HIGHER EDUCATION

R-1

Department of Education

HIGHER EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

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

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................R-2

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers .............................................................................R-3

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................R-4

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................R-7

Appropriations History...........................................................................................................R-13

Significant Items in FY 2017 Appropriations Reports.............................................................R-14

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................R-15

Activities:

Aid for institutional development .......................................................................................R-19

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions ..................................................................................R-60

Other aid for institutions:

International education and foreign language studies:

Domestic programs ...................................................................................................R-72

Overseas programs...................................................................................................R-85

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher

education ..................................................................................................................R-91

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

Assistance for students:

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

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs........................R-118

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

Child care access means parents in school................................................................R-131

Teacher quality partnership ............................................................................................R-137
HIGHER EDUCATION

HIGHER EDUC AT ION

R-1

Appropriations Language

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

$1,537,033,000: Provided, 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.

1

NOTES

A full-year 2017 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, 

the budget assumes this account is operating under the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114-254. 

The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.) 

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

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

R-2

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1Provided, 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. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-3

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2016

2017 

Annualized CR

2017 

Appropriation 2018

Discretionary:

Disc apprAppropriation................................. $1,982,185 $1,978,417 $2,055,439 $1,545,305

Mandatory: 

Mand apprAppropriation ................................ 255,0000 255,000 255,000 255,000

Mand apprSequester (P.L. 112-25)................ -17,340 -17,595 -17,595 0

Total, adjusted mandatory 

appropriation ........................... 237,660 237,405 237,405 255,000

Total, adjusted discretionary 

and mandatory appropriation... 2,219,845 2,215,822 2,292,844 1,800,305
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-4

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2017 Annualized CR Discretionary......................................... $1,978,417

2017 Mandatory ..................................................................... 237,405

2018 Discretionary.................................................................. 1,545,305

2018 Mandatory ..................................................................... 255,000 

Net change +415,517

Discretionary:

2017

Annualized CR

Change

from base

Decreases:

Program:

Discretionar y: Eliminate funding for the Strengthening Institutions 

Program (SIP) because the Administration believes the 

SIP program is duplicative of approximately 9 other Title III 

and V programs that provide both discretionary and 

mandatory funding for a wide range of authorized 

institutional support activities including strengthening 

infrastructure and enhancing fiscal stability. $86,369 -$86,369

Discretionar y: Eliminate funding for International Education and Foreign 

Language Studies: Domestic because the Administration 

believes that since this is primarily a national security 

concern the issue is better addressed through agencies 

that actually focus on national security issues. 64,979 -64,979

Discretionar y: Decrease funding for International Education and Foreign 

Language Studies: Overseas because the Administration 

believes that since this is primarily a national security 

concern the issue is better addressed through agencies 

that actually focus on national security issues. 7,048 -7,048

Discretionar y: Decrease funding for Federal TRIO Programs by 

eliminating funding for the McNair Postbaccalaureate 

Achievement and Educational Opportunity Centers 

programs because there is limited evidence of 

effectiveness for these programs and the activities 

supported under these programs can be supported 

through other funding sources. 898,289 -90,000

Discretionar y: Decrease funding for Gaining Early Awareness and 

Readiness for Undergraduate Programs because there is 

limited rigorous evidence of effectiveness and the 

Administration believes that many of the activities 

supported under GEAR UP can be supported through 

other programs. 322,140 -103,140
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-5

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

Discretionary:

2017

Annualized CR

Change

from base

Decreases:

Program:

Discretionar y: Decrease funding for Graduate Assistance in Areas of 

National Need program because it is a low impact program 

that serves a small number of graduate students and is 

more appropriately supported through other Federal 

programs, as well as through institutional and other 

non-Federal resources. $29,237 -$23,462

Discretionar y: Eliminate funding for the Child Care Access Means Parents 

in School program because subsidizing expenses 

associated with child care is not consistent with the

Department’s mission. In addition, the Administration is 

eliminating small categorical programs that have limited 

impact, do not address national needs, or are more 

appropriately supported with State, local, or private funds. 15,105 -15,105

Discretionar y: Eliminate funding for the Teacher Quality Partnership 

program because the Administration has determined that 

funding to support partnerships that enhance professional 

development activities and training for current and 

prospective teachers and staff may be provided through 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act formula grant 

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

programs. Finally, there is no reliable evidence 

demonstrating that this program is any more effective than 

other, State- and locally-driven initiatives designed to train 

and retain highly effective teachers in critical shortage areas. 43,010 -43,010

Subtotal, discretionary decreases -433,112
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-6

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

Mandatory:

2017

Annualized CR

Change

from base

Increases:

Program:

Mandator y: Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities program to return 

funding to the authorized level. $27,930 +$2,070

Mandator y: Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Alaska 

Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions program to 

return funding to the authorized level. 13,965 +1,035

Mandator y: Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening HBCUs 

program to return funding to the authorized level. 79,135 +5,865

Mandator y: Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening 

Predominantly Black Institutions program to return funding to 

the authorized level. 13,965 +1,035

Mandator y: Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Asian 

American- and Native American Pacific Islander-serving 

Institutions program to return funding to the authorized level. 4,665 +345

Mandator y: Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Native 

American-serving Nontribal Institutions program to return 

funding to the authorized level. 4,665 +345

Mandator y: Increase funding for the mandatory developing Hispanicserving Institutions STEM and Articulation programs to return 

funding to the authorized level. 93,100 +6,900

Subtotal, mandatory increases +17,595

Net change +415,517
HIGHER EDUCATION

HIGHER EDUC AT ION

R-7

R-7

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2017

Authorized

footnote 2017

Annualized CR

Footnot

e 2018

Authorized

Footnot

e 2018

Request

Footnote

Aid for institutional development:

Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities 

(HEA-III-A-316) 0 $27,547 To be determined 1 $27,547

Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and Universities 

(HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) $30,0002 27,9302 $30,0002 30,0002

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving 

institutions (HEA-III-A-317) 0 13,776 To be determined1 13,776

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving 

institutions (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 15,0002 13,9652 15,0002 15,0002

Strengthening historically Black colleges and universities 

(HEA-III-B-323) 0 244,229 To be determined1 244,229

Strengthening historically Black colleges and universities 

(HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 85,0002 79,1352 85,0002 85,0002

Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions

(HEA-III-B-326) 0 63,161 To be determined1 63,161

Strengthening predominantly Black institutions

(HEA-III-A-318) 0 9,923 To be determined1 9,923

Strengthening predominantly Black institutions

(HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 15,0002 13,9652 15,0002 15,0002

Strengthening Asian American and Native American

Pacific Islander-serving institutions (HEA-III-A-320) 0 3,342 To be determined1 3,342

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; the program was authorized in 2017 through appropriations language. Reauthorizing 

legislation is sought for fiscal year 2018. 2 Mandatory funds made available in fiscal year 2009 and each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2019.
HIGHER EDUCATION

HIGHER EDUC AT ION

R-8

R-8

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2017

Authorized

footnote

2017

Annualized CR

Footnot

e 2018 

Authorized

Footnot

e 2018 

Request

Footnote

Aid for institutional development:

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific

Islander-serving institutions (HEA-III-F-371)(mandatory) $5,0001 $4,6551 $5,0001 $5,0001

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal

institutions (HEA-III-A-319) 0 3,342 To be determined 2 3,342

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal

institutions (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 5,0001 4,6551 5,0001 5,0001

Minority science and engineering improvement

(HEA-III-E-1) 0 $9,630 To be determined2 $9,630

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions:

Developing Hispanic-serving institutions (HEA-V-A) 0 107,590 To be determined2 107,590

Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation programs 

(HEA III-F-371(b)(2)(B)) (mandatory) 100,0001 93,1001 100,0001 100,0001

Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic 

Americans (HEA-V-B-512) (discretionary) 0 9,653 To be determined2 9,653

Other aid for institutions:

Model comprehensive transition and postsecondary

programs for students with intellectual disabilities into

higher education (HEA-VII-D-2) 0 11,778 To be determined2 11,778

1 Mandatory funds made available in fiscal year 2009 and each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2019. 2 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; the program was authorized in 2017 through appropriations language. Reauthorizing 

legislation is sought for fiscal year 2018.
HIGHER EDUCATION

HIGHER EDUC AT ION

R-9

R-9

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2017

Authorized

footnote

2017

Annualized CR

Footnot

e 2018 

Authorized

Footnote 2018 

Request

Footnot

e

Assistance for students:

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical

institutions (Carl D. Perkins CTEA section 117) 0

1

$8,270 To be determined

1

$8,270

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate 

programs (HEA-IV-A-2-2) 0 322,140 2 To be determined 3 219,0002

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

(HEA-VII-A-2) 0 29,237 To be determined3 5,775

Unfunded authorizations

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

Teacher quality partnerships (HEA II-A) 0 43,010 0 0

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

Strengthening institutions (HEA-III-A-311) 0 86,369 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

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

Child care access means parents in school (HEA-IV-A-7) 0 15,105 0 0

Loan repayment for civil legal assistance attorneys

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

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2013; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2018.

2 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.

3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; the program was authorized in 2017 through appropriations language. Reauthorizing 

legislation is sought for fiscal year 2018.
HIGHER EDUCATION

HIGHER EDUC AT ION

R-10

R-10

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2017

Authorized

footnote

2017 

Annualized CR

Footnot

e 2018 

Authorized

Footnot

e 2018 

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations

International education and foreign language studies:

Domestic programs (HEA-VI-A and B) 0 $64,979 0 0

Overseas programs (MECEA-102(b)(6)) Indefinite 7,048 Indefinite 0

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

Science and technology advanced foreign language Education 

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

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

Thurgood Marshall legal educational opportunity program

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

Master’s degree programs at historically Black Colleges and 

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

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

(HEA-VII-B) 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
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-11

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2017

Authorized 

footnote

2017

Annualized CR 

Footnot

e

2018 

Authorized

Footnot

e

2018 

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations

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

Improving college enrollment by secondary schools

(HEA-VIII-H) 0 0 0 0

Early childhood education professional development and 

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

Improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

education with a focus on Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian 

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

Pilot programs to increase college persistence and success 

(HEA-VIII-K) 0 0 0 0

Student safety and campus emergency management

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

Education disaster and emergency relief loan program

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

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

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

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

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

Rural development grants for rural-serving colleges and 

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

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

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

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

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

School of veterinary medicine competitive grant program

(HEA-VIII-X) 0 0 0 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-12

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2017

Authorized

footnote

2017

Annualized CR

Footnot

e

2018 

Authorized

Footnot

e

2018 

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations

Early Federal Pell Grant commitment demonstration

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

Master’s degree programs at HBCUs and PBIs

(HEA VIII-AA-897) (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 $255,000

Total appropriation $2,215,822 $1,800,305

Total discretionary appropriation 1,978,417 1,545,305

Portion of discretionary request subject to reauthorization 1,545,305

Portion of the discretionary request not authorized 0 0

Total mandatory appropriation 237,405 255,000

Portion of the mandatory request not authorized 0 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-13

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate to 

Congress footnot

e

House

Allowance foot

note

Senate 

Allowance

F

o

o

t

n

o

t

e

Appropriationote

2009 Discretionary $1,733,684 $2,080,8811 $1,856,2143 1 $2,100,150

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

Recovery Act 

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

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

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

2011 Discretionary 2,131,493 2,177,9153 2,243,895 2 1,903,944 4

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

2012 Discretionary 2,277,069 1,628,0525 1,903,9465 1,869,656

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

2013 Discretionary 1,950,590 1,869,6566 1,911,3486 1,881,098

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

2014 Discretionary 2,182,799 N/A7 1,906,394 2 1,925,408

2014 Mandatory 428,000 428,000 397,184

2015 Discretionary 2,025,457 N/A7 1,968,799 8 1,924,839

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

2016 Discretionary 2,072,045 1,909,0429 2,038,510 9 1,982,185

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

2017 Discretionary 2,189,20010 1,976,66610 1,986,79210 2,055,43910

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

2018 Discretionary 1,545,305

2018 Mandatory 255,000

1 The level for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2009 appropriations bills, which 

proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 2 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 3 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 4 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10). 5 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill; the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee Action only.

6 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. 7 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 8 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only. 9 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 appropriations bills, which 

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

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

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

R-14

Significant Items in FY 2017 Appropriations Reports

Federal TRIO Programs

Explanatory

Statement: The Department is directed to allocate fiscal year 2017 TRIO funding such that 

all current grantees receive an increase in their grant award. The Department is

directed to avoid imposing additional requirements as a condition for grantees to

receive these funds. Additionally, the Department is directed to increase the

number of new grants awarded for those programs that will conduct a new

competition this fiscal year.

House: The Department is directed to allocate fiscal year 2017 TRIO funding such that 

all current grantees receive an increase in their grant award. The Committee 

expects the Department to adhere to this direction and not impose additional 

requirements as a condition for grantees to receive these funds. The 

Department is also directed to increase the number of new grants provided for 

those programs that will conduct a new competition this year.

Response: The Department will comply with these directives.

House: The Committee directs the Department to announce the grant competitions and 

award the grants for this program in a timely manner, as well as provide sufficient 

time for grantees to prepare their applications.

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to ensure that fiscal year 2017 grant 

competitions are announced and awarded in a timely manner, to allow grantees 

sufficient lead-time prior to the beginning of their program-year.

Response: The Department will comply with these directives.

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs

House: The Committee directs the Department to conduct a new grant competition for 

this program in fiscal year 2017.

Response: The Department announced new competitions for new GEAR UP State and 

Partnership awards in March 2017.

Teacher Quality Partnership

Senate: The Committee further directs the Department to ensure that grants are 

distributed among eligible entities that will serve geographically diverse areas, 

including rural areas.

Response: At the fiscal year 2017 enacted level, there is insufficient funding available to 

conduct a competition for new awards.
R-15

Click here for accessible version

Summary of Request

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2018 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 


(dollars in thousands)

Amount Percent Amount Percent

Higher Education

1. Aid for institutional development:

(a) Strengthening institutions (HEA III-A, section 311) D 86,534 86,369 86,534 0 (86,369) -100.00% (86,534) -100.00%

(b) Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities (HEA III-A, section 316) D 27,599 27,547 27,599 27,547 0 0.00% (52) -0.19%

(c) Mandatory strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities 

(HEA III-F, section 371) M 27,960 27,930 27,930 30,000 2,070 7.41% 2,070 7.41%

Subtotal 55,559 55,477 55,529 57,547 2,070 3.73% 2,018 3.63%

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

section 317) D 13,802 13,776 13,802 13,776 0 0.00% (26) -0.19%

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

institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 13,980 13,965 13,965 15,000 1,035 7.41% 1,035 7.41%

Subtotal 27,782 27,741 27,767 28,776 1,035 3.73% 1,009 3.63%

(f) Strengthening HBCUs (HEA III-B, section 323) D 244,694 244,229 244,694 244,229 0 0.00% (465) -0.19%

(g) Mandatory strengthening HBCUs (HEA III-F, section 371) M 79,220 79,135 79,135 85,000 5,865 7.41% 5,865 7.41%

Subtotal 323,914 323,364 323,829 329,229 5,865 1.81% 5,400 1.67%

(h) Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions (HEA III-B, section 326) D 63,281 63,161 63,281 63,161 0 0.00% (120) -0.19%

(i) Strengthening HBCU masters program (HEA,Title VII, section 723) D --- --- 7,500 --- 0 --- (7,500) -100.00%

(j) Strengthening predominantly Black institutions (HEA III-A, section 318) D 9,942 9,923 9,942 9,923 0 0.00% (19) -0.19%

(k) Mandatory strengthening predominantly Black institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 13,980 13,965 13,965 15,000 1,035 7.41% 1,035 7.41%

Subtotal 23,922 23,888 23,907 24,923 1,035 4.33% 1,016 4.25%

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

institutions (HEA III-A, section 320) D 3,348 3,342 3,348 3,342 0 0.01% (6) -0.18%

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

Islander-serving institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 4,660 4,655 4,655 5,000 345 7.41% 345 7.41%

Subtotal 8,008 7,997 8,003 8,342 345 4.32% 339 4.24%

(n) Strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions (HEA III-A, section 319) D 3,348 3,342 3,348 3,342 0 0.01% (6) -0.18%

(o) Mandatory strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 4,660 4,655 4,655 5,000 345 7.41% 345 7.41%

Subtotal 8,008 7,997 8,003 8,342 345 4.32% 339 4.24%

(p) Minority science and engineering improvement (HEA III-E-1) D 9,648 9,630 9,648 9,630 0 0.00% (18) -0.19%

Subtotal, Aid for institutional development 606,656 605,622 614,001 529,950 (75,672) -12.49% (84,051) -13.69%

Discretionary D 462,196 461,317 469,696 374,950 (86,367) -18.72% (94,746) -20.17%

Mandatory M 144,460 144,305 144,305 155,000 10,695 7.41% 10,695 7.41%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

For most programs, with the exception of Pell Grants, Credit Liquidating, and Credit Reestimates, the levels shown in the 2016 Appropriation column reflect the 6.8 percent reduction to mandatory funds

that went into effect on October 1, 2015, and in the 2017 Appropriation columns a 6.9 percent reduction that went into effect on October 1, 2016, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). 

2018 President's Budget 

Compared to 2017 Appropriation

Account, Program and Activity

Category 

Code

2016

Appropriation

2018 President's Budget 

2017 Compared to 2017 Annualized CR

Annualized CR 

2018 

President's 

Budget 

2017 

Appropriation 
R-16

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2018 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 


(dollars in thousands)

Amount Percent Amount Percent

Higher Education (continued)

2. Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions:

(a) Developing Hispanic-serving institutions (HEA V-A) D 107,795 107,590 107,795 107,590 0 0.00% (205) -0.19%

(b) Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation programs (HEA III-F, section 371(b)(2)(B)) M 93,200 93,100 93,100 100,000 6,900 7.41% 6,900 7.41%

(c) Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans (HEA V, section 512) D 9,671 9,653 9,671 9,653 0 0.00% (18) -0.19%

Subtotal 210,666 210,343 210,566 217,243 6,900 3.28% 6,677 3.17%

Discretionary 117,466 117,243 117,466 117,243 0 0.00% (223) -0.19%

Mandatory 93,200 93,100 93,100 100,000 6,900 7.41% 6,900 7.41%

3. Other aid for institutions:

(a) International education and foreign language studies:

(1) Domestic programs (HEA VI-A and B) D 65,103 64,979 65,103 0 (64,979) -100.00% (65,103) -100.00%

(2) Overseas programs (MECEA section 102(b)(6)) D 7,061 7,048 7,061 0 (7,048) -100.00% (7,061) -100.00%

Subtotal 72,164 72,027 72,164 0 (72,027) -100.00% (72,164) -100.00%

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

higher education (HEA VII-D-2) D 11,800 11,778 11,800 11,778 0 0.00% (22) -0.19%

(d) Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions (CTEA section 117) D 8,286 8,270 8,286 8,270 0 0.00% (16) -0.19%

 4. Assistance for students:

(a) Federal TRIO programs (HEA IV-A-2, Chapter 1) D 900,000 898,289 950,000 808,289 (90,000) -10.02% (141,711) -14.92%

(b) Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

(GEAR UP) (HEA IV-A-2, Chapter 2) D 322,754 322,140 339,754 219,000 (103,140) -32.02% (120,754) -35.54%

(c) Graduate assistance in areas of national need (HEA VII-A-2) D 29,293 29,237 28,047 5,775 (23,462) -80.25% (22,272) -79.41%

(d) Child care access means parents in school (HEA IV-A-7) D 15,134 15,105 15,134 0 (15,105) -100.00% (15,134) -100.00%

 5. Teacher quality partnerships (HEA II-A) D 43,092 43,010 43,092 0 (43,010) -100.00% (43,092) -100.00%

Total 2,219,845 2,215,822 2,292,844 1,800,305 (415,517) -18.75% (492,539) -21.48%

Discretionary 1,982,185 1,978,417 2,055,439 1,545,305 (433,112) -21.89% (510,134) -24.82%

Mandatory 237,660 237,405 237,405 255,000 17,595 7.41% 17,595 7.41%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

For most programs, with the exception of Pell Grants, Credit Liquidating, and Credit Reestimates, the levels shown in the 2016 Appropriation column reflect the 6.8 percent reduction to mandatory funds 

that went into effect on October 1, 2015, and in the 2017 Appropriation columns a 6.9 percent reduction that went into effect on October 1, 2016, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). 

Account, Program and Activity

Category 

Code

2016

Appropriation

2017 

Annualized CR 

2017 

Appropriation 

2018 

President's 

Budget 

2018 President's Budget 2018 President's Budget 

Compared to 2017 Annualized CR Compared to 2017 Appropriation
HIGHER EDUCATION

HIGHER EDUC AT ION

R-17

Summary of Request

A full-year 2017 appropriation was not enacted at the time the FY 2018 Budget was prepared; 

therefore, the Budget assumes the Department is operating under the Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L 114-254). The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized 

level provided by the continuing resolution. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 

2017, provided $2.1 billion, an increase of $73.3 million, or 3.7 percent, more than the 

2016 level for programs in this account. The Administration’s 2018 request includes $1.5 billion 

in discretionary funds for Higher Education Programs aimed at improving student achievement 

and increasing access to a high quality education for all students.

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

attainment, the request provides $375 million in discretionary funding for the Aid for 

Institutional Development (AID) programs, $86.4 million less than the fiscal year 2017 

annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. 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 request would strengthen 

institutions of higher education that serve high proportions of minority and low-income students, 

by providing $244.2 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); 

$63.2 million for Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGIs); and $9.9 million for 

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs).

Also included in the request for Title III programs is $27.5 million for the Tribally Controlled 

Colleges and Universities program; $13.8 million for the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving Institutions program; $3.3 million for the Native American-serving Nontribal 

Institutions program; and $3.3 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 $9.6 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 $117.2 million in discretionary funding for Aid for 

Hispanic-serving 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 $107.6 million in discretionary funding for Developing 

Hispanic-serving Institutions (HSIs), the same as the 2017 annualized CR level and

$9.7 million for the Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans.

The request would provide $808.3 million in fiscal year 2018 for the Federal TRIO Programs, 

$90 million less than the fiscal year 2017 annualized CR level. The request prioritizes allocation 

of TRIO resources to maintain support for programs focused on assisting middle school, high 

school, and college students in moving through the academic pipeline through college 

completion and that have shown some evidence of effectiveness or are designed to support
HIGHER EDUCATION

HIGHER EDUC AT ION

R-18

Summary of Request (continued)

strategies in areas where there is a growing body of evidence. Additionally, the request 

includes $219 million, $103.1 million less than the 2017 annualized CR level, to assist middle 

and high school students in preparing for college through Gaining Early Awareness and 

Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP).

The Budget also provides $11.8 million for model comprehensive transition programs through 

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

In addition, the Administration requests $5.8 million for the Graduate Assistance in Areas of 

National Need (GAANN) programs, a $23.5 million decrease from the fiscal year 2017 

annualized CR level. The request reflects the Administration’s intent to refocus the 

Department’s mission on supporting States and school districts in their efforts to provide high 

quality education to all our students.

The Administration’s request for fiscal year 2018 eliminates a number of Higher Education 

Programs that do not address national needs, duplicate other programs, or are more 

appropriately supported with State, local, or private funds, including AID Strengthening 

Institutions Program, International Education and Foreign Language Studies programs, 

Teacher Quality Partnership, and Child Care Access Means Parents in School.

Lastly, although not part of the budget request for 2018, 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).

• $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 Hawaiianserving 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

HIGHER EDUC AT ION

R-19

Activities:

Aid for institutional development

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined (discretionary)1

; $155,000 (mandatory)

Budget Authority:

Program 2017

Ann. CR

footnote

2017 

Approp. 2018 

Change

from Ann. CR

footn

ote

Strengthening Institutions

SIP (Part A discretionary) $86,369 $86,534 0 -$86,369

Strengthening Tribally Controlled 

Colleges and Universities 

TCCUs (Part A discretionary) 27,547 27,599 $27,547 0

TCCUs (Part F mandatory) 27,930 27,930 30,000 +2,070

Strengthening Alaska Native and 

Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions

ANNH (Part A discretionary) 13,776 13,802 13,776 0

ANNH (Part F mandatory) 13,965 13,965 15,000 +1,035

Strengthening Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities

HBCUs (Part B discretionary) 244,229 244,624 244,229 0

HBCUs (Part F mandatory) 79,135 79,135 85,000 +5,865

Strengthening Historically Black 

Graduate Institutions (Part B 

discretionary) 63,161 63,281 63,161 0

Strengthening HBCU Masters 

Program

Masters(Section 723 discretionary) 0 7,500 0 0

Strengthening Predominantly Black 

Institutions

(Part A discretionary) 9,923 9,942 9,923 0

(Part F mandatory) 13,965 13,965 15,000 +1,035

Strengthening Asian American and 

Native American Pacific Islanderserving Institutions

(Part A discretionary) 3,342 3,348 3,342 0

(Part F mandatory) 4,655 4,655 5,000 +345

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2018.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-20

Budget Authority (cont’d):

Program 2017

Ann. CR

footnote

2017 

Approp. 2018 

footn

ote

Change

from Ann. CR

footn

ote

Strengthening Native Americanserving Nontribal Institutions 

(Part A discretionary) $3,342 $3,348 $3,342 0

(Part F mandatory) 4,655 4,655 5,000 +$345

Minority Science and Engineering 

Improvement Program 

(discretionary) 9,630 9,648 9,630 0

Total 605,622 614,001 529,950 -75,672

Discretionary 461,317 469,696 374,950 -86,367

Mandatory 144,3051 144,3051 155,0001 +10,6951

1 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 2017 levels for mandatory 

programs have been reduced by 6.9 percent which became effective on October 1, 2016, pursuant to 

the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25).

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

strengthening institutions of higher education (IHEs) that serve high percentages of minority 

students and students from low-income backgrounds. A low-income individual is defined as 

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

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

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

eligible institutions support, among other activities, improvements in academic quality, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

per-student expenditures.

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 (HBCUs). 

The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 extended that mission to include programs to 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-21

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

Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions (ANNHs). In addition, the Higher Education Opportunity 

Act of 2008 (HEOA), which reauthorized the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), 

established the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

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

and the Predominantly Black Institutions program (PBIs). 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 HBCUs and 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. Under the Strengthening Institutions 

program (SIP), 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 apply 

to use their SIP funds to: plan, develop, and implement activities that encourage faculty and 

academic program development; support improvement in fund and administrative 

management; support joint use of libraries and laboratories; support construction, 

maintenance, renovation, and improvement of instructional facilities; support student 

services; and provide education or counseling services designed to improve the financial 

literacy and economic literacy of students or the students’ families. To further facilitate the 

development of eligible institutions, funds may be used to support activities that strengthen 

an institution’s technological capabilities. Institutions may use no more than 20 percent of 

grant funds to establish or increase an institution’s endowment fund. These endowment 

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

To participate in the 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 SIP grantee 

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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-22

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

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

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

Community College Act (25 U.S.C. 640a note); or is cited in Section 532 of the Equity in 

Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note). 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 using a formula, with a 

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

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

40 percent are distributed equally among eligible TCCUs.

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

authorized activities that include: faculty and academic program development; improvement 

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

improvement of instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of telecommunications 

technology equipment or services, and the acquisition of real property adjacent to the 

campus of the institution on which to construct such facilities; student services; the 

establishment of a program of teacher education with a particular emphasis on qualifying 

students to teach Indian children; the establishment of community outreach programs that 

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

and interest to pursue postsecondary education; education or counseling services designed 

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

and developing or improving facilities for Internet use or other distance education 

technologies.

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

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 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 apply to use their funds to 

plan, develop, and implement a wide range of activities, including: faculty and curriculum 

development; improvement in fund and administrative management; renovation and 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-23

improvement in classroom, library, laboratory and other instructional facilities; student 

services; the purchase of library books and other educational materials; and education or 

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

students or the students’ families. These institutions are typically located in remote areas 

not served by other postsecondary educational institutions. 

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

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

application, has an undergraduate enrollment that is at least 20 percent Alaska Native 

students (as defined in Section 6306 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). The 

term "Native Hawaiian-serving institution" is defined as an institution that meets the 

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

application, has an undergraduate enrollment that is at least 10 percent Native Hawaiian 

students (as defined in Section 6207 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965). 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; establishment of a 

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

establishment of community outreach programs that will encourage elementary and 

secondary school students to develop the academic skills and the interest to pursue 

postsecondary education; acquisition of real property in connection with the construction, 

renovation, or addition to or improvement of campus facilities; education or financial 

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

the students’ families, especially with regard to student indebtedness and student 

assistance programs under Title IV; and services necessary for the implementation of 

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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-24

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 fiscal 

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

formula used to allocate funding in the Strengthening HBCUs program, which is authorized 

under Section 323. Funds are to be used for activities authorized under Section 323, with

priority on 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 24 postgraduate institutions that are 

identified in the HEA. 

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

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

renovation, and improvement of instructional facilities; establishment or maintenance of an 

endowment fund; establishment or improvement of a development office to strengthen and 

increase contributions from alumni and the private sector; improvement in fund and 

administrative management; and tutoring, counseling, and student service programs 

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

Aid for institutional development

R-25

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 IHE 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 PBIs.

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

be used to make grants to the first 18 HBGIs listed in the HEA; any amount appropriated in 

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

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

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

(1) an institution’s ability to match funds; (2) the number of students enrolled in the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

5-year formula-based discretionary grants PBIs for which may apply to fund for activities 

consistent with those outlined in Section 311(c) of the HEA, which include: academic 

instruction in disciplines in which Black Americans are underrepresented; establishing or 

enhancing a program of teacher education designed to qualify students to teach in public 

elementary or secondary schools; and establishing community outreach programs that will 

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

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

awarded may be used for construction or maintenance of 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 that is based on: (1) the number of 

Pell Grant recipients enrolled, (2) the number of graduates, and (3) the percentage of 

graduates who are attending a baccalaureate degree-granting institution or a graduate or 

professional school in degree programs in which Black American students are 

underrepresented. The statute provides for a $250,000 minimum grant for each eligible 

institution. 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-26

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

• Has a high enrollment of needy students;

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

undergraduate student that is low in comparison with the average educational and 

general expenditure per full-time equivalent undergraduate student of institutions of 

higher education that offer similar instruction;

• Has an enrollment of undergraduate students:

o That is at least 40 percent Black American students;

o Consisting of at least 1,000 undergraduate students;

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

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

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

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

State in which the institution is located;

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

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

a junior or community college, an associate's degree;

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

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

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.

Lastly, like the other five Title III programs receiving mandatory appropriations,

Title III, Part F, Section 371 of the HEA also authorizes a mandatory PBI program. 

However, unlike the other five Title III programs receiving mandatory funding, PBI 

mandatory funds are awarded competitively. Specifically, the PBI program authorized by 

Section 371 mandatory funds are used to make 25 competitive grants of $600,000 each for 

up to 4 years in duration to eligible institutions. These competitive grants are used 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. These activities that are different from those authorized 

under section 371 for other Title III programs receiving mandatory funds. 

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

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

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

of undergraduate students that is at least 10 percent Asian American or Native American 

Pacific Islander students. The term “Asian American” means a person having origins in any 

of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent (including, 

for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine 

Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam) as defined in the Office of Management and Budget’s 

Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity 

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

Aid for institutional development

R-27

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

Ocean that is a territory or possession of the U.S. 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, generally, to improve and 

expand their capacity to serve Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander 

students and low-income individuals. Institutions may apply to use their funds for a range of 

activities, including: the purchase, rental, or lease of scientific or laboratory equipment for 

educational purposes; renovation and improvement in classrooms, libraries, laboratories, 

and other instructional facilities; support of faculty exchanges, faculty development, and 

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

curriculum development and academic instruction; establishing or improving an endowment 

fund; and academic instruction in disciplines in which Asian American and Native American 

Pacific Islanders are underrepresented. If an Asian American or Native American Pacific 

Islander-serving 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 fiscal 

year from 2008 through 2019 for AANAPISIs 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, except that the funding provided under Section 371 

may also be used for construction in classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other 

instructional facilities (activities that are not authorized under Section 320).

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

authorizes 5-year competitive grants to eligible IHEs, as defined under Section 312(b) of the 

HEA, that have, at the time of application, an enrollment of undergraduate students that is 

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 apply to use their funds generally 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: purchase, rental, or lease of scientific 

or laboratory equipment for educational purposes, including instruction and research; 

renovation and improvement in classroom, library, laboratory, and other instructional 

facilities; support of faculty exchanges, faculty development, and faculty fellowships to assist 

faculty in attaining advanced degrees in the faculty's field of instruction; curriculum 

development and academic instruction; funds and administrative management, and 

acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening funds management; academic tutoring and 

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

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

Aid for institutional development

R-28

The statute requires a $200,000 minimum grant for each eligible institution. If a 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 fiscal 

year from 2008 through 2019, to be used for the same activities authorized under Section 

319 of the HEA. The mandatory funding authorized under Section 371 is available to the 

same institutions eligible for grants under the NASNTI program under Section 319. The 

authorized activities are the same for both programs, except that Section 371 does not 

include as an authorized activity education or counseling services designed to improve the 

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

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 

IHEs that are designed to promote 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. Only 

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

receive assistance under MSEIP. MSEIP allows grantee institutions to support a variety of 

innovative and customized projects. Typically, MSEIP projects are designed to implement 

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

scientific equipment, or development of research capabilities.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................. .............$566,5601

2014.............................................................. .............. 577,3542

2015.............................................................. ...............573,4473

2016.............................................................. ...............606,6564

2017.............................................................. ...............614,1565

1 Includes $158,009 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 2 Includes $154,512 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

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

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $375 million in discretionary funding in fiscal year 2018 for the AID 

programs, a decrease of $86.4 million or 18.7 percent below the fiscal year 2017 annualized 

continuing resolution (CR) level. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, 

provided $469.7 million for these programs. This request protects funding for the Title III and V 

programs that specifically serve large numbers percentages of minority students. In addition, 

$155 million is available in mandatory funding in fiscal year 2018 for programs authorized under 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-29

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

fiscal year 2018 budget request. 

Strengthening the quality of educational opportunities in IHEs dedicated to serving low-income 

and minority students is a critical part of the Administration’s efforts to foster more and better 

opportunities in higher education for communities that are often underserved. However, the 

request does not include funding for the Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP). All of the 

institutional support activities authorized under SIP are also authorized under the other Title III 

and V programs. The SIP program is duplicative of approximately 9 other Title III and V 

programs that provide both discretionary and mandatory funding for a wide range of authorized 

institutional support activities including strengthening infrastructure and enhancing fiscal 

stability. Under the Administration’s request, the Department would provide existing SIP 

grantees a reasonable period of time to close out existing projects and draw down grant funds 

already awarded in prior years.

The Administration is committed to assisting such institutions by providing funds to support 

mission critical activities such as: improvements in academic and student support services; 

graduation rates; academic quality; institutional management; administrative capacity; and fiscal 

stability and infrastructure. Grant funds for the AID programs may be used to plan, develop, 

and implement activities that encourage faculty and academic program development; 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.

Given the key role that the minority-serving institutions supported by the Title III programs serve 

in providing postsecondary educational opportunities to low-income and minority students, the 

Administration believes that it is essential for Title III funds to be used in ways that are proven to 

improve student outcomes. For this reason, as with other higher education programs, the 

Administration will continue to use evidence-based practices in the Title III programs. For new 

Title III competitions in the fiscal year 2017, the Department included a competitive preference 

priority for projects supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness and evidence of promise 

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

supported by evidence will also be included for new competitions in the fiscal year 2018 Title III 

competitions. The revisions to Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR) (FR Vol. 78, No. 156 dated August 13, 2013) 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. 

The Administration’s request includes:

• $27.5 million in fiscal year 2018 for the Part A, Section 316 Strengthening Tribally Controlled 

Colleges and Universities (TCCUs) program, the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-30

CR level. There are 35 fully accredited Tribal Colleges and Universities in the U.S. Two

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

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

majority of TCCUs are 2-year schools, located 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. Inadequate physical infrastructure is a 

serious ongoing challenge at all TCCUs. To address these challenges, grantees may 

conduct construction-related 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 21,179 in fall 2010. However, enrollment decreased to 17,161 in 

2015 (3,481 fewer students when compared to enrollment in 2010). In 2015, nearly 

13,369 students in TCCUs (77.9 percent of total enrollment) were American Indian/Alaska 

Native.

Approximately 9 percent of all American Indian/Alaska Native college students were 

enrolled in TCCUs in 2015. Between 2000 and 2015, the overall enrollment for this 

population in colleges and universities decreased by approximately 3 percent. It is 

noteworthy that during this same time period, American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment at 

TCCUs increased 17 percent. Despite the overall increases in national college enrollment 

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

non-Native peers in overall educational attainment. In 2014-2015, American Indian/Alaska 

Natives earned only 0.6 percent of the bachelor’s degrees, 0.5 percent of the master’s 

degrees, and 0.6 percent of doctoral degrees awarded in the U.S., though American 

Indian/Alaska Natives comprise 1.2 percent of the population.

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

TCCUs in fiscal year 2018. The Department will award funding to all eligible TCCUs using 

the formula outlined in the program statute.

• $13.8 million in fiscal year 2018 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 2017 annualized CR level. Like TCCUs, ANNH institutions are 

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

Between 1990 and 2013, American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment at IHEs increased from 

102,800 students to 162,600 students; and Asian/Pacific Islander enrollment increased from 

572,400 in 1990 to 1.28 million in 2015.

The Department will also award grants using $15 million in mandatory funding provided 

under Section 371 of the HEA.

• $244.2 million in fiscal year 2018 for the Strengthening HBCUs program under Part B, 

Section 323, the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized CR level. In addition, the 

Administration requests $63.2 million in fiscal year 2018 for the Strengthening Historically 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-31

Black Graduate Institutions (HBGIs) program under Part B, Section 326, the same as the 

fiscal year 2017 annualized CR level. The fiscal year 2018 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. African 

American enrollment at HBCUs decreased from 231,888 in 2014 to 228,263 in 2015, 

currently comprising nearly 9 percent of all African American students in higher education. 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that approximately 15 percent 

of the African Americans who currently hold undergraduate degrees earned their credential 

from an HBCU.

African American enrollment at IHEs nearly tripled between 1976 and 2015, from about 

1 million students to 3 million students. Despite these increases in college enrollment, African 

American students continue to lag behind their non-African American peers (and the national 

average) in overall educational attainment. In 2014-2015, African Americans earned only 

10.6 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 13.6 percent of master’s degrees, and 8.4 percent of 

doctoral degrees awarded in the United States. Further, African American student participation 

in and completion of advanced programs in the physical and natural sciences, engineering, 

and mathematics continues to be lower than participation for other groups. 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 2018.

• $9.9 million in fiscal year 2018 for Part A, Section 318 Strengthening Predominantly Black 

Institutions (PBIs) program, the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized CR level. 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 2018 for PBIs.

• $3.3 million in fiscal year 2018 for 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 2017 annualized CR level. Most AANAPISI institutions 

are junior and community colleges where at least 10 percent of students are Asian American 

or Native American Pacific Islander students. AANAPISI-eligible institutions enroll 

75 percent of the total population of low-income AAPI undergraduate students currently 

enrolled in higher education. They also serve communities with disproportionately high 

numbers of English language learners and individuals with significant academic needs.

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

AANAPISIs in fiscal year 2018.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-32

• $3.3 million in fiscal year 2018 for discretionary funds for Part A, Section 319 Strengthening 

Native American-serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTIs) program, the same as the fiscal 

year 2017 annualized CR level. While NASNTIs are not designated as TCCUs, at least 

10 percent of the students enrolled at these institutions are Native American and at least 

50 percent are low-income. With increasing enrollment at institutions of higher education, 

nontribal institutions of higher education that serve large populations of Native American 

students require additional resources to improve and expand their capacity to serve the 

unique and diverse needs of their Native American student population. 

In fiscal year 2018, mandatory funding of $5 million is also appropriated under Section 371 

of the HEA for NASNTIs.

• $9.6 million in fiscal year 2018 for the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 

Program, the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized CR level. This request would 

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

(STEM) programs at IHEs 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. 

Minority-serving institutions enroll a substantial fraction of underrepresented minority 

undergraduates. In 2012, HBCUs awarded 18 percent of the 50,000 science and 

engineering (S&E) bachelor’s degrees earned by Black U.S. citizens and permanent 

residents, and institutions enrolling large percentages of Hispanic students awarded about 

34 percent of the 58,000 S&E bachelor’s degrees earned by Hispanics. However, the 

proportion of Blacks earning S&E bachelor’s degrees from HBCUs and Hispanics earning 

S&E bachelor’s degrees from HSIs have both declined in the recent past. TCCUs, which 

mainly offer 2-year degrees, account for about 2 percent of S&E bachelor’s degrees 

awarded to American Indians; this proportion has been fairly stable over time.

HSIs and HBCUs also play an important role in training Hispanic and Black students for 

doctoral-level study in S&E fields. Of Hispanics who earned an S&E doctorate between 

2009 and 2013, about 30 percent had obtained their baccalaureate credential at an HSI. 

Similarly, 25 percent of Black S&E doctorate recipients had obtained their baccalaureate 

degree at an HBCU during the same period, making HBCUs the second-largest contributor 

of Black S&E doctorate recipients, behind only institutions with very high research activity.

According to the “Science and Engineering Indicators 2016” (NSB 16-1), published by the 

National Science Board, between 2000 and 2013:

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

American students remained steady at 9 percent, while the overall proportion of S&E 

master’s degrees awarded to all students rose from 8 percent to 10 percent. 

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

7 percent to 11 percent. In comparison, Hispanics comprise 16 percent of the U.S. 

population and 16 percent of postsecondary enrollment.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-33

o The proportion of S&E master’s degrees awarded to American Indians/Alaska Natives 

remained steady at about 1 percent. In comparison, American Indians/Alaska Natives 

comprise 1 percent of the U.S. population and 1 percent of postsecondary enrollment. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

Footnote

2017

Annualized CR

Footnote

2018

Footnote

Strengthening Institutions

Discretionary funding: Strengtheni ng Insti tuti ons Program

Strengthening Institutions Program: Number of new development awards 16 8 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Average new development awards $425 $434 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total new development award funding $6,804 $3,474 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Number of new evidence awards 32 6 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Average new evidence awards $448 $614 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total new evidence award funding $14,326 $3,686 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Number of NCC development awards 68 83 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Average NCC development award $421 $409 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total NCC development award funding $28,651 33,924 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Number of NCC evidence awards 66 85 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Average NCC evidence award $557 $523 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total NCC evidence award funding $36,753 $44,422 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Peer review of new award applications 0 $863 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total award funding (Section 311) $86,534 $86,369 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total number of awards 182 182 0

Strengthening TCCUs Triball y C ontr olled Colleg es and U ni versities

TCCU Discretionary funding:

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

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Average NCC development award $789 $787 $787

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Total NCC development award funding $27,599 $27,547 $27,547

Mandatory funding: Tribally C ontrolled C olleg es and U ni versities

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

Strengthening TCCU s – Mandator y funding: Average new development award $799 0 0

Strengthening TCCU s – Mandator y funding: Total new development award funding $27,960 0 0

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

Strengthening TCCU s – Mandator y funding: Average NCC development award 0 $798 $857

Strengthening TCCU s – Mandator y funding: Total NCC development award funding 0 $27,930 $30,000
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-34

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

Footnote

2017

Annualized CR

Footnote

2018

Footnote

Strengthening TCCUs (cont’d) Tribally

Total award funding TCCUs discretionar y and mandatory funding $55,559 $55,477 $57,547

TCCU funding: Discretionary (Section 316) $27,599 $27,547 $27,547

TCCU funding:Mandatory (Section 371) $27,960 $27,930 $30,000

TCCU Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) 70 70 70

Strengthening ANNHs

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

ning ANNHs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Number of NCC development awards 15 15 15

ning ANNHs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average NCC development award $756 $772 $772

ning ANNHs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total NCC development award funding $11,337 $11,574 $11,574

ning ANNHs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Supplemental awards 0 $2,202 $2,202

Mandatory funding:

Strengthening ANNHs -Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available 

for obligation at the start of the fiscal year $20,876 $17,618 $15,218

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Number of new development awards 4 0 0

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Average new development award $495 0 0

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Total new development award funding $1,979 0 0

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Number of NCC development awards 11 15 15

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Average NCC development award $1,381 $1,160 $1,015

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Total NCC development award funding $15,188 $17,400 $15,218

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Peer review of new award applications $56 0 0

Total award funding: Strengthening ANNHs $21,025 $31,176 $28,776

ANNH F unding: Discretionary (Section 317) $13,8021$13,776 $13,776

ANNH F unding: Mandatory (Section 371) $17,223 $17,400 $15,000

ANNH Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year) $3,6532

$21820

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening PBIs 30 30 30

1 The Department obligated $1,080 thousand of funding provided to the Higher Education Account 

under the 2016 Continuing Resolution to fully fund a FIPSE/FITW grantee that was partially funded in 

fiscal year 2015. This grantee did not receive full funding in 2015 due to an administrative error that was 

discovered after most 2015 FIPSE funds had been exhausted.

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

Aid for institutional development

R-35

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

Footnote

2017

Annualized CR

Footnote

2018

Footnote

Strengthening HBCUs

HBCU Discretionary funding:

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Number of new awards 1 97 0

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average new award $250 $2,515 0

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total new award funding $250 $243,979 0

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Number of NCC awards 97 1 98

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average NCC award $2,520 $250 $2,492

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total NCC award funding $244,444 $250 $244,229

HBCU Mandatory funding:

Strengthening H BCUs – M andator y F unding: Number of new awards 1 0 0

Strengthening H BCUs – M andator y F unding:Average new award $250 0 0

Strengthening H BCUs – M andator y F unding: Total new award funding $250 0 0

Strengthening H BCUs – M andator y F unding: Number of NCC awards 97 98 98

Strengthening H BCUs – M andator y F unding: Average NCC award $814 $808 $867

Strengthening H BCUs – M andator y F unding: Total NCC award funding $78,970 $79,135 $85,000

Total award funding: Strengthening H BCUs $323,914 $323,364 $329,229

HBCU F unding: Discretionary (Section 323) $244,694 $244,229 $244,229

HBCU F unding: Mandatory (Section 371) $79,220 $79,135 $85,000

HBCU Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) 196 196 196

Strengthening HBGIs

Strengthening H BGIs -Number of NCC awards 24 24 24

Strengthening H BGIs -Average NCC award $2,637 $2,632 $2,632

Strengthening H BGIs -Total NCC award funding (Section 326) $63,281 $63,161 $63,161

Strengthening PBIs

PBIs Discretionary funding (formula-based):

Strengthening PBIs – Discr etionar y F undi ng: Number of new development awards 11 0 0

Strengthening PBIs – Discr etionar y F undi ng: Average new development awards $904 0 0

Strengthening PBIs – Discr etionar y F undi ng: Total new development awards $9,942 0 0

Strengthening PBIs – Discr etionar y F undi ng: Number of NCC development awards 0 11 11

Strengthening PBIs – Discr etionar y F undi ng: Average NCC development award 0 $902 $902

Strengthening PBIs – Discr etionar y F undi ng: Total NCC development award funding 0 $9,923 $9,923

Total award funding (Section 320) Strengthening PBIs Discreti onar y F undi ng $9,942 $9,923 $9,923

Total number of awards Str engtheni ng PBIs 11 11 11
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-36

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

Footnote

2017

Annualized CR

Footnote

2018

Footnote

Strengthening PBIs (cont’d)

PBIs Mandatory funding (competitive):

PBIs Total mandatory (Section 371) funds 

available for obligation at the start of the 

fiscal year $27,885 $27,945 $28,965

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding: Number of new development awards 1 0 0

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding: Average new development award $498 0 0

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding: Total new development award funding $498 0 0

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding: Number of NCC development awards 23 24 24

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding: Average NCC development award $583 $583 $582

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding: Total NCC development award funding $13,407 $13,980 $13,965

Total award funding Strengtheni ng PBIs $23,847 $23,903 $23,888

PBI Funding: Discretionary (Section 318) $9,942 $9,923 $9,923

PBI Funding: Mandatory (Section 371) $13,905 $13,980 $13,965

PBIs Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(mandatory funds remaining at the end of 

the fiscal year) $13,980 1$13,9651$15,0001

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening PBIs 35 35 35

Strengthening AANAPISIs

AAN APISI Discretionary funding:

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Number of new development awards 1 2 0 0

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average new development award $300 0 0

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total new development award funding $300 0 0

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Number of NCC development awards 10 11 11

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average NCC development award $305 $304 $304

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total NCC development award funding $3,048 $3,342 $3,342

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 2016, the Department funded down the 

fiscal year 2015 grant slate to make 1 new award in fiscal year 2016 because a significant number of high 

quality applicants remained on the fiscal year 2015 slate.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-37

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

Footnote

2017

Annualized CR

Footnote

2018

Footnote

Strengthening AANAPISIs

AAN APISI Mandatory funding:

AAN APISI Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available 

for obligation at the start of the year $9,295 $9,212 $9,655

ning AAN APISIs – M andatory F unding: Number of new development awards 14 0 0

ning AAN APISIs – M andatory F unding: Average new development awards $328 0 0

ning AAN APISIs – M andatory F unding: Total new development awards $4,589 0 0

Strengthening AAN APISIs – M andatory F unding: Number of NCC development awards 0 14 14

Strengthening AAN APISIs – M andatory F unding: Average NCC development award 0 $326 $333

Strengthening N ASNT Is – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total NCC development award funding 0 $4,557 $4,655

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Peer review of new award applications $46 0 0

ANNAPISI Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(mandatory funds remaining at the end of the 

fiscal year) $4,660 1 $4,6551 $5,0001

Total award funding Strengtheni ng AANAP $7,983 $7,899 $7,997

AAN APISI Funding: Discretionary (Section 320) $3,348 $3,342 $3,342

AAN APISI Funding: Mandatory (Section 371) $4,635 $4,557 $4,655

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening AAN APISIs 25 25 25

Strengthening NASNTIs

NASNTI Discretionary funding:

Strengthening N ASNT Is – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Number of NCC development awards 7 7 7

Strengthening N ASNT Is – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average NCC development award $377 $477 $477

Strengthening N ASNT Is – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total NCC development award funding $2,641 $3,342 $3,342

NASNT I Mandatory funding:

NASNT I Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available 

for obligation at the start of the fiscal year $9,212 $9,295 $9,660

Strengthening N ASNT Is – M andator y F unding: Number of new development awards 13 0 0

Strengthening N ASNT Is – M andator y F unding: Average new development awards $348 0 0

Strengthening N ASNT Is – M andator y F unding: Total new development awards $4,525 0 0

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

Aid for institutional development

R-38

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

Footnote

2017

Annualized CR

Footnote

2018

Footnote

Strengthening NASNTIs (cont’d)

Strengthening N ASNT Is – M andator y F unding: Number of NCC development awards 0 13 13

Strengthening N ASNT Is – M andator y F unding: Average NCC development award 0 $357 $358

Strengthening N ASNT Is – M andator y F unding: Total NCC development award funding 0 $4,640 $4,655

Strengthening N ASNT Is M andator y: Peer review of new awards applications $32 0 0

Total award funding (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening N ASNT Is $7,905 $7,982 $7,997

NASNT Is F undi ng: Discretionary (Section 319) $3,348 1$3,342 $3,342

NASNT Is F undi ng: Mandatory (Section 371) $4,557 $4,640 $4,655

NASNT Is Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(mandatory funds remaining at the end of the 

fiscal year) $4,6602 $4,6552 $5,0002

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening N ASNT Is 20 20 20

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement

MSEIP Number of new awards 16 311 14

MSEIP Average new award $226 $235 $236

MSEIP Total new award funding $3,617 $2,580 $3,298

MSEIP Number of NCC awards 25 29 27

MSEIP Average NCC award $241 $240 $231

MSEIP Total NCC award funding $6,031 $6,954 $6,236

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

MSEIP Total award funding 9,648 $9,630 $9,630

MSEIP Total number of awards 41 40 41

1 The Department reprogrammed $158,336 from the Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal 

Institutions program that would have otherwise lapsed to the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary 

Education/First in the World (FIPSE/FITW) program.

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

3 Instead of conducting a new competition in fiscal year 2016, the Department funded down the 

fiscal year 2015 grant slate to make new awards in fiscal year 2016 because a significant number of 

high quality applicants remained on the fiscal year 2015 slate.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-39

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information for grantees, including, for 

example, GPRA goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an 

assessment of the progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program 

results is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those 

requested in FY 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those 

served by the programs.

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

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

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

graduation rates reflected below are estimates based on preliminary data from NCES/Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) and subject to minor changes.

Persistence Rates at Title III Grantee Institutions

57

70

52

57

62

61

68

84

68

66

74

56

76

81

44

57

0 25 50 75 100

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP 

National Rate

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP

National Rate

Institution

2016 Persistence %

2-year

4-year
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-40

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

2016 for 4-year and 2-year Title III institutions (84 percent and 70 percent, respectively), 

exceeding the national rate of 81 percent and 61 percent, respectively. In addition,

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

61 percent versus the national rate of 59 percent in 2015. Despite the relatively stronger overall 

performance results at AANAPISI grantee institutions, there are many diverse subgroups in the 

AANAPISI population with academic challenges, registering lower levels of achievement. 

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

Graduation Rates at Title III Grantee Institutions

24

23

13

13

16

25

41

61

26

34

50

14

48

59

21

20

0 25 50 75 100

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP 

National Rate

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP

National Rate

Institution

2015 Graduation %

2-year

4-year
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-41

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 

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:

NCC Awards

2004-2007

Enrollment

2004-2008

2004 382,890

2005 391,272

2006 363,609

2007 395,897

2008 402,507

Change +5.1%

NCC Awards

2008-2012

Enrollment

2008-2013

2008 435,686

2009 454,477

2010 493,315

2011 511,882

2012 499,414

2013 484,943

Change +11.3%

NCC Awards

2013-2017

Enrollment

2013-2018

2013 581,205

2014 560,280 

2015 533,344 

2016 570,039

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. 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 and 2008-2012 periods. 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. Thus far, the change in enrollment for fiscal years 

2013 2016 has decreased by 2 percent.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-42

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

2013 74.0% 72.0% 62.0% 55.0%

2014 74.0 74.0 62.0 56.0

2015 74.5 75.0 62.5 57.0

2016 74.5 75.5 62.5 57.0

2017 75.0 63.0

2018 75.0 63.0

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year SIPs graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year SIPs graduating within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2013 51.0% 45.5% 24.0% 17.0%

2014 51.5 47.0 24.0 18.0

2015 52.0 47.5 24.5 19.5

2016 52.5 25.0

2017 53.0 25.0

2018 53.5 25.0

Additional information: Persistence at 4-year SIP institutions exceeds the target set for 2016 

and is 5 percentage points lower than persistence rates at all 4-year public and private schools 

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

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

(61.1 percent). Persistence data for 2017 will be available in December 2017.

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

program and national (59 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 (25 percent). Graduation data for 

2015-2016 will be available in December 2017.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-43

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at TCCUs.

Year Target Actual

2008 +24.3% (5-year change)

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

2018 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 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:

NCC 

Awards

2004-2007

Enrollment

2004-2008

(30 grantees)

2003 7,776

2004 9,249

2005 9,608

2006 9,038

2007 9,294

2008 9,666

Change +24.3%

NCC 

Awards

2008-2012

Enrollment

2008-2013

(32 grantees)

2008 9,741

2009 9,433

2010 11,674

2011 12,759

2012 11,581

2013 11,228

Change +15.3%

NCC 

Awards

2013-2017

Enrollment

2013-2018

(34 grantees)

2013 11,419

2014 10,964

2015 10,543

2016 9,714

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. The 2013 data year includes 2 additional TCCUs—Tohono O’odham 

Community College and Ilisagvik College—than student enrollment from data year 2008. 

Enrollment at TCCUs has consistently decreased over time since 2013.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-44

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

2013 50.0% 50.0% 52.0% 43.0%

2014 50.0 53.0 52.0 48.0

2015 50.0 52.0 52.0 45.0

2016 50.5 56.0 52.0 44.5

2017 51.0 53.0

2018 51.0 53.0

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year TCCUs graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year TCCUs graduating within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2013 17.0% 16.0% 28.0% 17.0%

2014 17.0 19.0 28.0 18.0

2015 17.0 13.9 28.0 21.5

2016 17.0 28.0

2017 18.0 28.5

2018 18.0 28.5

Additional information: The 2016 persistence rate at 4-year TCCUs is 4 percentage points 

higher than the 2015 rate and exceeds the target set for 2016. However, the persistence rate at 

2-year TCCUs falls short of the target set for 2016 of 52 percent, and is lower than the 

2015 persistence rate.

The 2015 graduation rates at 4-year TCCUs failed to meet the target set for 2015, and are

5.1 percentage points lower than the 2014 rate. The 4-year and 2-year graduation rates fail 

to meet the national rates of 59 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Graduation data for 

2015-2016 will be available in December 2017. 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-45

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at ANNH institutions.

Year Target Actual

2008 -1.7% (5-year change)

2013 0 +13.4% (5-year change)

2018 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 enrollment over the performance period. The actual enrollment data generating 

the percentage changes displayed under actual values in the table above are as follows:

NCC

Awards

2004-2007

Enrollment

2004-2008

(11 grantees)

2003 13,638

2004 13,739

2005 13,717

2006 13,695

2007 13,529

2008 13,407

Change -1.7%

NCC

Awards

2008-2012

Enrollment

2008-2013

(11 grantees)

2008 23,438

2009 23,933

2010 25,606

2011 26,343

2012 26,325

2013 26,580

Change +13.4%

NCC 

Awards

2013-2017

Enrollment

2013-2018

(9 grantees)

2013 24,632

2014 24,414

2015 23,632

2016 22,485

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. 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. 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. Similar to TCCUs and HBCUs, 

the current enrollment rates at ANNH-grantee institutions has consistently decreased between 

2013 and 2016.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-46

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

2013 77.0% 75.0% 59.5% 64.0%

2014 77.0 72.0 59.5 56.0

2015 77.5 72.0 71.0 55.0

2016 77.5 74.0 71.0 62.0

2017 78.0 71.5

2018 78.0 71.5

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year ANNH institutions who graduate within 6 years of 

enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year ANNH institutions who graduate within 3 years of 

enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2013 47.0% 46.0% 16.0% 16.5%

2014 47.0 37.0 16.0 19.0

2015 47.5 50.0 16.5 16.5

2016 47.5 16.5

2017 48.0 16.5

2018 48.0 16.5

Additional information: The 2016 persistence rate at 4-year ANNH-grantee institutions is 

2 percentage points higher than the 2015 rate; and, the persistence rate at 2-year institutions is 

7 percentage points higher than the 2015 rates; however, both rates fall short of meeting the 

targets set for 2016. Data for only four 2-year grantees were used to calculate the graduation 

rate for 2015. Graduation rates at 4-year ANNH-grantee institutions exceeded the target set for 

2015; while graduation rates at 2-year grantee institutions met the target set for 2015. 

Graduation data for 2015-2016 will be available in December 2017. 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-47

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 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:

NCC Awards

2004-2007

Enrollment

2004-2008

(97 grantees)

2003 200,369

2004 217,738

2005 220,705

2006 219,454

2007 216,782

2008 216,207

Change +8.0%

NCC Awards

2008-2012

Enrollment

2008-2013

(96 grantees)

2008 217,628

2009 218,676

2010 228,399

2011 230,847

2012 226,493

2013 217,080

Change -0.3%

NCC Awards

2013-2017

Enrollment

2013-2018

(96 grantees)

2013 215,038

2014 207,525

2015 200,029

2016 197,950

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. Similar to TCCUs and ANNH-grantee institutions, the current enrollment rates at HBCUs 

has consistently decreased between 2013 and 2016.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-48

Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 4-year HBCUs who were in their first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HBCU.

Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 2-year HBCUs who were in their first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HBCU.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2013 69.0% 65.0% 57.0% 53.0%

2014 69.0 65.0 57.0 50.0

2015 69.5 67.0 57.5 51.5

2016 69.5 66.0 57.5 57.0

2017 70.0 58.0

2018 70.0 58.0

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

2013 40.0% 34.0% 16.5% 14.0%

2014 40.0 36.5 17.0 13.0

2015 40.0 34.0 17.5 16.5

2016 40.0 17.5

2017 41.0 18.0

2018 41.0 18.5

Additional information: The 2016 persistence rates at 4-year HBCUs (66 percent) and 2-year 

HBCUs (57 percent) currently lag behind national persistence rates for 4-year public and private 

schools is (81 percent) and 2-year public and private schools (61 percent). Both 4-year and 

2-year HBCUs missed the targets set for 2016 by 3.5 percentage points and half a percentage 

point, respectively. Persistence data for 2017 will be available December 2017.

The graduation rate for 4-year HBCUs falls short of the target set for 2015 by 6 percentage 

points and the national rate by nearly 8.5 percentage points. Graduation data for 2015-2016 will 

be available in December 2017. The graduation rate at 2-year HBCUs is comparable to the 

rates at ANNH-grantee institutions (16 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-49

Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of 

full-time graduate students enrolled at HBGIs.

Year Target Actual

2008 +13.0% (5-year change)

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

2018 TBD

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

awarded at HBGIs.

Year Target Actual

2013 6,500 7,251

2014 6,600 7,126

2015 6,700 6,883

2016 6,800

2017 6,900

2018 7,000

Additional information: The data used to calculate this performance measure come from 

NCES/IPEDS. Enrollment is a long-term measure that focuses on changes in enrollment rather 

than the absolute numbers of students enrolled. The Department uses fall enrollment data for 

all full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students and tracks program enrollment at the 

beginning of, and 1 year after the end of, each 5-year grant period. The percentage change is 

calculated against the base year. There are no intermediate annual targets. The Department 

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 2009-2013 and includes 6 additional HBGIs added in 2008 when 

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

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

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

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

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

fiscal years 2013-2018, will be based upon the fiscal year 2014-2017 actual experience.

The program’s performance exceeded the target set for 2015 for degree completion. Data for 

2016 will be available in December 2017. 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-50

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

undergraduate students enrolled at PBIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 +15.6% (1-year change)

2016 -28.1% (5-year change)

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

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

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

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

against targets 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 2011-2016 has decreased by 28 percent.

NCC Awards

2011-2015

Enrollment 2011-2016

(41 grantees—discretionary and mandatory)

2011 129,471

2012 127,166

2013 116,460

2014 111,253

2015 100,879

2016 93,117

Change -28.1%

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

2013 72.5% 71.0% 54.5% 50.0%

2014 73.0 66.0 54.5 52.0

2015 73.0 70.0 55.0 53.0

2016 73.0 67.5 55.0 52.0

2017 73.5 55.5

2018 73.5 55.5
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-51

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year PBIs who graduate within 6 years of enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year PBIs who graduate within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2013 29.5% 29.0% 13.5% 13.0%

2014 29.5 30.0 13.5 12.0

2015 30.0 26.0 14.0 13.5

2016 30.0 14.0

2017 30.5 14.5

2018 30.5 14.5

Additional information: The 2016 persistence rates at 4-year and 2-year PBIs lag behind the 

national 2016 persistence rates and did not meet the targets set for 2016. The 2015 graduation 

rate at 4-year PBIs missed the target set for 2015. Graduation data for 2015-2016 will be 

available in December 2017. 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 are combined.

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

undergraduate students enrolled at AANAPISIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 +3.4% (1-year change)

2016 +5.5% (5-year change)

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 2011-2015 is 

5.5 percent.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-52

NCC Awards

2011-2015

Enrollment 2011-2016

(17 grantees—discretionary and mandatory)

2011 114,545

2012 119,197

2013 118,100

2014 119,090

2015 118,597

2016 120,849

Change +5.5%

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

2013 80.0% 81.0% 70.0% 71.0%

2014 80.0 81.0 70.0 71.0

2015 80.5 82.0 70.5 72.0

2016 81.0 84.0 71.0 69.5

2017 81.0 71.0

2018 81.5 71.5

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

2013 48.5% 49.0% 23.0% 30.0%

2014 48.5 48.0 23.0 29.0

2015 49.0 60.5 23.0 23.0

2016 49.5 23.0

2017 49.5 23.5

2018 50.0 23.5

Additional information: The performance rate of AANAPISI-grantee institutions exceeded 

the 2016 targets set for persistence at 4-year grantee institutions by 3 percentage points. In 

addition, 4-year AANAPISI-grantee institutions exceeded the national graduation rate for 4-year 

public and private schools (59 percent) by nearly 1.5 percentage points. Although AANAPISIgrantee institutions failed to meet the national graduation rate for 2-year institutions, the program 

had the highest graduation rate at 2-year Title III institutions (23 percent), and the highest 

persistence rate at 4-year and 2-year Title III institutions (84 and 69.5 percent, respectively). 

Performance data for these measures are derived from electronic annual performance reports
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-53

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 +0.5% (5-year change)

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 2011-2016 is 0.5 percent.

NCC Awards

2011-2015

Enrollment 2011-2016

(16 grantees—discretionary and mandatory)

2011 51,014

2012 52,621

2013 53,285

2014 51,082

2015 50,756

2016 57,280

Change +0.5%

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

2013 72.0% 64.0% 52.5% 51.%

2014 72.0 66.0 52.5 52.5

2015 72.0 67.0 53.0 52.0

2016 72.0 67.5 53.0 57.5

2017 73.0 53.5

2018 73.0 53.5
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-54

Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year NASNTIs who graduate within 6 years of enrollment.

Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year NASNTIs who graduate within 3 years of enrollment.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2013 34.0% 37.0% 20.5% 18.0%

2014 34.0 37.5 20.5 19.0

2015 34.5 41.0 21.0 24.0

2016 34.5 21.0

2017 35.0 21.5

2018 35.0 21.5

Additional information: The 4-year persistence rate at NASNTI-grantee institutions not only 

exceeds the target set for 2016 but is higher than the 2015 persistence rate. The 2-year 

persistence rate at NASNTI-grantee institutions is comparable to the 2-year persistence rate at 

AANAPISI grantee institutions (23 percent).

Both the 4-year and 2-year graduation rates exceed the targets set for 2015. The 2-year 

graduation rate at NASNTI-grantee institutions is comparable to the graduation rates at 

AANAPISI-grantee institutions. Graduation data for 2015-2016 will be available in December 

2017. 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-55

As an alternative, the Department used IPEDS data to determine whether the percentage of 

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

Specifically, data examined were:

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

2005 and 2014 that were in STEM fields;

• The percentage of bachelor’s degrees conferred by all Title IV eligible institutions in 2005 

and 2014 that were in STEM fields.

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

were examined.

The intent is to examine whether an increasing percentage of students in MSEIP institutions 

earn degrees in STEM fields, given that one of the main purposes of the MSEIP program is to 

increase the participation of underrepresented minorities in scientific and technological careers. 

STEM fields can include a wide range of disciplines. However, for purposes of this data 

analysis, STEM fields include computer and information sciences; engineering; engineering 

technologies and engineering-related fields; biological and biomedical sciences; mathematics 

and statistics; physical sciences; science technology/technicians; and agriculture, agriculture 

operations, and related sciences.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-56

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

2005, 2010, and 2014.

Number and p ercent age of B.A. d egrees

2005

MSEIP

Grantees

2010

MSEIP

Grantees

2014 

MSEIP 

Grantees

2005

All Title IV

IHEs

2010

All Title IV

IHEs

2014 

All Title IV 

IHEs

All Students: Number of 

STEM degrees 4,430 4,896 5,683 227,131 253,431 321,645

All Students: Number of 

degrees 23,866 32,663 37,019 1,411,002 1,620,629 1,821,458

All Students: Percent of 

degrees that are in STEM 

fields 15.7% 15.0% 15.4% 16.1% 15.6% 17.7%

Black or African American 

Students: Number of STEM 

degrees 915 847 2,079 16,405 16,196 211,710

Black or African American 

Students: Number of 

degrees 7,193 6,956 11,006 127,978 152,404 32,056

Black or African American 

Students: Percent of degrees 

that are in STEM fields 12.7% 12.2% 18.9% 12.8% 10.6% 15.1%

Hispanic Students: Number 

of STEM degrees 1,237 1,713 1,789 15,596 19,607 180,812

Hispanic Students: Number 

of degrees 9,407 12,688 14,572 111,616 147,205 20,071

Hispanic Students: Percent 

of degrees that are in STEM 

fields 13.1% 13.5% 12.3% 14.0% 13.3% 11.1%

In 2005, approximately 15.7 percent of all bachelor’s degrees conferred by the 2005 cohort of 

MSEIP grantees were in STEM fields, a figure that was slightly higher than the 2010 and 2014 

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

2005, 2010, and 2014. Overall, the percentages of STEM degrees awarded to “all students” in 

2005, 2010, and 2014 were higher than the comparable percentages of STEM degrees 

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

between 2005 and 2014.

Efficiency Measures

The Department developed a common efficiency measure for the AID programs. These 

calculations do not take into account Federal student financial aid received by these institutions. 

Not only has the Department revised targets for 2013 based on a review of actual performance 

data from previous years for these programs to more accurately reflect program outcomes, but it 

has also based future calculations and targets to include both discretionary and mandatory 

funding in the TCCUs, ANNH-serving institutions, HBCUs, PBIs, AANAPISIs, and NASNTIs 

programs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-57

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

institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 $430 $313

2014 425 334

2015 420 413

2016 415

2017 410

2018 405

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

Year Target Actual

2013 $32,9501 $26,557

2014 32,650 25,630

2015 32,600 28,004

2016 32,550

2017 32,500

2018 28,500

Measure: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate degree at ANNHserving Institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 $2,775 $2,256

2014 2,750 2,739

2015 2,725 2,427

2016 2,700

2017 2,675

2018 2,400

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

HBCUs.

Year Target Actual

2013 $7,4152 $5,657

2014 7,340 6,027

2015 7,265 6,950

2016 7,190

2017 7,115

2018 7,000

1 The Department revised targets beginning in 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.

2 The Department revised targets beginning in 2013 because performance in this program was worse 

than expected.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-58

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

Year Target Actual

2013 $9,3551 $7,706

2014 9,262 8,121

2015 9,165 9,194

2016 9,068

2017 8,975

2018 8,900

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

Year Target Actual

2013 $1,0401 $821

2014 1,030 787

2015 1,020 1,320

2016 1,010

2017 1,000

2018 990

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

Year Target Actual

2013 $300 $180

2014 295 254

2015 290 141

2016 285

2017 280

2018 175

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

Year Target Actual

2013 $1,0251 $505

2014 1,015 563

2015 1,005 501

2016 995

2017 985

2018 550

1 The Department revised targets beginning in 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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

R-59

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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

HIGHER EDUC AT ION

R-60

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title V, Parts A and B; Title III, Part F, Section 371(b)(2)(B); 

and Title VIII, Part AA, Section 898)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined (discretionary)1

; $100,000 (mandatory)

Budget Authority:

Program

2017

Ann. CR Footnote

2017

Approp. 2018 Footnote

Change 

from Ann. CRFootnote

Developing Hispanic-serving 

Institutions (discretionary) (HEA 

V-A) $107,590 $107,795 $107,590 0

Developing Hispanic-Serving 

Institutions Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics and Articulation 

(mandatory) (HEA III-F) 93,100 93,100 100,000 +$6,900

Promoting Postbaccalaureate 

Opportunities for Hispanic 

Americans (discretionary) 

(HEA V-B) 9,653 9,671 9,653 0 

Total 210,343 210,566 217,243 +6,900

Discretionary 117,243 117,466 117,243 0

Mandatory 93,100 2 93,1002 100,0002

+6,900

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

2018. 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.

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. The program supports efforts to 

expand and enhance academic offerings, program quality, and institutional stability of colleges 

and universities that are educating the majority of Hispanic college students and helping large 

numbers of Hispanic students and other low-income individuals complete postsecondary 

degrees. HSIs are defined as “eligible institutions” that have an enrollment of undergraduate 

full-time equivalent students that is at least 25 percent Hispanic.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-61

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

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

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

administration; construction and maintenance of instructional facilities; student services 

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

designed to qualify students to teach in public schools; establishment of community outreach 

programs that encourage elementary and secondary school students to develop an interest in 

pursuing postsecondary education; and creation or improvement of facilities for Internet or other 

distance learning academic instruction, including purchase or rental of telecommunications 

technology equipment and services. Also, HSIs may use no more than 20 percent of the grant 

funds to establish or increase an institution’s endowment fund. 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 HSIs and 4-year IHEs 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.

The Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans program, authorized 

under Title V of HEA, seeks to expand postbaccalaureate educational opportunities for, and 

improve the educational attainment of, Hispanic students. The program is designed to expand 

postbaccalaureate academic offerings and enhance program quality in the institutions of higher 

education that are educating large numbers of Hispanic and low-income students. 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 

period of up to 5 years. Institutions receiving grants under this program are not prohibited from 

receiving funds under Title V, Part A.

The program statute authorizes a wide variety of institutional and student support activities,

including: purchasing, renting, or leasing scientific or laboratory equipment used for educational 

purposes; construction, maintenance, renovation and facilities improvement, including 

telecommunications; purchasing library books, periodicals, journals, and other educational 

materials, including telecommunications program materials; supporting low-income 

postbaccalaureate students through outreach programs, academic support services, mentoring, 

and student financial assistance; supporting faculty development, exchanges, and research, as 

well as curricular development and academic instruction; the creation or improvement of 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-62

facilities for Internet or other distance education technologies; and collaboration with other IHEs 

to expand postbaccalaureate offerings. Other activities related to the promotion of 

postbaccalaureate study at HSIs are permissible, provided that they contribute to the overall 

purpose of the program and are approved by the Department.

Funding levels for the Aid for HSI programs for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................. .............$209,5321

2014.............................................................. ...............210,9002

2015.............................................................. ...............201,9233

2016.............................................................. ...............210,6664

2017.............................................................. ...............210,5665

1 Includes $105,814 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

2 Includes $103,472 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 3 Includes $92,700 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 4 Includes $93,200 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 5 Includes $93,100 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $107.6 million in fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Developing Hispanicserving Institutions (HSIs) program and $9.7 million for the Promoting Postbaccalaureate 

Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (PPOHA) program, the same as the FY 2017 annualized 

continuing resolution (CR) level. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, 

provided $107.8 million for the HSIs program and $9.7 million for the PPOHA program. The 

President’s 2018 Budget protects funding for Title III and V programs that specifically serve 

large numbers of minority students. Strengthening the quality of educational opportunities in 

IHEs dedicated to serving low-income and minority students is a critical part of the 

Administration’s efforts to foster more and better opportunities in higher education for 

communities that are often underserved. 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 FY 2018 request.

Approximately $8.4 million in discretionary funds requested for the Developing HSIs program 

would support new awards, by funding down the FY 2017 competition slate. The remaining 

$99.2 million would support non-competing continuation awards. The Department is conducting 

a competition for new awards in fiscal year 2017 that gives competitive preference to projects 

that establish or enhance teacher preparation programs, or develop or enhance transfer and 

articulation models between 2-year and 4-year institutions.

All of the FY 2018 funds for the PPOHA and the Mandatory HSI STEM and Articulation

programs would support non-competing continuations from competitions held in FY 2014 

(PPOHA) and 2016 (HSI STEM). The 2016 HSI STEM competition included priorities to target 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-63

funds to evidence-based, student-centered activities designed to promote college completion 

while encouraging rigorous project evaluations.

In 2015, there were 56.6 million Hispanics in the U.S., constituting 17.6 percent of the total U.S. 

population. More than half the growth in the total U.S. population between 2000 and 2010 was 

due to the increase in the Hispanic population. The Census Bureau projects that the Hispanic 

American population will reach nearly 30 percent of the overall population by 2060.

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 almost 3.3 million in 

2015. In 1976, Hispanics represented 3.7 percent of the undergraduate enrollment; in 2015, 

they represented 17.9 percent of undergraduate enrollment and 23.9 percent of all students 

enrolled in 2-year institutions. The enrollment of Hispanics in degree-granting postsecondary 

institutions increased 3.1 percent from 2014 to 2015, compared to a decrease of 1.1 percent for 

the general population. Among all minority groups, Hispanics now have the largest number of 

students enrolled in postsecondary education.

Although the number of Hispanic students enrolled in 

postsecondary education has increased, enrollment 

rates and degree attainment remain lower than many 

of their non-Hispanic peers. In 2015, 36.6 percent of 

all Hispanics in the age group 18–24 years were 

enrolled in degree-granting institutions, compared to 

62.6 percent of Asian peers, 41.8 percent of all 

non-Hispanic White peers, and 34.9 percent of Black 

peers (see graph). In 2014-2015, Hispanics earned 

12 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 9.1 percent of 

master’s degrees, and 7.2 percent of PhDs awarded 

in the U.S. despite constituting over 17 percent of the 

total national population. 

The Aid for Hispanic-serving Institutions programs provide critical support for activities designed 

to improve the educational outcomes at institutions with a significant share of low-income, 

Hispanic, and other minority students. HSIs enroll 16 percent of all postsecondary students and

approximately 60 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 2018 request, combined 

with the mandatory funding available through Title III, Part F of the HEA, is intended to support 

student achievement at HSIs by improving outcomes for Hispanic and low-income students.

62.6%

41.8%

34.9% 36.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Asian White Black Hispanic

Percent of 18- to 24-year olds 

enrolled in degree-granting 

institutions by race/ethnicity (2015)

Enrollment
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-64

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR

Footnote F o F ootnote

2018

Footnote

Developing HSIs

Devel oping H SIs: Number of new awards 30 20 15

Devel oping H SIs: Average new award $528 $572 $562

Devel oping H SIs: Total new award funding $15,839 $11,444 $8,431

Devel oping H SIs: Number of NCC awards 165 175 184

Devel oping H SIs: Average NCC award $557 $546 $539

Devel oping H SIs: Total NCC award funding $91,956 $95,471 $99,159

 SIs Peer review of new award applications 0 $675 0

 H SIs Total award funding $107,795 $107,590 $107,590

 SIs Total number of awards 195 195 199

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities 

for Hispanic Americans

 anic Americans: Discretionary funding:

 pportuni ties for Hispanic Americans Number of NCC awards 19 19 19

 pportuni ties for Hispanic Americans—Discreti onar y funding: Average NCC award $509 $508 $508

 pportuni ties for Hispanic Americans—Discreti onar y funding: Total NCC award funding $9,671 $9,653 $9,653

HSI STEM and Articulation Programs

 and Ar ticul ation Programs— Mandatory funding: 

STEM and Articulation Programs - Mandator y funding: Number of new awards 91 0 0

STEM and Articulation Programs - Mandator y funding: Average new award $1,012 0 0

STEM and Articulation Programs - Mandator y funding: Total new award funding $92,3161 2 0 0

STEM and Articulation Programs - Mandator y funding: Number of NCC awards 0 91 91

STEM and Articulation Programs - Mandator y funding: Average NCC award 0 $1,024 $1,023

STEM and Articulation Programs - Mandator y funding: Total NCC award funding 0 $93,2001$93,1001

 Peer review of new award applications $38410 0

Total program funding--HSIs $209,782 $210,443 $210,343

Discretionary—total funding $117,466 $117,243 $117,243

Mandatory—total funding $92,7001$93,2001$93,1001

Total number of HSI awards 305 328 309

1 These figures represent obligations made using funds appropriated in the previous fiscal year, as 

allowed by section 371(b)(1)(B) of the HEA. 2 Includes $260 thousand that lapsed and was returned to Treasury.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-65

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information for grantees, including, for 

example, GPRA goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an 

assessment of the progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program 

results is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those 

requested in FY 2018 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 grantees from 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions.

HSI Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number 

of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolling at HSIs receiving grants under this 

program.

Year Target Actual

2008 +11.2%

2013 +11.0% +27.1

2018 TBD

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 antecedent 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-66

The actual enrollment data generating the percentage changes displayed under actual values in 

the table above are as follows:

NCC Awards

2003-2007

Enrollment

2003-2008

2003 773,859

2004 825,492

2005 845,045

2006 850,184

2007 856,844

2008 860,424

Change +11.2%

NCC Awards

2008-2012

Enrollment

2008-2013

2008 346,460

2009 406,709

2010 434,095

2011 442,257

2012 443,634

2013 440,424

Change +27.1%

The target for 2018 will be developed as soon as data are available and will be used to 

determine success for the 5-year grant period 2013-2018. Thus far, the change in enrollment 

for fiscal years 2013-2018 has decreased by 3.8 percent.

HSI Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 4-year HSI grantees who were in their first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HSI.

HSI Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students at 2-year HSI grantees who were in their first year of postsecondary 

enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HSI.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2013 78.0% 75.5% 65.0% 65.0%

2014 78.0 78.0 65.0 65.0

2015 78.5 79.0 66.0 65.0

2016 78.5 76.5 66.0 66.5

2017 79.0 66.0

2018 79.0 66.5

HSI Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year HSI grantees graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

HSI Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking 

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year HSI grantees graduating within 3 years of enrollment.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-67

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2013 46.0% 42.0% 22.0% 21.0%

2014 46.0 46.0 22.0 22.0

2015 46.5 45.0 22.5 23.0

2016 46.5 22.5

2017 47.0 23.0

2018 47.0 23.0

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.

Objective: Improve the year-to-year increase in enrollment and graduation rates in 

postbaccalaureate programs at Hispanic-serving institutions.

PPOHA Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the 

number of graduate and professional students enrolled at HSI grantee institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 +2.5% -0.6%

2019 TBD

Additional Information: The long-term measure for change in enrollment assesses the 

percentage change in enrollment at the PPOHA grantee institutions over a 5-year period. There 

are no intermediate annual targets. Future progress will be assessed against targets 

periodically (about every 5 years). For 2013, the measure was calculated as the percentage 

change in the number of graduate students enrolling at PPOHA grantee institutions, using the 

2008 baseline of 100,570 students. Even though enrollment at these institutions increased 

between 2008 to 2010, by 4.5 percent over 2008, the total graduate enrollment at PPOHA 

grantee institutions decreased to 99,969 in 2013, or 0.6 percent from 2008. The actual 

enrollment data generating the percentage changes displayed under actual values in the table 

above are as follows:

Awards

2008-2012

(40 grantees)

Enrollment

2008-2013

2008 100,570

2009 102,437

2010 105,088

2011 103,980

2012 102,510

2013 99,969

Change -0.6%

The target for 2019 will be developed as soon as data are available and will be used to 

determine success for the 5-year grant period 2014-2018 for 22 PPOHA grantee institutions. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-68

Thus far, the change in enrollment for fiscal years 2014-2016 for these institutions has

decreased by 4 percent (from 54,234 to 52,007).

PPOHA Degree Completion Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, 

of the number of master's, doctoral and first-professional degrees and postbaccalaureate 

certificates awarded at HSI grantee institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 20.0% 63.0%

2019 TBD

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 a new target for 2019 by December 2017.

HSI STEM Enrollment Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the 

number of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at HSI grantee institutions.

Year Target Actual

2016 -0.8%

2021 TBD

Additional Information: The Department has established an enrollment measure that focuses 

on changes in enrollment. The measure uses the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) fall enrollment data and 

tracks program enrollment at the beginning of, and 1 year after the end of, each 5-year grant 

period. The percentage change is calculated against the base year. There are no intermediate 

annual targets. Student enrollment at HSI STEM grantee institutions in 2016 (522,042) was 

used to calculate the percentage change against student enrollment at HSIs in the base year 

2011 (526,069). The actual enrollment data generating the percentage changes displayed 

under actual values in the table above are as follows:
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-69

Awards

2011-2015 

(98 grantees)

Enrollment

2011-2016

2011 526,069

2012 535,755

2013 525,731

2014 528,959

2015 529,868

2016 522,042

Change -0.8%

The target for 2021 will be developed as soon as data are available and will be used to 

determine success for the 5-year grant period 2016-2020.

HSI STEM Persistence Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degreeseeking undergraduate students at 4-year HSI grantees who were in their first year of 

postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same 

HSI.

HSI STEM Persistence Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degreeseeking undergraduate students at 2-year HSI grantees who were in their first year of 

postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same 

HSI.

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2013 76.0% 76.0% 65.0% 66.0%

2014 78.0 76.5 65.0 66.0

2015 78.5 78.0 66.0 65.5

2016 78.5 78.5 66.0 67.0

2017 79.0 66.0

2018 79.0 66.5

HSI STEM Graduation Measure (4-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degreeseeking undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year HSI grantee institutions graduating within 

6 years of enrollment.

HSI STEM Graduation Measure (2-year): The percentage of first-time, full-time degreeseeking undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year HSI grantee institutions graduating within 

3 years of enrollment.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-70

Year 4-year Target 4-year Actual 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2013 46.0% 44.0% 22.0% 20.5%

2014 46.0 45.5 22.0 21.0

2015 46.5 46.5 22.5 22.5

2016 46.5 22.5

2017 47.0 23.0

2018 47.0 23.0

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.

Efficiency Measures

Developing HSIs: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate 

degree at HSI grantee institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 $1,280 $571

2014 1,265 453

2015 1,250 417

2016 1,235

2017 1,220

2018 500

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 2014 data show a 

marked increase in efficiency since 2012, 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. The Department notes that it is difficult to attribute increases or decreases 

under this measure to the Federal share of funds due to the limited amount of the Federal 

contribution. 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. Given that the average cost 

per successful outcome for 2012-2015 was significantly lower than the established targets, the 

Department revised its targets, beginning in 2018, to more accurately reflect actual 

performance.

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans: Cost per successful 

outcome: Federal cost per master’s, doctoral and first-professional degree and 

postbaccalaureate certificate at HSI grantee institutions.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

R-71

Year Target Actual

2013 $2,215 $701

2014 2,215 816

2015 2,215 568

2016 650

2017 625

2018 600

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 2015, when PPOHA obligations totaled almost 

$9.0 million, grantee institutions awarded 15,832 graduate degrees. Grantees have 

outperformed the initial targets, which were set based on eligible institutions. Given that the 

average cost per successful outcome for 2012-2015 was significantly lower than the established

targets, the Department revised its targets, beginning in 2016, to more accurately reflect actual 

performance. The PPOHA efficiency measure can also be used to assess overall program 

performance over time. 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.

HSI STEM: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost for undergraduate and graduate 

degrees at institutions in the Hispanic-Serving Institutions STEM and Articulation Programs.

Year Target Actual

2013 $573

2014 686

2015 489

2016 $610

2017 600

2018 590

Additional Information: The HSI STEM efficiency measure is calculated by dividing the 

appropriation for the HSI STEM program by the number of undergraduate and graduate 

degrees awarded at grantee institutions. In fiscal year 2015, when HSI-STEM obligations 

totaled almost $92.1 million, grantee institutions awarded 188,337 undergraduate and graduate 

degree.e
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-72

Other aid for institutions:

INTERNATION AL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGU AGE STUDIES:

DOMESTIC PROG RAMS

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic

programs

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VI, Parts A and B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$64,979 $65,103 0 -$64,979

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2018.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) Domestic Programs are 

designed to strengthen the capability and performance of American education in foreign 

languages and in area and international studies. The IEFLS programs originated in the National 

Defense Education Act of 1958, as a response to the need to strengthen instruction in the areas 

of international studies and foreign languages that were insufficiently taught in the United 

States.

Funds are used to support a broad range of activities under ten Domestic Programs, at all 

levels, including primary and secondary education through a variety of K-12 outreach and 

teacher training collaborations. Grants are awarded to institutions of higher education 

(IHEs) to support centers, programs, and fellowships to increase the number of experts in 

foreign languages and 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, along with an analysis of how these areas relate to government, education, 

business, and nonprofit needs, and with a plan to address those needs 

(http://www2.ed.gov/programs/iegpsflasf/legislation.html).
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-73

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 less commonly taught 

languages and the regions where those languages are used.

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. So far, the 

Department has administered this survey twice, for cohorts that graduated in 2010 and 2012. 

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 (NRCs) Program supports IHEs or consortia of such institutions in 

establishing, operating, and strengthening comprehensive or undergraduate centers of 

excellence to train students, specialists, and other scholars. Activities may include the 

following: supporting instructors of less commonly taught languages; bringing visiting scholars 

and faculty to the Center to teach, conduct research, or participate in conferences or 

workshops; maintaining important library collections and related training and research facilities; 

conducting advanced research on issues 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 U.S. or abroad; and providing outreach and consultative 

services at the national, regional, and local levels. Funds also support faculty, staff, and student 

travel in foreign areas, regions, or countries; the development and implementation of 

educational programs abroad for students; and projects that support students in the science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to achieve foreign language proficiency. NRCs 

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 offering high quality 

performance-based modern language programs in combination with area studies, international 

studies, or the international aspects of professional studies. Students apply to IHEs that have 

received fellowship allocations from the Department. To be eligible for fellowships, students 

must be:
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-74

• 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 U.S., an institution must obtain approval from 

the Department. A fellowship may be approved for use outside the U.S. if: (1) the student is 

enrolled in an overseas modern foreign language program approved by the institution where the 

student is enrolled in the U.S.; or (2) the student is engaged in research that cannot be 

effectively done in the U.S. and is affiliated with an IHE or other appropriate organization in the 

host country. Institutions are funded for up to 4 years and, in turn, award fellowships annually to 

individual students on a competitive basis. 

Applications for awards must include an explanation of how the activities funded by the grant 

will reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of views and generate debate on world 

regions and international affairs; and a description of how the applicant will encourage 

government service in areas of national need, as well as in areas of need in the education, 

business, and nonprofit sectors.

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; 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-75

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.

International Research and Studies (IRS) Program provides grants to institutions, public and 

private agencies, organizations, and individuals to conduct research and studies to improve 

and strengthen instruction in modern foreign languages, area studies, and other international 

fields. An applicant may apply for IRS funds to conduct the following categories of activities: 

(a) studies and surveys to determine the need for increased or improved instruction in modern 

foreign languages and area studies and other international fields; (b) research and studies on 

more effective methods of instruction and achieving competency in modern foreign languages, 

area studies, or other international fields; and (c) development and publication of specialized 

materials.

Centers for International Business Education (CIBE) Program supports IHEs or consortia of 

IHEs by paying the Federal share of the cost of planning, establishing, and operating centers 

that provide a comprehensive university approach to improving international business education 

by bringing together faculty from numerous disciplines. The Centers serve as national 

resources for the teaching of improved business techniques, strategies, and methodologies that 

emphasize international business contexts; provide instruction in critical foreign languages and 

international fields needed to provide an understanding of the cultures and customs of U.S. 

trading partners; provide research and training in the international aspects of trade, commerce, 

and other fields of study; provide training to students enrolled in the institution or institutions in 

which a Center is located; serve as resources to local businesses and chambers of commerce

by offering programs and providing research designed to meet the international training needs 

of such businesses; and serve other faculty, students, and IHEs and K-12 schools with 

additional teacher and student outreach programs located within their respective regions. 

CIBEs are eligible for 4 years of support. The Federal share of the cost of planning, 

establishing, and operating the Centers cannot exceed 90 percent, 70 percent, or 50 percent in 

the first, second, third and following years, respectively.

Language Resource Centers Program supports IHEs or consortia of IHEs in improving the 

teaching and learning of foreign languages. The activities carried out by the Centers must 

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. LRCs 

are eligible for up to 4 years of support.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-76

American Overseas Research Centers Program makes grants to consortia of U.S. IHEs that 

operate overseas, facilitating research/scholarship in a particular region of the world. They

promote postgraduate research, faculty and student exchanges, and area studies. Funds may 

be used to pay for all or a portion of the cost of establishing or operating a Center or program. 

Costs may include faculty and staff stipends and salaries; faculty, staff, and student travel; 

operation and maintenance of overseas facilities; teaching and research materials; the 

acquisition, maintenance, and preservation of library collections; travel for visiting scholars and 

faculty members who are teaching or conducting research; preparation for and management of 

conferences; and the publication and dissemination of material for the scholars and general 

public. Centers are eligible for 4 years of support.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................. ................$63,103

2014.............................................................. ..................65,103

2015.............................................................. ..................65,103

2016.............................................................. ..................65,103

2017.............................................................. ..................65,103

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2018 budget request includes no funding for the Title VI 

Domestic Programs. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided 

$65.1 million for this program. While the Administration recognizes the critical need for our 

Nation to have a readily available pool of international area and advanced language experts for 

economic, foreign affairs, and national security purposes, it is unclear that this goal is consistent

with the Department’s core mission. Other Federal agencies whose primary mission is national 

security implement similar programs and are better equipped to support this critical objective. 

Therefore, the request proposes to eliminate these duplicative programs.

Under the Administration’s request, the Department would provide existing Domestic Program 

grantees a reasonable period of time to close out existing projects and draw down grant funds 

already awarded in prior years.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

National Resource Centers Program:

NRCs Number of NCC awards 100 100 0

NRCs Average NCC award $227 $227 0

NRCs Total NCC award funding $22,743 $22,743 0

NRCs Total award funding $22,743 $22,743 0

NRCs Total number of awards 100 100 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-77

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Foreign Language and Area Studies 

Fellowships:

FLAS Academic year graduate fellowships 666 666 0

FLAS Average academic year fellowship $33 $33 0

FLAS Academic year undergraduate fellowships 290 290 0

FLAS Average academic year fellowship $15 $15 0

FLAS Summer fellowships 534 534 0

FLAS Average summer year fellowship $8 $8 0

FLAS Number of NCC awards 108 108 0

FLAS Average NCC award $281 $281 0

FLAS Total NCC award funding $30,343 $30,343 0

FLAS Total award funding $30,343 $30,343 0

FLAS Total number of awards 108 108 0

Undergraduate International Studies

and Foreign Language Program:

UISF LNumber of new awards 33 0 0

UISF L Average new award $86 0 0

UISF LTotal new award funding $2,822 0 0

UISF LNumber of NCC awards 5 33 0

UISF L Average NCC award $134 $87 0

UISF L Total NCC award funding $671 $2,863 0

UISF L Total award funding $3,493 $2,863 0

UISF LTotal number of awards 38 33 0

International Research and Studies Program:

CIBE Number of new awards 0 10 0

CIBE Average new award 0 $59 0

CIBE Total new award funding 0 $589 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-78

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Centers for International Business Education

Program:

CIBE Number of NCC awards 17 17 0

CIBE Average NCC award $269 $269 0

CIBE Total NCC award funding $4,571 $4,571 0

CIBE Total award funding $4,571 $4,571 0

CIBE Total number of awards 17 17 0

Language Resource Centers Program:

LRC Number of NCC awards 16 16 0

LRC Average NCC award $172 $172 0

LRC Total NCC award funding $2,747 $2,747 0

LRC Total award funding $2,747 $2,747 0

LRC Total number of awards 16 16 0

American Overseas Research Centers

Program:

AORC Number of NCC awards 10 10 0

AORC Average NCC award $76 54 0

AORC Total NCC award funding $757 $540 0

AORC Total award funding $757 $540 0

AORC Total number of awards 10 10 0

Total award funding:

DomesticTotal new award funding $2,822 $589 0

DomesticTotal NCC award funding $61,832 $63,807 0

Program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination $394 $55 0

Peer review of new award applications $55 $25 0

Total Domestic funding $65,103 $64,979 0

Total Domestic awards 289 284 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-79

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

Over the past year, the Department revised the 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). The new measures utilize higher quality 

data, and are designed 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 program performance.

Fiscal year 2014 data will be used to establish baseline data for the new measures, and the 

Department expects baseline to be available in December 2017. Targets are expected to be set 

beginning in early 2016. 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 new performance measures:

NRCs:

• Percentage of priority languages defined by the Department taught at NRCs.

• Percentage of NRC grants teaching intermediate or advanced courses in priority languages 

as defined by the Department.

• 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 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. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-80

• Percentage of FLAS master’s and doctoral graduates who studied priority languages as 

defined by the Department.

• Percentage of FLAS fellows who increased their foreign language reading, writing, and/or 

listening/speaking scores by at least 1 proficiency level (annual measure).

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 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 new 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 (annual measure). 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-81

• Cost per CIBE doctoral or Master's graduate employed in international business-related 

fields, including teaching in a business school or program within 8 years after graduation as 

measured by the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) Tracking Survey.

• 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 resulting plan presented several strategies for evaluating 

IEFLS programs. It was determined that the impact studies that could potentially most 

effectively measure program results present methodological challenges and are too costly to 

pursue in view of IEFL’s resources. At the same time, it was determined that further 

evidence of IEFLS program results could be obtained using existing data in the IRIS 

information system. With support from a contractor, the Department analyzed and revised

the FLAS Tracking Survey, developed a similar tracking survey for the Fulbright-Hays 

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad program, and analyzed the data available in IRIS to 

determine those elements that can best be used to demonstrate program results, 

conducting further analyses whose results will be used to design an IEFLS Annual Report 

that will describe program outputs. The first such report is under development in fiscal year 

2017.

• A number of studies have been conducted over the years to evaluate aspects of the 

Domestic Programs. A few are outlined below:

o In 2007, the National Research Council 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 National Research Council recognized that the 

Title VI/Fulbright-Hays programs have served as a foundation in the internationalization 

of higher education and should continue to do so. The Department has implemented six

of the twelve principal recommendations of the National Research Council study, 

including:

 Recommendation 4.1: The Department should increase incentives in the application 

process for National Resource Centers and Language Resource Centers to 

collaborate with schools or colleges of education on their campuses in the 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-82

development of curriculum, the design of instructional materials, and teacher 

education.

 Recommendation 5.1: The Department should modify its policy guidelines to 

encourage overseas study by Foreign Language and Area Studies fellows.

 Recommendation 5.2: The Department should stop using its current self-assessment 

approach and develop an alternative approach to measuring foreign language 

proficiency with demonstrated reliability and validity.

 Recommendation 10.2: The Department should encourage Title VI and 

Fulbright-Hays grantees to actively recruit minority members.

 Recommendation 11.1: The Department should ensure that its new data system, the 

International Resource Information System, provides greater standardization, allows 

comparison across years and across programs, and provides information to all 

grantees and to the public.

 Recommendation 12.1: The Department should consolidate oversight of its 

international education and foreign language programs under an executive level 

person who would also provide strategic direction and consult and coordinate with 

other federal agencies. The position should be one that requires presidential 

appointment and Senate confirmation.

The study is available at the following links:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11841/international-education-and-foreign-languages-keysto-securing-americas-future or http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11841.

o 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:

 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.

 Students who received FLAS fellowships were highly likely to complete 

their degrees. Master’s and first-professional degree students were far more likely 

(95–96 percent) than doctoral students (72 percent) to have completed their degrees 

at the time of the survey.

 Regardless of their degree completion status, FLAS fellows reported that their oral 

and written language skills improved over the course of their FLAS-supported study. 

At the time of the survey, FLAS fellows rated their abilities to speak, write, and read 

the languages they studied (speaking and listening were rated on a 5-point scale; 

reading and writing on a 6-point scale) with FLAS support both at the start and upon 

completing FLAS-supported study at a variety of levels. FLAS fellowship recipients 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-83

averaged a one-level gain in proficiency. These data compare favorably to data 

collected through IRIS on Title VI FLAS fellowship recipients.

 Nearly all fellows (92 percent) worked after completing their fellowships, and a 

majority of fellows (71 percent) worked in jobs that involved expertise they had 

gained through their FLAS-supported study. Nearly all fellows who reported working 

in a related job considered that job to be part of a career they were pursuing.

 Among fellows who had held at least one job related to the field they had studied 

with FLAS support, three-quarters of fellows worked in education, one-fifth in a U.S. 

private sector job, and one-fifth in foreign or international jobs. About one in nine 

worked for the military or other Government positions.

 Of fellows who had worked for pay since completing the fellowship, 68 percent 

worked in a job in which teaching was a major responsibility. These fellows had 

taught for an average of 3 years at the time of the survey, and 86 percent of them 

had taught in a field related to the FLAS-supported study.

 FLAS fellows believed that FLAS was very helpful in their degree completion and at

least somewhat helpful in obtaining employment in a desired field. Over one-half 

reported that receiving a FLAS fellowship influenced their occupation and career 

choices.

 FLAS fellows believed that FLAS was very helpful in their degree completion and at 

least somewhat helpful in obtaining employment in a desired field. Over one-half 

reported that receiving a FLAS fellowship influenced their occupation and career 

choices.

While these findings are encouraging, it should be noted that the overall response rate—

the proportion of fellowships for which a survey was completed—was less than 

50 percent. In addition, the study does not offer data on outcomes for an appropriate 

comparison group due to limitations in the Department’s data sources. Despite these 

limitations, the data indicate positive outcomes.

o When Congress reauthorized the HEA, by way of the Higher Education Opportunity Act 

of 2008 (HEOA), it directed the Department to assist grantees in developing a survey to 

administer to students who have completed programs authorized by Title VI of the HEA 

to determine postgraduate employment, education, or training. The Department 

published a report of findings based on the first survey conducted, which tracks the postgraduation career trajectory of FLAS fellowship recipients from 2010 to 2012.

 FLAS fellows received support to study 67 languages (50 priority languages and 

17 non-priority languages as defined by ED) during their first FLAS fellowship.

Arabic (18 percent), Portuguese (11 percent), Russian (9 percent), Japanese 

(7 percent), and Chinese (Mandarin) (7 percent) were the most frequently studied 

languages for the respondents’ first FLAS. These languages are considered to be 

essential for economic and strategic purposes.

 Respondents overwhelmingly reported that FLAS fellowships have been an asset in 

their career trajectories. Fifty-nine percent indicated that knowledge of a foreign 

language is a requirement or considered a key asset for their current job, and 

62 percent reported that knowledge of area/international studies is a requirement or
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

R-84

a key asset for their current job. More than 60 percent reported using their 

area/international studies training in their current work on a regular basis. More than 

70 percent reported that their foreign language and area/international studies’ 

training was very beneficial or beneficial to their marketability and their professional 

development/promotion potential. Employers that have hired FLAS fellows include 

Boston Consulting Group, Brookings Institution, Citigroup, Google, JPMorgan Chase, 

McKinsey and Company, Oliver Wyman, Teach for America, the U.S. Department of 

Defense, and the U.S. Department of State, among others.

 Regarding the relationship between the FLAS fellowship and fellows’ academic and 

career goals, 68 percent of fellows reported that they were “unlikely to [have 

achieved] advanced language proficiency,” and almost 50 percent reported that they 

were “unlikely” to [have traveled] overseas for a language immersion/study abroad 

experience had they not received a FLAS fellowship.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-85

OVERSEAS PROGRAM S

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas

programs

(Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Section 102(b)(6))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: Infinite

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$7,048 $7,061 0 -$7,048

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 

American teachers, college students, and faculty for periods from 1 to 12 months. In addition,

the GPA program also supports Advanced Overseas projects that provide 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 12 months. Projects can 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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

R-86

commonly taught languages and all major world areas with the exception of Western Europe. 

The fellowships are from 6 to 12 months in length.

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.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................. ..................$7,061

2014.............................................................. ....................7,061

2015.............................................................. ....................7,061

2016.............................................................. ....................7,061

2017.............................................................. ....................7,061

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST 

The Administration’s fiscal year 2018 budget request includes no funding for the Overseas 

Programs. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $7.1 million for this 

program. While the Administration recognizes the critical need for our Nation to have a readily 

available pool of international area and advanced language experts for economic, foreign 

affairs, and national security purposes, it is unclear that this goal is consist with the 

Department’s core mission. Other Federal agencies whose primary mission is national security 

implement similar programs, and are better equipped to support this critical objective. 

Therefore, the request proposes to eliminate these duplicative programs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

R-87

Additionally, while this request would not provide any funds for the Fulbright-Hays Overseas 

programs the Administration proposes funding in fiscal year 2018 for the broader Fulbright 

program—administered by the State Department—which provides U.S. and foreign students 

and scholars the opportunity to study, pursue degrees, teach, and conduct research at foreign 

and U.S. universities and is administered by the State Department.

There is also no reliable evidence demonstrating that these programs are any more effective 

than other Federally-sponsored initiatives designed to support similar activities.

Under the Administration’s request, the Department would provide existing Overseas Program 

grantees a reasonable period of time to close out existing projects and draw down grant funds 

already awarded in prior years.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Group Projects Abroad:

Short-Term Projects:

GPA Number of new projects 20 0 0

GPA Average new project $89 0 0

GPA Total new project funding $1,772 0 0

GPA Number of NCC projects 0 20 0

GPA Average NCC project 0 $89 0

GPA Total NCC project funding 0 $1,772 0

Advanced Overseas Projects:

GPA Number of new projects 6 0 0

GPA Average new project $170 0 0

GPA Total new project funding $1,020 0 0

GPA Number of NCC projects 0 6 0

GPA Average NCC project 0 $170 0

GPA Total NCC project funding 0 $1,020 0

GPA Total GPA project funding $2,792 $2,792 0

GPA Total number of GPA projects 26 26 0

GPA Total number of GPA participants 425 425 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

R-88

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017 

Annualized CR 2018

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad:

DDRA Number of new fellows 97 97 0

DDRA Average new fellowship $36 $36 0

DDRA Number of new awards 45 45 0

DDRA Average new award $77 $77 0

DDRA Total new award funding $3,478 $3,478 0

Seminars Abroad—Special Bilateral Projects:

Semi nars Number of new awards 3 3 0

Semi nars Average new award $177 $177

Semi nars Total new award funding $532 $532 0

Semi nars Total number of participants 48 48 0

Department of State administrative costs $132 $132 0

Program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination $56 $56 0

Peer review of new award applications $71 $58 0

Total Overseas funding $7,061 $7,048 0

Total Overseas participants 570 570 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

In fiscal year 2013, the Department revised 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 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

R-89

• Percentage of DDRA fellows who increased their foreign language scores in speaking, 

reading, and/or writing by at least one proficiency level (annual measure).

• Percentage of GPA participants in the Advanced Language Program who increased their 

reading, writing, and/or listening/speaking foreign language scores by one proficiency level 

(Long-Term Projects).

Fiscal year 2014 data will be used to establish a baseline for the new measures after it becomes 

available in December 2017. The Department will begin to consider targets later in 2017. 

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 December 2017.

• Cost per DDRA fellow who found employment that utilized their language and area studies 

skills within 8 years. 

• Cost per GPA participant who increased his/her foreign language score in reading, writing, 

and/or listening/speaking by at least one proficiency level.

Other Performance Information

The DDRA program in particular was created to provide funding to doctoral students conducting 

research abroad in modern foreign languages and area studies. These research projects 

enhance the nation’s capacity for education regarding areas of the world not generally included 

in U.S. curricula. After completing their studies, fellowship recipients are expected to teach in 

U.S. institutions and in turn provide high-quality training for other U.S. students. The 2008 study 

of the Department’s graduate fellowship programs revealed several key findings regarding the 

DDRA program. The data gathered through this study indicated that:

• DDRA fellows took less time to complete their degrees than other doctoral recipients did, 

which may be related to DDRA fellows having been enrolled full-time at higher rates than 

most doctoral students.

• Over 90 percent of DDRA fellows completed their degrees, with only 1 percent dropping out 

of their programs and the reminder planning to complete their degrees.

• DDRA fellows, who were awarded fellowships late in their graduate school careers, finished 

their doctoral degrees at a rate of 93 percent.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

R-90

• DDRA fellows studied a wide variety of languages: only 20 percent of fellows studied 

European languages and more students studied South or East Asian languages than 

languages from any other geographic region. Nearly two-thirds studied a language deemed 

“critical” by the Department.

• Nearly all (89 percent) DDRA fellows worked in jobs that used the expertise they had gained 

through their fellowship-funded research, and all fellows in these jobs described them as 

part of a career they had pursued for an average of 4 years and were continuing to pursue.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-91

MODEL TRANSITION PROG RAMS FO R STUDENTS WITH INTELLECTU AL DISABILITIES INTO HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual 

disabilities into higher education

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part D, Subpart 2)

(dollars in thousands) 

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$11,778 $11,800 $11,778 0

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

2018.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Model Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities into Higher Education 

(TPSID) promote the successful transition of students with intellectual disabilities into higher 

education. TPSID funding supports competitive grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs)

(as defined under section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)), or 

consortia of IHEs, to create or expand high-quality, inclusive model comprehensive transition 

and postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities. Funds from this program 

also support a national Coordinating Center (Center), which develops evaluation standards for 

TPSID grantees and provides technical assistance, information, and opportunities for 

communication among institutions with postsecondary programs for students with intellectual 

disabilities. The Center assists in developing, evaluating, funding, conducting outreach, and 

supporting continuous improvement activities for model transition programs.

Grants under this program are awarded for 5 years. All grant recipients must partner with one 

or more local educational agencies to support students with intellectual disabilities who are 

eligible for special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). IHEs receiving funds under this program are required to match Federal 

funds in an amount that is no less than 25 percent of the award amount. Funds may be used 

for a variety of activities, including: student support services; academic enrichment, 

socialization, or living skills programs; integrated work experiences; development of 

individualized instruction plans; evaluation of the model program, in cooperation with the Center; 

program sustainability; and development of a program credential.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

R-92

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................. ................$10,384

2014.............................................................. ..................10,384

2015.............................................................. ..................11,800

2016.............................................................. ..................11,800

2017.............................................................. ..................11,800

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $11.8 million for the Model Transition Programs for Students with 

Intellectual Disabilities in fiscal year 2018, the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized 

continuing resolution (CR) level. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, 

provided $11.8 million for this program. Funds appropriated in fiscal year 2018 would support 

continuation awards for the 25 grants awarded in fiscal year 2015, as well as the Coordinating 

Center. In addition to activities required by authorizing statute, the Joint Explanatory Statement 

accompanying the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2015, directs the Center to 

administer a mentoring program matching current and new TPSID grantees, and to coordinate a 

longitudinal data collection, among other activities. The Department plans to continue support 

for these activities in fiscal years 2017 and 2018.

Among all students with disabilities, students with intellectual disabilities are the least likely to 

have college enrollment listed as a goal on their Individualized Education Program (IEP) in high 

school, and are among the least likely (along with students with multiple disabilities) to enroll in 

postsecondary education within 4 years after high school. According to the 2013 “Post-High 

School Outcomes of Young Adults With Disabilities up to 8 Years After High School” report from 

the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), only 30 percent of students with 

intellectual disabilities enrolled in postsecondary education settings, the lowest rate of all 

disability categories after 8 years, and of these students, only 6 percent enrolled in 4-year 

colleges. Among those who do attend college, students with intellectual disabilities are less 

likely than youth with other disabilities to successfully find employment, live independently, or 

see friends at least weekly. 

TPSID programs identify, promote, and demonstrate innovative strategies to serve students with 

intellectual disabilities, in areas such as: access to academically inclusive college courses; 

participation in internships and integrated competitive employment, and engagement in social 

and personal development activities. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

R-93

The current TPSID Coordinating Center is Think College, a project of the Institute for 

Community Inclusion at the University of Massachusetts Boston. In the most recent annual 

report for the 2010-2015 cohort, released in 2016, Think College reported that TPSID served a 

total of 888 students on 52 campuses, across 23 states in the fifth and final year of data 

collection, i.e., fiscal year 2015. TPSID reported successes in a number of areas, including: 

establishment of peer education centers through which other college students provide academic 

and social mentoring; support for Universal Design for Learning and Universal Course Design 

training for faculty, staff, and administrators; and establishment of satellite posts of successful 

vocational and social skill programs on other campuses within respective community college 

networks. Forty percent of students who exited the TPSID program held paid jobs, and 

80 percent of the students who exited the program earned one or more credentials prior to 

exiting—an increase of 3 percent over the previous year and the highest percentage of 

credential earners thus far in the funding period. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 fo

ot

n

ot

e

2017

Annualized CR footnote2018

footnote

Number of new awards 0 0 0

Average new award 0 0 0

Total new award funding 0 0 0

Number of non-competing 

continuation (NCC) awards 25 25 25

Average NCC award $387 $392 $392

Total NCC award funding $9,6801$9,800 1 $9,7781

Coordinating Center $2,000 $2,000 $2,000

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 0 0

1 NCC award funding varies annually based on individual project budget in approved application.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and those requested in fiscal 

year 2018 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

R-94

TPSID grantees submit annual performance reports (APRs) to the Department. Data from 

these reports 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.

In addition to participating in the evaluation activities conducted by the Center, each TPSID has 

its own internal mechanism for evaluating its program. The Center captures information about 

these strategies through the TPSID Program Evaluation Special Interest Group. In general, 

TPSIDs evaluate their programs using information from a variety of sources, including: 

assessments of students’ academic progress; assessments of students’ career interests and 

progress; assessments of students’ self-determination levels; and interviews, meetings, and 

feedback questionnaires with students, peer mentors, and staff.

The 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

beginning in September 2012 for the 27 fiscal year 2010 grantees (i.e., the first cohort). These 

TPSID grantees submitted data for all 5 years of the grants. In 2016, the Center released a 

report on grantees’ progress during the 5 years of the program.

To support evaluation of the second cohort of TPSID model demonstration projects, in fall 2015 

the Center reviewed and revised the previously approved evaluation tool in preparation for OMB 

approval for this new collection. The revised tool enhances clarity and streamlines the format. 

Sixty-five questions were eliminated from the final tool. The revised TPSID evaluation protocol 

was submitted to OMB for approval in December of 2015, and OMB approval was received in 

July 2016.

The Department is currently exploring a number of different approaches to measuring the 

success and performance of the Center and TPSID grantees. The Department developed 

several new draft performance measures in fiscal year 2016 and expects to further refine these 

measures and targets in fiscal year 2017 for implementation in fiscal year 2018.

Goal: To promote the successful transition of students with intellectual disabilities into 

higher education.

Objective: Increase the percentage of students with intellectual disabilities who are enrolled in 

programs funded under TPSID who complete the programs and obtain a meaningful credential, 

as defined by the Center and approved by the Department.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

R-95

Measure: The percentage of students with intellectual disabilities enrolled in programs funded 

under TPSID who complete the programs and obtain a meaningful credential, as defined by the 

Center and approved by the Department.

Year Target Actual

2015 80%1

2016 85% 722

2017 85

2018 85

1 Year 5 of Cohort 1

2 Year 1 of Cohort 2

Additional Information: The Department established targets for this measure after obtaining 

baseline data in the early years of the grant program. Possible credentials include certificates 

specifically for TPSID students granted by an IHE, specialized certificates granted by a 

program, certificates available to all students, specialized certificates issued from a Local 

Education Agency (LEA), Bachelor or Associate degrees available to all students. Fiscal 

year 2016 represented the first year of the second cohort (i.e., 2015-2020) of TPSID grantees. 

The full details of the Year 1 report for the second cohort have not yet been released; however, 

basic exit data are available. Of the 117 students who exited a TPSID program during fiscal 

year 2016 (i.e., Year 1 of the second cohort), 84 students (72 percent) received a meaningful 

credential, an increase of 9 percent compared to Year 1 of the first cohort (63 percent). 

The Center released the Year 5 (cohort 1, fiscal year 2015) Annual Report during fiscal year 

2016. The percentage of students completing a TPSID program with meaningful credentials 

increased steadily over the 5 years of the grants in the first cohort. The most common 

credential earned by exiting students in Year 5 (i.e., fiscal year 2015) of the first cohort was an 

IHE certificate specifically for TPSID students (46 percent). No students earned a Bachelor’s or 

Associate’s degree during this year, and 16 percent of all students were enrolled at campuses 

that did not provide access to any credential. Students who exited programs at 4-year IHEs 

were more likely to have earned a credential (91 percent) than students who exited programs at 

2-year IHEs (66 percent). A certificate specifically for students in the TPSID program granted 

by the IHE was the most common credential at both 2-year and 4-year IHEs in Year 5.

A primary goal of the TPSID program is to facilitate career development and to provide the 

supports necessary for students to seek and sustain integrated competitive employment. The 

percentage of students employed at exit has increased each year of the first cohort, from 

14 percent in Year 1 to 40 percent in Year 5. The percentage of exiting students who were 

employed within 90 days of exit or engaged in career development at the point of exit peaked in 

Year 5 at 76 percent, compared to only 30 percent in Year 1. The percentage of students with a 

paid job within 90 days of exit has increased each year for which data has been reported, and 

has doubled since Year 1 (20 percent compared to 40 percent). 

In order to obtain data on the impact of the TPSID programs on students’ ability to obtain and 

maintain these employment outcomes, follow-up data must be collected after program exit. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

R-96

According to the Year 5 report of the first cohort, there was a significant increase in the number 

of TPSID sites that were collecting follow-up data on students who exited the program. During 

Years 1 and 2, only 23 percent of programs were collecting follow-up data on former students. 

This increased to 36 percent in Year 3, 54 percent in Year 4, and 62 percent in Year 5. 

Employment outcomes such as type of job, earnings and hours worked, living situation, and 

volunteer or community service activities were the most common areas of data collection. 

The collection of follow-up data is critical in determining not only the outcomes experienced by 

students, but also which programmatic elements have the greatest impact and which may need 

refinement. The Center is not permitted to gather information from TPSIDs at any point after 

students exit the program, however, TPSIDs may continue this data collection on their own.

The Department will work to further develop measures in this area during fiscal years 2017 and 

2018.

Objective: Increase the percentage of TPSID grant recipients that meet Department-approved, 

Center-developed standards for necessary program components.

Measure: The percentage of TPSID grant recipients that meet Department-approved, 

Center-developed standards for necessary program components: Academic Access; Career 

Development; Campus Membership; Self-Determination; Alignment with College Systems and 

Practices; Coordination and Collaboration; Sustainability; and Ongoing Evaluation.

Year Target Actual

2015 88%

2016 90% 88

2017 90

2018 90

Additional Information: The Center developed the Think College Standards for Inclusive 

Higher Education in 2012. These eight standards include 18 quality indicators and 

87 benchmarks and provide an evaluation framework for TPSID performance in areas of

academic, vocational, social, and independent living skills; evaluation of student progress;

program administration and evaluation; student eligibility; and program credit equivalency.

The Center looks at the TPSID grantees as a cohort in this measure, determining the rate at 

which all standards are met by all programs. In fiscal year 2016, 100 percent of TPSIDs from 

the second cohort met seven of the eight standards (88 percent) in their first year. This is 

consistent with the previous cohort’s Year 5 rate. The following table provides a breakout of the 

individual standards and the percentage of grantees that met each, respectively, by year.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

R-97

Standard

FY 

2014

FY 

2015

FY 

2016

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% 100% 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. 

96 93 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. 

100 100 100

4. Self-Determination: To facilitate the development of selfdetermination in students with intellectual disabilities, the 

comprehensive postsecondary education program should ensure 

student involvement in and control of the establishment of personal 

goals through use of person centered planning and have a stated 

process for family involvement. 

96 100 100

5. Alignment with College Systems and Practices: To facilitate 

alignment with college systems and practices for students with 

intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive postsecondary 

education should offer an educational credential (e.g., degree or 

certificate) established by the institution for students enrolled in the 

program, provide access to academic advising college campus 

resources, collaborate with faculty and staff, and adhere to the 

college’s schedules, policies and procedures, public relations, and 

communications. 

100 100 100

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. 

100 100 100
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

R-98

Standard

FY 

2014

FY 

2015

FY 

2016

7. Sustainability: To facilitate sustainability the comprehensive 

postsecondary education program should use diverse sources of 

funding and have a planning and advisory team. 

100% 100% 100%

8. Ongoing Evaluation: To facilitate quality postsecondary 

education services for students with intellectual disabilities, the 

comprehensive postsecondary program should conduct evaluation 

of services and outcomes on a regular basis.

96 100 100

The Department continues to work with the Center to refine this measure. The Department is 

also in the process of identifying additional performance measures, including long-term 

and efficiency measures, for the evaluation of TPSID grantees. Data from the current 

25 grantees from the second cohort (2015-2020) as well as the 27 grantees from the first cohort 

(2010-2015) will inform measurement development and refinement.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-99

TRIBALLY CONTRO LLED POSTSECONDARY CAREER AND TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical 

institutions

(Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, Section 117)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: Indefinite1

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$8,270 $8,286 $8,270 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2013; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2018.

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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

R-100

Funds may be used by a grantee to train faculty; purchase equipment; provide instructional 

services, child-care and other family support services, and student stipends; and for institutional 

support.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................. ..................$8,131

2014.............................................................. ....................7,705

2015.............................................................. ....................7,705

2016.............................................................. ....................8,286

2017.............................................................. ....................8,286

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2018, the Administration requests $8.3 million for the Tribally Controlled 

Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions (TCPCTI) program, the same amount as the 

fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level (CR) level. The Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $8.3 million for this program. Funds would be 

used to improve eligible institutions’ academic and career and technical education offerings as 

well as for institutional support and capital expenditures.

This program currently makes awards to two institutions: Navajo Technical College (Navajo 

Tech), formerly Crownpoint Institute of Technology, and United Tribes Technical College 

(UTTC). While UTTC is located in an urban setting and serves a diverse Indian student 

population and Navajo Tech is a rural institution that serves an almost entirely Navajo 

enrollment, they struggle with similar institutional and academic challenges. Both institutions 

serve an especially economically disadvantaged population and have difficulty providing 

sufficient financial aid to students. In addition, each school serves a number of students who 

lack preparation for postsecondary education and need academic and support services to help 

them develop the skills needed for postsecondary work. 

Furthermore, according to Navajo Tech and UTTC officials, these institutions receive limited 

support from the tribes they serve because they are not the primary postsecondary institutions 

for those tribes. 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

R-101

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Range of awards $2,420–$5,866 $2,420–$5,866 $2,420–$5,866

Number of awards 2 2 2

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program information, including, for example, GPRA goals, 

objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the progress 

made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on the 

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2018 

and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

Goal: To increase access to and improve career education that will strengthen workforce 

preparation, employment opportunities, and lifelong learning in the Indian community.

Objective: Ensure that career and technical education (CTE) students in tribally controlled 

postsecondary career and technical institutions make successful transitions to work or 

continuing education.

Measure: The percentage of CTE students who receive a degree, certificate, or credential.

Year Target Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Actual Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target Percentage, 

UTTC

Actual 

Percentage, UTTC

2013 86% 96% 60% 53%

2014 88 82 56 66

2015 90 83 58 42

2016 95 76 60 42

2017 88 62

2018 88 62

Additional information: The source of data is grantee reports. 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. Navajo Tech 

attributes the decreases in its performance to increases in the rigor of its programs since the 

institution was accredited as a university in 2013. The increased rigor has led to a decline in

student attainment and an increase in the number of students having academic problems or 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

R-102

withdrawing from the institution. UTTC reported that there has been a significant increase in the 

number of students who “stop out”, or leave the program to return later, in order to earn income. 

The Department reset targets in 2015 based on actual performance over the preceding 5 years; 

in particular, it reset targets for Navajo Tech given the changes in rigor due to its new status as 

a university and expected changes in performance due to these changes. Data for 2017 will be 

available in early 2018.

Measure: The percentage of students who are retained in postsecondary CTE programs.

Year Target Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Actual Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target Percentage, 

UTTC

Actual 

Percentage, UTTC

2013 82% 63% 70% 51%

2014 83 66 60 56

2015 85 78 65 72

2016 87 70 65 72

2017 82 58

2018 82 58

Additional information: The source of data is grantee reports. The measure is based on 

students who complete CTE programs and students who have not yet completed, but have 

been retained, in CTE programs. 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 2015 based on actual performance over the preceding 5 years; in particular, it reset 

targets for Navajo Tech given the changes in rigor due to its new status as a university and 

expected changes in performance due to these changes. Data for 2017 will be available in 

early 2018.

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

2013 90% 77% 83% 73%

2014 80 79 73 72

2015 85 78 80 68

2016 85 76 82 68

2017 83 76

2018 83 76

Additional information: The source of data is grantee reports. The percentage of students 

who meet State- or program-established industry-validated CTE skills standards is based on the 

number of CTE concentrators who passed technical skill assessments that are aligned with 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

R-103

industry-recognized standards during the reporting year divided by the number of CTE 

concentrators who took technical skill assessments during the reporting year. The Department 

reset targets in 2015 based on actual performance over the preceding 5 years; in particular, it 

reset targets for Navajo Tech given the changes in rigor due to its new status as a university 

and expected changes in performance due to these changes. Data for 2017 will be available in 

early 2018.

Objective: Ensure that CTE students in the tribally controlled postsecondary career and 

technical institutions are placed in jobs or continuing education or complete postsecondary CTE 

programs.

Measure: The percentage of students placed in jobs, military service, or higher-level continuing 

education programs upon graduation or completion of the postsecondary career and technical 

education programs.

Year Target Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Actual Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target Percentage, 

UTTC

Actual 

Percentage, UTTC

2013 70% 73% 70% 87%

2014 65 79 80 79

2015 70 55 85 80

2016 73 86 87 73

2017 77 82

2018 79 79

Additional information: The source of data is grantee reports. The Department requires 

Navajo Tech and UTTC to collect placement data during the second quarter after students 

graduate from or complete their programs. Since most students do so in late spring or early 

summer, both institutions generally collect these data at the end of the calendar year. The 

Department has worked with the grantees to help ensure that they collect performance data 

consistently, but both grantees have acknowledged weaknesses in their data on post-program 

outcomes (such as placement in jobs or continuing education). The grantees have stated it is 

difficult to track students after they leave the institutions and that they need to develop 

strategies for collecting better data on this indicator. UTTC reported that decreases in 

performance are largely due to students leaving the institution without a credential due to new 

job opportunities in a recovering economy. Some students would rather get a job that provides 

a salary immediately rather than foregoing an income while they work towards a credential. The 

Department reset targets in 2015 based on actual performance over the preceding 5 years; in 

particular, it reset targets for Navajo Tech given the changes in rigor due to its new status as a 

university and expected changes in performance due to these changes. Navajo Tech attributed 

its improvement to hiring a placement specialist to link students with managers who are hiring, 

along with initiating exit surveys to collect placement data from students when they leave the 

institution. Data for 2017 will be available in early 2018.

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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

R-104

meaningful indicator of cost-effectiveness), but the recipients do not use the same 

methodology to determine degree completion, which limits the comparability of the data. In 

addition, there continue to be reliability concerns about these data due to challenges in 

obtaining an accurate student count. The Department developed guidance to help grantees 

improve the comparability and reliability of the data provided in their performance reports and 

expects to be able to calculate the cost per successful outcome more reliably in the future.

Measure: Annual cost per participant.

Year

Cost per participant, 

Navajo Tech

Cost per participant, 

UTTC

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

2014 3,172 3,172

2015 4,086 4,086

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 2016 will be available by the fall of 2017. Note that the validity of the 

student count data provided by the recipients is uncertain.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-105

Assistance for students:

FEDERAL TRIO PROG RAMS

Federal TRIO programs

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$898,289 $950,000 $808,289 -$90,000

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

2018.

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 identifies and assists individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are 

between 11 and 27 years of age, and who have the potential for postsecondary education. The 

program provides academic, career, and financial counseling to its participants and encourages 

them to graduate from high school (or return to school, for those who have dropped out) and 

enroll in a postsecondary education program. Projects must provide a variety of supports and 

services, including: advice on and assistance in selecting secondary and college courses;

assistance in preparing for college entrance exams and in completing college applications;

information on student financial aid and assistance in completing financial aid applications;

connections to academic tutoring services; connections to services designed to improve 

financial and economic literacy; and guidance and assistance in re-entering and completing 

secondary school. Projects also may provide academic tutoring; personal and career 

counseling; information on career options; exposure to college campuses; and services 

specially designed for students with disabilities or limited English proficiency, homeless children 

and youth, and students in foster care.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-106

Upward Bound provides services to high school students that are designed to generate the 

skills and motivation needed to pursue and complete a postsecondary education. Projects 

provide the same services as Talent Search projects, except that Upward Bound projects may

provide an on-campus residential summer component and work-study positions that expose

students to careers requiring a postsecondary degree. In addition to regular projects, Upward 

Bound supports projects that focus on math and science and also on veterans. The Upward 

Bound Math and Science program establishes mathematics and science centers that encourage 

students to pursue postsecondary degrees specifically in those fields. The Veterans Upward 

Bound projects are designed to assist veterans in preparing for a program of postsecondary 

education.

Educational Opportunity Centers provide counseling and information on college admissions to 

adults who are at least 19 years old and who are seeking a postsecondary education degree. 

Services include disseminating information on higher education opportunities in the community; 

academic advice, personal counseling, and career workshops; help in completing applications 

for college admissions, testing, and financial aid; tutoring; mentoring; and services to improve 

financial and economic literacy.

The Student Support Services program offers a broad range of support services to 

postsecondary students to increase their retention, graduation, and transfer rates from 2-year to 

4-year institutions. All projects must provide a range of supports and services, including: 

academic tutoring; advice on postsecondary course selection; financial aid counseling; services 

to improve financial and economic literacy; assistance in applying for graduate and professional 

programs; and activities to help students in 2-year institutions enroll in 4-year programs. 

Projects may also provide personal and career counseling; exposure to cultural events; 

mentoring; services to secure temporary housing during academic breaks for students who are 

homeless; activities for students with disabilities, limited English proficiency 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 and Science) and Student Support Services, which 

together accounted for nearly three-fourths of all TRIO funding in 2016. TRIO programs vary 

greatly in service intensity, with per-participant annual costs ranging from a high of $8,435 for 

the McNair Postgraduate Achievement program to a low of $249 for the Educational Opportunity 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-107

Centers. The regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science projects, on 

average, spend approximately $4,376 and $4,352 per year per participant, respectively, while 

the Veterans Upward Bound projects, which do not have a residential summer component, had 

an average per participant annual cost of $2,103 in 2016. Most projects are located at colleges, 

although nonprofit organizations operate a substantial number of Talent Search and Educational 

Opportunity Center projects.

Number of Participants, Participants per Project and Cost per Participant (FY 2016) 

Award Type

Number of 

Participants

Average number of 

participants

per project

Federal

cost per participant

Talent Search 318,723 663 $473

Upward Bound 61,747 76 4,376

Veterans Upward Bound 6,587 134 2,103

Upward Bound Math and Science 10,176 63 4,352

Educational Opportunity Centers 225,678 1,368 249

Student Support Services 203,290 190 1,488

McNair 4,338 29 8,435

Percentage of Funds by Institution Type (FY 2016)

 Institution Type

Talent 

Search

Upward 

Bound1

Educational 

Opportunity 

Centers

Student 

Support 

Services McNair

Postsecondary Institutions

Public, 4-year 43.4% 48.1% 42.0% 41.2% 75.0%

Public, 2-year 28.4 25.9 26.8 47.3 0.0

Private, 4-year 9.6 17.2 6.1 11.1 25.0

Private, 2-year 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0

Total, Postsecondary 81.4 91.4 74.9 100.0 100.0

Other organizations2 18.6 8.6 25.1 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 Includes regular Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math and Science, and Upward Bound Veterans. 2 Other includes nonprofit organizations, State agencies, local educational agencies, county and city 

governments, private profit-making organizations, Indian Tribes, and private elementary and secondary 

schools.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-108

In addition, TRIO funding supports training for project staff members, dissemination of best 

practices, evaluation activities, and administrative expenses.

Funding for Staff Training grants supports professional development activities and opportunities 

to improve the competency of project directors and staff members. Training is offered on such 

topics as: legislative and regulatory requirements for operating funded projects; assisting 

students in receiving adequate financial aid; the design and operation of model programs; the 

use of appropriate educational technology in the operations of funded projects; and strategies 

for recruiting and serving students with limited-English proficiency or with disabilities, homeless 

children and youth, foster care youth, or other disconnected students.

Funding for Evaluation activities helps to improve the effectiveness of TRIO programs and 

projects. The statute requires rigorous evaluation of TRIO programs and projects, but stipulates 

that the primary purpose of such evaluations must be the identification of successful practices 

and places limitations on the Department’s ability to use experimental design methodologies in 

conducting program evaluations. 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 applicants and grantees.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013 ...................................................................................... $795,998

2014 ........................................................................................ 838,252

2015 ........................................................................................ 839,752

2016 ........................................................................................ 900,000

2017 ........................................................................................ 950,000

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $808.3 million in fiscal year 2018 for the Federal TRIO 

programs, $90 million less than the fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing resolution (CR) level. 

The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $950 million for this program. 

This request maintains support for the original three TRIO programs (Upward Bound (UB), 

Talent Search (TS), and Student Support Services (SSS)) as well as the programs that target 

services to veteran students and students interested in pursuing STEM degrees (Veterans 

Upward Bound (VUB) and Upward Bound Math and Science (UBMS)). The request also 

includes $1.8 million to maintain administrative support for the TRIO programs, including the 

costs of collecting and analyzing grantee performance data, and an additional $2.7 million for

program evaluation.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-109

The request does not fund the McNair Post-baccalaureate Achievement (McNair) and 

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) programs. The request supports the Administration’s 

prioritization for programs that: (1) assist middle school, high school, and college students in 

moving through the academic pipeline through college completion; and (2) have shown some 

evidence of effectiveness or are designed to support strategies in areas where there is a 

growing body of evidence. Nearly all of the requested funds would be used to support 

2,661 continuation awards totaling approximately $800 million. This includes grantees that were 

successful in 2012 (UB, UBMS, and VUB), 2015 (SSS), 2016 (TS) and 2017 (UB, UBMS, and 

VUB) competitions.

The evidence of effectiveness varies across TRIO programs. TS and UB have both 

demonstrated some evidence of effectiveness. A 2006 Department study of TS that used a 

propensity score matching design showed positive effects on college enrollment rates and was

found by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) to meet standards with reservations. A 

2009 evaluation of UB that used an experimental design found by the WWC to meet standards 

without reservations did not find statistically significant positive effects for the average 

participant, but did find statistically significant positive impacts on both college enrollment and 

completion rates for key subgroups, including students in rural areas and students with who did 

not expect to earn a bachelor’s degree. Further, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting 

the effectiveness of specific strategies that can be used in TS, UB, UBMS, and SSS to improve 

college access and completion for disadvantaged students. In addition, nearly a quarter of 

Upward Bound grantees are participating in an experimental design study testing out a program 

improvement strategy.

There is limited evidence of effectiveness for both the McNair and EOC programs, nor is there 

substantial rigorous evidence of effectiveness generally about strategies designed either to: 

help students enroll in and complete doctoral degrees, or improve college enrollment rates 

specifically for adult learners, though the Department has initiated a rigorous study of a 

promising communication strategy for EOC.

While the goals of the McNair and EOC programs are important, McNair is a high cost program 

that serves relatively few students and EOC offers very “low touch” services that can be 

provided through other programs like TS and Adult Education State Grants. Colleges and 

universities can also use institutional resources to support these objectives. Furthermore, a 

descriptive analysis released by the Department in 2008 found that only 6 percent of McNair 

participants served between 1989 and 1998 had earned doctorates by 2003.

One significant barrier to ongoing efforts to build stronger evidence of effectiveness in these 

programs is a statutory provision that limits the Department’s ability to evaluate overall program 

effectiveness using the most rigorous methodologies. Since TRIO is the single largest 

competitive grant program administered by the Department and an important investment in 

college access and completion for disadvantaged students, the Administration believes these 

programs warrant further rigorous evaluation, unencumbered by the limitations stipulated in the 

HEA. Accordingly, the request includes appropriations language that would amend the HEA to 

reinstate the Department’s flexibility to conduct program evaluations for the primary purpose of 

assessing the effectiveness of these programs using random assignment methodologies.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-110

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures

2016

Funding

footnote

2017

Ann. CR

footnote

2018

Funding

footnote

2016

Awards

footnote

2017

Awards

footnote

2018

Awards

footnote

Talent Search (TS)

TS: New awards 134,562 0 0 435 0 0

TS: Continuation awards $15,792 $148,611 $148,594 46 475 475

TS: Total 150,354 148,611 148,594 481 475 475

Upward Bound (UB)

UB:New awards 0 273,470 0 0 840 0

UB: Continuation awards $270,486 $19,236 292,706 810 46 886

(UB)Total 270,486 292,706 292,706 810 886 886

Veterans Upward Bound (VUB)

VUB: New awards 0 12,772 0 0 45 0

VUB:Continuation awards 13,853 2,418 15,190 49 9 54

VUB:Total 13,853 15,190 15,190 49 54 54

Upward Bound Math and 

Science (UBMS)

UBMS: New awards 0 41,488 0 0 158 0

UBMS:Continuation awards 44,289 4,965 46,453 162 18 176

UBMS:Total 44,289 46,453 46,453 162 176 176

Educational Opportunity 

Centers (EOC)

EOC:New awards 43,286 0 0 135 0 0

EOC:Continuation awards 12,632 54,536 0 30 161 0

EOC:Total 55,918 54,536 0 165 161 0

Student Support Services(SSS)

SSS: Continuation awards 328,2911 291,4432 298,329 3 1,071 1,070 1,070

SSS:Total 328,291 291,443 298,329 1,071 1,070 1,070

McNair Postbaccalaureate (MPB)

MPB:New awards 0 35,506 0 0 140 0

MPB:Continuation awards 28,563 4,494 0 151 19 0

MPB:Total 28,563 40,000 0 151 159 0

1 Includes $25,885 thousand used to pay FY 2017 continuation costs.

2 Includes $14,500 thousand used to pay FY 2018 continuation costs.

3 Includes $10,000 thousand used to pay FY 2019 continuation costs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-111

Output Measures

2016

Funding

footnote

2017

Ann. CR

footnote

2018

Funding

footnote

2016

Awards

footnote

2017

Awards

footnote

2018

Awards

footnote

Staff Training (ST)

ST:New awards $2,737 0 $2,500 13 0 10

ST:Continuation awards 0 $2,737 0 0 13 0

ST:Total 2,737 2,737 2,500 13 13 10

Total awards

DomesticTotal new awards $183,585 $368,236 2,500 583 1,183 10

DomesticTotal Continuation awards 710,905 523,440 801,272 2,319 1,792 2,661

Evaluation 1,799 2,800 2,669

Administrative expenses:

Peer review of new award

 applications 2,581 1,965 0

Other expenses 1,130 1,848 1,848

Total 3,711 3,813 1,848

Total 900,000 898,289 808,289 2,902 2,975 2,671

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 2018 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-112

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

2013 80.5% 80.6% 78.0% 83.2% 61.5% 59.0%

2014 80.5 79.7 80.5 85.3 61.5 57.6

2015 80.5 78.7 81.0 84.9 61.5 58.0

2016 81.0 81.5 61.5

2017 81.0 82.0 62.0

2018 81.0 82.0 62.0

Additional information: This measure looks at the percentage of participants who enroll in 

college. Targets are set and data are calculated independently for each of the three programs 

for which this measure is relevant. Data are provided by the grantees in their Annual 

Performance Reports.

• 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-113

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

2013 34.0% 39.0%

2014 36.0 39.2

2015 37.0 41.2

2016 37.5

2017 38.0

2018 38.5

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

2013 41.0% 50.4%

2014 42.0 50.7

2015 45.0 50.4

2016 47.0

2017 49.0

2018 50.0

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 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.

Measure: The percentages of TRIO McNair participants enrolling and persisting in graduate 

school.

Year Enrolling Target Enrolling Actual Persisting Target Persisting Actual

2013 69.0% 72.5% 82.0% 77.2%

2014 69.0 71.8 83.0 84.3

2015 70.0 69.7 84.0 81.4

2016 70.0 84.5

2017 71.0 85.0

2018 71.0 85.0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-114

Additional information: The methodology for this enrollment measures counts as successes 

those McNair participants who enroll in graduate school within 3 years of postsecondary 

graduation. The reporting year in the table above represents the 3-year point of measurement. 

That is, 69.7 percent of McNair participants who graduated with their baccalaureate degree in 

2012 had enrolled in graduate school by 2015.

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

2013 $475 $462 $4,615 $4,441 $1,700 $1,643

2014 475 453 4,600 4,134 1,690 1,595

2015 470 4,585 1,680

2016 470 4,570 1,670

2017 465 4,555 1,660

2018 465 4,540 1,650

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

2013 $33,000 $27,032

2014 33,000 25,029

2015 32,000 34,991

2016 31,000

2017 30,000

2018 30,000

Additional information: This measure is calculated by dividing the McNair funding allocation 

from the year in which participants graduated college by the number of college graduates from 

that cohort that enrolled in graduate school within 3 years. 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. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-115

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. Summaries of key TRIO 

evaluations are provided below.

Talent Search: The Department initiated a study in 1998 that examined outcomes of 

participating in the Talent Search program in three States—Florida, Indiana, and Texas. The 

study, which was published in 2006, relied on quasi-experimental matching techniques using 

administrative data. The study found that Talent Search participants were more likely than 

comparison students to apply for Federal financial aid and to enroll in college in all three States.

Since the study was not a randomized experiment, it is not possible to attribute differences in 

outcomes solely to participation in Talent Search. However, the consistency of the findings 

across the three States suggests greater robustness. The study is available at the following 

link: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/talentsearch-outcomes/ts-report.pdf.

Upward Bound: The evaluation of Upward Bound, based on a random assignment design in a 

sample of 67 Upward Bound projects, was initiated in 1991. The final report, which was 

released in January 2009, did not provide evidence that Upward Bound has effects on most key 

outcome measures for the average participant. The study found that approximately 81 percent 

of Upward Bound participants and 79 percent of control group students enrolled in a

postsecondary institution. The difference was not statistically significant. The study also did not 

find that program participation increased the chances of completing a postsecondary program 

(38 percent of participants, compared to 35 percent of nonparticipants, completed any type of 

degree, certificate, or license) or completing a 4-year college program (21 percent of Upward 

Bound participants compared to 22 percent of nonparticipants completed a bachelor’s degree.) 

The evaluation, however, did find that Upward Bound increased postsecondary enrollment and 

completion rates for some key subgroups of students. For the subgroup of students with lower 

educational expectations—that is, the students who did not expect to complete a bachelor’s 

degree—Upward Bound increased the rate of postsecondary enrollment by 6 percentage points 

and postsecondary completion by 12 percentage points. The evaluation also found that Upward 

Bound improved college enrollment and completion rates for students in rural areas and that 

longer participation in Upward Bound was associated with higher rates of postsecondary 

enrollment and completion. The study is available at the following link: 

https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/upward/upward-2009-report.doc

Student Support Services: The final report of the national evaluation of Student Support 

Services (SSS), which was initiated in 1990, was released in 2010. The quasi-experimental 

study, which was based on a random cross-section of projects, examined the extent to which 

Student Support Services projects improved key student outcomes, such as persistence, 

transfers from 2-year to 4-year institutions, and degree completion. The study did not find 

differences between students who received services from SSS and those that did not. The 

report does indicate that participation in supplemental services, generally—whether or not they 

were offered directly by SSS projects—was related to improved student outcomes and that 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-116

higher service levels were associated with better student outcomes. The study is available at 

the following link: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/student-support/final-report.pdf

Upward Bound Math & Science: To assess program impact, UBMS participants were compared 

to a comparison group of students that had applied for regular Upward Bound but did not 

participate in Upward Bound/Math/Science. Some of the comparison group students did 

participate in regular Upward Bound and some did not; the differences in outcomes between 

UBMS participants and comparison group students participating in regular Upward Bound were 

analyzed separately. Propensity score matching was used to control for demographic 

differences between UBMS and comparison group. A limitation of this study design is that the 

findings are vulnerable to selection bias if UBMS participants were initially more interested and 

skilled in math and science than their counterparts who did not apply to participate in UBMS. 

The final report, released in the spring of 2010, indicates that Upward Bound Math/Science 

participants were more likely to enroll in and complete postsecondary education than 

comparison students and more likely to enroll in selective postsecondary institutions. In 

addition, UBMS participants took more math and science credits than comparison students. 

However, UBMS students were no more likely than comparison students to major in math or 

science. The study is available at the following link: 

https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/upward-math-science/impacts-7-9-years-report.doc

Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement: The study of the Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement is a descriptive analysis of McNair participants’ educational 

and employment outcomes. The study, which was released in March 2008, found that 

approximately 6 percent of participants served from 1989 to 1998 had earned a doctoral degree 

by 2003, with the largest number of degrees in the life sciences (26 percent), followed by the 

social sciences (24 percent). Another 6 percent of participants earned professional degrees, 

e.g., degrees in law, medicine, or pharmacy. More of the students included in the analyses may 

have completed degrees after the 2003 data collection: approximately 14 percent of students 

from the first cohort participating from 1989 through 1993, who thus had more years to complete 

their degrees before the 2003 data collection, completed doctorates. The study is available at 

the following link: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/mcnair/mcnair.pdf.

Current evaluations

Upward Bound: The Institute of Education Sciences began a new evaluation of Upward Bound 

promising practices in 2013, as required by section 402H(b)(1) of the Higher Education 

Act. The study is testing the use of practices aimed at improving college fit by evaluating the 

effectiveness of a professional development program for Upward Bound project staff on college 

enrollment outcomes for participating Upward Bound students. The intervention includes tools 

and resources, including information packets and a well-specified set of in-person college 

guidance strategies informed by recent research. The effort leverages work in the field to 

design effective informational materials on college costs and outcomes, application fee waivers, 

and guidance on colleges to which individual students could consider applying based on their 

location and standardized test scores. The training component is designed so that it can be 

used with regular high school counselors or Upward Bound project staff to maximize the return 

on investment in the demonstration. The evaluation builds on the developing body of research 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

R-117

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. More information is available at the following link: 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_upward.asp

Educational Opportunity Centers: In the spring of 2017, the Institute of Education Sciences 

announced a new evaluation to examine the effectiveness of a low cost approach to providing 

information designed to overcome key barriers to college enrollment to participants through a 

systematic set of timely and personalized text messages. The study, which is currently 

scheduled to be released in the fall of 2022, will evaluate the impact of the intervention on EOC 

participants’ FAFSA completion and college enrollment rates. More information is available at 

the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_postsec.asp

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-118

Gai ning earl y awareness and r eadiness for undergraduate programs

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate

programs

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 2)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2017 

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$322,140 $339,754 $219,000 -$103,140

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

2018.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) provides 

6-year grants to States and partnerships that 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
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-119

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 agencies, 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 fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2013..................................................................................... $286,435

2014....................................................................................... 301,639

2015....................................................................................... 301,639

2016....................................................................................... 322,754

2017....................................................................................... 339,754

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $219 million in fiscal year 2018 for Gaining Early Awareness and 

Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, $103.1 million less than the fiscal year 2017

annualized continuing resolution (CR) level. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 

2017, provided $339.8 million for this program. At the level requested, the Department could 

fully fund continuation awards for grantees that were successful in the 2011, 2014, and 2017 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-120

competitions and still have approximately $26 million to support approximately 18 new awards

for applicants that submitted high quality proposals in the 2017 State and Partnership grant 

competition slates.

Many of the activities supported under GEAR UP can be supported through the Administration’s 

request for the Federal TRIO Programs, which maintains funding for Talent Search and the 

Upward Bound programs. Similar activities can also be supported through ESEA Title I grants 

to States. In addition, there is limited rigorous evidence that the program is effective, 

particularly in achieving the program’s ultimate objectives of increasing high school graduation 

and college enrollment rates. Although a 2008 evaluation found a positive association between 

GEAR UP participation and some early outcomes such as increasing students’ and parents’

knowledge of postsecondary opportunities and increasing rigorous course-taking, there was no 

indication of an association with improved grades or school behavior, nor did the evaluation 

report on high school graduation or college enrollment outcomes. GEAR UP grantees are, 

however, participating in a rigorous, Department-funded evaluation of an advising strategy that 

has the potential to improve students’ initial enrollment and persistence in college.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 footnote

2017

Annualized CR footnote

2018

State Grants:

State:Number of new awards 5 8 2

State:Average new award $2,857 $3,220 $3,220

State:Total new award funding $14,286 $25,757 $6,439

State:Number of continuation awards 37 36 30

State:Average continuation award $3,757 $3,458 $3,289

State:Total continuation award 

funding $139,015 $124,489 $98,655

State:Total award funding $153,301 $150,245 $105,095

State:Total number of awards 42 44 32

Partnership Grants:

Partnershi p:Number of new awards 5 21 16

Partnershi p:Average new award $1,414 $1,227 $1,220

Partnershi p:Total new award funding $7,072 $25,757 $19,513

Partnershi p:Number of continuation awards 87 85 64

Partnershi p:Average continuation award $1,806 $1,708 $1,472
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-121

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016footnote

2017

Annualized CR footnote

2018

Footn

ote.19

Partnership Grants (continued):

Partnershi p:Total continuation award funding $162,2151 $145,215 $94,209

Partnershi p:Total award funding $169,286 $170,972 $113,722

Partnershi p:Total number of awards 92 106 80

Total award funding:

DomesticTotal new award funding $21,358 $51,514 $25,953

Domestic Total continuation award 

funding $301,230 $269,703 $192,864

Evaluation 0 0 0

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 740 0

Web data collection $166 $183 $183

Total program funding $322,754 $322,140 $219,000

Total number of awards 134 150 112

1 Includes $5,043 thousand used to pay FY 2017 continuation costs.

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 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-122

Measure: The percentage of GEAR UP high school seniors who graduated from high school.

Year Target Actual

2013 87.0% 85.8%

2014 87.0 86.5

2015 88.0 83.9

2016 88.0

2017 89.0

2018 89.0

Additional Information: This measure indicates the percentage of GEAR UP high school 

seniors that graduated from high school. That is, the denominator used in the calculation 

includes only GEAR UP participants who persisted until the 12th grade while the numerator 

includes participants who both persisted until the 12th grade and graduated. The figure reported 

for 2015 relates to the 2009 cohort. The figure reported for 2013 varies slightly from the 

percentage reported last year because the Department has transitioned to an improved data 

collection system that has identified data reporting errors in that year. The Department 

indicated in the 2011 Notice Inviting Applications that, beginning with the 2011 award cohort, 

grantees are 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

2013 60.0% 59.5%

2014 61.0 77.3

2015 61.0 57.6

2016 62.0

2017 62.0

2018 63.0

Additional Information: This measure indicates the percent of GEAR UP students who 

graduated from high school and enrolled in postsecondary education the following September. 

Data from NCES provide context for these data. According to NCES, 68.4 percent of recent

high school completers enrolled in postsecondary education immediately following high school 

graduation in 2014. In that same year, 57.8 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 2015 relates to the 2009 cohort. The figure 

for 2013 varies from the percentage previously reported because the Department has 

transitioned to an improved data collection system that has identified data reporting errors in 

that year.

Objective: Increase the academic performance and preparation for postsecondary education of 

GEAR UP students.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-123

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

2013 33% 37.3% 51% 62.7%

2014 34 60.4 53 58.3

2015 34 58.3 53 67.7

2016 55 53.6 54 58.1

2017 55 54

2018 56 55

Additional Information: This measure tracks completion rates for two mathematics classes 

that research has shown are key indicators of college readiness. Data for this measure, 

collected through Annual Performance Reports, reflect student completion levels from the prior 

year. It should be noted that, as the measure tracks only the percentage of those students who 

are enrolled that pass the class, the percentage of the entire cohort who are on the path to 

college-readiness is likely to be lower. Prior to 2014, GEAR UP projects reported on the 

percentage of students that completed Pre-Algebra by the end of 7th grade. The Department 

subsequently revised the measure to track 8th grade completion; consequently, the targets for 

2016 and 2017 have been increased.

Efficiency Measures

The efficiency measure for this program is the cost of a successful outcome, where success is 

defined as enrollment in postsecondary education by GEAR UP students immediately following 

high school graduation. The Department calculates this measure by dividing the annual funding 

supporting closeout grantees (grantees serving cohorts of 12th graders) by the total number of 

postsecondary enrollees they produce. For instance, grantees that began serving 7th graders in 

2009 would be expected to enroll their participants in college in the fall of 2015. Using this 

methodology, the annual cost per successful outcome for this GEAR UP cohort was $1,551. 

The Department provided approximately $59 million per year to the grantees in this cohort, 

which produced 38,090 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

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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-124

on the academic offerings at GEAR UP schools, but did not find impacts on grades or school 

behavior. The study is available at the following link: 

(http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/gearup/early-outcomes.pdf). The Department 

initiated a follow up study designed to assess the impact of GEAR UP participation on high 

school graduation and college enrollment rates, but methodological issues, including very low 

survey response rates, prevented the Department being able to publish any meaningful results.

Current evaluation

In fiscal year 2014, the Department began using GEAR UP evaluation funds to undertake a 

rigorous study of college access strategies designed to improve GEAR UP students’ college 

enrollment and completion. The findings from this evaluation will be useful to GEAR UP 

grantees as they search for promising practices to incorporate into their projects, and also to 

policymakers seeking to enhance current college access efforts.

Specifically, the Department used approximately $5.5 million of fiscal year 2014 and 2015 funds 

to test a low-cost communication strategy that employs 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 targets GEAR UP high school seniors intending to enroll in college, providing them 

with a series of electronic communications through text messages and emails throughout the 

summer and into the fall of their first expected year of college. The messages remind students 

about key college-related tasks they need to complete, customized to the specific activities and 

deadlines of the colleges or universities in which they intend to enroll. The reminders focus on

matriculation-related tasks such as award letters, fees, orientation and registration timelines and 

requirements, and early steps in college, such as meeting with advisors, connecting with 

campus support services, and FAFSA renewal. In addition, the messages assist program 

participants in ensuring that they obtain scholarship funds made available through their GEAR 

UP projects. The Department expects to publish a report assessing the intervention’s impact on 

college matriculation rates by December 2018, followed by a report assessing the impact on 

FAFSA renewal and college persistence rates in the fall of 2019. If the findings on college 

enrollment and persistence warrant further follow up, the Department could analyze and report 

on longer term persistence outcomes in the spring of 2020.

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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

R-125

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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-126

Graduate assistance in ar eas of national need

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part A, Subpart 2)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$29,237 $28,047 $5,775 -$23,462

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

2018.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) provides fellowships, through 3-year 

grants to degree-granting postsecondary institutions, to graduate students of superior ability and 

high financial need studying in areas of national need. The Department may also award grants 

to non-degree-granting institutions that have formal arrangements for the support of doctoral 

dissertation research with degree-granting institutions. Applicants must set forth policies and 

procedures identifying the specific strategies they will use to identify and support talented 

students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds. To be eligible for a fellowship, 

students must be pursuing a doctoral degree or the highest degree in the academic field at the 

institution of higher education (IHE) they are attending, have excellent academic records, and 

demonstrated financial need.

After consultation with appropriate agencies and organizations, such as the National Science 

Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security, the 

Department designates those fields of study that are considered “areas of national need” by 

taking into account the extent to which such areas fulfill a compelling national interest, the 

extent to which other Federal programs support post-baccalaureate studies in such areas, and 

the most significant impact that can be made with available resources. The designated areas of 

national need for the most recent competition were: area studies; biological sciences/life 

sciences; chemistry; computer and information sciences; engineering; foreign languages and 

literatures; mathematics; nursing; physics; and educational evaluation, research, and statistics.

Institutions use program funds to award fellowships of up to 5 years of study. Each fellowship 

consists of a student stipend to cover living costs, and an institutional payment to cover each 

fellow's tuition and other expenses. The stipend is the lesser of demonstrated need or the level 

of support provided by the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowships 

program. The institutional payment is adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

R-127

Institutions must match 25 percent of the Federal grant amount. The institutional match may be 

used for the following: to provide additional fellowships to graduate students not already receiving 

institutional or GAANN fellowships; to meet the cost of tuition, fees, and other instructional costs 

that are not covered by the institutional payment; and to supplement the stipend received by a 

fellow in an amount not to exceed the fellow's financial need. Institutions must also provide 

fellows with at least 1 year of supervised training in instruction for students.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.................................................................................$29,293

2014...................................................................................29,293

2015...................................................................................29,293

2016...................................................................................29,283

2017...................................................................................28,047

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $5.8 million for the GAANN program for fiscal year 2018, a 

$23.5 million decrease from the fiscal year 2017 annualized continuing resolution (CR) level. The 

Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $28 million for this program. All of 

the program funds would be used to fully fund the continuation costs of awards made from the 

fiscal year 2015 competition slate. The request reflects the Administration’s intent to refocus the 

Department’s resources on programs designed to help students move through the academic 

pipeline through college completion. GAANN provides significant financial support to the 

graduate students receiving fellowships, but operates at a high per student cost (approximately 

$50,000 per student) and, as a result, provides support to a limited number of graduate students. 

The Administration believes such fellowships are more appropriately supported through other 

Federal programs, as well as through institutional and other non-Federal resources.

In 2015, the Department made 95 new awards to eligible institutions of higher education to 

provide approximately 475 fellowships to students pursuing graduate study in areas of national 

need. In 2016, the Administration funded down the 2015 slate to make 18 new awards to provide 

90 additional fellowships.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

R-128

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures

2016

footnote

2017

Annualized CR

footnote

2018

footnote

Number of new awards 18 4 0

Number of new fellowships 90 20 0

Average new award $246 $295 0

Total new award funding $4,426 1,191 0

Number of NCC awards 101 113 22

Number of NCC fellowships 505 565 110

Average NCC award $246 $248 $262

Total NCC funding $24,867 $28,046 $5,775 1

Average institution payment $15 $16 $16

Average stipend $34 $34 $34

Total average fellowship $49 $50 $50

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 0

Total number of awards 119 117 22

Total number of fellowships 595 585 110

Total program funding $29,293 $29,237 $5,775

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 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To increase the number of persons trained at the highest academic level.

Objective: To increase the number of students of superior academic ability completing the 

terminal degree in designated areas of national need in order to alleviate that need.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

R-129

Measure: The percentage of GAANN fellows completing the terminal degree in the designated 

areas of national need.

Year Target Actual

2013 59% 67%

2014 60 67

2015 60 67

2016 60 75

2017 60

2018 60

Additional Information: The data used to calculate performance for this measure come from 

the program’s final performance reports, the Department’s Grants and Payments database, and 

the GAANN program database. The data are calculated by dividing the number of GAANN 

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 2016, GAANN fellows exceeded the target completion rate for 

the tenth year in a row.

Measure: Median time to degree completion (years).

Year Target Actual

2013 5.0 5.2

2014 5.0 4.9

2015 5.0 5.2

2016 5.0 5.1

2017 5.0

2018 5.0

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 5.1 years in 2016.

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, measured from initial enrollment in graduate school, in the 

United States was 7.3 years in 2015. During that same period, the average time to completion 

was 6.2 years for the physical sciences, 6.7 years for engineering, and 6.7 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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

R-130

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.

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

2013 $69,000 N/A

2014 68,500 $63,925

2015 68,500 74,775

2016 68,500

2017 68,500

2018 68,500

The data used to calculate the efficiency measure come from the program’s final performance 

reports, the Department’s Grants and Payments database, and the GAANN program database. 

The data are calculated by dividing the total amount of Federal funds provided to support a 

cohort of fellows for the 3 years of the grant period by the number of GAANN fellows who 

complete their degree or successfully advance to candidacy during the 5-year fellowship period. 

As the efficiency measure is based on data from a relatively small number of students, 

significant year-to-year fluctuations may be expected. This may reduce the usefulness of the 

measure at the program level.

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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-131

Child car e access means parents in school

Child care access means parents in school

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 7)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$15,105 $15,134 0 -$15,105

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

2018.

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 if the total amount of Pell Grant funds awarded to 

students at the institution for the preceding fiscal year equals or exceeds $350,000. When the 

appropriation for the program reaches $20 million, this amount decreases to $250,000. The 

maximum grant award cannot exceed 1 percent of the total amount of all Pell Grant funds 

awarded to students enrolled at the institution during the preceding fiscal year. The minimum 

grant amount is $10,000. This amount increases to $30,000 when the program’s appropriation 

reaches $20 million.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

R-132

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 Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................. ................$15,134

2014.............................................................. ..................15,134

2015.............................................................. ..................15,134

2016.............................................................. ..................15,134

2017.............................................................. ..................15,134

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2018 budget request includes no funding for the Child Care 

Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program. The Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $15.1 million for this program. While the CCAMPIS program 

provides an important service that benefits low-income student parents, subsidizing expenses 

associated with child care is not consistent with the Department’s mission; the Administration 

maintains funding for existing child care programs within the Department of Health and Human 

Services. There is also limited evidence of the effectiveness of this program. The request is 

consistent with the Administration’s intent to eliminate programs that are more appropriately 

supported with State, local, or private funds.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Number of new awards 0 72 0

Average new award 0 $119 0

Total new award funding 0 $8,548 0

C Number of NCC awards 85 28 0

Average NCC award $178 $229 0

Total NCC award funding $15,134 $6,408 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 $149 0

Total award funding $15,134 $15,105 0

Total number of awards 85 100 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

R-133

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, as well as the resources and 

efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department recently dropped a performance measure that focused on completion rates at 

4-year grantee institutions. The methodology used for this measure was problematic because 

the denominator included students who had not been in school long enough to graduate even if 

they persisted without interruption. The Department does not plan to replace this measure. 

CCAMPIS grantees at 4-year institutions will continue to be required to submit completion rate 

data for students served by their projects, however, the data will not be aggregated to obtain 

completion rates at 4-year CCAMPIS grantee institutions.

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

2013 45.8% 46.4% 45.0%

2014 61.8 62.9 60.3

2015 63.1 66.0 59.6

2016 64.5 62.4 67.5

2017

2018 TBD TBD TBD

Additional information: The overall persistence rate in 2016 for students participating in the 

CCAMPIS program is 64.5 percent (2,189 out of 3,396 student participants). The persistence 

rate for 2016 is calculated by dividing 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 2015-2016 by the total number of students participating in the 

program. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

R-134

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

2013 23.7%

2014 21.2

2015 32.0

2016 25.3

2017

2018 TBD

Additional information: Data for the graduation rate measure is 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 

2016 graduation rate for students participating in the CCAMPIS program from 2-year institutions 

is 25.3 percent.

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 is used to track them throughout their postsecondary education. Grantees use the same 

number for individual participants each time annual data are reported to the Department. Also, 

grantees code whether individual participants have:

• Completed the term without completing his/her studies, graduating, transferring, or 

withdrawing during the term or at the end of the term;

• Earned a certificate/diploma, associate’s, bachelor’s, or teaching credential during or at the 

end of the term;

• Transferred from a 2-year institution of higher education to a 4-year institution or from one 

4-year institution to another 4-year institution during or at the end of the term;

• Officially withdrawn from the grantee-institution during the term;

• Not returned/dropped out/stopped out from the grantee-institution (without official notification 

to the institution) during the term;
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

R-135

• 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.

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

2013 $4,608

2014 4,019

2015 4,468

2016 5,163

2017

2018 TBD

Additional information: For 2016, the cost per successful outcome of $5,163 was calculated 

by dividing the program allocation of $14.5 million by 2,816, 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.

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 ages 5 to 11 ($390 versus $288 per month).
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

R-136

On an annualized basis, the average child care expenditures for recipients with children 

under age 5 was $4,680, versus $3,450 per year.

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 was Hispanic or Latino 

(22 percent).
HIGHER EDUCATION

R-137

Teacher quality partnership

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$43,010 $43,092 0 -$43,010

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; no reauthorization is sought for fiscal year 2018.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) program seeks to improve student achievement and the 

quality of teachers working in high-need schools and early childhood education (ECE) programs 

by improving the preparation of teachers and enhancing professional development activities for 

teachers; holding teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing effective teachers; 

recruiting highly qualified individuals, including minorities; and attracting talented professionals 

from outside the teaching pipeline into the classroom. Projects may also include a component 

to train school leaders in high-need or rural local educational agencies (LEAs) or a component 

to partner with a public broadcast television station or another entity that develops digital 

education content, to improve the quality of teacher preparation programs. The program is 

intended to help create a variety of effective pathways into teaching and support our Nation’s 

teaching force in improving student outcomes.

Only partnerships may apply for funding under this program. Partnerships must include a 

high-need LEA; a high-need school or high-need ECE program (or a consortium of high-need 

schools or ECE programs served by the partner LEA); a partner institution of higher education 

(IHE); a school, department, or program of education within the partner IHE; and a school or 

department of arts and sciences within the partner IHE. A partnership may also include, among 

others, the Governor of the State, the State educational agency, the State board of education, 

the State agency for higher education, or a business.

In order to maximize resources and avoid duplication, applicants are required to explain how 

they plan to coordinate activities under the TQP program with other federally funded programs 

aimed at improving teacher effectiveness (e.g., Teacher Quality State Grants under Title II of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Teacher Incentive Fund).
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

R-138

The following three types of grants are eligible for funding through the program:

Pre-Baccalaureate Preparation of Teachers program (Pre-Baccalaureate)—Grants are provided 

to implement a wide range of reforms in teacher preparation programs and, as applicable, 

preparation programs for early childhood educators. These reforms may include, 

among other things, implementing curriculum changes that improve and assess how well 

prospective teachers develop teaching skills; using teaching and learning research so that 

teachers implement research-based instructional practices and use data to improve classroom 

instruction; developing a high-quality and sustained preservice clinical education program that 

includes high-quality mentoring or coaching; creating a high-quality induction program for new 

teachers; implementing initiatives that increase compensation for qualified early childhood 

educators who attain 2-year and 4-year degrees; developing and implementing high-quality 

professional development for teachers in partner high-need LEAs; developing effective 

mechanisms, which may include alternative routes to certification, to recruit qualified individuals 

into the teaching profession; and strengthening literacy instruction skills of prospective and new 

elementary and secondary school teachers.

Teaching Residency program—Grants are provided to develop and implement teacher 

residency programs that are based on models of successful teaching residencies and that serve 

as a mechanism to prepare teachers for success in high-need schools and academic subjects. 

Grant funds must be used to support programs that provide rigorous graduate-level course work 

to earn a master’s degree while undertaking a guided teaching apprenticeship; learning 

opportunities alongside a trained and experienced mentor teacher; and clear criteria for 

selecting mentor teachers based on measures of teacher effectiveness. Programs must place 

graduates in targeted schools as a cohort in order to facilitate professional collaboration. 

Programs must also provide a 1-year living stipend or salary to members of the cohort, which 

must be repaid by any recipient who fails to teach full time at least 3 years in a high-need school 

and subject or area.

School Leadership program—Grants are provided to develop and implement effective school 

leadership programs to prepare individuals for careers as superintendents, principals, early 

childhood education program directors, or other school leaders. Such programs must promote 

strong leadership skills and techniques so that school leaders are able to:

• Create a school climate conducive to professional development for teachers;

• Understand the teaching and assessment skills needed to support successful classroom 

instruction; 

• Use data to evaluate teacher instruction and drive teacher and student learning; 

• Manage resources and time to improve academic achievement; 

• Engage and involve parents and other community stakeholders; and 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

R-139

• 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.

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. Results from that evaluation are discussed in the 

“Other Performance Information” section below.

The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, also allows the Department to use program 

funds to support the State teacher quality accountability reporting system, as authorized by 

sections 205–207. The State teacher quality accountability reporting system gathers data from 

all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the outlying areas, and the Freely 

Associated States on such topics as the completion rates for traditional and alternative route 

teacher preparation programs, as well as State teacher assessments and certifications. These 

data are reported to Congress and the Nation through the Secretary’s annual report on teacher 

quality, and they provide critical information on both the progress toward the Nation's goal of a 

highly qualified teacher in every classroom, and the areas needing further improvements 

(http://title2.ed.gov). 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................. ..................40,592

2014.............................................................. ..................40,592

2015.............................................................. ..................40,592

2016.............................................................. ..................43,092

2017.............................................................. ..................43,092

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2018 budget request includes no funding for the Teacher 

Quality Partnership (TQP) program. Upon review, the Administration has determined that the 

TQP authority is overly restrictive and does not provide States, school districts, and institutions 

of higher education the flexibilities that they need to meaningfully design systems of teacher 

preparation, recruitment, and induction that meet their staffing needs. In addition, funding to 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

R-140

support partnerships that enhance professional development activities and training for current 

and prospective teachers and staff may be provided through ESEA formula grant funds (e.g., 

Title I, Title III), as well as from competitive grant programs. In addition, funding to support 

partnerships that enhance professional development activities and training for current and 

prospective teachers and staff may be provided through ESEA formula grant funds (e.g., Title I, 

Title III), as well as from competitive grant programs. Finally, there is no reliable evidence

demonstrating that this program is any more effective than other State- and locally driven

initiatives designed to train and retain highly effective teachers in critical shortage areas.

Under the Administration’s request, the Department would provide existing Teacher Quality 

Partnership grantees a reasonable period of time to close out existing projects and draw down 

grant funds already awarded in prior years.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2016

Footnote

2017

Annualized CR

footnote

2018

Partnership Grants:

New partnership grants $5,149 0 0

Continuations partnership grants 37,3301 $42,531 2 0

Subtotal partnership grants 42,479 42,531 0

State teacher quality accountability 

reports

538 479 0

Program totals:

New total 5,149 0 0

Continuations total 37,868 43,010 0

Peer review of new award 

applications

 75 0 0

Total 43,092 43,010 0

1 The fiscal year 2016 continuation awards total includes approximately $10,816 thousand in fiscal year 

2016 funds used to support fiscal year 2017 continuation costs. 2 The fiscal year 2017 continuation awards total includes approximately $14,849 thousand in fiscal year 

2017funds used to support fiscal year 2018 continuation costs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

R-141

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. The Department has received data on several of 

these measures, but is continuing to work to address data quality issues with those for other 

measures. For the interim period, the Department has created measures that will provide data 

in a shorter period of time. Data for these measures comes from the revised annual 

performance report.

Goal: To increase the quality of teachers in high-need schools and early childhood

education programs.

Objective: To increase the number of new teachers graduating from high-quality teacher 

preparation programs. 

Measure: The percentage of program completers who: (1) attain initial certification/licensure 

by passing all necessary licensure/certification assessments and attain a bachelor’s degree 

(pre-baccalaureate program) within 6 years or a master’s degree (residency program) within 

2 years, or (2) attain highly competent early childhood educator status with a bachelor’s degree 

within 6 years or an associate’s degree within 3 years.

Interim Measure: The percentage of program participants who did not graduate in the previous 

reporting period and who persisted in the postsecondary program in the current reporting 

period.

Year

Pre-Baccalaureate

Target

Pre-Baccalaureate

Actual

Residency

Target

Residency

Actual

2013 Baseline 73% Baseline 96%

2014 81 96

2015 82 97

2016

2017

Additional information: In general, data from grantees under the TQP program has 

demonstrated a high level of persistence among program participants. Data for this measure 

was derived from annual performance reports for fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 cohorts. 

As there were no grates under this program in their second or later year of operation 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

R-142

during 2016, the Department does not expect additional persistence information to be available 

until 2018, when data for program year 2017 will be reported to the Department.

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.

Year

Pre-Baccalaureate

Target

Pre-Baccalaureate

Actual

Residency

Target

Residency

Actual

2013 Baseline 77% Baseline 90%

2014 78 88

2015 78 88

2016

2017

Additional information: Prior to this year, the Department was only able to present 

performance on an interim measure—the percentage of beginning teachers who are retained in 

the partner high-need local educational agency or early childhood education program 1 year 

after initial employment. Performance on that measure was approximately 90 percent for prebaccalaureate projects and 91 percent for residency projects. Three year retention as captured 

by this measure is markedly higher than that reported in the study of teacher residency 

programs discussed below in the “Other Performance Information” section (88 percent three 

year retention versus 81 percent two year retention in the study). The cause of the discrepancy 

is unclear, but may have to do with the sampling methodology of the study, given that these 

data represent the universe of TQP residency grantees in the 2009 and 2010 cohorts. We also 

note that performance for both project types is well above average for new teachers. Data for 

2016 is expected to be available in fall 2017. Data on retention for the 2014 cohort is not 

expected for several more years.

Efficiency Measure

Measure: 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. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

R-143

Year

Pre-Baccalaureate

Target

Pre-Baccalaureate

Actual

Residency

Target

Residency

Actual

2015 Baseline $3,510 Baseline $54,663

Additional information: Performance on this measure is calculated by dividing the total 

amount of Federal funding obligated to a project by the total number of program graduates who 

are retained in their LEA or ECE program 3 years after initial employment. Due to the nature of 

the cohort nature of the TQP program, data on this measure is lagged and only intermittently 

available. Performance cannot be calculated until a project has ended, and projects in both 

the 2009 and 2010 cohorts did not end until 2015. In addition, for individuals who completed 

their preparation programs in the final year of the projects, three years have not yet passed 

since initial employment. As a result, the Department believes that the number of successful 

outcomes is likely to increase over time, while total project costs remain steady, meaning that 

the cost per successful outcome is likely to fall from the levels indicated above. The 

Department does not expect data from the 2014 cohort to be available until fall 2020 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)?
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

R-144

• 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 

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 (https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154015/), using data collected in 

fall 2013, found that residency teachers were no more likely than non-residency teachers to 

remain in their school from spring 2012 to fall 2013 (62 percent versus 60 percent). However, 

residency teachers in their first year of teaching in spring 2012 were more likely than nonresidency teachers in their first year in spring 2012 to remain in the same district through 

fall 2013 (81 percent versus 66 percent). These residency teachers, while remaining in the 

same district, tended to move to schools that were higher achieving and had fewer numbers of 

black students.