationally recognized accrediting 

authority for postsecondary career and technical education; 

• Enroll at least 100 full-time equivalent students, the majority of whom are Indians; and

• Receive no funds under Title I of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities 

Assistance Act of 1978 or the Navajo Community College Act.

Funds may be used by a grantee to train teachers; purchase equipment; provide instructional 

services, child-care and other family support services, and student stipends; and for institutional 

support.

Y-- S-103
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fisca (dollars in thousands)

2011 .......................................................................................... $8,146

2012 ............................................................................................ 8,131

2013 ........................................................................................... 7,705

2014 ............................................................................................ 7,705

2015 ............................................................................................ 7,705

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2016 request includes $7.7 million for the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary 

Career and Technical Institutions (TCPCTI) program, the same amount as the 2015 

appropriation. Funds would be used to improve eligible institutions’ academic and career and 

technical offerings as well as for institutional support and capital expenditures. The budget 

request assumes that the program will be implemented in fiscal year 2016 under reauthorized 

legislation.

To date, only two institutions, Navajo Technical College (Navajo Tech), formerly Crownpoint 

Institute of Technology, and United Tribes Technical College (UTTC), have been able to 

demonstrate that they meet the statutory eligibility requirements for this program. Although the 

two institutions are different in many ways (for example, UTTC is located in an urban setting and 

serves a diverse Indian student population, while Navajo Tech is a rural institution that serves 

an almost entirely Navajo enrollment), they struggle with similar institutional and academic 

challenges. Both institutions serve an especially economically disadvantaged population and 

have difficulty providing sufficient financial aid to students. In addition, each school serves a 

number of students who lack preparation for postsecondary education and need academic and 

support services to help them develop academic and technical skills adequate for 

postsecondary work. 

Furthermore, these institutions, according to Navajo Tech and UTTC officials, receive limited 

support from the tribes they serve because they are not the primary postsecondary institutions 

for those tribes. The institutions also receive limited financial support from such sources as 

student tuition, endowments, and State assistance and, therefore, they rely on Federal 

assistance to help them provide postsecondary career and technical education services to their 

students. 

The Administration released its blueprint for reauthorization of the Perkins Act in April 2012. 

The reauthorization proposal would continue to provide support for the TCPCTI program while 

seeking to ensure that grantees under the program incorporate key reforms embodied in the 

broader reauthorization proposal, including linking career and technical education programs to 

in-demand occupations in high-growth sectors and ensuring linkages of those programs with 

industry and business. 

Y-- S-104
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Range of awards $2,344-$5,362 $2,344-$5,362 $2,344-$5,362

Number of awards 2 2 2

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This section presents selected program information, including, for example, GPRA goals, 

objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the progress 

made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on the 

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2016 

and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department does not validate the data for these indicators, which are obtained from 

grantee performance reports. The Department has worked with the grantees to help ensure 

that they collect performance data consistently, but both grantees have acknowledged 

weaknesses in their data on post-program outcomes (such as placement in jobs or continuing 

education). The grantees have stated it is difficult to track students after they leave the 

institutions. 

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, UTTCActual 

Percentage, UTTC

2011 80.0% 95.0% 50.0% 47.0%

2012 85.0 88.0 55.0 41.0

2013 86.0 96.0 60.0 53.0

2014 88.0 56.0

2015 90.0 58.0

2016 95.0 60.0

Additional information: The percentage of CTE students who receive a degree, certificate, or 

credential is based on the number of CTE concentrators (students who have completed at least 

12 academic or CTE credits in a single program area or a full short-term CTE program 

comprised of less than 12 credits that results in an industry-recognized credential, certificate, or 

degree) who received an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree during the 

reporting year divided by the total number of CTE concentrators who left postsecondary 

education during the reporting year. The Department reset targets in 2014 based on actual 

performance over the preceding 5 years. Data for 2014 will be available in early 2015.

Y-- S-105
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

Measure The percentage of students who are retained in, and complete, postsecondary CTE 

programs.

Year

Target

Percentage,

Navajo Tech

Actual

Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target 

Percentage, UTTC

Actual 

Percentage, 

UTTC

2011 75.0% 82.0% 60.0% 57.0%

2012 80.0 81.0 65.0 55.0

2013 82.0 63.0 70.0 51.0

2014 83.0 60.0

2015 85.0 65.0

2016 87.0 65.0

Additional information: The measure is based on students who complete CTE programs and 

students who have not yet completed, but have been retained, in CTE programs. Students who 

are retained in postsecondary CTE programs are the number of CTE concentrators who 

remained enrolled in their original postsecondary institution or transferred to another 2- or 

4-year postsecondary institution during the reporting year and who were enrolled in 

postsecondary education in the fall of the previous reporting year, divided by the number of CTE 

concentrators who were enrolled in postsecondary education in the fall of the previous reporting 

year and who did not earn an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree in the 

previous reporting year. The Department reset targets in 2014 based on actual performance 

over the preceding 5 years. Data for 2014 will be available in early 2015.

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

2011 88.0% 61.0% 80.0% 67.0%

2012 90.0 71.0 82.0 68.0

2013 90.0 77.0 83.0 73.0

2014 80.0 73.0

2015 85.0 80.0

2016 85.0 82.0

Additional information: The percentage of students who meet State- or program-established 

industry-validated CTE skills standards is based on the number of CTE concentrators who 

passed technical skill assessments that are aligned with industry-recognized standards during

the reporting year divided by the number of CTE concentrators who took technical skill 

assessments during the reporting year. The Department reset targets in 2014 based on actual

performance over the preceding 5 years. Data for 2014 will be available in early 2015.

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.

Y-- S-106
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

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

2011 50.0% 69.0% 50.0% 83.0%

2012 60.0 61.0 60.0 77.0

2013 70.0 73.0 70.0 87.0

2014 65.0 80.0

2015 70.0 85.0

2016 73.0 87.0

Additional information: The Department requires Navajo Tech and UTTC to collect 

placement data during the second quarter after students graduate from or complete their 

programs. Since most students do so in late spring or early summer, both institutions generally 

collect these data at the end of the calendar year. The Department reset targets in 2014 based 

on actual performance over the preceding 5 years. Data for 2014 will be available in early 2015.

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 would make these data unreliable.

Measure: Annual cost per participant.

Year

Cost per participant, 

Navajo Tech

Cost per participant, 

UTTC

2008 $4,445 $8,703

2009 4,865 5,269

2010 4,705 4,878

2011 3,160 4,747

2012 3,104 4,128

2013 2,950 2,950

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 2014 will be available by the fall of 2015. Note that the validity of the 

student count data provided by the recipients is uncertain. The institutions sometimes submit 

multiple sets of data counts within the same year.

Y-- S-107
HIGHER EDUCATION

Assistance for students:

Federal TRIO programs

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined 1

Budget Authority: 

2015 2016 Change

$839,752 $859,752 +$20,000

______________________

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016.

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 Post Baccalaureate 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 encourages disadvantaged individuals who are between 11 and 27 years of age, 

and who have the potential for postsecondary education, to graduate from high school (or return 

to school, for those who have dropped out) and to enroll in a postsecondary education program. 

Projects must provide connections to academic tutoring services, advice on and assistance in 

selecting secondary and college courses, assistance in preparing for college entrance exams 

and in completing college applications, information on student financial aid and assistance in 

completing financial aid applications, connections to services designed to improve financial and 

economic literacy, and guidance and assistance in re-entering and completing secondary 

school. Projects also may provide academic tutoring; personal and career counseling; 

information on career options; exposure to college campuses; and services specially designed 

for students with disabilities or limited English proficiency, homeless children and youth, and 

students in foster care.

Y-- S-108
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

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 provide 

exposure to careers requiring a postsecondary degree. In addition to regular projects, Upward 

Bound includes Math/Science and Veterans projects. The Upward Bound Math/Science

program establishes mathematics and science centers that encourage students to pursue 

postsecondary degrees in those fields specifically. The Veterans Upward Bound projects are 

designed to assist veterans in preparing for a program of postsecondary education.

The Educational Opportunity Centers provide counseling and information on college admissions 

to adults who are at least 19 years old and who are seeking a postsecondary education degree. 

Services include disseminating information on higher education opportunities in the community; 

academic advice, personal counseling, and career workshops; help in completing applications 

for college admissions, testing, and financial aid; tutoring; mentoring; and services to improve 

financial and economic literacy.

The Student Support Services program offers a broad range of support services to 

postsecondary students to increase their retention and graduation rates and to increase their 

transfer rates from 2-year to 4-year institutions. All projects must provide academic tutoring, 

advice on postsecondary course selection, financial aid counseling, services to improve 

financial and economic literacy, assistance in applying for graduate and professional programs, 

and activities to help students in 2-year institutions enroll in 4-year programs. Projects may also 

provide personal and career counseling; exposure to cultural events; mentoring; services to 

secure temporary housing during academic breaks for students who are homeless; activities for 

students with disabilities, limited English proficiency students, homeless students, and students 

in foster care; and grant aid (not to exceed 20 percent of a project’s 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 Post Baccalaureate Achievement program prepares disadvantaged undergraduate 

students for doctoral study to help them succeed in obtaining doctoral degrees. Projects must 

provide opportunities for research and other scholarly activities at the recipient institution or 

graduate center, summer internships, seminars, tutoring, academic counseling, and activities to 

help students enroll in graduate programs. Projects may also provide services to improve 

financial and economic literacy, mentoring, and exposure to cultural events and academic 

programs not usually available to disadvantaged students.

The two largest programs, in terms of funding, are Upward Bound (which includes Veterans 

Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math-Science) and Student Support Services, which 

together accounted for nearly three-fourths of TRIO funding in 2014. TRIO programs vary 

greatly in service intensity, with per participant annual costs ranging from a high for the McNair 

Postgraduate Achievement program of $8,293 to a low of $247 for the Educational Opportunity 

Centers. The regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math Science projects, on average, 

spend approximately $4,309 and $4,297 per year per participant, respectively, while the 

Veterans Upward Bound projects, which do not have the residential summer component, had an 

Y-- S-109
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

average per participant annual cost of $2,092 in 2014. Most projects are located at colleges, 

although non-profit organizations operate a substantial number of Talent Search and 

Educational Opportunity Center projects.

Number of Participants, Participants per project and Cost per Participant (FY 2014)

Award Type

Number of 

Participants

Average number of 

participants

per project

Federal

cost per participant

Talent Search 310,747 691 $433

Upward Bound 61,458 76 4,309

Veterans Upward Bound 6,566 134 2,092

Upward Bound Math/Science 10,034 62 4,297

Educational Opportunity Centers 189,733 1,506 247

Student Support Services 202,492 197 1,425

McNair 4,293 28 8,293

Percentage of Funds by Institution Type (FY 2014)

 Institution Type

Talent 

Search

Upward 

Bound1

Educational 

Opportunity 

Centers

Student 

Support 

Services McNair

Postsecondary Institutions

Public, 4-year 41.4% 47.4% 42.0% 39.9% 74.2%

Public, 2-year 28.9 26.4 25.8 45.7 0.0

Private, 4-year 5.2 17.4 5.2 13.8 25.8

Private, 2-year 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0

Total, Postsecondary 80.4 91.3 73.0 100.0 100.0

Other organizations2 19.6 8.7 27.0 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.

Y-- S-110
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

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. The 

evaluation must examine the characteristics of the programs and projects that most benefit 

students.

Finally, up to 0.5 percent of the funds appropriated for TRIO may be used by the Department to 

support administrative activities that include obtaining additional qualified readers to review 

applications; increasing the level of oversight monitoring; supporting impact studies, program 

assessments, and reviews; and providing technical assistance to potential applicants and 

grantees.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

(dollars in thousands)

2011 ...................................................................................... $883,522 1

2012 ........................................................................................ 839,932

2013 ........................................................................................ 795,998

2014 ........................................................................................ 838,252

2015 ........................................................................................ 839,752

________________________

1 Includes $57,000 thousand in mandatory funds provided under Section 402C(g) of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965, as amended.

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $859.8 million for the Federal TRIO programs in 2016, 

$20 million more than the fiscal year 2015 level. Approximately $162 million of these funds will 

support new Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers competitions that would further 

align these programs with the Administration’s higher education reform agenda. Approximately 

$670 million would be used to support continuation awards to grantees that were successful in 

the 2012 Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math-Science, Veterans Upward Bound, and McNair 

competitions, and the 2015 Student Support Services competition. The request also includes 

$4.3 million to maintain administrative support for the TRIO programs, including the costs of 

collecting and analyzing grantee performance data. The TRIO programs are among the 

Department’s largest and most important higher education investments. These programs can 

best serve students who are low-income or whose parents never completed college by 

Z-- S-111
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

supporting strategies proven to improve student outcomes. For this reason, as is the case in 

other higher education grant programs, the Administration has begun to place an increasing 

emphasis on promoting evidence-based practices in TRIO grant competitions. In the fiscal year 

2015 Student Support Services competition, the Department included competitive priorities for 

evidence-based strategies to provide individualized counseling and address non-cognitive 

contributors to student outcomes. The Department’s final priorities reflected a great deal of 

input from the TRIO community, simplifying and clarifying the original requirements. The 

Department is currently providing technical assistance to Student Support Services applicants 

regarding the new evidence-based requirements, including a webinar with three authors of 

papers regarding evidence-based interventions that applicants could adopt. The Department 

plans to continue engaging with the TRIO community in order to support priorities for evidencebased practices in the fiscal year 2016 Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers 

competitions. 

The Administration seeks to further these efforts by using the $20 million increase to develop a 

TRIO Demonstration Initiative in consultation with the TRIO community that would give TRIO 

grantees, or consortia of grantees, the opportunity to compete for increased funding to 1) 

implement additional evidence-based, college access and success strategies and serve 

additional students, and 2) participate in evaluations of such strategies to contribute to the 

growing body of evidence about the effectiveness of particular student support activities. 

Priority would be given to TRIO grantees that leverage base funding to support their 

demonstration initiatives. The Department would work with the broader TRIO grantee 

community in determining the interventions to be implemented and enter into cooperative 

agreements with grantees, or consortia of grantees, that are awarded funds for the 

demonstrations to support implementation and evaluation. Evaluation methods could range 

from experimental designs to quick turnaround studies that use administrative data and would 

be purposed to contribute to what is known in the field about commonly applied practices. In 

the future, strategies that show evidence of effectiveness when implemented at scale could be 

adopted more broadly by all TRIO grantees. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures

2014

Funding

footnote

2015

Funding

footnote

2016

Funding

footnote

2014

Awards

footnote

2015

Awards

footnote

2016

Awards

footnote

Talent Search (TS)

ST:New awards 0 0 $117,739 0 0 413

(TS)Continuation awards $134,614 $135,134 $16,923 450 450 37

(TS)Total 134,614 135,134 134,662 450 450 450

Upward Bound (UB)

(UB)Continuation awards 264,839 265,357 265,357 814 814 814

(UB)Total 264,839 265,357 265,357 814 814 814

Y-- S-112
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

Measures

2014

Funding

footnote

2015

Funding

footnote

2016

Funding

footnote

2014

Awards

footnote

2015

Awards

footnote

2016

Awards

footnote

Veterans Upward Bound (VUB)

VUB:Continuation awards 13,738 13,806 13,806 49 49 49

VUB:Total 13,738 13,806 13,806 49 49 49

Upward Bound Math-Science (UBMS)

UBMS:Continuation awards 43,112 43,129 43,129 162 162 162

UBMS:Total 43,112 43,129 43,129 162 162 162

Educational Opportunity Centers 

(EOC)

ST:New awards 0 0 $44,199 0 0 119

EOC:Continuation awards $46,880 $46,925 2,705 126 126 7

EOC:Total 46,880 46,925 46,904 126 126 126

Student Support Services (SSS)

New awards 0 273,528 0 0 1,000 0

SSS:Continuation awards 281,666 23,966 297,494 1,027 72 1,072

SSS:Total 281,666 297,494 297,494 1,027 1,072 1,072

McNair Postbaccalaureate (MPB)

MPB:Continuation awards 46,037130,2642 30,701 151 151 151

MPB:Total 46,037 30,264 30,701 151 151 151

Staff Training (ST)

ST:New awards 1,525 0 1,400 8 0 5

ST:Continuation awards 0 1,525 0 0 8 0

ST:Total 1,525 1,525 1,400 8 8 5

TRIO Demonstration

:New awards 0 0 20,000 0 0 16

Total 0 0 20,000 0 0 16

Total awards

DomesticTotal new awards 1,525 273,528 183,338 8 955 553

DomesticTotal Continuation awards 830,885 560,107 670,115 2,779 1,832 2,247

Evaluation 2,000 2,000 2,000

Y-- S-113
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

Measures

2014

Funding

footnote

2015

Funding

footnote

2016

Funding

footnote

2014

Awards

footnote

2015

Awards

footnote

2016

Awards

footnote

Administrative expenses:

Peer review of new award

 applications 2,711 2,917 2,799

Other expenses 1,131 1,200 1,500

Total 3,842 4,117 4,299

Total 838,252 839,752 859,752 2,787 2,787 2,800 _____________________________

1 Includes $10,437 thousand used to frontload 2015 continuation awards. 2 Includes $5,000 thousand used to frontload 2016 continuation awards to ensure sufficient levels of funding for the 

2016 Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers competitions.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2016 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

2011 80.0% 80.1% 76.0% 83.8% 60.5% 59.6%

2012 80.0 79.8 76.0 81.8 61.0 60.6

2013 80.5 80.6 78.0 83.2 61.5 59.0

2014 80.5 80.5 61.5

2015 80.5 81.0 61.5

2016 81.0 81.5 61.5

Y-- S-114
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

Additional information: This measure looks at the percentage of participants who enroll in 

college. Targets are set and data are calculated independently for each of the three programs 

for which this measure is relevant. Data are provided by the grantees in their Annual 

Performance Reports.

• For Talent Search, the measure looks at the percentage of “college ready” participants who 

enrolled in programs of postsecondary education during the reporting period or the next fall 

term. “College ready” participants are those who are high school seniors or are enrolled in 

an alternative education program at an academic level equivalent to that of a high school 

senior, adults who had graduated from high school or received a high school equivalency 

diploma, postsecondary dropouts, and potential postsecondary transfers. The measure 

does not show the percentage of all students ever served by Talent Search who ultimately 

are admitted to college. For example, Talent Search participants who drop out of the 

program prior to 12th grade are excluded from the calculation. 

• The Upward Bound program, including the Math and Science projects, uses a different 

method to calculate the percentage of Upward Bound participants who subsequently enroll 

in postsecondary education. For Upward Bound, the percentage is calculated by dividing 

the number of students enrolling in postsecondary education during the reporting year by 

the number of students with an Expected High School Graduation Year during that reporting 

year (Expected High School Graduation Year is defined as the year a student would be 

expected to graduate assuming a normal 4 year progression). 

• For Educational Opportunity Centers, the Department defines the cohort of participants 

comprising the denominator in the postsecondary enrollment calculation in the following 

way: participants who are high school seniors or the equivalent in alternative education 

programs, high school graduates, recipients of high school equivalency credentials, 

postsecondary dropouts, or potential postsecondary transfers. 

Objective: Increase postsecondary persistence and completion rates of low-income, firstgeneration individuals in the academic pipeline.

Measure: The percentage of Student Support Services participants completing an Associate’s 

degree at their original institution or transferring to a 4-year institution within 3 years.

Year Target Actual

2011 28.5% 40.7%

2012 33.0 39.9

2013 34.0 39.0

2014 36.0

2015 37.0

2016 37.5

Z-- S-115
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

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

2011 30.0% 49.3%

2012 40.0 49.2

2013 41.0 50.4

2014 42.0

2015 43.0

2016 44.0

Additional information: Grantees provide data on college completion in their Annual 

Performance Reports (APR). The Department’s implementation of a web-based annual 

performance report system that flags inconsistencies for grantees as they enter their data has 

led to more accurate reporting. A continuing shortcoming of these measures is that they only 

measure degree completion of participants who remain at the grantee institution because the 

grantees are unable to track the students who transfer and complete their degrees at other 

institutions. It is likely that some students complete their education at a different institution, 

and that the measures, therefore, understate performance. 

Measure: The percentages of TRIO McNair participants enrolling and persisting in graduate 

school.

Year Enrolling Target Enrolling Actual Persisting Target Persisting Actual

2011 40.0% 71.7% 80.0% 86.6%

2012 50.0 70.8 81.0 86.3

2013 69.0 72.5 82.0 77.2

2014 69.0 83.0

2015 70.0 84.0

2016 70.0 84.5

Additional information: The “Actual” figures for persistence differ slightly from those reported 

in previous years due to the correction of a clerical error. The Department is formally changing 

the enrollment measure to count as successes those McNair participants who enroll in graduate 

school within 3 years of postsecondary graduation, as research indicates that a substantial 

number of individuals who pursue graduate degrees begin their graduate programs within 

3 years of receiving their baccalaureate degrees.

1

 The Department has re-calculated data from 

prior years to allow for comparisons across years. The reporting year in the table above 

represents the 3-year point of measurement. That is, 70.8 percent of McNair participants who 

graduated with their baccalaureate degree in 2009 had enrolled in graduate school by 2012. 

2014 data will be available in October 2015.

1 Nevill, S.C., and Chan, X (2007). The Path Through Graduate School: A Longitudinal Examination 

10 Years After Bachelor’s Degree (NCES 2007-162). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.: National 

Center for Education Statistics, p. 18.

Z-- S-116

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

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

2011 $420 $4,602 $1,735

2012 471 4,518 1,648

2013 $475 462 $4,615 4,441 $1,700 1,643

2014 475 4,600 1,690

2015 470 4,585 1,680

2016 470 4,570 1,670

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 in high school, re-enter 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. 

Measure: The Federal cost of each McNair program baccalaureate recipient who enrolls in 

graduate school within 3 years.

Year Target Actual

2011 $38,000 $32,672 

2012 35,000 27,790

2013 33,000 27,032

2014 33,000

2015 32,000

2016 31,000

Additional information: This measure is calculated by dividing the McNair funding allocation 

from the year in which participants graduated college by the number of college graduates from 

that cohort that enrolled in graduate school within 3 years. Note that the definition of success 

used in the McNair efficiency measure is particularly exclusive. For instance, participants who 

achieved their Bachelor’s degree with the help of the McNair program but did not subsequently 

enroll in graduate school are not counted as successes according to this measure. The 

Department decreased the targets for future years, starting in 2012, to make them more 

ambitious. 

Z-- S-117
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

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. These studies are available at 

the following link: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#postsecondary. 

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 will 

support and test the use of practices aimed at improving college fit by evaluating the 

effectiveness of a professional development program for Upward Bound project staff that 

includes tools and resources, including information packets as well as recent research on inperson college guidance strategies, on college enrollment outcomes for participating Upward 

Bound students. The effort leverages work in the field by college access organizations 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 will be 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. The Department expects to publish results from this evaluation in 

the fall of 2017.

Z-- S-118
HIGHER EDUCATION

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 2016 Authorization: To be determined 1

2015 2016 Change

$301,639 $301,639 0

_____________________

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

_____________________________________________________________________________

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) provides 

6-year grants to States and partnerships to support early college preparation and awareness 

activities at the State and local levels to ensure low-income elementary, middle, and secondary 

school students are prepared for and pursue postsecondary education. Applicants may also 

apply for an optional seventh year of funding to provide services at an institution of higher 

education to follow students through their first year of college attendance.

GEAR UP has two major service components. First, projects provide a comprehensive set of 

early intervention services including mentoring, tutoring, academic and career counseling, and 

other college preparation activities like exposure to college campuses and financial aid 

information and assistance. Second, projects provide college scholarships to participating 

students. In making awards to State applicants, the Department must give priority to funding 

entities that have carried out successful GEAR UP programs prior to enactment 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 in grades K-12. At least 50 percent, 

but not more than 75 percent, of the grant funds must be used to provide scholarships to 

participating students. Conversely, at least 25 percent, but not more than 50 percent, of the 

funds must be used for early intervention services. State grantees must, unless they request

Z-- S-119
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

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.

Partnership Grants— Partnerships must include one or more degree granting institutions of 

higher education, one or more local educational agency, and at least two community 

organizations or entities such as businesses, professional associations, State agencies, or other 

public or private organizations. Partnerships receiving funds are required to provide an early 

intervention component to at least one cohort or grade level of students beginning no later than 

the 7th grade, in a school that has a 7th grade and in which at least 50 percent of the students 

enrolled are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch—or to an entire grade level of students, not 

later than the 7th grade, who reside in public housing. Partnerships must ensure that services 

will continue to be provided through the 12th grade. Partnerships may also provide 

scholarships. Partnerships must provide all students served by the program with a personalized 

21st Century Scholar Certificate to indicate the amount of Federal financial aid that they may be 

eligible to receive for college. 

Of the amount appropriated for GEAR UP, not less than 33 percent must be used to fund State 

grants and not less than 33 percent must be used to fund Partnership grants, with the remainder 

being awarded at the Department’s discretion, taking into consideration the number, quality, and 

promise of applications and, to the extent practicable, the geographic distribution of grants and 

the distribution of grants between urban and rural applicants. Additionally, 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 (dollars in thousands)

2011.....................................................................................$302,816

2012...................................................................................... 302,244

2013...................................................................................... 286,435

2014...................................................................................... 301,639

2015...................................................................................... 301,639

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $301.6 million for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for 

Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) in fiscal year 2016, the same as the fiscal year 2015 

level. The Administration’s request for GEAR UP is based on the demonstrated promise of the 

program’s approach with some indications that GEAR UP is making progress in achieving its 

near-term objectives, such as increasing students’ and parents’ knowledge of postsecondary 

opportunities and increasing rigorous course-taking. GEAR UP supports State efforts and 

Z-- S-120
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

builds partnerships within communities, targets entire cohorts of students in high-poverty middle 

schools, provides students with a full range of services through the 12th grade (in some cases 

through the first year of college), and offers scholarships to attend college. By targeting entire 

grades of students no later than the 7th grade, serving them throughout middle and high school, 

and providing them with scholarship funding, GEAR UP offers a unique approach to ensuring 

that low-income students have the skills and resources to attend college. Furthermore, the 

considerable State and local investments GEAR UP requires through both the creation of 

partnerships and matching contributions help ensure that the program will have a sustainable 

impact on the educational outcomes of low-income middle and high school students.

Most of the requested funds will be used to support continuation awards for State and 

Partnership grantees that were successful in the fiscal year 2011 and 2014 competitions. The 

2014 competition included a focus on building evidence about successful practices aimed at 

improving college fit and readiness, and helping ensure students achieve the necessary 

milestones that provide a pathway to college success. The competition also encouraged 

projects designed to serve and coordinate with Promise Zones and those that proposed 

strategies to help to improve students' non-cognitive skills and behaviors, including academic 

mindset, perseverance, motivation, and mastery of social and emotional skills that improve student 

success. A small amount of the funds requested for 2016 will be used to support the web data 

collection contract, which enables the Department to collect and analyze performance data. 

The remaining funds, about $6.9 million, would potentially be used to fund down the 2014 

competition slate, frontload 2017 continuation costs, and/or support evaluation activities.

Language in the fiscal year 2015 appropriations act allows up to 1.5 percent of fiscal year 2015

funds to be used for evaluation. The Administration is seeking this flexibility again in fiscal year 

2016.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

State Grants:

State:Number of new awards 10 1 0

State:Average new award $3,126 $3,500 0

State:State:Total new award funding $31,264 $3,500 0

State:Number of Continuation awards 27 36 37

State:Average Continuation award $3,888 $3,829 $3,736

State:Total Continuation award funding $104,984 $137,845 $138,233

State:Total award funding $136,248 $141,345 $138,233

State:Total number of awards 37 37 37

Partnership Grants:

Partnershi p:Number of new awards 31 0 0

Partnershi p:Average new award $1,659 0 0

Partnershi p:Total new award funding $51,420 0 0

Partnershi p:Number of Continuation awards 58 85 82

Partnershi p:Average Continuation award $1,849 $1,843 $1,904

AA-- S-121
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Partnershi p:Total Continuation award funding $111,242 1 $156,867 1 $156,393

Partnershi p:Total award funding $162,663 $156,867 $156,393

Partnershi p:Total number of awards 89 85 82

Total award funding:

DomesticTotal new award funding $82,684 $3,500 0

DomesticTotal Continuation award funding $216,226 $294,508 $294,626

Evaluation

$2,200 $3,300 TBD 2

Peer review of new award 

applications

$404 0 0

Web data collection

$125 $127 $145

To Be Determined 0 0 $6,868 2

Total program funding $301,639 $301,639 $301,639

Total number of awards 126 122 119 . .

1 Includes $3,974 thousand of 2014 funds used to cover 2015 continuation costs for high-performing grantees 

that were originally funded in fiscal year 2011. These funds are excluded from the “average Continuation award” 

calculation.

 2 The Department has not yet determined the allocation of these funds. Potential uses include frontloading 

Continuation costs for fiscal year 2017, funding down the 2014 slate, and allocating additional funds towards 

evaluation.

 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2016 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

AA-- S-122
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

Goal: To significantly increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to 

enter and succeed in postsecondary education.

Objective: Increase the rate of high school graduation and enrollment in postsecondary 

education of GEAR UP students.

Measure: The percentage of GEAR UP high school seniors who graduated from high school.

Year Target Actual

2011 86.0% 84.8%

2012 86.0 86.4

2013 87.0 82.8

2014 87.0

2015 88.0

2016 88.0

Additional Information: This measure indicates the percentage of GEAR UP high school 

seniors that graduated from high school. That is, the denominator used in the calculation 

includes only those GEAR UP participants who persisted until the 12th grade. The figure 

reported for 2013 relates to the 2007 cohort. The Department indicated in the 2011 Notice 

Inviting Applications that, beginning with the 2011 award cohort, grantees are now expected to 

report high school graduation using a 4-year adjusted cohort methodology. The Department will 

begin reporting using this revised methodology when these grantees submit their Final 

Performance Reports in fiscal year 2017. 

Measure: The percentage of former GEAR UP high school graduates who immediately 

enrolled in college.

Year Target Actual

2011 59.0% 59.9%

2012 60.0 62.2

2013 60.0 75.3

2014 61.0

2015 61.0

2016 62.0

Additional Information: This measure indicates the percent of GEAR UP students who 

graduated from high school and enrolled in postsecondary education the following September. 

Data from NCES put the performance data into context. According to NCES, 66.2 percent of all 

high school completers enrolled in postsecondary education immediately following high school 

graduation in 2012. In that same year, 50.9 percent of low-income students enrolled in 

postsecondary education immediately following high school graduation, according to the same 

NCES research. The GEAR UP figure reported for 2013 relates to the 2007 cohort. 

AA-- S-123
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

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 

8th 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

2011 32% 32.5% 50% 51.4%

2012 33 39.8 51 61.0

2013 33 29.4 51 67.5

2014 34 31.2 53 58.3

2015 34 53

2016 35 54

Additional Information: This measure tracks completion rates for two mathematics classes 

that research has shown are key indicators of college readiness. Data for this measure, 

collected through Annual Performance Reports, reflect student completion levels from the prior 

year. It should be noted that, as the measure tracks only the percent of those students who are 

enrolled that pass the class, the percentage of the entire cohort who are on the path to collegereadiness is likely to be considerably lower. 

Efficiency Measures

The efficiency measure for this program is the cost of a successful outcome, where success is 

defined as enrollment in postsecondary education by GEAR UP students immediately following 

high school graduation. The Department calculates this measure by dividing the annual funding 

supporting closeout grantees (grantees serving cohorts that would be expected to graduate and 

enroll 12th graders in a particular reporting year) by the total number of postsecondary enrollees 

they produce. For instance, the 7 grantees that began serving 7th graders in 2007 would be 

expected to enroll their participants in college during the 2013-14 school year. Using this 

methodology, the annual cost per successful outcome for this GEAR UP cohort was $2,455. 

The Department provided approximately $11.8 million per year to the grantees in this cohort, 

which produced 4,824 postsecondary enrollees. It is important to note that this measure uses 

the strictest possible definition of “successful outcome.” For instance, students from this cohort 

who graduate high school with the help of GEAR UP programs but do not enroll in 

postsecondary education are not considered “successes” under this methodology. 

Other Performance Information

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 

Z-- S-124
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

postsecondary enrollment—because the data were not yet available. Overall, the study found 

that GEAR UP had significant impacts on students’ and parents’ knowledge and behavior and 

on the academic offerings at GEAR UP schools. The study is available at the following link: 

(http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/gearup/early-outcomes.pdf).

Upcoming 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 

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 plans to use approximately $5.5 million of fiscal year 2014 and 

2015 funds, to test a low-cost communication strategy that uses commonly used technology to 

provide college-intending high school graduates in the GEAR UP program and their parents with 

customized reminders about college enrollment-related tasks. The study is based on research 

indicating that although academic preparation and financial circumstances continue to drive 

disparities in postsecondary enrollment and completion, a substantial number of low-income 

students fail to enroll in and complete college simply because they fall off track trying to 

navigate the complex process of applying to, enrolling in, and staying in college (Bowen, 

Chingos, and McPherson, 2009; Roderick, Nagaoka, Coca, and Moeller, 2008). 

The study would target GEAR UP high school seniors intending to enroll in college and provide 

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 will 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 will relate to 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 will assist program participants in ensuring that they obtain scholarship funds made 

available through their GEAR UP projects.

By testing a strategy targeted to students as they matriculate into college, the study will take 

advantage of a significant change Congress made to the GEAR UP program in the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA)—allowing new grantees to obtain a 7th year of 

funding to serve participants who are enrolled as freshmen in college. The vast majority of the 

GEAR UP grantees that received their awards from the first post-HEOA competition in fiscal 

year 2011 sought and received this 7th year of funding and, thus, will be serving college 

freshmen in 2017-2018. This study, therefore, will produce knowledge about strategies that 

GEAR UP projects have never before implemented, and potentially inform the development of 

future competitions and project proposals.

Z-- S-125
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part A, Subpart 2)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

 2015 2016 Change

$29,293 $29,293 0

__________________

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) provides fellowships, through 3-year 

grants to institutions of higher education, to graduate students studying in areas of national need 

and who are of superior ability and demonstrate financial need. The Department may also award 

grants to non-degree-granting institutions that have formal arrangements for the support of 

doctoral dissertation research with degree-granting institutions. Applicants must set forth policies 

and procedures to ensure that they will seek talented students from traditionally underrepresented 

backgrounds. In making awards, the Department evaluates applicants for evidence that the 

institution’s social and academic environment is supportive of the academic success of students 

from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds on the applicant’s campus. Fellowship 

recipients must be in financial need, have excellent academic records, and pursue a doctoral 

degree or the highest graduate degree in the academic field at the institution of higher education 

that they are attending.

After consultation with appropriate agencies and organizations, such as the National Science 

Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security, the 

Department designates certain fields of study as “areas of national need” by taking into account 

the extent to which those areas are of compelling national interest, other Federal programs 

support post-baccalaureate study in those areas, and significant impact that can be made in those 

areas with available resources. The designated areas of national need for the most recent 

competition, in fiscal year 2014, were: area studies; biological sciences/life sciences; chemistry; 

computer and information sciences; engineering; foreign languages and literatures; mathematics; 

nursing; physics; and educational evaluation, research, and statistics.

Institutions use program funds to award fellowships for up to 5 years of study. Each fellowship 

provides funding for a student stipend to cover living expenses and the student’s tuition and other 

educational costs to be paid to the institution. The stipend is the lesser of demonstrated need or 

the level of support provided by the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research 

Fellowships program. The institutional payment is adjusted annually based on the Consumer 

Price Index.

AA-- S-126
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

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 costs of a fellow’s instruction that are not covered 

by the institutional payment; and to supplement the stipend received by a fellow in an amount not 

to exceed the fellow's financial need. Institutions must also provide fellows with at least 1 year of 

supervised training in instruction for students.

Fellows must maintain satisfactory progress in their program and devote essentially full time study 

or research in their academic field. Fellows may not be employed, except on a part-time basis in 

teaching, research, or similar activities that support the fellow’s progress towards a degree.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

•....... (dollars in thousands)

2011 .....................................................................................$30,968

2012 .......................................................................................30,909

2013 .......................................................................................29,293

2014 .......................................................................................29,293

2015 .......................................................................................29,293

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $29.3 million for the GAANN program for fiscal year 2016, the same 

as the 2015 level. About $25.1 million, or 86 percent, of the funds requested would be used to 

cover the continuation costs of awards previously made under the program, primarily in 2015. 

About $3.9 million would be used to support about 26 new institutional awards in fiscal year 2016. 

Through its support of graduate study in key disciplines, GAANN helps address the problem of 

insufficient numbers of students pursuing graduate degrees in critical scientific and technical fields 

and other areas of national need. GAANN provides students with superior ability and financial 

need with the resources that they need to pursue graduate studies. The request recognizes the 

role that graduate education plays in the advancement of national prosperity and demonstrates 

the Administration’s commitment to educational achievement at the graduate level and providing 

greater postsecondary access to students in financial need and those from traditionally 

underrepresented backgrounds.

In 2015, the Department plans to make about 130 new awards to eligible institutions of higher 

education to provide approximately 500 fellowships to students pursuing graduate study in areas 

of national need. The Department will use fiscal year 2016 funds to support continuation costs for 

these grants.

In 2012, the last year in which a competition was conducted, the number of awards by eligible 

academic discipline was as follows: area studies – 1; biology – 15; chemistry – 18; computer 

science – 9; education – 3; engineering – 34; foreign languages – 3; interdisciplinary – 19; 

mathematics – 24; nursing – 4; and physics – 6. 

AA-- S-127
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Number of new awards 6 130 26

Number of new fellowships 28 500 82

Average new award $141 $188 $151

Total new award funding $1,303 $23,629 $3,925

Number of NCC awards 154 27 136

Number of NCC fellowships 565 113 527

Average NCC award $173 $198 $184

Total NCC funding $26,532 $5,340 $25,075

Average institution payment $15 $15 $15

Average stipend $32 $32 $33

Total average fellowship $47 $47 $48

Number of NCC Javits fellowships 31 0 0

Average NCC Javits fellowship $47 0 0

Total NCC Javits funding $1,458 0 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 $293 $293

Funds returned to Treasury 0 $31 10

Total number of awards 191 2 157 162

Total number of fellowships 624 2 613 609

Total program funding $29,293 $29,293 $29,293

1 Awards are statutorily required to be equivalent in size to the National Science Foundation fellowships. 

Therefore, a portion of the program’s appropriation often remains unspent after the maximum number of fellowships 

of the predetermined size are awarded. These remaining funds expire and are returned to Treasury. 2 This figure represents both GAANN and Javits awards.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2016 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

AA-- S-128

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

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

2011 58 67

2012 59 60

2013 59 67

2014 60

2015 60

2016 60

Additional Information: The data used to calculate this performance measure come from the 

program’s final performance reports, the Department’s Grants and Payments database, and the 

GAANN program database. The measure is calculated by dividing the number of GAANN 

fellows in the last year of their fellowships who have successfully completed their doctoral studies 

by the total number of GAANN fellows who are in the last year of their fellowships. 

Because a fellow can receive no more than 5 years of funding and most doctoral students take 6-

7 years to complete their doctoral programs, advancing to candidacy is used as a proxy for 

degree completion where appropriate. Use of such proxy data may inflate the performance data, 

as most, but not all, doctoral candidates who advance to candidacy actually complete their 

doctoral degrees. In fiscal year 2013, GAANN fellows exceeded the target completion rate for 

the seventh year in a row. Data for 2013 are provisional and may need further refinement. In 

fiscal year 2016, the Department plans to reconsider targets.

In 2008, the Department completed a comprehensive evaluation of all of the Department's 

graduate fellowship programs, including the GAANN program. It found that 78 percent of 

GAANN fellows completed the degree they were pursuing within 10 years of receiving their 

award between 1997-1999, with an additional 9 percent still enrolled or otherwise pursuing their 

degrees. In contrast, the study cited national data from the “Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study” indicating that 62 percent of U.S. students who enrolled in a graduate 

degree program completed that degree program within 10 years. 

Measure: Median time to degree completion (years).

Year Target Actual

2011 5.1 4.9

2012 5.0 4.9

2013 5.0 5.2

2014 5.0

2015 5.0

2016 5.0

AA-- S-129
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

Additional Information: This measure, along with the completion rate measure, shows that 

the program supports fellows who have a high likelihood of successfully completing their degree 

in a relatively short period of time. Data collected through annual performance reports show 

that the program had a median time to completion of 5.2 years in 2013; these data are 

provisional and may need further refinement. 

According to the most recent publicly available national data provided by the National Opinion 

Resource Center’s annual “Survey of Earned Doctorates,” the median time to doctoral degree 

completion for all graduate programs in the United States was 7.7 years in 2012. During that 

same period, the average time to completion was 6.7 years for the physical sciences, 6.7 years 

for engineering, and 6.9 years for life sciences. These figures are not directly comparable to 

those of the GAANN program, insofar as the GAANN measures begin counting years to 

completion at first enrollment in any type of graduate education, not just doctoral study. For 

example, the GAANN completion rate includes students in Master’s programs who are likely to 

complete their degrees in a shorter number of years than doctoral students. However, research 

shows that students with financial need, such as those served by the GAANN program, typically 

take longer to complete terminal graduate degrees than the national student body as a whole. 

Accordingly, achieving a level of performance that is comparable or better than the national 

average for graduate students suggests that the program is successfully meeting its 

performance goal. Notably, the median time to completion for GAANN fellows has held steady 

around 5.0 years since 2007. 

In 2008, the Department’s comprehensive evaluation of all of the Department's graduate 

fellowship programs, including the GAANN program, found that GAANN fellows pursuing a 

doctoral degree who received a grant between 1997 and 1999 completed their degrees in an 

average of 6 years. The study also found that GAANN doctoral fellows completed their degrees 

in less time than the averages of 8 to 9 years reported by doctorate recipients in the 1990s and 

early 2000s on the “Survey of Earned Doctorates”. 

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

2011 $70,000 $57,238

2012 69,500 54,894

2013 69,000 64,000

2014 68,500

2015 68,500

2016

The data used to calculate the efficiency measure come from the program’s final performance 

reports, the Department’s Grants and Payments database, and the GAANN program database. 

The efficiency measure is calculated by dividing the total amount of Federal funds provided to 

AA-- S-130
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

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, 

significant year-to-year fluctuations may be expected. This may reduce the usefulness of the 

measure at the program level. However, given the improvements in cost per outcome since 

2005, more ambitious targets have been established for 2011 through 2015. Data for fiscal year 

2013 are provisional and may need further refinement. No target has been set for 2016. The 

Department plans to reconsider targets in fiscal year 2015.

Other Performance Information

A study of the Department’s graduate fellowship programs was initiated in 2004. The study was 

designed to provide information on educational and employment outcomes of participants in the 

Department’s graduate fellowship programs, including the GAANN program. The study found 

that about 78 percent of GAANN fellows had completed their degree within 10 years and 

another 9 percent were still pursuing their degrees; in comparison, 62 percent of all U.S. 

students who enrolled in a graduate degree program completed their degrees and 15 percent 

were still enrolled in that program. The study also found that the average time to degree 

completion for GAANN fellows was 6 years, compared to 8 to 9 years for all U.S. graduate 

students in comparable fields, based on the “Survey of Earned Doctorates.” The final report 

was published in September 2008 and can be found at: 

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED526947.pdf.

AA-- S-131
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 7)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2015 2016 Change

$15,134 $15,134 0

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program is designed to support 

the participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education through campus-based child 

care services. Under this program, discretionary grants of up to 4 years in duration are awarded 

competitively to institutions of higher education. Priority is given to child care programs that 

(1) leverage significant local or institutional resources and (2) utilize a sliding fee scale.

Institutions may use the funding to support or establish a campus-based child care program 

primarily serving the needs of low-income students enrolled at the institution. Grants may also 

be used to provide before and after school services. The authorizing statute defines a 

“low-income student” as a student eligible to receive a Pell Grant during the year of enrollment 

at the institution or who would otherwise be eligible to receive a Pell Grant, except that the 

student fails to meet the requirements of: (1) Section 401(c)(1) of the Higher Education Act 

(HEA) because the student is enrolled in a graduate or first professional course of study; or 

(2) Section 484(a)(5) of the HEA because the student is in the United States for a temporary 

purpose. Grants are only to be used to supplement existing child care services or start a new 

program. Funds may not be used for grants that supplant funds for current child care services.

An institution is eligible to receive a grant for a fiscal year if the total amount of Pell Grant funds 

awarded to students at the institution for the preceding fiscal year equals or exceeds $350,000. 

When the appropriation for the program reaches $20 million, this amount decreases to 

$250,000. The maximum grant award cannot exceed 1 percent of the total amount of all Pell 

Grant funds awarded to students enrolled at the institution during the preceding fiscal year. The 

minimum grant amount is $10,000. This amount increases to $30,000 when the program’s 

appropriation reaches $20 million.

AA-- S-132

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

Grantees must submit annual reports to the Department regarding their activities. The reports 

must contain data on the population served by the grant; information on campus and community 

resources and funding used to help low-income students access child care services; information 

on progress made toward accreditation of any child care facility; and information on the impact 

of the grant on the quality, availability, and affordability of campus-based child care services. 

An institution receives a continuation award only if the Department determines, on the basis of 

the annual reports, that the institution is making a good faith effort to ensure that low-income 

students have access to affordable, quality child care services.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2011.. ..................................................................................$16,002

2012.. ....................................................................................15,970

2013.. ....................................................................................15,134

2014.. ....................................................................................15,134

2015.. ....................................................................................15,134

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $15.1 million for the Child Care Access Means Parents in School 

(CCAMPIS) program, the same as the fiscal year 2015 appropriation. The CCAMPIS program 

helps to ensure that low-income student parents enroll in, persist in, and complete 

postsecondary education by helping to meet their needs for affordable and convenient child 

care. All of the funds requested for the CCAMPIS program in fiscal year 2016 would support 

continuation awards.

Data from the National Center for Education Statistics “Descriptive Summary of 2003-04 

Beginning Postsecondary Students: Three Years Later,” a longitudinal study (2004-2006), 

indicated that by 2006, 56 percent of students who were single parents when they first began at 

a 4-year institution were no longer enrolled and had not completed any certificate or degree, 

compared to 15 percent of dependent students (students under 24, unmarried, and with no 

dependents of their own). Similarly, research shows that at 2-year public institutions, 60 percent 

of beginning postsecondary students who were single parents in 2003-2004 were no longer 

enrolled and had not completed any certificate or degree—23 percentage points higher than the 

rate for dependent students. One barrier to completion for students with dependents, especially 

low-income students and single parents, is the lack of convenient and affordable quality child 

care services.

Fiscal year 2016 funding maintains support to enable institutions to sustain or establish 

campus-based child care programs; establish emergency back-up care and provide summer 

child care and before and after school services; subsidize the costs of child care for low-income 

students; and establish programs involving parents.

AA-- S-133
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

CCAMPIS Number of new awards 8 0 0

CCAMPIS Average new award $241 0 0

CCAMPIS Total new award funding $1,925 0 0

CCAMPIS Number of NCC awards 78 86 86

CCAMPIS Average NCC award $169 $176 $176

CCAMPIS Total NCC award funding $13,209 $15,134 $15,134

CCAMPIS Total award funding $15,134 $15,134 $15,134

CCAMPIS Total number of awards 86 86 86

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2016 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To support the participation of low-income parents in the postsecondary 

education system through the provision of campus-based child care services.

Objective: Increase access for low-income parents to postsecondary institutions.

Measure: Percentage of CCAMPIS program participants enrolled at CCAMPIS grantee 

institutions receiving child care services who remain in postsecondary education at the end of 

the academic year, as reported in the annual performance report.

Year 4-year/2-year

Target

4-year/2-year

Actual

4-year

Target

4-year

Actual

2-year 

Target

2-year

Actual

2011 56.1% 62.0% 47.0%

2012 61.2 69.3 49.2

2013 45.8 46.4 45.0

2014 TBD TBD TBD

2015 TBD TBD TBD

2016 TBD TBD TBD

AA-- S-134
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

Additional information: The overall persistence rate in 2013 for students participating in the 

CCAMPIS program is 45.8 percent 3,466 out of 7,566 student participants). The persistence 

rate for 2013 is calculated by dividing the total number of students participating in the program 

in academic year 2012-2013 by the number of students who were either still attending, had 

transferred from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution of higher education, or had graduated

during academic year 2012-2013. Data for the 2014 persistence rate of program participants, 

i.e., students who participated in the program in academic year 2013-2014, who, as of academic 

year 2013-2014 are either still attending, had transferred from a 2-year institution to a 4-year 

institution of higher education, or had graduated will be available in March 2015. The 

Department expects to establish targets for this measure in March 2015.

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

2012 31.0%

2013 35.0

2014 TBD

2015 TBD

2016 TBD

Additional information: The CCAMPIS program began reporting data for graduation rates at 

2-year CCAMPIS grantee institutions in 2012. More specifically, the program is now reporting 

data collected from CCAMPIS grantee participants enrolled at 2-year CCAMPIS grantee 

institutions who graduate within 3 years of enrollment. The 2-year graduation measure is 

consistent with the Department’s standard graduation rate for 2-year institutions, calculated as 

the percentage of recipients who graduated from their postsecondary institution within 

150 percent of normal completion time. This means graduating within 3 years of beginning 

studies at a 2-year institution. The 2013 graduation rate for students participating in the 

CCAMPIS program from 2-year institutions is 35 percent, an increase of 4 percentage points as 

compared to the 2012 rate of 31 percent. The Department expects to establish targets for the 

new completion measure in March 2015.

Annual Performance Report Data

The annual performance report (APR) data form grantees use to submit performance data to 

the Department requires the CCAMPIS project director and a certifying official at the institution 

to certify that the information reported in the APR is accurate, complete, and readily verifiable. 

All student participants are assigned a unique CCAMPIS participant identification (ID) number 

that will be used to track them throughout their postsecondary education. Grantees will use the 

same number for each participant each time annual data is reported to the Department. Also, 

grantees will code whether each participant has:

• Completed the term without completing his/her studies, graduating, transferring, or 

withdrawing during the term or at the end of the term;

AA-- S-135
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

• Earned a certificate/diploma, associate’s, bachelor’s, or teaching credential during or at the 

end of the term;

• Transferred from a 2-year institution of higher education to a 4-year institution or from one 

4-year institution to another 4-year institution during or at the end of the term;

• Officially withdrawn from the grantee-institution during the term;

• Not returned/dropped out/stopped out from the grantee-institution (without official notification 

to the institution) during the term;

• No further need for CCAMPIS funded services (examples: student is no longer eligible for 

Pell Grants; family member cares for the child; child aged out of care; etc.); and

• Participated in the CCAMPIS program while enrolled at the grantee-institution or declined 

CCAMPIS participation at any point while enrolled.

The CCAMPIS program serves a wide variety of student-parents with various needs. Multiple 

factors make it difficult to track students. Some students may not need services from year-toyear because their child is of school age, because they obtained alternative childcare from 

family members, or because of changes to the timing and number of hours required to attend 

class. The Department believes these revisions to the APR will yield more accurate persistence 

and completion data than what has been collected in the past.

The Department dropped the performance measure that focused on completion rates at 4-year 

CCAMPIS grantee institutions. The methodology used for this measure was problematic 

because the denominator included students who had not been in school long enough to 

graduate even if they persisted without interruption. 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.

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

2011 $8,553

2012 5,757

2013 TBD 4,608

2014 TBD

2015 TBD

2016 TBD

AA-- S-136
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

Additional information: For 2013, the cost per successful outcome of $4,608 was calculated 

by dividing the program allocation of $15,969,760 by 3,466, 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. Targets for 2014-2016 will be 

developed as soon as 2013 data become available in March 2014.

Other Performance Information

Data from the 2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study showed that: 

• The majority of Pell Grant recipients with children under 12, like Pell Grant recipients overall 

and Pell Grant recipients with no children, were non-White, female, and single, widowed, or 

divorced. Pell Grant recipients with children of child care age were more likely than those 

without children to be women (81 versus 57 percent, respectively); Black, non-Hispanic 

(29 versus 21 percent); and married (32 versus 4 percent).

• Approximately 49 percent of Pell Grant recipients with children under age 5 and 31 percent of 

those whose youngest child was 5 to 11 reported using child care. Among Pell Grant 

recipients with children, those who reported using child care were more likely to be single 

parents than those not using child care, 72 percent compared to 54 percent.

• Child care was a major expense for Pell Grant recipients who used it. Average monthly child 

care expenditures for Pell Grant recipients with children under age 5 was higher than child 

care expenditures for those with children 5 to 11 ($390 versus $288 per month), or an 

average of $4,680 versus $3,450 per year, if annualized.

Data from the 2009 and 2010 Grantee Performance Reports submitted in 2011 showed that:

• Forty-six percent of the institutions served are 2-year public institutions, 51 percent are 

4-year public institutions, and the remaining 3 percent are 4-year private institutions.

• Nearly all CCAMPIS participants were Pell Grant recipients (89 percent) and the vast majority 

were female (85 percent). In terms of race/ethnicity, the largest proportion of participants 

was White (48 percent), and a sizable minority were Hispanic or Latino (22 percent).

Z-- S-137
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2015 2016 Change

$40,592 0 -$40,592

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 highneed 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 Incentive Fund).

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

Z-- S-138
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

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. 

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.

Z-- S-139
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

Program funds also can be used to support evaluations of program activities, and, in 2010, the 

Department awarded a contract for an evaluation of teacher residency programs supported 

through grants awarded in 2009 and 2010. 

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://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/index.html). 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)fo

ot

no

te

2011..................................................................................... $42,914

2012....................................................................................... 42,833

2013....................................................................................... 40,592

2014....................................................................................... 40,592

2015....................................................................................... 40,592

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget request includes no funding for the Teacher 

Quality Partnership (TQP) program, which would be consolidated into the Teacher and Principal 

Pathways authority. This proposed consolidation is consistent with a longstanding principle of 

the Administration’s budget and legislative policy, which is to consolidate small, narrowly 

targeted, categorical programs into broader, more flexible authorities that better meet locally 

determined needs Promoting a variety of high-quality pathways is an essential mechanism for 

preparing new teachers and principals to serve high-need schools and addressing inequities in 

access to effective and highly effective educators. The new Teacher Pathways program would 

fund competitive grants to teacher preparation programs operated by IHEs and nonprofit 

organizations to support the creation or expansion of high-quality pathways into the teaching 

profession, including alternative routes to certification. These pathways would emphasize 

partnerships with LEAs and increasing the number of effective and highly effective teachers 

serving in high-need schools and teaching in high-need fields and subjects. 

The Administration’s budget request acknowledges that teachers and principals are working 

hard to implement rigorous new college- and career-ready standards and that States and LEAs 

are implementing reforms in order to elevate the overall quality of instruction to improve student 

achievement. The request includes a set of initiatives to help States, LEAs, IHEs, and other 

partners to address each phase of a teacher’s preparation and career in order to improve 

AA-- S-140
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

student achievement and ensure access to a high-quality education for all students, and, 

therefore, builds on the Transition to Teaching program’s record of support for teachers early in 

their careers. The request for Improving Teacher Quality State Grants would provide formula 

grants for ongoing State and local efforts to strengthen the recruitment, preparation, evaluation, 

support, and retention of teachers and school leaders. In addition, under an expanded 

Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) program, the Department would make new 

competitive grants to national nonprofit organizations to support teacher and school leader 

enhancement projects with evidence of effectiveness and conduct related national leadership 

activities. Building on lessons learned from the Teacher Incentive Fund, the Department would 

also make competitive Excellent Educators Grants to States and LEAs to support evidencebased initiatives to strengthen State and local systems for recruiting, developing, and retaining 

effective teachers and principals in high-need districts and schools. Finally, the Administration’s 

Teaching for Tomorrow proposal would fund competitive grants to assist States in dramatically 

improving teacher recruitment, selection, and early career supports, and support States and 

districts in increasing the retention of excellent teachers and implementing innovative, evidencebased models for induction, mentoring, evaluation, and support to improve teacher performance 

and increase access to effective teachers for all students.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2014 footnote2015 footnote2016

Partnership Grants:

New partnership grants $26,829 0 0

Continuations partnership grants 8,290 1 $40,054 2 0

Subtotal partnership grants 35,119 40,054 0

Post-project data collection grants 4,801 3 0 0

State teacher quality accountability reports 538 538

Program totals

New 39,648 0 0

Continuations 538 40,592 0

Peer review of new award applications 134 0 0

Total 40,592 40,592 0

________________

 NOTE: Fiscal year 2016 projected costs of $538 thousand for data collection for the State teacher quality 

accountability reports and continuation costs of $26,026 thousand for partnership grants would be provided from 

funds set aside under the Teacher and Leader Pathways program. 1 The fiscal year 2014 continuation awards total includes approximately $8,290 thousand in fiscal year 2014 

funds used to support fiscal year 2015 continuation costs. 2 The fiscal year 2015 continuation awards total includes approximately $12,501 thousand in fiscal year 2015 

funds used to support fiscal year 2016 continuation costs. 3 Under 34 C.F.R. §75.250(b), the Department is authorized to award funds for a data collection period of up to 

72 months after the end of the project period. In fiscal year 2014, the Department made awards to seven fiscal 

year 2009 grantees under this program to support ongoing data collection on prior program graduates.

AA-- S-141
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

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.

In 2008, the program was reauthorized and extensively revised as part of the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act. The Department concluded that the performance measures that had been 

developed for the antecedent program were no longer appropriate. As a result, the Department 

developed new measures for the program. Data for the new measures will be available in 

fall 2015 at the earliest. For the interim period, the Department has created measures that will 

provide data in a shorter period of time. Data for these measures will come from the revised 

annual performance report. The Department is currently doing data quality checks on these 

submissions. It is expected that initial data for these measures will be available in spring 2015. 

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 (prebaccalaureate program) within 6 years or a master’s degree (residency program) within 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.

Objective: To improve the subject matter competency of new teachers.

Measure: The percentage of grantees that report improved scores for initial State certification 

or licensure of teachers.

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.

Interim Measure: The percentage of beginning teachers who are retained in teaching in the 

partner high-need LEA or early childhood education (ECE) program 1 year after initial 

employment.

AA-- S-142
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

Efficiency Measure

The Department also developed an efficiency measure for this program. The measure is the 

cost of a successful outcome, where successful outcome is defined as retention in the partner 

high-need LEA or ECE program 3 years after initial employment. This efficiency measure ties in 

with the program’s new performance measures. Data for this measure will come from the 

revised annual performance report and will be available in spring 2015 at the earliest.

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. Although the evaluation was originally intended to be an impact study that would 

examine whether having a teacher residency program graduate as a teacher had an effect on 

student achievement, IES determined that an experimental research design was not feasible. 

Instead, the evaluation was restructured as an implementation study.

In spring 2011, the evaluator surveyed all 28 TQP teacher residency projects in order to collect 

descriptive information on the characteristics and implementation of the projects. In order to 

limit the administrative burden on schools and districts, for a subset of projects, the evaluator 

conducted interviews with project directors and surveyed teacher residents and their mentors in 

spring 2011. In spring 2012, the evaluator began conducting additional surveys of the teachers 

of record, collecting student administrative data and teacher employment verification data, and 

conducting a survey on teacher mobility. 

The implementation study addressed the following research questions:

• 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) 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 

AA-- S-143
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

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 to this study, covering teacher retention for this cohort using data collected in 

fall 2013, is expected by fall 2015.

AA-- S-144
HIGHER EDUCATION

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

(Department of Education Appropriations Act)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority:

__________________

1 The Department proposes to fund this program in fiscal year 2016 through appropriations language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation program helps build evidence to improve the 

effectiveness of Higher Education Act (HEA) programs by providing funds for data collection 

and evaluation activities. The funds provide assistance for evidence-building activities in higher 

education by enabling the Department to obtain data on program performance measures and 

support rigorous evaluations of HEA programs that do not have authority to set-aside funding for 

such activities, or where funding set-asides are not sufficient to cover costs. Supporting these 

types of activities is crucial to building knowledge about what works in postsecondary education 

and how to expand access to and increase success in high quality postsecondary education 

programs. The Department makes a determination each year about the specific kinds of 

information that are needed to assess the performance of individual programs and gives priority 

to those that are most critical. The program is authorized through appropriations language.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were: Year

(dollars in thousands)

2011 ........................................................................................... $608

2012 ............................................................................................ 607

2012 ............................................................................................ 607

2013 ............................................................................................. 575

2014 ............................................................................................ 575

2015 ................................................................................................ 0

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $30 million for GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation (GPRA/HEA) 

activities in fiscal year 2016. The program was not funded in 2015. In addition to the request 

for GPRA/HEA, the Administration is requesting appropriations language that would permit the 

Department to reserve a portion of funds from other programs to carry-out evaluations, conduct 

evidence-building activities, or provide technical assistance for higher education and other 

2015 2016 Change

0 $30,000 +$30,000

Z-- S-145
HIGHER EDUCATION

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

career, technical, and adult education programs. The requested funding for GPRA/HEA would

support several activities:

• Pilot and Demonstration Programs. The Department would use approximately $29 million to 

conduct research, evaluations, and demonstrations to test approaches that promote 

postsecondary access, program completion, and high-quality, affordable education 

programs. In 2016, the Department plans to spend more than $176.1 billion on student aid 

programs. The Department also spends considerable resources on higher education grant 

programs. For example, the Administration’s 2016 request includes $2.1 billion for 

discretionary programs in the Higher Education account to help achieve the President’s goal 

of making college more affordable and significantly increasing the percentage of Americans 

with postsecondary degrees or other credentials or industry-recognized credentials. Given 

the size of this investment, the Department must understand how such funding is helping 

students to access and complete postsecondary education. Research and experimentation 

are critical for improving the effectiveness of Federal higher education investments, so that 

students achieve their goals and the Nation remains globally competitive.

Specifically, these funds would be used to support:

o A Pell Demonstration Fund to test innovations to increase persistence and completion, 

reduce time to degree, and lower costs and student loan indebtedness for Pell grant 

recipients including earlier awareness and notification of Federal financial aid, financial 

incentives for on-time completion, further simplification of the Free Application for 

Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) to increase participation, year-round Pell grants to 

promote degree acceleration, and alternative accreditation structures that would provide 

pathways for unaccredited higher education models and colleges to receive Federal 

student aid based on performance and results.

o Evaluations of loan counseling practices at institutions of higher education, including 

those that utilize loan counseling tools or resources made available by the Department. 

Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) requires that institutions of higher education 

provide entry and exit loan counseling to any student receiving Title IV loans. The 

Department would use the requested funds to coordinate evaluations of commonly used 

loan counseling practices and resources to build evidence for the most effective 

approaches to loan counseling. A portion of funds could also be awarded to existing 

grantees of HEA programs, such as Federal TRIO programs Student Support Services, 

to implement specific loan counseling strategies that have produced initial evidence of 

effectiveness in order to test whether such strategies are effective in varied settings and 

when delivered to a diverse range of students.

o Evaluations of innovative postsecondary education practices under the Department’s 

experimental sites authority. Using this authority, the Department will waive or modify 

certain Title IV statutory or regulatory requirements that would allow a limited number of 

institutions to implement new and innovative postsecondary strategies and to determine 

the effectiveness of the Title IV programs. In July 2014, the Department published a 

notice in the Federal Register requesting letters of interest from institutions of higher 

education to participate in experimental sites to examine the effectiveness of innovations 

such as competency-based education programs and use of prior learning assessments 

BB-- S-146
HIGHER EDUCATION

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

that have the potential to increase persistence and completion, reduce time to degree, 

and lower costs and debt. In response to this notice, 83 institutions have been invited to 

participate in these experiments. 

In fiscal year 2015, the Department plans to announce additional experiments. The 

requested fiscal year 2016 funds would be used to support evaluations of the 

experiments to inform potential policy changes in the future to Title IV program 

requirements.

• A postsecondary and adult education data quality initiative (DQI). The Department would 

use $1 million to support the development of a postsecondary and adult education DQI, 

modeled after the existing elementary and secondary education DQI supported under the 

Fund for the Improvement of Education. The elementary and secondary education DQI 

supports activities designed to improve the quality, analysis, reporting, and use of the 

Department’s elementary and secondary program performance data, which inform program 

and budget priorities. The DQI contractor provides program office staff with guidance on 

how to structure grant competitions in ways that encourage grantees to plan for, collect, and 

use high-quality program performance and evaluation data; provides technical assistance to 

grantees as they collect the data; and provides assistance to program offices and program 

analysis staff to improve the quality of analysis and use of data. The postsecondary and 

adult education DQI would support similar activities at the postsecondary level to increase 

the quality of information available about the Department’s postsecondary programs.

One potential area for DQI work in 2016 would be an examination of the performance 

measures used by the Aid for Institutional Development (AID) programs, which are designed 

to strengthen IHEs that serve high percentages of minority students and students from lowincome backgrounds, and identification of strategies for improving the quality of information 

available about the AID programs. Funds under these programs may be used for a wide 

variety of purposes and the Department has grappled with appropriate strategies for 

assessing grantee and program performance. Department staff have begun initial work, 

including starting to develop guidance for appropriate grantee logic models, reviewing the 

grant Annual Performance Report to determine how it can be revised to provide better 

information about key grant outputs and outcomes, planning outreach to institutional

research practitioners, and considering whether to hold a working session at the spring 2015 

project directors’ meeting to obtain their views how to identify key common project objectives 

and measures. This preliminary work would be used to identify the specific tasks for the 

DQI contractor, such as providing guidance to grantees developing logic models and 

collecting and analyzing performance data. In addition, the Department might use the DQI 

to develop strategies for assessing the effect of using competitive and absolute priorities in 

the Higher Education program competitions.

BB-- S-147
HIGHER EDUCATION

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Student financial assistance experimental sites studies $454 0 $29,000

Data quality initiative 0 0 1,000

Other activities 121 0 0

 Total 575 0 30,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation program funds are used for data collection, analysis, or 

evaluation studies for programs authorized under HEA. These activities have played an 

important role in reporting performance data, making program improvements, informing 

budgetary decisions, and conducting program assessments.

BB-- S-148
HIGHER EDUCATION

America’s college promise

America’s college promise

(Legislation sought)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

Authority 2015 2016 Change

0 $1,364,842 +$1,364,842

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Nearly a century ago, a movement made high school widely available which helped lead to 

rapid growth in the education and skills training of Americans, driving decades of economic 

growth and prosperity. America thrived in the 20th century, in large part, because we had the 

most educated workforce in the world. But other nations have matched or exceeded our 

success. Today, more than ever, Americans need more knowledge and skills to meet the 

demands of a growing global economy without having to take on decades of debt before they 

even embark on a career. By 2020, an estimated 65 percent of job openings will require 

postsecondary education or training. At the same time, approximately 100 million adults in 

America today have no college experience.

Building on the President’s College Value and Affordability agenda and previous Budget 

proposals, America’s College Promise is a proposed grant program for States to make 

community college free for responsible students, enabling them to earn a certificate, an 

associate’s degree or up to 2 years’ worth of credits toward a bachelor’s degree without paying 

an tuition and fees.

Reflecting America’s higher education model of shared responsibility, America’s College 

Promise will require everyone to do their part: 1) States must invest more in higher education 

and training; 2) community colleges must strengthen their programs and increase the number of 

students who graduate; and 3) students must take responsibility for their education, earn good 

grades, and stay on track to graduate. Specifically, America’s College Promise will require the 

following:

o Ensuring Shared Responsibility with States: Federal funding will cover about three-quarters 

of the average cost of community college. Allocation of the Federal portion will be based in 

part on a formula that includes both student enrollment and outcomes such as program 

completion or transfer to four-year institutions. States that choose to participate will be 

expected to contribute the remaining funds necessary to eliminate community college tuition 

for eligible students. States that already invest more and charge students less can make 

smaller contributions, though all participating States will be required to put up some 

matching funds. States must also commit to continue existing investments in

Z-- S-149
HIGHER EDUCATION

America’s college promise

higher education; coordinate high schools, community colleges, and 4-year institutions to 

reduce the need for remediation and repeated courses; and allocate a significant portion of 

funding based on performance, not enrollment alone. After States achieve tuition-free 

community college with their grants, they can spend the remainder on expanding quality 

community college offerings, improve affordability at 4-year public universities, and improve 

college readiness, through outreach and early intervention. The implementation of this grant 

program by States will occur gradually, as participation phases in, with the expectation that 

all states will have such programs in place within 8 years.

o Building High-Quality Community Colleges: Community colleges will be expected to offer 

programs that either: are academic programs that fully transfer to local public 4-year 

colleges and universities, giving students a chance to earn half of the credit they need for a 

4-year degree; or, are occupational training programs with high graduation rates and that 

lead to degrees and certificates that are in demand among employers. Other types of 

programs will not be eligible for free tuition. Colleges must also adopt promising and 

evidence-based institutional reforms and innovative practices to improve student outcomes.

o Enhancing Student Responsibility and Cutting the Cost of College for All Americans: 

Students who attend at least half-time, maintain a 2.5 Grade Point Average while in college, 

and make steady progress toward completing their program will have their tuition eliminated. 

The program eliminates tuition and fees for all eligible students for a maximum of 3 years. 

Students with an adjusted gross income of $200,000 and above would not be eligible.

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2016, the Administration requests $1.4 billion in mandatory funding to support 

America’s College Promise. The proposal would cost $60.3 billion over 10 years, and would be 

funded with mandatory funds. Funds provided under this program would be used to eliminate 

community college tuition and fees for eligible first-time students, regardless of age or whether 

they are recent high school graduates. Unlike “last-dollar” scholarship programs, America’s 

College Promise would be a tuition waiver program funded by new Federal and State resources. 

Therefore, low- and moderate-income students would continue to be eligible for Federal student 

aid (including Pell Grants) that they can use to cover other costs of attendance, such as books, 

supplies, housing, and transportation costs.

Only public institutions of higher education would be eligible to receive funding from this 

program. In addition, States’ performance funding formula must meet minimum criteria set by 

the Department of Education, including that funding gaps among different types of public

institutions are not developed or become exacerbated, in order to ensure that all students have 

a chance to succeed.

Z-- S-150
HIGHER EDUCATION

College opportunity and graduation bonus

College opportunity and graduation bonus

(Legislation sought)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

Authority 2015 2016 Change

0 $647,000 +$647,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus program would reward colleges that 

successfully enroll and graduate a significant number of low- and moderate-income students on 

time and encourage all institutions to improve their performance. Eligible institutions may 

receive a grant that will support innovation, interventions, and reforms to further increase 

college access and success based upon the number of Pell Grant recipients they graduate on 

time. Eligible institutions would receive an annual grant equal to their number of on-time Pell 

Grant recipient-graduates multiplied by a tiered bonus amount per student, varying by institution 

type.

In addition, this new program would encourage institutions to continue improving their 

performance and graduate even more low-income students by providing a larger bonus amount 

for additional Pell graduates. Eligibility would be based on Pell students comprising a significant 

share of an institution’s graduating class, as well as on graduation and student loan default 

rates.

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $647 million in mandatory funding in 2016, and $7 billion over the 

next decade, to support the College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus program. The grants 

made through this program would be used for making key investments and adopting best 

practices that will further increase college access and success for low-income students, such as 

by awarding additional need-based financial aid, enhancing academic and student support 

services, improving student learning and other outcomes while reducing costs, using technology 

to scale and enhance improvements, establishing or expanding accelerated learning 

opportunities, as well as other innovations, interventions, and reforms. Funds awarded will 

supplement and not supplant existing institutional expenditures.

Z-- S-151