Department of Education

HIGHER EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

Summary of Changes ................................................................................................................R-6

Authorizing Legislation...............................................................................................................R-9

Appropriations History..............................................................................................................R-15

Significant Items in FY 2016 Appropriations Reports ...............................................................R-16

Summary of Request ...............................................................................................................R-17

Activities:

Aid for institutional development..........................................................................................R-22

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

HBCU and minority-serving institutions innovation for completion fund................................R-73

Other aid for institutions:

International education and foreign language studies:

Domestic programs .......................................................................................................R-75

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

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education ...................................................R-92

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher 

education .....................................................................................................................R-99

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions................................R-106

Assistance for students:

Federal TRIO programs ................................................................................................R-112

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs...........................R-123

Graduate assistance in areas of national need..............................................................R-131

Child care access means parents in school...................................................................R-136

Teacher and principal pathways ........................................................................................R-142

Teacher quality partnership ...............................................................................................R-149

America’s college promise.................................................................................................R-157

College opportunity and graduation bonus ........................................................................R-160
HIGHER EDUCATION

Appropriation s L angu age

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

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

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, [$1,924,839,000] $2,189,200,000:

Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds made available in this Act to 

carry out title VI of the HEA and section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural 

Exchange Act of 1961 may be used to support visits and study in foreign countries by 

individuals who are participating in advanced foreign language training and international studies 

in areas that are vital to United States national security and who plan to apply their language 

skills and knowledge of these countries in the fields of government, the professions, or 

international development:1

 Provided further, That of the funds referred to in the preceding 

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

dissemination activities:2

 Provided further, That up to 1.5 percent of the funds made available 

under chapter 2 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV of the HEA may be used for evaluation:3

Provided further, That up to 2.5 percent of the funds made available under this Act for part B of 

title VII of the HEA may be used for technical assistance and the evaluation of activities carried 

out under such section:

4 Provided further, That notwithstanding chapter 1 of subpart 2 of part A

of title IV of the HEA, the Secretary may reserve up to $20,000,000 of the funds made available 

for section 402A(g) of the HEA to support the demonstration and rigorous evaluation of college 

access and completion strategies through cooperative agreements with entities that received 

fiscal year 2016 awards under section 402A:

5

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

for competitive awards to institutions described in sections 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 322, and 

502 of the HEA to support innovative and evidence-based student-centered strategies and 

interventions designed to improve the performance of those institutions in graduating

R-1
low-income students:

6

 Provided further, That $125,000,000 shall be used to make competitive 

grants to public and private nonprofit entities to support the creation and expansion of 

high-quality teacher and principal preparation programs, and other activities authorized under 

title II of the HEA:

7 Provided further, That the Secretary may reserve no more than five percent 

of the funds described in the preceding proviso for national activities.

8

(Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2016.)

NOTE

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

and Changes document, which follows the appropriations language.

R-2
HIGHER EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1Provided, That notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, funds made available in this 

Act to carry out title VI of the HEA and section 

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

Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 may be used

to support visits and study in foreign countries 

by individuals who are participating in 

advanced foreign language training and 

international studies in areas that are vital to 

United States national security and who plan 

to apply their language skills and knowledge 

of these countries in the fields of government, 

the professions, or international development:

This language permits International 

Education programs authorized under title VI 

of the Higher Education Act (HEA) and the 

Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 

Act of 1961 (MECEA) to use funds for visits 

and study in foreign countries by individuals 

(in addition to teachers and prospective 

teachers) who plan to apply their language 

skills and knowledge in world areas that are 

vital to United States national security in the 

fields of government, the professions, or 

international development.

2Provided further, That of the funds referred 

to in the preceding proviso up to 1 percent 

may be used for program evaluation, national 

outreach, and information dissemination 

activities: 

This language authorizes the use of funds for 

program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination activities at a level 

that is up to 1 percent of the amount 

appropriated for International Education 

programs authorized by title VI of the HEA 

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

3Provided further, That up to 1.5 percent of 

the funds made available under chapter 2 of 

subpart 2 of part A of title IV of the HEA may 

be used for evaluation:

This language permits the Department to use 

up to 1.5 percent of the funds appropriated 

for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness 

for Undergraduate Programs for evaluation. 

4Provided further, That up to 2.5 percent of 

the funds made available under this Act for 

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

technical assistance and the evaluation of 

activities carried out under such section:

This language permits the Department to use 

2.5 percent of the funds appropriated for the 

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary 

Education for technical assistance and 

evaluation.

R-3
HIGHER EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

5Provided further, That notwithstanding 

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

the HEA, the Secretary may reserve up to 

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

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

demonstration and rigorous evaluation of 

college access and completion strategies 

through cooperative agreements with entities 

that received fiscal year 2016 awards under 

section 402A:

This language authorizes the Department to 

use up to $20 million of the funds 

appropriated for the Federal TRIO Programs 

to engage in cooperative agreements with 

TRIO grantees to support the demonstration 

and evaluation of college access and 

completion strategies without regard to TRIO 

statutory requirements.

6 Provided further, That $30,000,000 shall be 

used for competitive awards to institutions 

described in sections 316, 317, 318, 319, 

320, 322, and 502 of the HEA to support 

innovative and evidence-based studentcentered strategies and interventions 

designed to improve the performance of 

those institutions in graduating low-income 

students.

This language authorizes and provides funds 

for a new HBCU and Minority-Serving 

Institutions Innovation for Completion Fund 

program which will support evidence-based

student-centered strategies and interventions 

designed to improve the performance of 

those institutions in enrolling and graduating 

low-income students at minority-serving 

institutions.

7Provided further, That $125,000,000 shall be 

used to make competitive grants to public 

and private nonprofit entities to support the

creation and expansion of high-quality 

teacher and principal preparation programs, 

and other activities authorized under title II of 

the HEA.

This language authorizes and provides funds 

for a new Teacher and Principal Pathways 

program to support competitive awards to 

institutions of higher education and other nonprofit entities to create or expand high quality 

pathways to prepare participants to be effective 

teachers or principals, and other activities 

authorized under title II of the HEA.

8Provided further, That the Secretary may 

reserve no more than five percent of the 

funds described in the preceding proviso for 

national activities.

This language authorizes the Department to 

use up to 5 percent of the funds appropriated 

for the Teacher and Principal Pathways 

program to support national activities.

R-4
HIGHER EDUCATION

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2015 2016 2017

Discretionary:

Disc apprAppropriation................................................................. $1,924,839 $1,982,185 $2,189,200

Mandatory: 

Mand apprAppropriation ................................................................ 255,000 255,000 2,060,121

Mand apprSequester (P.L. 112-25)............................................... -18,615 -17,340 0 

Total, adjusted mandatory appropriation ............... 236,385 237,660 2,060,121

Total, adjusted discretionary and

mandatory appropriation ..................................... 2,161,224 2,219,845 4,249,321

R-5
HIGHER EDUCATION

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2016 Discretionary.............................................................................. $1,982,185

2016 Mandatory.................................................................................. 237,660

2017 Discretionary.............................................................................. 2,189,200

2017 Mandatory.................................................................................. 2,060,121

Net change ......................................................................................... +2,029,476

Discretionary:

2016 base

Change

from base

Increases:

Program:

Discretionar y: Increase funding to establish a new initiative, HBCU and 

MSI Innovation Completion Fund for competitive awards to 

institutions described in sections 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 

322, and 502 of the HEA to undertake support innovative 

and evidence-based student-centered strategies designed 

to improve the performance of those institutions in enrolling 

and graduating low-income students. 0 +$30,000

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

Postsecondary Education to support the First in the World 

Program, which provides funding to support the 

implementation and evaluation of innovative and evidencebased strategies designed to improve college completion, 

particularly for high need students. 0 +100,000

Discretionar y: Increase funding to establish a new Teacher and Principal 

Pathways program to support competitive awards to 

institutions of higher education and other non-profit entities 

to create or expand high quality pathways to prepare 

participants to be effective teachers or principals. 0 +125,000

Subtotal, discretionary increases +255,000

R-6
HIGHER EDUCATION

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

Discretionary:

2016 base

Change

from base

Decreases:

Program:

Discretionar y: Eliminate funding for the Teacher Quality Partnership 

program because the Administration is proposing a new 

Teacher and Principal Pathways program in fiscal year 2017 

which will support the same goals as the TQP program. $43,092 -$43,092

Discretionar y: Decrease funding for International Education and Foreign 

Language Studies: Overseas Programs that would 

otherwise be used for new awards to support ongoing 

activities in the International Education and Foreign 

Language Studies: Domestic Programs. $7,061 -4,893

Subtotal, discretionary decreases -47,985

Mandatory:

2016 base

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. 27,960 +2,040

Mandator y: Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Alaska 

Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions program to 

return funding to the authorized level. 13,980 +1,020

Mandator y: Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening HBCUs 

program to return funding to the authorized level. 79,220 +5,780

Mandator y: Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening 

Predominantly Black Institutions program to return funding 

to the authorized level. 13,980 +1,020

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. 4,660 +340

R-7
HIGHER EDUCATION

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

Mandatory:

2016 base

Change

from base

Increases:

Program:

Mandator y: Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Native 

American-serving Nontribal Institutions program to return 

funding to the authorized level. $4,660 +$340

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

return funding to the authorized level. 93,200 +6,800

Mandator y: Increase to initiate a mandatory America’s College Promise 

program to provide funds to create partnerships with States 

to make 2 years of community college free for responsible 

students by helping them waive tuition in high-quality 

programs, while promoting key reforms to help more 

students complete at least 2 years of college. 0 +1,257,334

Mandator y: Increase to initiate a mandatory College Opportunity and 

Graduation Bonus program to reward colleges that 

successfully enroll and graduate a significant number of 

low- and moderate-income students on time and to 

encourage all institutions to improve their performance. 0 +547,787

Subtotal, mandatory increases +1,822,461

Net change +2,029,476

R-8
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016 

Estimate

Footnot

e 2017

Authorized

Footnote 2017

Request

Footnot

e

Aid for institutional development:

Strengthening institutions (HEA-III-A-311) 0 $86,534 To be determined 1 $86,534

Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and

universities (HEA-III-A-316) 0 27,599 To be determined 1 27,599

Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and

Universities (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) $30,0002 27,9602 $30,0002 30,0002

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving institutions (HEA-III-A-317) 0 13,802 To be determined1 13,802

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving institutions (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 15,0002 13,8902 15,0002 15,0002

Strengthening historically Black colleges and

universities (HEA-III-B-323) 0 244,694 To be determined1 244,694

Strengthening historically Black colleges and

universities (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 85,0002 79,2202 85,0002 85,0002

Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions

(HEA-III-B-326) 0 63,281 To be determined1 63,281

Strengthening predominantly Black institutions

(HEA-III-A-318) 75,000 9,942 To be determined1 9,942

Strengthening predominantly Black institutions

(HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 15,0002 13,8902 15,0002 15,0002

Strengthening Asian American and Native American

Pacific Islander-serving institutions (HEA-III-A-320) 0 3,348 To be determined1 3,348

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific

Islander-serving institutions (HEA-III-F-371)(mandatory) 5,0002 4,6602 5,0002 5,0002

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal

institutions (HEA-III-A-319) 0 3,348 To be determined 1 3,348

R-9
HIGHER EDUCATION

Activity

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016 

Estimate

Footnot

e 2017

Authorized

Footnote 2017

Request

Footnot

e

Aid for institutional development:

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal

institutions (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) $5,0002 $4,6602 $5,0002 $5,0002

Minority science and engineering improvement

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

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions:

Developing Hispanic-serving institutions (HEA-V-A) 0 107,795 To be determined1 107,795

Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation

programs (HEA III-F-371(b)(2)(B)) (mandatory) 100,0002 93,2002 100,0002 100,0002

Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for

Hispanic Americans (HEA-V-B-512) (discretionary) 0 9,671 To be determined1 9,671 

HBCU and minority-serving institutions (MSIs) innovation for

completion fund (proposed legislation) 0 0 To be determined 30,000

Other aid for institutions:

International education and foreign language studies:

Domestic programs (HEA-VI-A and B) 0 65,103 To be determined1 65,103

Overseas programs (MECEA-102(b)(6)) Indefinite 7,061 Indefinite 2,168

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

(HEA-VII-B) 0 0 To be determined1 100,000

Model comprehensive transition and postsecondary

programs for students with intellectual disabilities into 

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

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical 

institutions (Carl D. Perkins CTEA section 117) 03 8,286 To be determined3 8,286

Assistance for students:

Federal TRIO programs (HEA-IV-A-2-1) 0 900,000 To be determined1 900,000

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate 

programs (HEA-IV-A-2-2) 0 322,7544 To be determined1 322,7544

R-10

R-10
HIGHER EDUCATION

Activity

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016 

Estimate

Footnot

e 2017

Authorized

Footnote 2017

Request

Footnot

e

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

(HEA-VII-A-2) 0 $29,293 To be determined1 $29,293

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

Teacher and Principal Pathways (proposed legislation) 0 0 To be determined1 125,000

Teacher quality partnerships (HEA II-A) 0 43,092 To be determined1 0

America’s College Promise (proposed legislation)

(mandatory) 0 0 To be determined1 1,257,334

College opportunity and graduation bonus (proposed 

legislation)(mandatory) 0 0 To be determined1 547,787

Unfunded authorizations:

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

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

(discretionary) 0 0 0 0

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

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

Science and technology advanced foreign language

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

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

Loan repayment for civil legal assistance attorneys

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

International education and foreign language studies:

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

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

Thurgood Marshall legal educational opportunity

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

Master’s degree programs at historically Black

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

R-11

R-11
HIGHER EDUCATION

Activity

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016 

Estimate

Footnot

e 2017

Authorized

Footnote 2017

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations:

Master’s degree programs at predominantly Black

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

Demonstration projects to support postsecondary

faculty, staff, and administrators in educating students

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

Model demonstration program to support improved

access to postsecondary instructional materials for

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

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

College access challenge grant program

(HEA-VII-E) (discretionary) 0 0 0 0

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

(mandatory) 0 0 0 0

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

Mathematics and science scholars program

(HEA-VIII-B) 0 0 0 0

Business workforce partnerships for job skill

training in high growth occupations or industries

(HEA-VIII-C) 0 0 0 0

Capacity for nursing students and faculty

(HEA-VIII-D) 0 0 0 0

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

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

Improving college enrollment by secondary schools

(HEA-VIII-H) 0 0 0 0

R-12

R-12
HIGHER EDUCATION

Activity

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016 

Estimate

Footnot

e 2017

Authorized

Footnote 2017

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations:

Early childhood education professional development

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

Improving science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics education with a focus on Alaska Native and

Native Hawaiian students (HEA-VIII-J)

0 0 0 0

Pilot programs to increase college persistence and

success (HEA-VIII-K)

0 0 0 0

Student safety and campus emergency management

(HEA-VIII-L-821)

0 0 0 0

Education disaster and emergency relief loan

program (HEA-VIII-L-824)

0 0 0 0

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

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

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

Rural development grants for rural-serving colleges

and universities (HEA-VIII-Q)

0 0 0 0

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

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

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

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

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

School of veterinary medicine competitive grant

program (HEA-VIII-X)

0 0 0 0

Early Federal Pell Grant commitment demonstration

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

Master’s degree programs at HBCUs and PBIs

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

R-13

R-13
HIGHER EDUCATION

Activity

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016 

Estimate

Footnot

e 2017

Authorized

Footnote 2017

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations:

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 $237,660 $255,000

Total appropriation $2,219,895 $4,249,321

Total discretionary appropriation 1,982,195 2,189,200

Portion of discretionary request subject to reauthorization 2,159,200

Portion of the discretionary request not authorized 0 30,000

Total mandatory appropriation 237,660 2,060,121

Portion of the mandatory request not authorized 0 1,805,121

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; the program was authorized in 2016 through appropriations language. Reauthorizing legislation is sought for 

fiscal year 2017. 2 Mandatory funds made available in fiscal year 2009 and each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2019. 3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2013; the program was authorized in 2016 through appropriations language. Reauthorizing legislation is sought for 

fiscal year 2017. 4 Of the amount appropriated, not less than 33 percent shall be used for State Grants and not less than 33 percent shall be used for Partnership Grants.

R-14

R-14
HIGHER EDUCATION

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate to 

Congress footnote

House 

Allowance foot

note

Senate 

Allowance

F

o

o

t

n

o

t

e Appropriationnote

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

2008 Mandatory 378,000 378,000 378,000

2009 Discretionary 1,733,684 2,080,8811 1,856,21431 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 2,106,7492 2,255,665

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

2011 Discretionary 2,131,493 2,177,9153 2,243,8952 1,903,9444

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 1,906,3942 1,925,408

2014 Mandatory 428,000 428,000 397,184

2015 Discretionary 2,025,457 N/A7 1,968,7998 1,924,839

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

2016 Discretionary 2,072,045 1,909,0429 2,038,5109 1,982,185

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

2017 Discretionary 2,189,200

2017 Mandatory 2,060,121

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

proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 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.

R-15
HIGHER EDUCATION

Significant Items in FY 2016 Appropriations Reports

Federal TRIO Programs

Managers’

Statement:

The agreement provides funding for a new competition for the Talent Search and 

Educational Opportunity Centers programs as well as an increase in funding for 

existing grantees. The Department is strongly encouraged to publish the notice 

inviting applications as soon as possible and issue award notices for these 

programs no later than July 31, 2016.

Response: The Department plans to use a portion of the funding to provide an increase in 

funding for existing grantees. The Department published the Talent Search notice 

inviting applications on December 22, 2015 and will publish the Educational 

Opportunity Centers notice in early February. We plan to make awards prior to 

July 31, 2016.

Managers’

Statement:

The agreement strongly urges the Secretary to give fair consideration to prior

experience when making awards under the Talent Search and Educational

Opportunity Center competitions.

Response: The Department will give fair consideration to prior experience. Talent Search 

and Educational Opportunity Centers grantees can earn up to 15 prior experience 

points in accordance with the HEA statutory requirements.

R-16
Summary of 

Request

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Click here for accessible version 

Amount Percent

Higher Education

1. Aid for institutional development:

(a) Strengthening institutions (HEA III-A, section 311) D 80,462 86,534 86,534 0 0.00%

(b) Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities (HEA III-A, section 316) D 25,662 27,599 27,599 0 0.00%

(c) Mandatory strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities 

(HEA III-F, section 371) M 27,810 27,960 30,000 2,040 7.30%

Subtotal 53,472 55,559 57,599 2,040 3.67%

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

section 317) D 12,833 13,802 13,802 0 0.00%

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

institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 13,905 13,980 15,000 1,020 7.30%

Subtotal 26,738 27,782 28,802 1,020 3.67%

(f) Strengthening HBCUs (HEA III-B, section 323) D 227,524 244,694 244,694 0 0.00%

(g) Mandatory strengthening HBCUs (HEA III-F, section 371) M 78,795 79,220 85,000 5,780 7.30%

Subtotal 306,319 323,914 329,694 5,780 1.78%

(h) Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions (HEA III-B, section 326) D 58,840 63,281 63,281 0 0.00%

(i) Strengthening predominantly Black institutions (HEA III-A, section 318) D 9,244 9,942 9,942 0 0.00%

(j) Mandatory strengthening predominantly Black institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 13,905 13,980 15,000 1,020 7.30%

Subtotal 23,149 23,922 24,942 1,020 4.26%

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

institutions (HEA III-A, section 320) D 3,113 3,348 3,348 0 0.00%

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

Islander-serving institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 4,635 4,660 5,000 340 7.30%

Subtotal 7,748 8,008 8,348 340 4.25%

(m) Strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions (HEA III-A, section 319) D 3,113 3,348 3,348 0 0.00%

(n) Mandatory strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 4,635 4,660 5,000 340 7.30%

Subtotal 7,748 8,008 8,348 340 4.25%

(o) Minority science and engineering improvement (HEA III-E-1) D 8,971 9,648 9,648 0 0.00%

Subtotal, Aid for institutional development 573,447 606,656 617,196 10,540 1.74%

Discretionary D 429,762 462,196 462,196 0 0.00%

Mandatory M 143,685 144,460 155,000 10,540 7.30%

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

For most mandatory programs, the levels shown in the 2015 Appropriation column reflect the 7.3 percent sequester that went into effect October 1, 2014, and the levels shown in the 

2016 Appropriation column reflect the 6.8 percent reduction that went into effect on October 1, 2015, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). 

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

2017 President's Budget

2016 Compared to 2016 Appropriation

Account, Program and Activity Appropriation

Category 

Code

2015 

Appropriation

2017 President's 

Budget

T-- R-17

S--

R-17
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent

Higher Education (continued)

2. Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions:

(a) Developing Hispanic-serving institutions (HEA V-A) D 100,231 107,795 107,795 0 0.00%

(b) Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation programs (HEA III-F, section 371(b)(2)(B)) M 92,700 93,200 100,000 6,800 7.30%

(c) Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans (HEA V, section 512) D 8,992 9,671 9,671 0 0.00%

Subtotal 201,923 210,666 217,466 6,800 3.23%

Discretionary 109,223 117,466 117,466 0 0.00%

Mandatory 92,700 93,200 100,000 6,800 7.30%

3. HBCU and Minority-serving institutions (MSI) innovation for completion fund (proposed legislation) D --- --- 30,000 30,000 ---

4. Other aid for institutions:

(a) International education and foreign language studies:

(1) Domestic programs (HEA VI-A and B) D 65,103 65,103 65,103 0 0.00%

(2) Overseas programs (MECEA section 102(b)(6)) D 7,061 7,061 2,168 (4,893) -69.30%

Subtotal 72,164 72,164 67,271 (4,893) -6.78%

(b) Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education:

(1) Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education (HEA VII-B) D 7,775 0 0 0 ---

(2) First in the World (HEA VII-B) D 60,000 0 100,000 100,000 ---

Subtotal 67,775 0 100,000 100,000 ---

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

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

(d) Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions (CTEA section 117) D 7,705 8,286 8,286 0 0.00%

 5. Assistance for students:

(a) Federal TRIO programs (HEA IV-A-2, Chapter 1) D 839,752 900,000 900,000 0 0.00%

(b) Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

(GEAR UP) (HEA IV-A-2, Chapter 2) D 301,639 322,754 322,754 0 0.00%

(c) Graduate assistance in areas of national need (HEA VII-A-2) D 29,293 29,293 29,293 0 0.00%

(d) Child care access means parents in school (HEA IV-A-7) D 15,134 15,134 15,134 0 0.00%

 6. Teacher and principal pathways (proposed legislation) D --- --- 125,000 125,000 ---

 7. Teacher quality partnerships (HEA II-A) D 40,592 43,092 0 (43,092) -100.00%

 8. America's college promise (proposed legislation) M --- --- 1,257,334 1,257,334 ---

 9. College opportunity and graduation bonus (proposed legislation) M --- --- 547,787 547,787 ---

Total 2,161,224 2,219,845 4,249,321 2,029,476 91.42%

Discretionary 1,924,839 1,982,185 2,189,200 207,015 10.44%

Mandatory 236,385 237,660 2,060,121 1,822,461 766.84%

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

For most mandatory programs, the levels shown in the 2015 Appropriation column reflect the 7.3 percent sequester that went into effect October 1, 2014, and the levels shown in the 

2016 Appropriation column reflect the 6.8 percent reduction that went into effect on October 1, 2015, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). 

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

2017 President's Budget

Compared to 2016 Appropriation

Account, Program and Activity

Category 

Code

2015 

Appropriation

2016

Appropriation

2017 President's 

Budget

T-- R-18

S--

R-18
HIGHER EDUCATION

Summary of Request

The Administration’s request for fiscal year 2017 includes a combination of discretionary and 

mandatory funding that would make available a total of $4.2 billion for programs in the 

Higher Education account—$2.2 billion in discretionary funding to support a comprehensive set 

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

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

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

in higher education. Lastly, although not part of the budget request for 2017, mandatory funding 

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

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

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

low-income students and others, the request would provide a total of $462.2 million in 

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

as the 2016 appropriation. The request for Title III demonstrates the Administration’s 

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

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

fundraising capabilities. Within this amount, the Administration requests $86.5 million for the 

Strengthening Institutions Program. The Administration is also requesting $224.7 million for 

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); $63.3 million for

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

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

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

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

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

undergraduate and graduate levels to African Americans.

Also included in the request for Title III programs is $27.6 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 $117.5 million in discretionary funding for Aid for 

Hispanic-serving Institutions to expand educational opportunities for, and improve the academic 

attainment of, Hispanic students. The request includes $107.8 million in discretionary funding 

for Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions (HSIs) and $9.7 million for the Promoting 

Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans, the same as the 2016 

appropriation.

U-- R-19
HIGHER EDUCATION

Summary of Request (continued)

Also included in the Administration’s budget request for 2017 is a new proposal, the HBCU and

Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) Innovation for Completion Fund, designed to support 

innovative and evidence-based, student-centered strategies and interventions to increase the 

number of low-income students and students of color completing degree programs at HBCUs 

and MSIs, including Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, 

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions, and Native 

American-Serving Nontribal Institutions.

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

Administration requests a total of $67.3 million, a decrease of $4.9 million or 6.8 percent, from

the 2016 appropriation. The IEFLS programs are designed to help meet the Nation's security 

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

and international studies. More specifically, the request for IEFLS includes $65.1 million for 

the Domestic Programs, the same as the 2016 appropriation; and $2.2 million, a decrease of 

$4.9 million, for the Overseas Programs.

The Administration requests $900 million for the Federal TRIO Programs, the same as the 

2016 appropriation. The request includes appropriations language to allow the Department to 

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

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

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

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

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

parents never completed college. In addition, the Administration’s request for Gaining Early 

Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) would maintain 

funding at the fiscal year 2016 appropriation level of $322.8 million. The TRIO and GEAR UP 

programs are designed to increase postsecondary access by providing low-income students 

with the necessary tools to enroll in and successfully complete college.

The Administration also requests $100 million for the Fund for the Improvement of 

Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) for fiscal year 2017 to support a new competition for 

awards under First in the World (FITW), an evidence-based program that provides funding to 

support the development, validation, scaling up and dissemination of innovative solutions and 

evidence for what works to effectively address persistent and widespread challenges to 

improving college affordability and completion of postsecondary programs for high need 

students. The increase would enable the Department to expand the FITW program to support 

projects under three evidence tiers: development, validation, and scale up. The Administration 

would set aside a portion of the 2017 funding, up to 30 percent, or $30 million at the requested 

level, for awards to HBCUs and MSIs.

R-20
HIGHER EDUCATION

Summary of Request (continued)

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

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

scholarships and fellowships for graduate students.

The Administration also requests $125 million for the Teacher and Principal Pathways 

program for fiscal year 2017 to support the creation and expansion of high quality pathways for 

participants to become effective teachers and principals. The Administration believes that this 

new broader authority will provide greater flexibility than current authority to support innovative 

and effective pathways to the classroom and school administration. This program will replace 

the current Teacher Quality Partnership program.

The President’s fiscal year 2017 request proposes the following new mandatory initiatives and 

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

• $1.3 billion fiscal year 2017 budget authority for America’s College Promise, an 

investment of $60.8 billion in mandatory outlays over 10 years, a proposed grant program 

for States to make community college free for responsible students, enabling them to earn a 

certificate, an associate’s degree or up to 2 years’ worth of credits towards a bachelor’s 

degree without paying any tuition and fees. 

• $547.8 million fiscal year 2017 budget authority for the College Opportunity and 

Graduation Bonus program, an investment of $5.7 billion in mandatory outlays over the

next decade, that will reward colleges that successfully enroll and graduate a significant 

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

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

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

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

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

mandatory funds that are not included in the Department’s fiscal year 2017 budget request:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Institutions.

U-- R-21
HIGHER EDUCATION

Activities:

Aid for institutional development

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title III)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined (discretionary)1

, $155,000 (mandatory)

Budget Authority:

Program 2016 footnote2017 footn

ote

Change footnote

Strengthening Institutions (Part A discretionary) $86,534 $86,534 0

Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges

and Universities 

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

TCCUs (Part F mandatory) 27,960 30,000 +$2,040

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native

Hawaiian-serving Institutions

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

ANNH (Part F mandatory) 13,980 15,000 +1,020

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges

and Universities

HBCUs (Part B discretionary) 244,694 244,694 0

HBCUs (Part F mandatory) 79,220 85,000 +5,780

Strengthening Historically Black Graduate

Institutions (Part B discretionary) 63,281 63,281 0

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions

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

(Part F mandatory) 13,980 15,000 +1,020

Strengthening Asian American and Native

American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions

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

(Part F mandatory) 4,660 5,000 +340

Strengthening Native American-serving

Nontribal Institutions 

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

(Part F mandatory) 4,660 5,000 +340

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement

Program (Part E discretionary) 9,648 9,648 0

Total 606,656 617,196 10,540

Discretionary 462,196 462,196 0

Mandatory 144,4602 155,0002 10,5402

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017. 2 Mandatory appropriations are provided under Title III, Part F, Section 371 of the HEA; these funds are, 

therefore, not part of the appropriations or budget request. The 2016 levels for mandatory programs have been 

reduced by 6.8 percent which became effective on October 1, 2015, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 

(P.L. 115-25.

U-- R-22
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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, to 

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

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

institutions that enroll 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 

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

Hawaiian-serving Institutions (ANNHs). Furthermore, the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 

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

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions program (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 appropriated

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 

U-- R-23
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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 

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 of Education 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 

U-- R-24
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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 1-year planning grants and 5-year discretionary 

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

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

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

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

funds to plan, develop, and implement activities that support a wide range of activities, 

including: faculty and curriculum development; improvement in fund and administrative 

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

instructional facilities; student services; the purchase of library books and other educational 

materials; and education or counseling services designed to improve the financial literacy and 

economic literacy of students or the students’ families. These institutions are typically located in 

remote areas not served by other postsecondary educational institutions. 

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

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

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

in Section 6306 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). The term "Native Hawaiianserving institution" is defined as an institution that meets the definition of an eligible institution 

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

enrollment that is at least 10 percent Native Hawaiian students (as defined in Section 6207 of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965). If an Alaska Native or Native Hawaiianserving institution receives funding under this program, it cannot receive funding under other 

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

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

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

of the HEA. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U-- R-25
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

amount may be used for this purpose.

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

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

increase an institution’s endowment fund.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

funding under Part A. 

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

U-- R-26
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarke School of Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

educational materials, including telecommunications program materials; acquisition of real 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and student service programs designed to improve academic success.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 above; any amount appropriated in excess of 

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

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

U-- R-27
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

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

pursuant to a formula 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 to help PBIs to plan, develop, undertake, and implement 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

awarded may be used for 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.

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;

U-- R-28
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

• Has an enrollment of undergraduate students

o That is at least 40 percent Black American students;

o That is 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.

This program is different than the PBI program authorized under Title III, Part F, Section 371 of 

the HEA. While both programs serve similar institutions, Section 371 is a mandatory program 

that awards 25 discretionary grants of $600,000 for up to 4 years in duration. Grants are to be 

awarded competitively to eligible institutions of higher education to support programs in any of 

the following areas: science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM); health 

education; internationalization or globalization; teacher preparation; or improving educational 

outcomes of African American males in each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2019. Section 318 

awards discretionary development grants to help PBIs to plan, develop, undertake, and 

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

Black American students and authorizes a broad range of activities.

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thailand, and Vietnam as defined in the Office of Management and Budget’s Standards for 

Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity as published on 

October 30, 1997 (62 Federal Register 58789). The term “Native American Pacific Islander” 

means any descendant of the aboriginal people of any island in the Pacific Ocean that is a 

territory or possession of the United States. Institutions receiving grants under this part are 

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

an additional grant after their 5-year grant period expires.

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

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

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

lease of scientific or laboratory equipment for educational purposes; renovation and 

improvement in classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other instructional facilities; support of 

U-- R-29
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Pacific Islander populations and subpopulations; establishing partnerships with 

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

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

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

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

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 to plan, develop, undertake, and carry out activities to 

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

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

equipment for educational purposes, including 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; 

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

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

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

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

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

U-- R-30
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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)

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

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

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

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

2016.....................................................................................606,6565

 .

1 Includes $166,500 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 2 Includes $158,009 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 3 Includes $154,512 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 4 Includes $143,685 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 5 Includes $144,460 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

U-- R-31
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Department requests $462.2 million in discretionary funding in fiscal year 2017 for the AID 

programs, the same as the fiscal year 2016 level. In addition, $155 million is available in 

mandatory funding in fiscal year 2017 for programs authorized under Section 371 of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended; these funds are not part of the fiscal year 2017 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 close the gap 

in postsecondary educational attainment between low-income and minority students and their 

peers. 

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 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. Since 

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

priorities for projects that propose evidence-based practices. For new Title III competitions in 

the fiscal year 2016, 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 2017 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:

• $86.5 million in fiscal year 2017 for the Part A, Section 311 Strengthening Institutions

Program (SIP), the same as the fiscal year 2016 level. This funding level would continue 

to support the Administration’s commitment to assist institutions that provide educational 

opportunities to low-income and minority students. SIP became the first HEA Title III

program to include a priority for supporting programs, practices, or strategies for which

U-- R-32
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

there is strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness. SIP has awarded nearly 

70 grants between 2012 and 2015 to institutions that proposed projects supported by 

moderate evidence of effectiveness as defined by the What Works Clearinghouse. In

fiscal year 2016, the Department expects to fund down the 2015 funding slate and award 

45 new evidence-based grants. 

• $27.6 million in fiscal year 2017 for the Part A, Section 316 Strengthening Tribally 

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

2016 level. There are 34 fully accredited Tribal Colleges and Universities in the United 

States. Three additional universities are in Associate Status, meaning a tribal college 

seeking formal accreditation 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 18,274 in 

2013 (2,905 fewer students when compared to enrollment in 2010). In 2013, nearly 

14,393 students in TCCUs (78.8 percent of total enrollment) were American 

Indian/Alaska Native.

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

enrolled in TCCUs in 2013. Between 2000 and 2013, the overall enrollment for this 

population in colleges and universities increased by approximately 7 percent. It is 

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

at TCCUs increased at a rate nearly three times greater than that of American 

Indian/Alaska Native enrollment in colleges and universities generally (20.5 percent 

versus 7 percent). Despite the overall increases in college enrollment and degree 

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

non-native peers in overall educational attainment. In 2012-2013, American 

Indian/Alaska Natives earned only 0.6 percent of the bachelor’s degrees, 0.6 percent of 

the master’s degrees, and 0.6 percent of doctoral degrees awarded in the United States, 

though American Indian/Alaska Natives comprise 1.2 percent of the population.

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

for TCCUs in fiscal year 2017. The Department will award funding to all eligible TCCUs 

using the formula outlined in the program statute.

• $13.8 million in fiscal year 2017 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 2016 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 

U-- R-33
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

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

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

• $244.7 million in fiscal year 2017 for the Strengthening HBCUs program under Part B, 

Section 323, the same as the fiscal year 2016 level. In addition, the Administration requests 

$63.3 million in fiscal year 2017 for the Strengthening Historically Black Graduate 

Institutions (HBGIs) program under Part B, Section 326, the same as the fiscal year 2016 

level. The fiscal year 2017 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. In 2013, HBCUs enrolled 303,167

African American students, or nearly 10.6 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 2013, 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 2012-2013, African 

Americans earned only 10.8 percent of the bachelor’s degrees, 13.4 percent of the 

master’s degrees, and 7.8 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 2017.

• $9.6 million in fiscal year 2017 for Part A, Section 318 Strengthening Predominantly 

Black Institutions (PBIs) program, the same as the fiscal year 2016 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 2017 for 

PBIs.

• $3.3 million in fiscal year 2017 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 2016 level. Most AANAPISI 

U-- R-34
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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 2017.

• $3.3 million in fiscal year 2017 for discretionary funds for Part A, Section 319 

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

same as the fiscal year 2016 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 resources to improve and expand their capacity to 

serve the unique and diverse needs of their Native American student population. 

In fiscal year 2017, mandatory funding of $5 million is also appropriated under 

Section 371 of the HEA for NASNTIs.

• $9.6 million in fiscal year 2017 for the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 

Program, the same as the fiscal year 2016 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. According to the “Science and Engineering 

Indicators 2014” (NSB 14-01), published by the National Science Board, between 

2000 and 2011:

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

to African American students held steady at 9 percent, 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 10 percent. In comparison, Hispanics comprise 16 percent of the U.S. 

population and 15 percent of postsecondary enrollment.

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

Natives from 0.5 percent to 0.6 percent. In comparison, American Indians/Alaska 

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

enrollment.

U-- R-35
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 Footnote2016

Footnote

2017 Footnote

Strengthening Institutions

Discretionary funding: Strengtheni ng Insti tuti ons Program

Strengthening Institutions Program:Number of new development awards 0 0 12

Strengthening Institutions Program: Average new development award 0 0 $491

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total new development award funding 0 0 $5,894

Strengthening Institutions Program: Number of new evidence awards 40 45 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Average new evidence awards $437 $475 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total new evidence award funding $17,462 $21,379 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Number of NCC development awards 103 68 68

Strengthening Institutions Program: Average NCC development award $406 $419 $407

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total NCC development award funding $41,814 $28,508 $27,671

Strengthening Institutions Program: Number of NCC evidence awards 26 65 96

Strengthening Institutions Program: Average NCC evidence award $761 $564 $543

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total NCC evidence award funding $19,794 $36,647 $52,104

Strengthening Institutions Program: Peer review of new award applications $451 0 $865

Strengthening Institutions Program: Lapse (grantees accepted other Title III/V grants) $941 0 0

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total award funding (Section 311) $80,462 $86,534 $86,534

Strengthening Institutions Program: Total number of awards 169 178 176

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 new development awards 34 0 0

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Average new development award $755 0 0

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Total new development award funding $25,662 0 0

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Number of NCC development awards 0 34 34

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Average NCC development award 0 $812 $812

STREN GTHEN ING TCCUS - Discretionar y Funding: Total NCC development award funding 0 $27,599 $27,599

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

Strengthening TCCU s – Mandator y funding: Number of new development awards 0 34 0

Strengthening TCCU s – Mandator y funding: Average new development award 0 $822 0

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

U-- R-36
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 Footnote2016

Footnote

2017 Footnote

 datory Strengthening TCCUs (cont’d)

Strengthening TCCU s – Mandator y funding: Number of NCC development awards 34 0 34

Strengthening TCCU s – Mandator y funding: Average NCC development award $818 0 $882

Strengthening TCCU s – Mandator y funding: Total NCC development award funding $27,810 0 $30,000

Total award funding TCCUs discretionar y and mandatory funding $53,472 $55,559 $57,599

TCCU funding: Discretionary (Section 316) $25,662 $27,599 $27,599

TCCU funding: Mandatory (Section 371) $27,810 $27,960 $30,000

TCCU Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) 68 68 68

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 new development awards 12 0 0

ning ANNHs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average new development award $713 0 0

ning ANNHs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total new development award funding $8,555 0 0

ning ANNHs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Number of NCC development awards 3 15 15

ning ANNHs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average NCC development award $944 $756 $772

ning ANNHs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total NCC development award funding $2,832 $11,337 $11,574

ning ANNHs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Peer review of new award applications $31 0 0

ning ANNHs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Supplemental awards 0 $2,465 $2,228

Mandatory funding:

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

obligation at the start of the fiscal year $24,308 $20,876 $19,359

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Number of new development awards 0 7 0

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Average new development award 0 $536 0

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Total new development award funding 0 $3,750 0

U-- R-37
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 Footnote2016

Footnote

2017 Footnote

Strengthening ANNHs (cont’d)

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Number of NCC development awards 11 11 18

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Average NCC development award $1,583 $1,381 $1,064

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Total NCC development award funding $17,412 $15,187 $19,159

Strengthening ANNHs – M andator y F unding: Peer review of new award applications 0 $60 0

Total award funding: Strengthening ANNHs $26,738 $27,782 $28,802

ANNH F unding: Discretionary (Section 317) $12,8331$13,8022$13,802

ANNH F unding: Mandatory (Section 371) $13,905 $13,980 $15,000

ANNH Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover

(funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year) $6,8963

$5,3793$2003

Total number of awards (discretionary and

mandatory) Strengthening ANNHs 26 33 33

Strengthening HBCUs

HBCU Discretionary funding:

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

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average NCC award $2,346 $2,523 $2,523

Strengthening H BCUs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng:Total NCC award funding $227,524 $244,694 $244,694

HBCU Mandatory funding:

Strengthening H BCUs – M andator y F unding: Number of new awards 0 97 0

Strengthening H BCUs – M andator y F unding:Average new award 0 $817 0

Strengthening H BCUs – M andator y F unding: Total new award funding 0 $79,220 0

1 The Department reprogrammed $1,319 thousand from the Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving institutions that would have otherwise lapsed to the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary 

Education/First in the World (FIPSE/FITW) program. 2 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. 3 Unobligated mandatory funding will be carried over for obligation in the succeeding fiscal year.

U-- R-38
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 Footnote2016

Footnote

2017 Footnote

HBCUs Strengthening HBCUs (cont’d)

Strengthening H BCUs – M andator y F unding: Number of NCC awards 97 0 97

Strengthening H BCUs – M andator y F unding: Average NCC award $812 0 $876

Strengthening H BCUs – M andator y F unding:Total NCC award funding $78,795 0 $85,000

Total award funding: Strengthening H BCUs $306,319 $323,914 $329,694

HBCU F unding: Discretionary (Section 323) $227,524 $244,694 $244,694

HBCU F unding: Mandatory (Section 371) $78,795 $79,220 $85,000

HBCU Total number of awards (discretionary and

mandatory) 194 194 194

Strengthening HBGIs

HBGI Number of NCC awards 24 24 24

HBGI Average NCC award $2,452 $2,637 $2,637

HBGI Total NCC award funding (Section 326) $58,840 $63,281 $63,281

HBGI Total number of awards 24 24 24

Strengthening PBIs

PBIs Discretionary funding (formula-based):

Strengthening PBIs – Discr etionar y F undi ng: Number of new development awards 0 39 0

Strengthening PBIs – Discr etionar y F undi ng: Average new development awards 0 $255 0

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

Strengthening PBIs – Discr etionar y F undi ng: Number of NCC development awards 33 0 39

Strengthening PBIs – Discr etionar y F undi ng: Average NCC development award $280 0 $255

Strengthening PBIs – Discr etionar y F undi ng: Total NCC development award funding $9,244 0 $9,942

Total award funding (Section 320) Strengthening PBIs Discreti onar y F undi ng $9,244 $9,942 $9,942

Total number of awards Str engtheni ng PBIs 33 39 39

PBIs Mandatory funding (competitive):

PBIs Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available 

for obligation at the start of the fiscal year $27,825 $27,885 $28,980

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding: Number of new development awards 23 0 0

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding: Average new development awards $601 0 0

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding:Total new development awards $13,815 0 0

U-- R-39
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 Footnote2016

Footnote

2017 Footnote

PBIs Strengthening PBIs (cont’d)

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding:Number of NCC development awards 0 23 23

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding:Average NCC development award 0 $605 $608

Strengthening PBIs – M andatory Funding:Total NCC development award funding 0 $13,905 $13,980

PBIs Mandator y: Peer review of new award applications $105 0 0

Total award funding Strengtheni ng PBIs $23,164 $23,847 $23,922

PBI Funding:Discretionary (Section 318) $9,244 $9,942 $9,942

PBI Funding:Mandatory (Section 371) $13,920 $13,905 $13,980

PBIs Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover

(mandatory funds remaining end of the

fiscal year) $13,9051$13,9801$15,0001

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening PBIs 56 62 62

Strengthening AANAPISIs

AAN APISI Discretionary funding:

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Number of new development awards 10 0 0

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average new development award $310 0 0

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total new development award funding $3,095 0 0

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

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average NCC development award 0 $335 $335

Strengthening AAN APISIs – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total NCC development award funding 0 $3,348 $3,348

AAN APISI Discretionar y: Peer review of new awards applications $18 0 0

AAN APISI Mandatory funding:

AAN APISI Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available for 

obligation at the start of the year $9,275 $9,295 $9,660

ning AAN APISIs – M andatory F unding: Number of new development awards 0 11 0

ning AAN APISIs – M andatory F unding: Average new development awards 0 $417 0

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

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

U-- R-40
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 Footnote2016

Footnote

2017 Footnote

Strengthening AANAPISIs (cont’d)

Strengthening AAN APISIs – M andatory F unding: Number of NCC development awards 11 0 11

Strengthening AAN APISIs – M andatory F unding: Average NCC development award $422 0 $424

Strengthening AAN APISIs – M andatory F unding: Total NCC development award funding $4,640 0 $4,660

AAN APISI Discretionar y: Peer review of new awards applications 0 $46 0

Total award funding Strengtheni ng AANAPISIs $7,753 $7,983 $8,008

AAN APISI Funding: Discretionary (Section 320) $3,113 $3,348 $3,348

AAN APISI Funding: Mandatory (Section 371) $4,640 $4,635 $4,660

ANNAPISI Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(mandatory funds remaining at the end of the 

fiscal year $4,6351,2

$4,6602$5,0002

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening AAN APISIs 21 21 21

Strengthening NASNTIs

NASNTI Discretionary funding:

Strengthening N ASNT Is – Discr eti onar y F undi ng:Number of new development awards 7 0 0

Strengthening N ASNT Is – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average new development award $443 0 0

Strengthening N ASNT Is – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total new development award funding $3,098 0 0

Strengthening N ASNT Is – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Number of NCC development awards 0 7 7

Strengthening N ASNT Is – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Average NCC development award 0 $478 $478

Strengthening N ASNT Is – Discr eti onar y F undi ng: Total NCC development award funding 0 $3,348 $3,348

NASNT I Discretionar y: Peer review of new awards applications $15 0 0

NASNT I Mandatory funding:

NASNT I Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available 

for obligation at the start of the fiscal year $9,275 $9,295 $9,660

Strengthening N ASNT Is – M andator y F unding: Number of new development awards 0 11 0

Strengthening N ASNT Is – M andator y F unding: Average new development awards 0 $417 0

Strengthening N ASNT Is – M andator y F unding: Total new development awards 0 $4,589 0

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.

U-- R-41
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 Footnote2016

Footnote

2017 Footnote

Strengthening NASNTIs (cont’d)

Strengthening N ASNT Is – M andator y F unding: Number of NCC development awards 12 0 11

Strengthening N ASNT Is – M andator y F unding: Average NCC development award $387 0 $424

Strengthening N ASNT Is – M andator y F unding: Total NCC development award funding $4,640 0 $4,660

Strengthening N ASNT Is M andator y: Peer review of new awards applications 0 $46 0

Total award funding (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening N ASNT Is

$7,753 $7,983 $8,008

NASNT Is F undi ng:Discretionary (Section 319) $3,113 $3,348 $3,348

NASNT Is F undi ng: Mandatory (Section 371) $4,640 $4,635 $4,660

NASNT IsMandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(mandatory funds remaining at the end of the 

fiscal year) $4,6351

$4,6601$5,0001

Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) Strengthening N ASNT Is 19 18 18

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement

MSEIP Number of new awards 14 16 2 12

MSEIP Average new award $233 $226 $236

MSEIP Total new award funding $3,264 $3,617 $2,836

MSEIP Number of NCC awards 24 26 29

MSEIP Average NCC award $234 $232 $232

MSEIP Total NCC award funding $5,618 $6,031 $6,716

MSEIP Peer review of new awards applications $89 0 $96

MSEIP Total award funding $8,971 $9,648 $9,648

MSEIP Total number of awards 38 42 41

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 intends to fund down the 

fiscal year 2015 grant slate to make new awards in fiscal year 2016 if a significant number of high quality applicants 

remain on the fiscal year 2015 slate.

U-- R-42
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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 2017 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

52

72

53

52

55

61

67

82

70

67

72

52

75

81

45

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

2015 Persistence %

2-year

4-year

U-- R-43
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

Graduation Rates at Title III Grantee Institutions

19

29

12

13

19

23

38

48

30

37

37

19

47

60

18

18

0 25 50 75 100

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP 

National Rate

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP

National Rate

Institution

2014 Graduation %

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

2015 for 4-year and 2-year Title III institutions (82 percent and 72 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 and 2-year grantee 

institutions—48 percent and 29 percent versus national rates of 60 percent and 23 percent 

in 2014, respectively. 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.

2-year

4-year

U-- R-44
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP) 

institutions.

Year Target Actual

2008 5.1% (4-year change)

2013 6.4% 11.3% (5-year change)

2018 TBD

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

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

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

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

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

calculated 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

2004-2007

2004 382,890

2005 391,272

2006 363,609

2007 395,897

2008 402,507

Change 5.1%

NCC Awards

2008-2012

Enrollment

2008-2012

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

2013-2017

2013 581,340

2014 555,869 

2015 529,765

Student enrollment at SIP-grantee institutions in 2008 was used to calculate the percentage 

change against student enrollment at SIP-grantee institutions in the base year 2004. Likewise, 

student enrollment at SIP-grantee institutions in 2013 was used to calculate the percentage 

change against student enrollment in the base year 2008. Enrollment data for 2018 will 

reflect the anticipated percentage increase in enrollment for the full set of SIP institutions 

receiving continuation grants in fiscal year 2018, i.e., grantees who receive new awards in 

fiscal years 2013-2017. Even though the SIP program awarded approximately the same 

number of grants in 2004-2007 and 2008-2012, the average enrollment rates vary greatly. This 

is more than likely due to the length of time used to measure each cohort—the average 

enrollment rate for the 2008 data year is measured over 4 years, while the average enrollment 

rate for the 2013 data year is measured over 5 years. Only 6 institutions received funding from 

both the 2004-2007 period and the 2008-2012 period.

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

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

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

U-- R-45
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2012 73.0% 73.0% 62.0% 57.0%

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 62.5

2017 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

2012 50.5% 46.0% 23.0% 19.0%

2013 51.0 45.5 24.0 17.0

2014 51.5 47.0 24.0 18.0

2015 52.0 24.5

2016 52.5 25.0

2017 53.0 25.0

Additional information: Persistence at 4-year SIP institutions exceeds the target set for 2015 

and is 6 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 

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

(60.5 percent). Persistence data for 2016 will be available in December 2016.

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

program and national (60.2 percent) performance. Graduation rates at 2-year SIP-grantee 

institutions is comparable to the graduation rate at TCCUs and ANNH-grantee institutions, but 

falls short of the national graduation rate at 2-year public and private institutions (22.5 percent). 

Graduation data for 2014-2015 will be available in December 2016.

U-- R-46
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2004-2007

(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

2008-2012

(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

2013-2017

(34 grantees)

2013 11,419

2014 10,871

2015 10,499

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.

U-- R-47
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2012 49.0% 48.0% 51.0% 43.0%

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 52.0

2017 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

2012 16.5% 13.0% 28.0% 22.0%

2013 17.0 16.0 28.0 17.0

2014 17.0 19.0 28.0 18.0

2015 17.0 28.0

2016 17.0 28.0

2017 18.0 28.5

Additional information: The 2015 persistence rate at 4-year TCCUs is 1 percentage point

lower than the 2014 rate and exceeds the target set for 2015. However, the persistence rate at 

2-year TCCUs falls short of the target set for 2015 of 52 percent, and is 3 percentage points 

below the 2014 persistence rate.

The 2014 graduation rates at 4-year TCCUs exceeds the target by 2 percentage points, and is 

3 percentage points higher than the 2013 rate. The 4-year and 2-year graduation rates fail to 

meet the national rates of 60 percent and 22.5 percent, respectively. Graduation data for 

2014-2015 will be available in December 2016. 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.

U-- R-48
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2004-2007

(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

2008-2012

(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

2013-2017

(9 grantees)

2013 24,632

2014 24,414

2015 26,611

Student enrollment at ANNH-grantee institutions in 2008 was used to calculate the percentage 

change against student enrollment at ANNH-grantee institutions in the base year 2003. 

Likewise, student enrollment at ANNH-grantee institutions in 2013 was used to calculate the 

percentage change against student enrollment in the base year 2008. Enrollment for data year 

2018 will reflect the anticipated percentage increase in enrollment for ANNH-grantee institutions 

receiving continuation funding in fiscal year 2018, i.e., grantees who receive new awards in 

fiscal year in 2013-2017. Even though the both cohorts represented above awarded the same 

number of grants, one institution (the University of Hawaii at Manoa) in the 2008-2012 cohort 

enrolled over 11,000 students each year between 2008-2012.

U-- R-49
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2012 76.5% 75.0% 59.0% 63.0%

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 71.0

2017 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

2012 46.5% 47.0% 16.0% 15.0%

2013 47.0 46.0 16.0 16.5

2014 47.0 37.0 16.0 19.0

2015 47.5 16.5

2016 47.5 16.5

2017 48.0 16.5

Additional information: The 2015 persistence rate at 4-year ANNH-grantee institutions is the 

same as the 2013 rate; however, the persistence rate at 2-year institutions is 1 percentage point 

lower than the 2013 rates; however, both rates fall short of meeting the targets set for 2015.

Data for only four 2-year grantees were used to calculate the graduation rate for 2014. The 

4-year graduation rate is comparable to the 4-year graduation rate at HBCUs (36.5 percent) and 

NASNTI-grantee institutions (37.5 percent). Both lag behind national graduation rates at 4-year 

and 2-year public and private schools (60.2 percent and 22.5 percent, respectively). Graduation 

data for 2014-2015 will be available in December 2016. 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.

U-- R-50
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2004-2007

(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

2008-2012

(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

2013-2017

(96 grantees)

2013 223,101

2014 216,282

2015 207,993

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.

U-- R-51
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2012 68.5% 65.0% 57.0% 57.0%

2013 69.0 65.0 57.0 53.0

2014 69.0 65.0 57.0 50.0

2015 69.5 67.0 57.5 51.5

2016 69.5 57.5

2017 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

2012 40.0% 33.0% 16.0% 15.0%

2013 40.0 34.0 16.5 14.0

2014 40.0 36.5 17.0 13.0

2015 40.0 17.5

2016 40.0 17.5

2017 41.0 18.0

Additional information: The 2015 persistence rates at 4-year HBCUs (67 percent) and 2-year 

HBCUs (51.5 percent) currently lag behind national persistence rates for 4-year public and 

private schools is (80.9 percent) and 2-year public and private schools (60.5 percent). Both 

4-year and 2-year HBCUs missed the targets set for 2015 by 2.5 and 6 percentage points, 

respectively. Persistence data for 2016 will be available December 2016.

The graduation rate for 2-year HBCUs falls short of the target set for 2014 by 3.5 percentage 

points and the national rate by nearly 9.5 percentage points. Graduation data for 2014-2015 will 

be available in December 2016. The graduation rate at 2-year HBCUs is comparable to the 

rates at PBIs (12 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.

U-- R-52
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

2012 4,967 6,720

2013 6,500 7,251

2014 6,600 7,126

2015 6,700

2016 6,800

2017 6,900

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 2014 for degree completion. Data for 

2015 will be available in December 2016. 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.

U-- R-53
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

undergraduate students enrolled at PBIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 15.6% (1-year change)

2016 TBD

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

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

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

percentage change is calculated against the base year. There are no intermediate annual 

targets. Future progress will be assessed against targets periodically (about every 5 years). 

Student enrollment at PBI-grantee institutions in 2011 (59,908) was used to calculate the 

percentage change against student enrollment at PBIs in the base year 2008 (56,629). The 

target for 2016 will be developed as soon as data are available and will be used to determine 

success for the 5-year grant period 2011-2015. Thus far, the change in enrollment for fiscal 

years 2011-2015 has decreased by 20 percent.

NCC Awards

2011-2015

Enrollment 2011-2015

(41 grantees—discretionary and mandatory)

2011 129,471

2012 127,166

2013 116,460

2014 114,427

2015 103,636

2016

Change -20.0%

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

2012 72.0% 72.0% 54.0% 53.0%

2013 72.5 71.0 54.5 50.0

2014 73.0 66.0 54.5 52.0

2015 73.0 70.0 55.0 53.0

2016 73.0 55.0

2017 73.5 55.5

U-- R-54
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year 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

2012 29.0% 35.0% 13.0% 14.0%

2013 29.5 29.0 13.5 13.0

2014 29.5 30.0 13.5 12.0

2015 30.0 14.0

2016 30.0 14.0

2017 30.5 14.5

Additional information: The 2015 persistence rates at 4-year and 2-year PBIs lag behind the 

national 2015 persistence rates and did not meet the targets set for 2015. The 2014 graduation 

rate at 4-year PBIs exceed the target set for 2014, and is higher than the 2013 rate. The 

graduation rate at 2-year PBIs is comparable to the rates at HBCUs (13 percent). Graduation 

data for 2014-2015 will be available in December 2016. 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 TBD

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

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

programs—eight 2-year institutions and nine 4-year institutions. For enrollment, the percentage 

change is calculated against the base year. There are no intermediate annual targets. Future 

progress will be assessed against targets periodically (about every 5 years). Student enrollment 

at AANAPISI-grantee institutions in 2011 (68,687) was used to calculate the percentage change 

against student enrollment at AANAPISIs in the base year 2008 (63,000). The target for 2016

will be developed as soon as data are available and will be used to determine success for the 

5-year grant period 2011-2015. Thus far, the change in enrollment for fiscal years 2011-2015 is 

3.5 percent.

U-- R-55
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

NCC Awards

2011-2015

Enrollment 2011-2015

(17 grantees—discretionary and mandatory)

2011 114,545

2012 119,197

2013 118,100

2014 119,090

2015 118,536

2016

Change 3.5%

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

2012 80.0% 77.0% 70.0% 73.0%

2013 80.0 81.0 70.0 71.0

2014 80.0 81.0 70.0 71.0

2015 80.5 82.0 70.5 72.0

2016 81.0 71.0

2017 81.0 71.0

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

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

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

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year AANAPISIs who graduate within 3 years of enrollment.

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

2012 48.0% 49.0% 23.0% 31.0%

2013 48.5 49.0 23.0 30.0

2014 48.5 48.0 23.0 29.0

2015 49.0 23.0

2016 49.5 23.0

2017 49.5 23.5

Additional information: The performance rate of AANAPISI-grantee institutions exceeded 

the 2015 targets set for persistence at 4-year and 2-year AANAPISI-grantee institutions by 

1.5 percentage points, respectively. In addition, 2-year AANAPISI-grantee institutions exceeded 

the national graduation rate for 2-year public and private schools (22.5 percent) by nearly 

7 percentage points. Although AANAPISI-grantee institutions failed to meet the national 

graduation rate for 4-year institutions, the program had the highest graduation rate at 4-year 

Title III institutions (48 percent), and the highest graduation rate at 2-year Title III institutions 

(29 percent). Performance data for these measures are derived from electronic annual 

U-- R-56
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

performance reports from program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported by all 

institutions participating in these programs and are subject to NCES consistency and validity 

checks.

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

undergraduate students enrolled at NASNTIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 16.7% (1-year change)

2016 TBD

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

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

program in 2010—ten 2-year institutions and three 4-year institutions. For enrollment, the 

percentage change is calculated against the base year. There are no intermediate annual 

targets. Future progress will be assessed against targets periodically (about every 5 years). 

Student enrollment at NASNTI-grantee institutions in 2013 (20,637) was used to calculate the 

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

The target for 2016 will be developed as soon as data are available and will be used to 

determine success for the 5-year grant period 2011-2015. Thus far, the change in enrollment 

for fiscal years 2011-2015 is -0.5 percent.

NCC Awards

2011-2015

Enrollment 2011-2015

(16 grantees—discretionary and mandatory)

2011 51,014

2012 52,621

2013 53,285

2014 51,082

2015 50,756

2016

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

2012 71.5% 63.0% 52.0% 54.0%

2013 72.0 64.0 52.5 51.0

2014 72.0 66.0 52.5 52.5

2015 72.0 67.0 53.0 52.0

2016 72.0 53.0

2017 73.0 53.5

U-- R-57
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

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

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

undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year NASNTIs who graduate within 3 years of enrollment.

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

2012 33.5% 32.0% 20.0% 18.0%

2013 34.0 37.0 20.5 18.0

2014 34.0 37.5 20.5 19.0

2015 34.5 21.0

2016 34.5 21.0

2017 35.0 21.5

Additional information: The 4-year persistence rate at NASNTI-grantee institutions is higher 

than the 2014 persistence rate but falls short of the target set for 2015 by 5percentage points. 

The 4-year and 2-year persistence rates at NASNTI-grantee institutions are comparable with the

4-year and 2-year persistence rates at HBCUs (67 percent and 51.5 percent, respectively).

The 4-year graduation rate exceeds the target set for 2014, but the graduation rate at 2-year 

institutions misses the target by nearly 2 percentage points. The 2-year graduation rate at 

NASNTI-grantee institutions is comparable to the graduation rates at TCCUs, ANNH-grantee 

institutions, and SIP institutions. Graduation data for 2014-2015 will be available in December 

2016. 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.

U-- R-58
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

As an alternative, the Department used IPEDS data to determine whether the percentage of 

bachelor’s degrees conferred that were in STEM fields increased between 2005 and 2010. 

Specifically, data examined were:

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

2005 and 2010 that were in STEM fields;

• The percentage of bachelor’s degrees conferred by all Title IV eligible institutions in 2005 

and 2010 that were in STEM fields.

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

were examined.

The intent is to examine whether an increasing percentage of students in MSEIP institutions 

earn degrees in STEM fields, given that one of the main purposes of the MSEIP program is to 

increase the participation of underrepresented minorities in scientific and technological careers. 

While it would not be possible to attribute changes to the MSEIP program, given the importance 

of STEM fields to the Nation’s future, increases would be expected over time.

STEM fields can include a wide range of disciplines. However, for purposes of this data 

analysis, STEM fields include computer and information sciences; engineering; engineering 

technologies and engineering-related fields; biological and biomedical sciences; mathematics 

and statistics; physical sciences; science technology/technicians; and agriculture, agriculture 

operations, and related sciences.

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

2005 and 2010.

Number and p ercent age of B.A. d egrees

2005

MSEIP

Grantees

2010

MSEIP

Grantees

2005

All Title IV

Institutions

2010

All Title IV

Institutions

All students

Number of STEM degrees 4,430 4,896 227,131 253,431

Number of degrees 23,866 32,663 1,411,002 1,620,629

Percent of degrees that are in STEM fields 15.7% 15.0% 16.1% 15.6%

Black or African American students

Number of STEM degrees 915 847 16,405 16,196

Number of degrees 7,193 6,956 127,978 152,404

Percent of degrees that are in STEM fields 12.7% 12.2% 12.8% 10.6%

Hispanic students

Number of STEM degrees 1,237 1,713 15,596 19,607

Number of degrees 9,407 12,688 111,616 147,205

Percent of degrees that are in STEM fields 13.1% 13.5% 14.0% 13.3%

In 2005, approximately 15.7 percent of all bachelor’s degrees conferred by the 2005 cohort of 

MSEIP grantees were in STEM fields, a figure that was slightly higher than the 2010 

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

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

U-- R-59
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

and 2010 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 

2010.

Efficiency Measures

The Department developed a common efficiency measure for the AID programs. These 

calculations do not take into account Federal student financial aid received by these institutions. 

Not only has the Department revised targets for 2013 based on a review of actual performance 

data from previous years for these programs to more accurately reflect program outcomes, but it 

has also based future calculations and targets to include both discretionary and mandatory 

funding in the TCCUs, ANNH-serving institutions, HBCUs, PBIs, AANAPISIs, and NASNTIs 

programs.

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

at SIP institutions.

Year Target Actual

2012 $350 $393

2013 430 313

2014 425 334

2015 420

2016 415

2016 415

2017 410

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

Year Target Actual

2012 $12,500 $27,486

2013 32,9501 26,557

2014 32,650 25,630

2015 32,600

2016 32,550

2017 32,500

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.

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

at ANNH-serving Institutions.

Year Target Actual

2012 $2,775 $1,448

2013 2,775 2,256

2014 2,750 2,739

2015 2,725

2016 2,700

2017 2,675

U-- R-60
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

at HBCUs.

Year Target Actual

2012 $5,400 $6,507

2013 7,4151 5,657

2014 7,340 6,027

2015 7,265

2016 7,190

2017 7,115

1 The Department revised targets beginning in 2013 because performance in this program was worse than 

expected.

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

Year Target Actual

2012 $12,700 $8,774

2013 9,3551 7,706

2014 9,262 8,121

2015 9,165

2016 9,068

2017 8,975

1 The Department revised targets beginning in 2013 because performance in this program was better than 

expected.

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

Year Target Actual

2012 $1,800 1,008

2013 1,0401 821

2014 1,030 787

2015 1,020

2016 1,010

2017 1,000

1 The Department revised targets beginning in 2013 because performance in this program was better than 

expected.

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

Year Target Actual

2012 $385 202

2013 300 180

2014 295 254

2015 290

2016 285

2017 280

U-- R-61
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

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

Year Target Actual

2012 $2,150 810

2013 1,0251 505

2014 1,015 563

2015 1,005

2016 995

2017 985

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 

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.

U-- R-62
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title V, Parts A and B; Title III, Part F, Section 371(b)(2)(B); 

and Title VIII, Part AA, Section 898)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined (discretionary)1

; $100,000 (mandatory)

Budget Authority:

Program

2016 footnote2017 fChange

Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions 

(discretionary) (HEA V-A) $107,795 $107,795 0

Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions 

Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics and Articulation 

(mandatory) (HEA III-F) 93,200 100,000 +$6,800

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for 

Hispanic Americans (discretionary) (HEA V-B)

 9,671 9,671 0 

Total 210,666 217,466 +6,800

Discretionary 117,466 117,466 0

Mandatory 93,200 2 100,000 2 +6,800 2

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017. 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 institutions that have an enrollment of undergraduate full-time 

equivalent students that is at least 25 percent Hispanic.

Grants are made for a duration of up to 5 years. 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; the establishment of a program of teacher education designed to qualify 

students to teach in public schools; establishment of community outreach programs that

U-- R-63
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

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

interest to pursue postsecondary education; and creating or improving facilities for Internet or 

other distance learning academic instruction, including purchase or rental of

telecommunications technology equipment and services. Also, HSIs may use no more than 

20 percent of the grant funds to establish or increase an institution’s endowment fund. The 

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

If an institution receives funding under this program, it cannot receive funding under Part A or 

Part B of Title III.

Individual development grants support efforts to resolve institutional problems. Cooperative 

arrangement development grants between two or more IHEs support efforts to resolve 

institutional problems common to the IHEs and enable IHEs to combine their resources to better 

achieve institutional goals and avoid costly duplication of effort. In addition, 1-year planning 

grants may be awarded for the preparation of plans and grant applications under this program.

The HSI STEM and Articulation Program, authorized under Title III, Part F of the HEA, is 

designed to increase the number of Hispanic and other low-income students attaining degrees 

in fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and to develop model 

transfer and articulation agreements between 2-year and 4-year HSIs in such fields. The 

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 

to provide $100 million in mandatory funding per year for fiscal years 2010 through 2019 for this 

program.

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans program, authorized under 

Title V of HEA, seeks to expand 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 

duration of up to 5 years. Institutions receiving grants under this program may also receive 

funds under Title V, Part A.

Authorized activities include: purchasing, renting, or leasing scientific or laboratory equipment 

used for educational purposes; construction, maintenance, renovation and facilities 

improvement, including telecommunications; purchasing library books, periodicals, journals, and 

other educational materials, including telecommunications program materials; supporting 

low-income postbaccalaureate students through outreach programs, academic support 

services, mentoring, and student financial assistance; supporting faculty development, 

exchanges, and research, as well as curricular development and academic instruction; the 

creation or improvement of facilities for Internet or other distance education technologies; and 

collaboration with other IHEs to expand postbaccalaureate offerings. Other activities related to 

the promotion of postbaccalaureate study at HSIs are permissible, provided that they contribute 

to the overall purpose of the program and are approved by the Department. 

U-- R-64
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

Funding levels for the Aid for HSI programs for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)footnote

2012..................................................................................... 220,9431

2013..................................................................................... 209,5322

2014..................................................................................... 210,9003

2015..................................................................................... 201,9234

2016..................................................................................... 210,6665

1 Includes $111,500 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 2 Includes $105,814 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 3 Includes $103,472 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 4 Includes $92,700 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA. 5 Includes $93,200 thousand in mandatory funds provided under the HEA.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $107.8 million in fiscal year 2017 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 2016 level. In 

addition, mandatory funding totaling $100 million is provided for the HSI STEM and Articulation 

(HSI-STEM) program under Title III, Part F of the HEA. The mandatory funds are not part of the 

Department’s fiscal year 2017 request.

Approximately $12.5 million in discretionary funds for the Developing HSIs program will support

new awards, either through a new competition or by funding down the 2015 slate. The 

remaining $95 million will support non-competing continuations. The Department plans to fund 

down the 2015 slate in fiscal year 2016. In fiscal year 2015, the Department gave absolute

preference to projects that focused on increasing postsecondary completion, and gave 

competitive preference to projects that supported high-quality online or hybrid learning 

opportunities; and improved student support services.

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

postsecondary educational opportunities to low-income, first-generation and minority students, it 

is important that Title V funds are used in ways that are proven to improve student outcomes, 

especially completion. For this reason, as with other higher education programs, the 

Department is placing an emphasis on promoting evidence-based practices in the Title V 

programs. For the fiscal year 2015 Developing HSIs competition, applicants were assessed on 

the extent to which they planned to implement strategies based on a strong evidentiary theory of 

success. For the fiscal year 2016 HSI STEM competition, the Department is including priorities 

to target funds to evidence-based, student-centered activities designed to promote college 

completion while encouraging rigorous project evaluations. The Department plans to continue 

targeting funds to evidence-based practices in fiscal year 2017.

U-- R-65
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

All of the 2017 funds for the PPOHA and the Mandatory HSI STEM and Articulation programs

will support non-competing continuations. 

In 2014, there were 55 million Hispanics in the US, constituting 17 percent of the total U.S. 

population. More than half the growth in the total US population between 2000 and 2010 was 

due to the increase in the Hispanic population. The Census Bureau projects that the Hispanic 

American population will 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 3.1 million in 2013. In 

1976, Hispanics represented 3.7 percent of the undergraduate enrollment; in 2013, they 

represented 16.4 percent of undergraduate enrollment and 21 percent of all students enrolled in 

2-year institutions. The enrollment of Hispanics in degree-granting postsecondary institutions

increased 3.7 percent from 2012 to 2013, compared to a decrease of 1.3 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 2012, 37.5 percent of 

all Hispanics in the age group 18-24 years were 

enrolled in degree-granting institutions, compared to 

59.8 percent of Asian peers, 42.1 percent of all 

non-Hispanic White peers, and 36.4 percent of Black 

peers (see graph). In 2011-2012, Hispanics earned 

9.8 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 7.7 percent of 

master’s degrees, and 6.1 percent of PhDs awarded 

in the United States despite constituting nearly 

17 percent of the total national population. 

The Aid for Hispanic-serving Institutions programs provide 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 2017 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.

59.8%

42.1% 36.4% 37.5%

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 (2012)

Enrollment

V-- R-66
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 Footnote2016 Footnote2017 Footnote

Developing HSIs

Devel oping H SIs: Number of new awards 96 31 24

Devel oping H SIs: Average new award $532 $518 $512

Devel oping H SIs: Total new award funding $51,067 $16,069 $12,475

Devel oping H SIs: Number of NCC awards 82 165 176

Devel oping H SIs: Average NCC award $597 $556 $523

Devel oping H SIs: Total NCC award funding $48,977 $91,726 $95,320

Devel oping H SIs Peer review of new award applications $187 0 0

Devel oping H SIs Total award funding $100,231 $107,795 $107,795

Total number of awards 178 196 200

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for 

Hispanic Americans

 ties for Hispanic Americans: Discretionary funding:

 al aur eate Opportuni ties for Hispanic Americans Number of NCC awards 19 19 19

 al aur eate Opportuni ties for Hispanic Americans Average NCC award $473 $509 $509

 al aur eate Opportuni ties for Hispanic Americans Total NCC award funding $8,992 $9,671 $9,671

HSI STEM and Articulation Programs

Mandatory funding: 

STEM and Articulation Programs - Mandator y funding: Number of new awards 0 109 0

STEM and Articulation Programs - Mandator y funding: Average new award 0 $842 0

STEM and Articulation Programs - Mandator y funding: Total new award funding 0 $91,77310

STEM and Articulation Programs - Mandator y funding: Number of NCC awards 109 0 109

STEM and Articulation Programs - Mandator y funding: Average NCC award $851 0 $855

STEM and Articulation Programs - Mandator y funding: Total NCC award funding $92,80010 $93,2001

 ul ation: Peer review of new award applications 0 $92710

Articul ati on: Total HSIs award funding $202,023 $209,239 $210,666

Articul ati on: Discretionary $109,223 $117,466 $117,466

Articul ati on: Mandatory $92,8001$91,7731$93,2001

Articul ati on: Total number of HSI awards 306 324 328

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.

V-- R-67
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

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 2017 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.

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. 

The Department will set a new target for 2018 in spring 2016.

V-- R-68
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

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

undergraduate students at 4-year 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.

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

2012 78.0% 75.0% 64.0% 66.0%

2013 78.0 75.5 65.0 65.0

2014 78.0 78.0 65.0 65.0

2015 78.5 79.0 66.0 65.0

2016 78.5 66.0

2017 79.0 66.0

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.

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

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

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

2012 46.0% 39.0% 22.0% 21.0%

2013 46.0 42.0 22.0 21.0

2014 46.0 46.0 22.0 22.0

2015 46.5 22.5

2016 46.5 22.5

2017 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.

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% -3.3%

2018 TBD

Additional Information: The long-term measure for change in enrollment assesses the 

percentage change in enrollment at the grantee institutions over a 5-year period. For 2013, the 

measure was calculated as the percentage change in the number of graduate students enrolling 

at the grantee institutions, using the 2008 baseline of 121,486 students. During the previous 

V-- R-69
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

5 years, 2003-2008, enrollment at these same institutions declined. However, in 2009, the 

enrollment at the 22 grantee institutions increased by 1.3 percent over the prior year. This rate 

of growth was used to establish the 2013 enrollment target. In 2013, the total graduate 

enrollment at grantee institutions was 117,445, a 3.3 percent decrease from 2008. The 

Department plans to reconsider the target for 2018 in spring 2016.

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%

2018 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 2018 in spring 2016.

Efficiency Measures

Developing HSIs: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate 

degree at HSI grantee institutions.

Year Target Actual

2012 $950 $669

2013 1,280 571

2014 1,265 453

2015 1,250

2016 1,235

2017 1,220

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. Grantee-level data analyses will be used to identify institutions that may 

benefit from technical training in areas such as data collection and reporting, as well as to 

identify promising practices for improving program performance outcomes. The Department will 

reconsider targets in 2016.

V-- R-70
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans: Cost per successful 

outcome: Federal cost per master's, doctoral and first-professional degree and 

postbaccalaureate certificate at HSI grantee institutions.

Year Target Actual

2012 $2,215 $693

2013 2,215 701

2014 2,215 816

2015 2,215

2016 TBD

2017 TBD

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 2014, when PPOHA obligations totaled

$19.5 million, grantee institutions awarded 23,857 graduate degrees. Grantees have 

outperformed the initial targets, which were set based on eligible institutions. The Department 

plans to establish more ambitious targets for 2016 and beyond.

The PPOHA efficiency measure can also be used to assess overall program performance over 

time. A similar efficiency measure was established for the Title III Aid for Institutional 

Development programs as well as for Howard University. This metric may enable the

Department to assess program performance across institutions with similar types of missions.

The HSI STEM and Articulation program was initially funded by the College Cost Reduction and 

Access Act (CCRAA). Because CCRAA funding was available for only 2 years, the Department 

did not establish any performance measures for the program at that point. The passage of 

Public Law 111-152 (in March 2010) extended the mandatory funding for the HSI STEM 

program through fiscal year 2019. The following performance and efficiency measures have 

been put into place and some data have been collected. The Department plans to establish 

targets for these measures in spring 2016:

• The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of full-time 

degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at HSI grantee institutions.

• The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students who were 

in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the 

current year at the same institution. The persistence rate at grantee institutions was 

71 percent in 2013 and 2014.

• The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at 

4-year HSI grantee institutions graduating within 6 years of enrollment. The 6-year 

graduation rate at grantee institutions was 45 percent in 2014 and 44 percent in 2013.

• The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at 

2-year HSI grantee institutions graduating within 3 years of enrollment. The 3-year 

graduation rate at grantee institutions was 21 percent in 2013 and 2014.

V-- R-71
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

• Federal cost for undergraduate and graduate degrees at institutions in the 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions STEM and Articulation Programs. In 2014, the Federal 

cost per degree was $686.

V-- R-72
HIGHER EDUCATION

America’s college pr omise

HBCU and minority-serving institutions innovation for completion 

fund

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

0 $30,000 +$30,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Minority-Serving Institutions 

(MSIs) Innovation for Completion Fund, a proposed new competitive grant program, is designed 

to support innovative and evidence-based, student-centered strategies and interventions to 

increase the number of low-income students completing degree programs at HBCUs and MSIs, 

including Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, Tribally Controlled 

Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, Asian 

American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions, and Native AmericanServing Nontribal Institutions. These institutions enroll a significant and disproportionate share 

of individuals from underserved populations, including students of color, low-income students,

and first-generation college students, among others. 

Under this program, the Department would award 4-year discretionary grants competitively to 

HBCUs and MSIs based on the quality of the proposals, including the likelihood that they would 

effectively replicate evidence-based interventions with fidelity and result in improved student 

outcomes, including increased numbers of Pell Grant recipients completing postsecondary 

education. To qualify as an eligible HBCU or MSI under this new initiative, an institution of 

higher education must have current eligibility approval as defined by the Department's 

fiscal year 2016 eligibility process for Title III and/or Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 

as amended; an open grant under one of the Department's Title III, Parts A and F and/or Title V 

programs; or a designation as a Historically Black College or University or a Tribally Controlled 

College or University.

Applicants will describe how their proposed innovations will improve college success, especially 

for underserved students, as well as the evidence of their proposed strategies and interventions. 

Priority will be given to applicants that commit to leveraging other Federal funding, especially 

funding provided under Titles III and V, to complement and support the activities proposed 

under this program. In addition, priority will be granted to strategies and interventions for which 

there is strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness. Aligning these resources toward the 

R-73
HIGHER EDUCATION

HBCU and minority-serving institutions innovation for completion fund

implementation of innovative, evidence-based interventions and strategies will promote a 

comprehensive campus-wide approach and contribute to successful implementation and 

outcomes.

To make substantial gains in increasing college attainment among low-income students and 

students of color across the Nation, it is essential to promote innovative, evidence-based 

strategies and interventions that can help address the unique challenges faced by students 

enrolled at HBCUs and MSIs and enhance institutional performance. Building on evidence of 

what works is essential as institutions seek new ways to improve student outcomes and achieve 

greater fiscal health and stability over time. For these reasons, the HBCU and MSI Innovation 

for Completion Fund will focus on investing in and building capacity to implement strategies and 

interventions that have been shown to be effective in helping student’s complete college and 

that may be adapted to work in a wide variety of institutional settings. For example, through the 

Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) at the City University of New York, three 

2-year MSIs were shown, in an independent evaluation, to have succeeded in nearly doubling 

their graduation rates. Additional information on evidence-based approaches regarding college 

completion can be obtained at: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/default.aspx.

In addition, to further build evidence of what works, particularly in HBCU and MSI settings, this 

new program will require rigorous project evaluations to assess the effectiveness of such 

innovative strategies and interventions, and promote the dissemination of best practices.

Institutions would be able to apply individually or in consortia and would have to establish 

performance goals for the duration of the grant (4 years). Continuation funding would be 

conditional upon successful progress toward those goals. Funding would be used to replicate 

and implement evidence-based strategies and interventions, as well as for evaluation,

continuous improvement, and dissemination. 

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $30 million for a new HBCU and MSI Innovation for Completion

Fund initiative. Funds would provide support to institutions to implement innovative and 

evidence-based, student-centered strategies and interventions to increase the number of 

low-income students and students of color completing degree programs at HBCUs and 

minority-serving institutions.

The request includes appropriations language that would authorize this new initiative.

R-74
HIGHER EDUCATION

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 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$65,103 $65,103 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

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. Often using interdisciplinary approaches, these programs have adapted over time in 

ways that are responsive to the on-going need for a globally competent workforce with expertise 

in world languages and area studies.

Funds are used to support a broad range of activities under nine Domestic Programs, at all 

levels, including primary and secondary education through a variety of K-12 outreach and 

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 as such studies relate to government, education, 

business, and nonprofit needs, and a plan to address those needs 

(http://www2.ed.gov/programs/iegpsflasf/legislation.html). 

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;

R-75
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

and the applicants’ plans to increase this number. Emphasis is placed on languages and 

regions defined as high-priority by the Administration.

The Department assists grantees in developing a survey for students who have completed 

programs under Title VI Foreign Language and Areas Studies program to determine 

postgraduate employment, education, or training. Grantees must administer the survey once 

every 2 years for a period of 8 years and report the results to the Department. Up to 1 percent 

of Title VI funds may be used to carry out program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination activities relating to the Title VI programs.

The program authorization requires that institutions that receive funding under Title VI provide 

the following information to the Department, in accordance with the requirements of Section 117 

of the HEA: (1) the amount of the contribution (including cash and the fair market value of any 

property) received from any foreign government or from a foreign private sector corporation or 

foundation during any fiscal year in which the contribution exceeds $250,000 in the aggregate; 

and (2) the aggregate contribution, or a significant part of the aggregate contribution, that is to 

be used by a center or program receiving funds under Title VI.

National Resource Centers support IHEs or consortia of such institutions in establishing, 

operating, and strengthening comprehensive undergraduate centers of excellence to train 

students, specialists, and other scholars; maintaining important library collections and related 

training and research facilities; conducting advanced research on issues on world affairs that 

concern one or more countries; establishing linkages between IHEs and other academic, 

governmental, and media entities; operating summer institutes in the United States or abroad; 

and providing outreach and consultative services at the national, regional, and local levels. 

Funds also support faculty, staff, and student travel in foreign areas, regions, or countries; the 

development and implementation of educational programs abroad for students; and projects 

that support students in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to achieve 

foreign language proficiency. National Resource Centers are funded for up to 4 years, with 

funds allocated on an annual basis pending satisfactory performance by the Centers and 

availability of funds.

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program supports academic year and summer 

fellowships for graduate- and undergraduate-level training at IHEs offering high quality 

performance-based programs of excellence. Students apply to IHEs that have received 

fellowship allocations from the Department of Education. To be eligible for fellowships, students 

must be:

• In an instructional program with stated performance goals for functional foreign language 

use or in a program developing such performance goals, in combination with area studies, 

international studies, or the international aspects of a professional studies program;

• In the case of an undergraduate student, in the intermediate or advanced study of a less 

commonly taught language; or 

• In the case of a graduate student, in graduate study in connection with a program described 

above, including pre-dissertation level study, preparation for dissertation research, 

dissertation research abroad, or dissertation writing.

R-76
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

Before awarding a fellowship for use outside the United States, an institution must obtain 

approval from the Department of Education. A fellowship may be approved for use outside the 

United States if: (1) the student is enrolled in an overseas modern foreign language program 

approved by the institution where the student is enrolled in the United States; or (2) the student 

is engaged in research that cannot be effectively done in the United States and is affiliated with 

an IHE or other appropriate organization in the host country. Institutions are funded for up to 

4 years and, in turn, award fellowships annually to individual students on a competitive basis. 

Applications for awards must include an explanation of how the activities funded by the grant 

will reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of views and generate debate on world 

regions and international affairs; and a description of how the applicant will encourage 

government service in areas of national need, as well as in areas of need in the education, 

business, and nonprofit sectors.

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program supports IHEs or 

consortia of IHEs in establishing, operating, and strengthening instructional programs in 

international studies and foreign language at the undergraduate level. Eligible activities may 

include, but are not limited to, the development of a global or international studies program that 

is interdisciplinary in design; development of a program that focuses on issues or topics, such 

as international business or international health; development of an area studies program and 

programs in corresponding foreign languages; creation of innovative curricula that combine the 

teaching of international studies with professional and pre-professional studies, such as 

engineering; research for and development of specialized teaching materials, including 

language instruction, i.e., business French; establishment of internship opportunities for faculty 

and students in domestic and overseas settings; and development of study abroad programs.

Grantees must provide matching funds in either of the following ways: (1) cash contributions 

from the private sector equal to one-third of the total project costs; or (2) a combination of 

institutional and non-institutional cash or in-kind contributions equal to one-half of the total 

project costs. Applications for awards must include a description of how the applicant will 

provide information to students regarding federally funded scholarship programs in related 

areas; an explanation of how the activities funded by the grant will reflect diverse perspectives 

and a wide range of views and generate debate on world regions and international affairs, 

where applicable; and a description of how the applicant will encourage service in areas of 

national need, as identified by the Department of Education.

The Department may waive or reduce the required matching share for institutions that are 

eligible to receive assistance under Part A or Part B of Title III or Title V of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965. Grant awards are normally made for 2 years. However, organizations, 

associations, and institutional consortia are eligible for up to 3 years of support.

Centers for International Business Education support IHEs or consortia of IHEs by paying the 

Federal share of the cost of planning, establishing, and operating centers that provide a 

comprehensive university approach to improving international business education by bringing 

together faculty from numerous disciplines. The Centers serve as national resources for the 

teaching of improved business techniques, strategies, and methodologies that emphasize the 

international context in which business is transacted; provide instruction in critical foreign 

R-77
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

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 institutions of higher 

education and K-12 schools with additional teacher and student outreach programs located 

within their respective regions. Grants are made for 4 years. The Federal share of the cost of 

planning, establishing, and operating the Centers cannot exceed 90 percent, 70 percent, or 

50 percent in the first, second, third and following years, respectively.

Language Resource Centers support IHEs or consortia of IHEs in improving the teaching and 

learning of foreign languages. The activities carried out by the Centers must include effective 

dissemination efforts, whenever appropriate, and may include: the conduct and dissemination 

of research on new and improved teaching methods (including the use of advanced educational 

technology) to the education community; the development, application, and dissemination of 

performance testing appropriate to an educational setting for use as a standard and comparable 

measurement of skill levels in all languages; the training of teachers in the administration and 

interpretation of the performance tests; a significant focus on the teaching and learning needs of 

the less commonly taught languages and the publication and dissemination of instructional 

materials in those languages; the development and dissemination of materials designed to 

serve as a resource for foreign language teachers at the elementary and secondary school 

levels; and the operation of intensive summer language institutes. Language Resource Centers 

are eligible for up to 4 years of support.

American Overseas Research Centers Program makes grants to consortia of IHEs to promote 

postgraduate research, faculty and student exchanges, and area studies. Funds may be used 

to pay for all or a portion of the cost of establishing or operating a center or program. Costs 

may include faculty and staff stipends and salaries; faculty, staff, and student travel; operation 

and maintenance of overseas facilities; teaching and research materials; the acquisition, 

maintenance, and preservation of library collections; travel for visiting scholars and faculty 

members who are teaching or conducting research; preparation for and management of 

conferences; and the publication and dissemination of material for the scholars and general 

public. Centers are eligible for 4 years of support.

R-78
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012...................................................................................... $66,586

2013........................................................................................ 63,103

2014........................................................................................ 65,103

2015........................................................................................ 65,103

2016........................................................................................ 65,103

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests a total of $65.1 million in fiscal year 2017 for the Title VI Domestic 

Programs, the same as the 2016 level. The fiscal year 2017 request for the Domestic Programs 

is responsive to the 2017 White House Global Engagement Resource Guidance and the 

Department’s International Strategy. The Global Engagement Guidance urges agencies to

realign resources toward Sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia Pacific region, while investing in 

strategies to counter misinformation, maintain a strong presence in the Middle East, North 

Africa, and the Russian periphery and fulfill the potential of the 100,000 Strong in the Americas

initiative. 

In order to promote U.S. higher education abroad and prepare U.S. students for global 

engagement, agencies are urged to expand international university partnerships and to deepen 

efforts that help students acquire an understanding of global issues, knowledge of other 

countries, cultures, and perspectives, and linguistic proficiency, as well as to prepare educators 

at all levels to teach about the rest of the world. In promoting study abroad and other 

international experiences, agencies are encouraged to pay special attention to underserved and 

underrepresented communities. The Department will strengthen and enhance the Domestic 

Programs in line with these priorities. The fiscal year 2017 request for the Title VI Domestic 

Programs will, among other things, provide continued support for activities that help to make 

world language and area studies education accessible to a much broader population of 

Americans, and ensure that these programs deliver high levels of proficiency in the languages 

key to the Nation’s economic and national security.

Historically, the Domestic Programs have helped to develop and maintain American expertise in 

world cultures and economies, and foreign languages. It is critical for our Nation to have a 

readily available pool of international area and language experts for economic, foreign affairs, 

and defense purposes. The Title VI programs are key to the teaching and learning of languages 

vital to national interests and serve as a national resource.

The Administration also believes our Nation needs citizens with a global perspective. The ability 

to compete and collaborate on the world stage requires an awareness and understanding of the 

world, the ability to communicate and collaborate with others from different cultures, and 

exposure to foreign languages. The Administration believes that a world-class education must 

integrate global competencies and is committed to increasing the skills and knowledge of all 

United States students. Effective global engagement will involve American students and equip

R-79
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

them with the knowledge, skills and awareness of other countries, cultures, languages and 

perspectives. Boosting the number of students with global competencies supports U.S. 

economic competitiveness, increases access to a wider range of jobs, enables young people to 

work with their counterparts all over the world in meeting global challenges, and fosters national 

security and diplomacy. The Administration believes that American students and teachers of all 

ages would benefit significantly from partnering with students and faculty abroad—especially in 

priority countries—through connected classrooms, joint research projects, and exchanges.

The fiscal year 2017 request will be used to support continuation costs for Title VI program 

evaluation, national outreach, and information dissemination activities; and grants awarded in 

prior fiscal years for Domestic Programs—National Resource Centers (NRCs), Centers for 

International Business Education (CIBE), Language Resource Centers (LRCs), FLAS 

fellowships, and Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language (UISFL).

Fiscal year 2017 funding will be used to reinforce Administration objectives by supporting the 

continuation of grants focusing on priority languages vital to national interests; strengthening the 

capacity of under-resourced institutions, minority-serving institutions, and community colleges;

strengthening the preparation of K-12 teachers to teach world languages and about other 

regions of the world; and taking financial need into account in awarding FLAS grants to 

meritorious students. The fiscal year 2017 funding for the Domestic Programs would be 

allocated as follows:

$22.7 million for NRCs: NRCs are the primary mechanism for developing U.S. language and 

area studies expertise. These grants help IHEs to establish, strengthen, and operate advanced 

centers for the teaching and learning of foreign languages and area and international studies. 

Fiscal year 2017 funds are needed to continue support for activities that help to promote a 

globally competent workforce, in addition to producing our next generation of experts. Fiscal 

year 2017 is the final year of funding for grantees from the 2014 cohort. 

$30.8 million for FLAS fellowships: FLAS fellowships support undergraduate and graduate 

training programs at many NRCs. They provide opportunities for intensive study of less 

commonly taught languages and world areas both domestically and abroad during the summer 

or the academic year. For fiscal year 2017, funding for FLAS would be maintained at the same 

level allocated in fiscal year 2016. When awarding fellowships, competitive preference will be 

given to students who demonstrate financial need. In addition, the Administration will 

encourage institutions to award academic year FLAS fellowships to students undergoing 

advanced training in any of the priority languages used in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and 

Southeast Asia.

$2.9 million for UISFL program: For the UISFL program, the Administration proposes to 

continue support for activities that strengthen and improve undergraduate instruction in 

international studies and foreign languages with preference for under-resourced institutions and 

minority-serving institutions. Fiscal year 2017 is the final year of funding for grantees from the 

2014 cohort.

R-80
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

$4.6 million for CIBEs: The Administration proposes to maintain funding at the 2016 level for

the CIBE program. CIBEs are designed to serve as regional and national resources for 

businesses, students, and faculty at all levels. They meet the need for research and training in 

the international aspects of trade, commerce, and other fields of study. CIBEs prepare students 

for careers in the global economy by developing and promoting international business and 

economics academic programs and curricula. They also assist businesses in various world

regions export and import their products and services. CIBEs play an integral role in 

maintaining and increasing U.S. business global competitiveness. The Administration has 

encouraged applicants in this program to develop, maintain, or enhance linkages with overseas 

IHEs or other educational organizations, especially those that focus on sub-Saharan Africa, 

South Asia, and Southeast Asia, in order to improve understanding of these societies and 

provide for greater engagement with institutions in these regions. Fiscal year 2017 is the final 

year of funding for grantees from the 2014 cohort. 

$2.7 million for LRCs: To strengthen capacity across institutions and at all levels, the 

Administration proposes to continue support of LRCs to improve outreach efforts to K-12 

schools, in addition to sponsoring research, training, performance testing, educational 

technology, and materials development. In fiscal year 2014, the Administration awarded a 

new cohort of institutions, with priority given to applications from institutions that collaborate 

with institutions determined eligible for funding under Titles III and V of the HEA and to other

under-resourced institutions such as community colleges; and to applicants that proposed

activities focusing on any of the 78 priority languages selected from the Department’s list of 

Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs). Fiscal year 2017 is the final year of funding for 

grantees from the 2014 cohort. 

$650,000 for AORCs: The Administration requests $650,000 to support new awards for 

American Overseas Research Centers (AORCs). This program provides grants to American 

overseas research centers that are consortia of U.S. institutions of higher education. The 

overseas centers must be permanent facilities in the host countries or regions, established to 

provide logistical and scholarly assistance to American postgraduate researchers and faculty. 

Typically, the area studies or international studies research focuses on the humanities or social 

sciences. Through a variety of grant activities, conferences, and publications, each overseas 

center facilitates research that is necessary for increased understanding of a foreign culture.

This 2017 budget request for the Domestic Programs responds to the Global Engagement 

Guidance by expanding opportunities for traditionally underserved populations to participate in 

language learning and international education and by supporting the preparation of educators to 

teach about the rest of the world. In addition, this request helps to fill two key gaps in the 

Department’s international and foreign language pipeline: 1) language and career development 

programs at the undergraduate level, particularly for a broader population of students, and;

2) cross-border architecture to support student and researcher mobility in the Administration’s 

priority regions of Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

R-81
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

National Resource Centers:

NRCs Number of NCC awards 105 105 105

NRCs Average NCC award $217 $217 $217

NRCs Total NCC award funding $22,743 $22,743 $22,743

NRCs Total award funding $22,743 $22,743 $22,743

NRCs Total number of awards 105 105 105

Foreign Language and Area Studies 

Fellowships:

FLAS Academic year graduate fellowships 666 666 666

FLAS Average academic year fellowship $33 $33 $33

FLAS Academic year undergraduate fellowships 294 295 295

FLAS Average academic year fellowship $15 $15 $15

FLAS Summer fellowships 590 590 590

FLAS Average summer year fellowship $8 $8 $8

FLAS Number of NCC awards 108 108 108

FLAS Average NCC award $287 $285 $285

FLAS Total NCC award funding $31,047 $30,830 $30,830

FLAS Total award funding $31,047 $30,830 $30,830

FLAS Total number of awards 108 108 108

Undergraduate International Studies

and Foreign Language Program:

UISF LNumber of new awards 0 26 0

UISF L Average new award 0 $87 0

UISF LTotal new award funding 0 $2,257 0

UISF LNumber of NCC awards 31 5 26

UISF L Average NCC award $94 $134 $112

UISF L Total NCC award funding $2,928 $671 $2,911

UISF L Total award funding $2,928 $2,928 $2,911

UISF LTotal number of awards 31 31 26

R-82
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Centers for International Business Education:

CIBE Number of NCC awards 17 17 17

CIBE Average NCC award $269 $269 $269

CIBE Total NCC award funding $4,571 $4,571 $4,571

CIBE Total award funding $4,571 $4,571 $4,571

CIBE Total number of awards 17 17 17

Language Resource Centers:

LRC Number of NCC awards 16 16 16

LRC Average NCC award $172 $172 $172

LRC Total NCC award funding $2,747 $2,747 $2,747

LRC Total award funding $2,747 $2,747 $2,747

LRC Total number of awards 16 16 16

American Overseas Research Centers:

AORC Number of new awards 0 10 0

AORC Average new award 0 $65 0

AORC Total new award funding 0 $650 0

AORC Number of NCC awards 7 0 10

AORC Average NCC award $93 0 $65

AORC Total NCC award funding $650 0 $650

AORC Total award funding $650 $650 $650

AORC Total number of awards 7 10 10

Total award funding:

DomesticTotal new award funding 0 $2,907 0

DomesticTotal NCC award funding $64,686 $61,562 $64,452

Program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination $417 $551 $651

Peer review of new award applications 0 $83 0

Total Domestic funding $65,103 $65,103 $65,103

Total Domestic awards 284 287 282

R-83
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

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 early 2016. 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 of Education taught at NRCs.

• Percentage of NRC grants teaching intermediate or advanced courses in priority languages 

as defined by the Department of Education.

• Percentage of NRCs that increased the number of intermediate or advanced level language 

courses in the priority and/or LCTLs during the course of the grant period (long-term 

measure).

• Percentage of NRCs that increased the number of certificate, minor, or major degree 

programs in the priority and/or LCTLs, area studies, or international studies during the 

course of the 4-year grant period.

• Percentage of less and least commonly taught languages as defined by the Department of 

Education taught at Title VI NRCs.

FLAS:

• Percentage of FLAS graduated fellows who secured employment that utilizes their foreign 

language and area studies skills within 8 years after graduation based on FLAS tracking 

survey. 

R-84
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

• Percentage of FLAS master’s and doctoral graduates who studied priority languages as 

defined by the Department of Education.

• Percentage of FLAS fellows who increased their foreign language reading, writing, and/or 

listening/speaking scores by at least 1 proficiency level.

UISFL:

• Percentage of UISFL projects that added or enhanced courses in international studies in 

critical world areas and priority foreign languages.

• Percentage of UISFL consortium projects that established certificates and/or undergraduate 

degree programs in international or foreign language studies.

CIBE:

• Percentage of CIBE program participants who advanced in their professional field 2 years 

after their participation.

• Percentage of CIBE projects that established or internationalized a concentration, degree, or 

professional program with a focus on or connection to international business over the course 

of the CIBE grant period. (long-term measure).

• The percentage of CIBE projects whose business industry participants increased export 

business activities.

LRC:

• Percentage of LRC products or activities judged to be successful by LRC customers with 

respect to quality, usefulness, and relevance.

• Percentage of LRC products judged to be successful by an independent expert review panel 

with respect to quality, relevance, and usefulness. 

AORC:

• Number of individuals conducting postgraduate research utilizing the services of Title VI 

AORCs.

• Percentage of AORCs program participants who advanced in their professional field 2 years 

after their participation.

Efficiency Measures

The Department intends to use the following 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. 

R-85
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

• 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 Department believes evaluation, outreach and 

dissemination activities that are skillfully designed and implemented will contribute to 

improving the outcomes of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs and increase the impact of 

these programs in meeting their legislative purposes, thereby maximizing their service to the 

public.

• A number of studies have been conducted over the years to evaluate aspects of the 

Domestic Programs. A few are outlined below:

o In 2007, the National Research Council of the National Academies completed its review 

of Title VI International Education programs supported under the Higher Education Act 

as well as Section 102(b)(6) Fulbright-Hays International Education programs in a study 

entitled “International Education and Foreign Languages: Keys to Securing America’s 

Future.” The National Research Council reviewed the adequacy and effectiveness of 

Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs in addressing their statutory missions and in 

building the Nation's international and foreign language expertise—particularly as 

needed for economic, foreign affairs, and national security purposes. Despite its many 

recommendations for improvement, the Council recognized that the Title VI/FulbrightHays programs have served as a foundation in the internationalization of higher 

education and should continue to do so. 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 

R-86
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

central Asia, the Middle East, or Africa. About 70 percent of fellowships supported 

the study of a critical foreign language as defined by the Department of Education.

 Students who received FLAS fellowships were highly likely to complete their 

degrees. Master’s and first-professional degree students were far more likely (95-

96 percent) than doctoral students (72 percent) to have completed their degrees at 

the time of the survey.

 Regardless of their degree completion status, FLAS fellows reported that their oral 

and written language skills improved over the course of their FLAS-supported study. 

At the time of the survey, FLAS fellows rated their abilities to speak, write, and read 

the languages they studied (speaking and listening were rated on a 5-point scale; 

reading and writing on a 6-point scale) with FLAS support both at the start and upon 

completing FLAS-supported study at a variety of levels. FLAS fellowship recipients 

averaged a one-level gain in proficiency. These data compare favorably to data 

collected through IRIS on Title VI FLAS fellowship recipients.

 Nearly all fellows (92 percent) worked after completing their fellowships, and a 

majority of fellows (71 percent) worked in jobs that involved expertise they had 

gained through their FLAS-supported study. Nearly all fellows who reported working 

in a related job considered that job to be part of a career they were pursuing.

 Among fellows who had held at least one job related to the field they had studied 

with FLAS support, three-quarters of fellows worked in education, one-fifth in a U.S. 

private sector job, and one-fifth in foreign or international jobs. About one in nine 

worked for the military or other Government positions.

 Of fellows who had worked for pay since completing the fellowship, 68 percent 

worked in a job in which teaching was a major responsibility. These fellows had 

taught for an average of 3 years at the time of the survey, and 86 percent of them 

had taught in a field related to the FLAS-supported study.

 FLAS fellows believed that FLAS was very helpful in their degree completion and at

least somewhat helpful in obtaining employment in a desired field. Over one-half 

reported that receiving a FLAS fellowship influenced their occupation and career 

choices.

 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.

R-87
HIGHER EDUCATION

Overseas prog rams

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas

programs

(Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Section 102(b)(6))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: Infinite

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$7,061 $2,168 -$4,893

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) Overseas Programs 

provide participants with first-hand experience overseas that is designed to improve elementary, 

secondary, and postsecondary teaching and research concerning other cultures and languages, 

the training of language and area studies specialists, and the American public's general 

understanding of current international issues and problems.

Four major Overseas Programs in foreign languages and in area and international studies are 

authorized under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (commonly known 

as the Fulbright-Hays Act). Under these programs, grants are provided on an annual basis to 

eligible institutions that, in turn, support projects of varying duration.

The Group Projects Abroad (GPA) program support short-term projects, group training, 

research, and curriculum development in modern foreign languages and area studies for 

teachers, college students, and faculty for periods from 1 to 12 months. In addition, 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 36 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 commonly taught 

languages and all major world areas with the exception of Western Europe. The fellowships are 

from 6 to 12 months in length.

R-88
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

The Seminars Abroad (SA)—Special Bilateral Projects with foreign countries support training 

and curriculum development opportunities for American teachers and faculty through short-term 

overseas seminars conducted in all major world areas with the exception of Western Europe.

IEFLS programs are administered through discretionary grants and interagency agreements. 

Federal program staff, panels of non-Federal academic specialists, bi-national commissions, 

U.S. embassies, and the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board are involved in the 

merit-based selection of the Overseas Programs grantees and/or project participants.

The Overseas Programs specifically increase the supply of specialists in area, international, and 

language studies, and improve public access to knowledge of other countries and languages by 

providing to individuals and institutions of higher education measurable opportunities in the field 

of international education for: research; area, language, and international studies training;

professional growth including faculty development and teacher-training; networking with 

counterparts in the U.S. and abroad; curriculum and instructional materials development; and 

overseas experience. 

The Overseas Programs focus on less commonly taught foreign languages and those areas of 

the world in which those languages are spoken. Emphasis is placed on languages and regions 

defined as high priority by the Administration. Current participants and graduates of the 

Overseas Programs are important sources of information and expertise on many issues that 

dominate the international environment.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012....................................................................................... $7,451

2013......................................................................................... 7,061

2014......................................................................................... 7,061

2015......................................................................................... 7,061

2016......................................................................................... 7,061

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST 

The Administration requests $2.2 million for the Overseas programs in fiscal year 2017, a 

decrease of $4.9 million or 69.3 percent below the fiscal year 2016 level. This level is sufficient 

to cover non-competing continuation awards. One of the Administration’s priorities has been to 

enhance the International Education Domestic Programs. The Administration proposes to shift 

funds that would otherwise be used for new awards in the Overseas programs to support 

ongoing activities in the International Education Domestic Programs. The fiscal year 2017 

request would allow for the continuation of projects in the Group Projects Abroad program that 

provide up to 3 years of advanced language training in foreign countries for its participants.

R-89
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Group Projects Abroad:

Short-Term Projects:

GPANumber of new projects 17 17 0

GPA Average new project $80 $80 0

GPA Total new project funding $1,361 $1,361 0

Advanced Overseas Projects:

GPA Number of new projects 0 10 0

GPA Average new project 0 $177 0

GPA Total new project funding 0 $1,771 0

GPA Number of NCC projects 11 0 10

GPA Average NCC project $173 0 $185

GPA Total NCC project funding $1,900 0 $1,848

GPA Total GPA project funding $3,261 $3,072 $1,841

GPA Total number of GPA projects 28 27 10

GPA Total number of GPA participants 412 395 200

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad:

DDRA Number of new fellows 90 90 0

DDRA Average new fellowship $33 $33 0

DDRA Number of new awards 35 35 0

DDRA Average new award $86 $86 0

DDRA Total new award funding $3,012 $3,012 0

Seminars Abroad—Special Bilateral Projects:

Special bil ateral Number of new seminars 1 3 0

Semi nars China Contract $411 $600 0

Semi nars China Contract participants 16 48 0

Department of State administrative costs $250 $190 $250

Program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination $56 $56 $70

Peer review of new award applications $71 $71 0

Total Overseas funding $7,061 $7,061 $2,168

Total Overseas participants 519 502 217

R-90
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

Over the past several years, the Department has been in the process of revising the program 

performance measures for the International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) 

programs authorized under Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and the 

Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961. The new performance measures, 

developed in fiscal year 2013, are designed to improve the quality of program-level outcome 

data, as well as to increase transparency and accountability for the IEFLS programs. Measures 

that did not provide useful data were eliminated. The new performance measures are aligned to 

the institutional-level goals of the programs they serve.

The Department intends to use the following program performance measures for the Overseas 

Programs. Data will be based on pre- and post-grant scores on standardized, instructor-led 

examinations.

• Percentage of DDRA fellows who increased their foreign language scores in speaking, 

reading, and/or writing by at least one proficiency level.

• Percentage of GPA participants in the Advanced Language Program who increased their 

reading, writing, and/or listening/speaking foreign language scores by one proficiency level 

(Long-Term Projects).

Fiscal year 2014 data will be used to establish a baseline for the new measures after it becomes 

available in early 2016. The Department will begin to consider targets later in 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.

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 early 2016.

• 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.

R-91
HIGHER EDUCATION

FUND FO R THE IMPROVEMENT O F POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

0 $100,000 +$100,000

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) supports exemplary 

projects that are models for innovative reform and improvement in postsecondary education. 

Under FIPSE, the Department has flexibility to establish specialized programs to support 

projects in areas of national need. Discretionary grants and contracts are awarded to 

institutions of higher education and other public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies. 

Most recently, the Department has supported the First in the World program (FITW) under the 

FIPSE authority. FITW is a competitive grant program, modeled after the preK-12 Investing in 

Innovation fund (i3), that is designed to support the development, validation, scaling up and 

dissemination of innovative solutions and to build evidence of what works to effectively address

persistent and widespread challenges to improving college affordability and completion of

postsecondary programs for high need students, including, but not limited to, adult learners, 

working students, part-time students, students from low-income backgrounds, students of color,

students with disabilities, and first-generation students. FITW also includes an emphasis on 

improving student outcomes at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and 

Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) by devoting up to 30 percent of program funds to this 

purpose.

FITW provides 4-year grants to encourage institutions and other organizations to develop 

innovative practices, evaluate and build evidence of effectiveness, and scale up and 

disseminate proven strategies. The program helps ensure that postsecondary institutions have 

access to innovative practices that have been shown to be effective in helping improve student 

outcomes, including completion, particularly for high-need students, including adult learners, 

working students, part-time students, students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, 

students with disabilities, and first-generation students. All FITW projects are expected to 

produce evaluations of their interventions that meet the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 

evaluation design standards.

R-92
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

Like i3 (newly reauthorized as the Education Innovation and Research program), which 

supports innovation and evidence building in elementary and secondary education, FITW uses 

a multi-tiered structure that links the amount of funding that an applicant may receive to the 

strength of evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed intervention, as well as the scope 

of the proposed project. Applicants proposing practices supported by limited evidence can 

receive relatively small grants that fund the implementation and initial evaluation of innovative 

but untested strategies. Applicants proposing practices supported by evidence from rigorous 

evaluations can receive larger grants for implementation at greater scale to test whether initially 

successful strategies remain effective when adopted in varied locations and with a diverse 

range of students. This tiered-evidence approach systematically identifies strategies that 

produce evidence of effectiveness when implemented at the largest levels of scale, such as 

across postsecondary systems, States, regions, or the country.

The FITW program supports three types of grants:

• Development Grants provide a relatively small amount of funding ($2-3 million per grant) to 

support the development or testing of strategies that are supported by a strong theory or 

evidence of promise and whose efficacy should be systematically studied. 

• Validation grants provide larger grants ($6-10 million per grant) to expand projects 

supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness to multiple sites, such as across multiple 

institutions. Validation grants must further assess the effectiveness of the FITW-supported 

practice through a rigorous evaluation, with particular focus on the populations for whom, 

and the contexts in which the practice is most effective. 

• Scale-up grants provide the largest grants ($13-18 million per grant) to expand projects 

supported by strong evidence of effectiveness to a larger number of sites than would be 

required for a development or validation grant, such as across a system of institutions, 

across institutions in a State, a region, or nationally, or across institutions in a labor market 

sector. In addition to improving outcomes for an increasing number of high-need students, 

scale-up grants will generate information about the students and contexts for which a 

practice is most effective.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012......................................................................................... $3,494

2013......................................................................................... 3,311

2014......................................................................................... 79,4001

2015......................................................................................... 67,7752

2016......................................................................................... 0

______________________

1 Includes $75,000 thousand for First in the World. 2 Includes $60,000 thousand for First in the World.

R-93
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $100 million in fiscal year 2017 for the Fund for the Improvement of 

Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), an increase of $100 million from the fiscal year 2016 level, 

to support an expansion of the First in the World (FITW) program. Of the $100 million,

approximately $96.5 million would be used for new FITW awards, including the first round of 

FITW scale-up grants to implement strategies proven to improve outcomes for students who are 

at risk for not completing postsecondary programs, and to rigorously evaluate such interventions

at scale. Of the remaining $3.5 million, $2.5 million would be used to provide technical 

assistance to FITW grantees for conducting required project evaluations in order to contribute to 

the body of research on effective postsecondary strategies, and the remaining $1 million would 

support peer review and data collection and analysis. Up to $30 million would be reserved for 

projects designed to improve student outcomes at Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

(HBCUs) and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs).

The Department conducted the first FITW competition in 2014. The competition supported 

development grants to test strategies to help at-risk students by addressing the following 

absolute priorities: 1) Increasing access and completion; 2) Increasing community college 

transfer rates to 4-year colleges, 3) Increasing enrollment in, and completion of STEM degree 

and certificate programs; 4) Reducing time to completion; and 5) Improving college affordability. 

Applicants also earned two additional points if they could demonstrate that their proposals were 

based on evidence that met the evidence of promise standard. The 2014 competition drew 

great interest from the field, yielding 459 eligible applications. A total of $74.6 million was 

awarded to 24 institutions of higher education (IHEs), including awards made to five community 

colleges and $20 million to six HBCUs and MSIs. All of these grantees are conducting 

evaluations of their interventions to assess their effectiveness, and all of these evaluations, as 

currently designed, have the potential to meet What Works Clearinghouse Standards. 

Examples of innovative approaches supported by 2014 FITW development grants include:

• Hampton University (VA), an HBCU, is using a $3.5 million grant to redesign many of its 

courses to incorporate more project-based learning and technology tools, benefitting more 

than 1,000 students over its 4-year duration.

• LaGuardia Community College (NY), a Hispanic-Serving institution, is using a $2.9 million 

grant to strengthen its curriculum by developing an integrated set of tools to increase 

student engagement and success, including the use of ePortfolios, learning analytics, and 

outcomes assessments. The changes will support thousands of high-risk students as they 

move from LaGuardia's non-credit program to academic enrollment as well as enrolled 

students moving toward graduation.

• Georgia Tech (GA) is creating the Center for Accessible Materials Innovation to expand 

access to digital content for students with disabilities. It includes a focus on ensuring that 

digital learning materials are accessible to students with disabilities, especially those at 

MSIs.

R-94
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

• Jacksonville State University (AL) is redesigning curricula and classroom spaces and

providing technological tools that include increased analytics, to increase the success of 

low-income, rural students. In addition, an outreach program to high-school students will 

increase awareness about the affordability of college.

• Purdue University (IN) is working with other members of the University Innovation Alliance 

to support STEM undergraduates, particularly women and underrepresented students. The 

innovations in expanding active learning opportunities for students will be developed and 

replicated across the Alliance’s large, public university campuses. 

In 2015, the Department added the validation grants tier to validate evidence-based strategies. 

The validation competition solicited evidence-based proposals designed to improve outcomes 

for high need students by addressing one of the following absolute priorities: 1) Improving 

Success in Developmental Education, 2) Improving Teaching and Learning, 3) Improving 

Student Support Services, and 4) Influencing the Development of Non-Cognitive Factors. The 

2015 development competition included the following absolute priorities: 1) Improving Teaching 

and Learning, 2) Developing and Using Assessments of Learning, and 3) Facilitating Pathways 

to Credentialing and Transfer. Applicants could also earn competitive preference priority points 

for proposing projects designed to implement low cost/high-impact strategies. 

The Department funded 2 of 24 validation applications and 16 of 259 development applications. 

Of the 18 awards, 9 grants were made to HBCUs and MSIs. Examples of innovative 

approaches supported by 2015 FITW development and validation grants include:

• Central Carolina Community College (NC) received a validation grant to partner with nine

community colleges to implement an evidence-based proactive coaching intervention 

designed to provide individualized support services to over 8,000 adult learners, part-time 

students, low-income students, and students of color. It will use high-need student 

caseloads informed by an early alert/advising system powered by predictive analytics. The 

project will assess the effectiveness of the intervention through a RCT evaluation.

• Georgia State University (GA), an Asian American and Native American Pacific IslanderServing Institution, in partnership with 10 other Universities from across the Nation, also 

received a validation grant to implement a proactive advisement intervention for low-income 

and first generation students, dedicated to validating the effectiveness of this approach in

increasing retention, progression and graduation rates for low-income and other high-need 

students at 4-year public Universities.

• Spelman College (GA), an HBCU, is using random assignment to test the effectiveness of 

student metacognitive training in both classroom and peer-tutoring settings. The goal of the 

project is to enhance students’ awareness of their own thinking and learning, leading to 

improvements in academic success and persistence in their courses of study. 

• Bergen Community College (NJ), in partnership with Union County College, is testing two 

alternative remedial math teaching methods to determine whether such strategies yield 

better outcomes than the traditional lecture. First-time students placed into remedial math 

courses will be randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups or a control group 

R-95
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

(traditional lecture). The first treatment group utilizes adaptive learning software within a 

short-term pre-semester bridge program followed immediately by enrollment into a college 

level math course; the second treatment group enrolls students immediately into a 

college-level math course with co-requisite one-hour weekly tutorial support.

• The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (CO) is scaling and enhancing 

its Passport project, which creates seamless transfer of lower-division general education 

requirements across participating institutions based on students' demonstration of learning 

outcomes, regardless of courses or credits completed. The project is designed to improve 

retention and completion rates, shorten the time-to-degree for students, and reduce costs.

The requested funding in fiscal year 2017 would enable the Department to add for the first time 

the scale-up grant tier for projects supported by strong evidence of effectiveness. Scale-up 

grants would support implementation and rigorous evaluation of previously validated strategies 

at large scale, such as across postsecondary systems, States, regions, or the country. The 

funding would also support additional validation and development grants. Applications for 

scale-up and validation awards would receive absolute or competitive preference for 

implementing projects involving systems and consortia that collaborate with leading experts to 

ensure effectiveness in project design and implementation. 

As in 2014 and 2015, the Department plans to set aside a portion of the requested funding in 

2017, up to 30 percent, or $30 million, for awards to HBCUs and MSIs. These institutions enroll 

a significant and disproportionate share of individuals from underserved populations, including 

students from low-income backgrounds and first-generation college students. To make 

substantial gains in college completion rates across the Nation, it is essential to target strategies 

designed to address the unique challenges faced by students enrolled at HBCUs and MSIs. 

The 2014 and 2015 FITW competitions demonstrated that there is significant interest and ability

among HBCUs and MSIs to participate in this program. In 2015, half of the 18 awards, totaling 

$30 million, were made to HBCUs and MSIs.

The 2014 and 2015 competitions also confirm that there is significant unmet demand in this 

program. Across the 2 fiscal years, the Department received 742 eligible applications, but was 

only able to support 42 awards with the $135 million appropriations (or fewer than 6 percent of 

the applications). 

The request also includes appropriations language authorizing the use of FIPSE funding to 

support technical assistance and evaluation of strategies implemented under FITW.

R-96
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

First in the World

First in the WorldNumber of new awards 18 0 19

First in the WorldAverage new award $3,334 0 $5,079

First in the WorldTotal new award funding $60,020 0 $96,500

Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student 

Success

 Centers of Excell ence Number of new awards 13 0 0

Centers of Excell ence Average new award $382 0 0

 Centers of Excell ence Total new award funding $4,962 0 0

National Center for Information and 

Technical Support for Postsecondary 

Students with Disabilities

 Postsecondar y Students with DisabilitiesNumber of new awards 1 0 0

 econdar y Students with Disabilities Average new award $2,474 0 0

 econdar y Students with Disabilities Total new award funding $2,474 0 0

Contracts

 Peer review of new award applications $590 0 $800

 FITW Technical Assistance Contract $1,462 0 $2,500

 FIPSE Database $187 0 $200

Total FIPSE funding $69,69510 $100,000

Total number of awards 32 0 19

1 Includes $1,920 thousand of funding the Department re-programmed to FIPSE from other sources in the Higher 

Education Account. These funds, which would have otherwise lapsed, were used to make a partial award to an 

applicant that should have initially been funded but was not, due to an administrative error.

Total FIPSE funding $69,69510 $100,000

Total number of awards 32 0 19

1 Includes $1,920 thousand of funding the Department re-programmed to FIPSE from other sources in the 

Higher Education Account. These funds, which would have otherwise lapsed, were used to make a partial award to 

an applicant that should have initially been funded but was not, due to an administrative error.

R-97

 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department is replacing the old FIPSE performance measures with a new set of metrics to 

better align them with the objectives of the FITW program. The Department included the 

following set of measures in the 2014 and 2015 Notice Inviting Applications for the FITW 

program:

• The extent to which funded projects are replicated.

• The extent to which projects are institutionalized and continued after funding.

• The extent to which metrics used to assess and evaluate project results measure 

performance under the absolute priority the project is designed to address.

• The percentage of projects supported by FITW grants that provide rigorous evidence of their 

effectiveness at improving student outcomes, especially for low-income students.

• The percentage of projects supported by FITW grants that provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance feedback that allow for periodic assessment of 

progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

• The cost per student served by FITW grants.

• The cost per successful student outcome served by FITW grants.

The 2014 FITW grantee cohort submitted their first set of Annual Performance Reports in

December 2015. The Department will set targets for these measures in spring of 2016. 

Other Performance Information

The last review of FIPSE performance was conducted in 2004 when the American Institute for 

Research found that FIPSE was successfully achieving its goals, but that a lack of emphasis on 

evaluation has resulted in evaluations of mixed quality. The study examined the performance of 

60 randomly selected projects funded under the Comprehensive Program from 1996 to 1998. It 

also convened subject-matter experts to assess project effectiveness in a wider context. 

Overall, the study confirmed that FIPSE funds a wide range of innovative and reform projects 

that tend to continue after Federal funding expires, share their work with others in the higher 

education community, and influence postsecondary education.

R-98
HIGHER EDUCATION

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 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$11,800 $11,800 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

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 awarded 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 the development, evaluation, funding, 

outreach, and continuous improvement of model transition programs.

Grants under this program are awarded for a period of 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.

R-99
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012.............................................................. ................$10,957

2013.............................................................. ..................10,384

2014.............................................................. ..................10,384

2015.............................................................. ..................11,800

2016.............................................................. ..................11,800

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $11.8 million for the Model Transition Programs for Students with 

Intellectual Disabilities in fiscal year 2017, the same as the fiscal year 2016 appropriation. 

Funds appropriated in fiscal year 2017 would support continuation awards for the 25 fiscal year 

2015 grantees, as well as the 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 2016 and 2017.

Students with intellectual disabilities are the least likely to have college listed as goal on their 

Individualized Education Plan (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 (Grigal, Hart, & Lewis, “A Prelude to Progress: The Evolution of Postsecondary 

Education for Students with Intellectual Disabilities,” 2012). Data on students with disabilities, 

ages 14-21, illustrate that of the 49,482 students with intellectual disabilities who exited IDEA in 

school year 2013-2014, approximately 29 percent graduated with a regular high school diploma 

and 26 percent received a certificate. The remaining students dropped out (12 percent); moved, 

but were known to be continuing (26 percent); reached maximum age (5 percent); transferred to 

regular education (3 percent); or died (0.5 percent).

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 (Papay and Bambara, “Career 

Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals,” 2014). 

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. 

R-100
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

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 released in 2015, Think College reports that TPSID served a total of 883 students on 

50 campuses, across 23 states in the fourth year of data collection, i.e., fiscal year 2014. 

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. Student outcomes 

of this reporting year were also impressive: 39 percent of students who exited the TPSID 

program held paid jobs (of these students, 48 percent had never held a job prior to entering the 

TPSID program), and 77 percent of the students who exited the program earned one or more 

credentials prior to exiting. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 fo

ot

n

ot

e

2016 footnote2017 footnote

Number of new awards 25 0 0

Average new award $364 0 0

Total new award funding $9,1001 0 0

Number of NCC awards 0 25 25

Average NCC award 0 $387 $398

Total NCC award funding 0 $9,680 1,2 $9,8001,2

Coordinating Center $2,000 $2,000 $2,000

Peer review of new award applications $97 0 0

1 Each grantee is required to contribute a total of $4.5 thousand to the Coordinating Center. 2 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 2017 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

R-101
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

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. These TPSID grantees

submitted data for all 5 years of the grants. In 2015, the Center released a report on grantees’ 

progress over the first 4 years of the program, and the Year 5 final report is expected to be 

published in early 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 two 

draft performance measures, and expects to further refine these measures and targets and 

identify additional program measures during fiscal year 2016. 

Goal: To promote the successful transition of students with intellectual disabilities into 

higher education.

Objective: Increase the percentage of students with intellectual disabilities who are enrolled in 

programs funded under TPSID who complete the programs and obtain a meaningful credential, 

as defined by the Center and approved by the Department. 

Measure: The percentage of students with intellectual disabilities enrolled in programs funded 

under TPSID who complete the programs and obtain a meaningful credential, as defined by the 

Center and approved by the Department.

Year Target Actual

2015 80%

2016 85%

2017 85

Additional Information: The Department established targets for this measure after obtaining 

baseline data in the early years of the grant program. The percentage of students completing a 

TPSID program with meaningful credential increased steadily over the 5 years of the grants.

Possible credentials include certificates specifically for TPSID students granted by 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 

R-102
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

available to all students. Of the 324 students who exited a TPSID program during fiscal year 

2015 (i.e., Year 5), 259 students (80 percent) received a meaningful credential, an increase of 

3 percent over the previous year, and a nearly 40 percent increase over the first year of the 

grants. 

The details of the Year 5 report have not yet been released. The most common credential 

earned by exiting students in Year 4 was an IHE certificate specifically for TPSID students 

(36 percent), while the least common was a Bachelor’s degree; only 2 percent of exiting 

students earned a Bachelor’s degree available to all students at the IHE.

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. In 

order to obtain data on the impact of the TPSID programs on students’ ability to obtain these 

employment outcomes, follow-up data must be collected after program exit. According to the 

Year 4 report, 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 and 54 percent in Year 4. 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 year 2016. 

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, Centerdeveloped 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

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 2015, 100 percent of TPSIDs met 

R-103
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

seven of the eight standards (88 percent). This is an increase of 25 percent over the previous 

year, when TPSIDE grantees met only five of the eight standards (63 percent). The following 

table provides a breakout of the individual standards and the percentage of grantees that met 

each, respectively, by year.

Standard FY 

2014

FY 

2015

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%

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

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

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

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

R-104
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

Standard FY 

2014

FY 

2015

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

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%

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

The Department will work with the Center to refine this measure in fiscal year 2016. The 

Department will also identify additional measures, including long-term and efficiency measures, 

for the evaluation of TPSID grantees in fiscal year 2016 to ensure program accountability and 

compliance. Data from the current 25 grantees from fiscal year 2015 and the 27 fiscal year 

2010 grantees will inform progress in these areas.

R-105
HIGHER EDUCATION

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 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$8,286 $8,286 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2013; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

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.

R-106
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

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)

2012.............................................................. ..................$8,146

2013.............................................................. ....................8,131

2014.............................................................. ....................7,705

2015.............................................................. ....................7,705

2016.............................................................. ....................8,286

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration requests $8.3 million for the Tribally Controlled 

Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions (TCPCTI) program, the same amount as the 

fiscal year 2016 appropriation. Funds would be used to improve eligible institutions’ academic 

and career and technical education offerings as well as for institutional support and capital 

expenditures. The budget request assumes that the program will be implemented in fiscal 

year 2017 under reauthorized legislation.

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.

R-107
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

The Administration released its blueprint for reauthorization of the Perkins Act in April 2012. 

The reauthorization proposal would continue to provide support for the TCPCTI program while 

seeking to ensure that grantees under the program incorporate key reforms embodied in the 

broader reauthorization proposal, including linking career and technical education programs to 

in-demand occupations in high-growth sectors and ensuring linkages of those programs with 

industry and business. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015 2016 2017

Range of awards $2,145-$5,560 $2,145-$5,560 $2,145-$5,560

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 2017 

and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

Goal: To increase access to and improve career education that will strengthen workforce 

preparation, employment opportunities, and lifelong learning in the Indian community.

Objective: Ensure that career and technical education (CTE) students in tribally controlled 

postsecondary career and technical institutions make successful transitions to work or 

continuing education.

Measure: The percentage of CTE students who receive a degree, certificate, or credential.

Year Target Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Actual Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target Percentage, 

UTTC

Actual 

Percentage, UTTC

2012 85% 88% 55% 41%

2013 86 96 60 53

2014 88 82 56 66

2015 90 58

2016 95 60

2017 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

R-108
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

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 

withdrawing from the institution. 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 2015 will be available in early 2016.

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

2012 80% 81% 65% 55%

2013 82 63 70 51

2014 83 66 60 56

2015 85 65

2016 87 65

2017 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 2015 will be available in 

early 2016.

R-109
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

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

2012 90% 71% 82% 68%

2013 90 77 83 73

2014 80 79 73 72

2015 85 80

2016 85 82

2017 83 76

Additional information: The percentage of students who meet State- or program-established 

industry-validated CTE skills standards is based on the number of CTE concentrators who 

passed technical skill assessments that are aligned with industry-recognized standards during 

the reporting year divided by the number of CTE concentrators who took technical skill 

assessments during the reporting year. The Department reset targets in 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 2015 will be available in early 2016.

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

2012 60% 61% 60% 77%

2013 70 73 70 87

2014 65 79 80 79

2015 70 85

2016 73 87

2017 77 82

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 

R-110
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

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. Data for 2015 will be 

available in early 2016.

Efficiency Measures

The Department adopted cost per participant as the efficiency measure for this program. The 

Department considered calculating the cost per successful outcome (which would be a more 

meaningful indicator of cost-effectiveness), but the recipients do not use the same 

methodology to determine degree completion, which would make these data unreliable. The 

Department developed guidance to help grantees improve the comparability of the data 

provided in their performance reports and expects to be able to calculate the cost per 

successful outcome more reliably in the future.

Measure: 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

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 2015 will be available by the fall of 2016. Note that the validity of the 

student count data provided by the recipients is uncertain.

R-111
HIGHER EDUCATION

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 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$900,000 $900,000 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

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 connections to academic 

tutoring services, advice on and assistance in selecting secondary and college courses, 

assistance in preparing for college entrance exams and in completing college applications, 

information on student financial aid and assistance in completing financial aid applications, 

connections to services designed to improve financial and economic literacy, and guidance and 

assistance in re-entering and completing secondary school. Projects also may provide 

academic tutoring; personal and career counseling; information on career options; exposure to 

college campuses; and services specially designed for students with disabilities or limited 

English proficiency, homeless children and youth, and students in foster care.

R-112
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

Upward Bound provides services to high school students that are designed to generate the 

skills and motivation needed to pursue and complete a postsecondary education. Projects 

provide the same services as Talent Search projects, except that Upward Bound projects may 

provide an on-campus residential summer component and work-study positions that expose

students to careers requiring a postsecondary degree. In addition to regular projects, Upward 

Bound includes projects focused 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 and graduation rates and to increase their 

transfer rates from 2-year to 4-year institutions. All projects must provide academic tutoring, 

advice on postsecondary course selection, financial aid counseling, services to improve 

financial and economic literacy, assistance in applying for graduate and professional programs, 

and activities to help students in 2-year institutions enroll in 4-year programs. Projects may also 

provide personal and career counseling; exposure to cultural events; mentoring; services to 

secure temporary housing during academic breaks for students who are homeless; activities for 

students with disabilities, limited English proficiency students, homeless students, and students 

in foster care; and grant aid (not to exceed 20 percent of a project’s funds). Projects providing

grant aid also must provide a match equal to 33 percent of the total funds used for that purpose, 

unless they are eligible to receive funds under Title III, Part A or B, or Title V of the Higher 

Education Act.

The McNair Post Baccalaureate Achievement program prepares disadvantaged undergraduate 

students for doctoral study to help them succeed in obtaining doctoral degrees. Projects must 

provide opportunities for research and other scholarly activities at the recipient institution or 

graduate center, summer internships, seminars, tutoring, academic counseling, and activities to 

help students enroll in graduate programs. Projects may also provide services to improve 

financial and economic literacy, mentoring, and exposure to cultural events and academic 

programs not usually available to disadvantaged students.

The two largest programs, in terms of funding, are Upward Bound (which includes Veterans 

Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science) and Student Support Services, which 

together accounted for nearly three-fourths of TRIO funding in 2015. TRIO programs vary 

greatly in service intensity, with per-participant annual costs ranging from a high of $8,316 for 

the McNair Postgraduate Achievement program to a low of $246 for the Educational Opportunity 

Centers. The regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science projects, on 

R-113
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

average, spend approximately $4,293 and $4,290 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 $2,063 in 2015. Most projects are located at colleges, 

although non-profit organizations operate a substantial number of Talent Search and 

Educational Opportunity Center projects.

Number of Participants, Participants per Project and Cost per Participant (FY 2015) 

Award Type

Number of 

Participants

Average number of 

participants

per project

Federal

cost per participant

Talent Search 310,199 691 $434

Upward Bound 61,361 75 4,293

Veterans Upward Bound 6,566 134 2,063

Upward Bound Math and Science 10,034 62 4,290

Educational Opportunity Centers 189,733 1,506 246

Student Support Services 205,263 190 1,448

McNair 4,293 28 8,316

Percentage of Funds by Institution Type (FY 2015)

 Institution Type

Talent 

Search

Upward 

Bound1

Educational 

Opportunity 

Centers

Student 

Support 

Services McNair

Postsecondary Institutions

Public, 4-year 41.0% 47.6% 42.1% 41.0% 71.6%

Public, 2-year 29.1 26.4 26.4 46.8 0.0

Private, 4-year 10.1 17.4 5.2 11.8 28.4

Private, 2-year 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0

Total, Postsecondary 80.2 91.5 73.7 99.9 100.0

Other organizations2 19.8 8.5 26.3 0.1 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.

R-114
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

In addition, TRIO funding supports training for project staff members, dissemination of best 

practices, evaluation activities, and administrative expenses.

Funding for Staff Training grants supports professional development activities and opportunities 

to improve the competency of project directors and staff members. Training is offered on such 

topics as: legislative and regulatory requirements for operating funded projects; assisting 

students in receiving adequate financial aid; the design and operation of model programs; the 

use of appropriate educational technology in the operations of funded projects; and strategies 

for recruiting and serving students with limited-English proficiency or with disabilities, homeless 

children and youth, foster care youth, or other disconnected students.

Funding for Evaluation activities helps to improve the effectiveness of TRIO programs and 

projects. The statute requires rigorous evaluation of TRIO programs and projects. The 

evaluation must examine the characteristics of the programs and projects that most benefit 

students.

Finally, up to 0.5 percent of the funds appropriated for TRIO may be used by the Department to 

support administrative activities that include obtaining additional qualified readers to review 

applications; increasing the level of oversight monitoring; supporting impact studies, program 

assessments, and reviews; and providing technical assistance to applicants and grantees.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012 ...................................................................................... $839,932 

2013 ........................................................................................ 795,998

2014 ........................................................................................ 838,252

2015 ........................................................................................ 839,752

2016 ........................................................................................ 900,000

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $900 million in fiscal year 2017 for the Federal TRIO programs, 

the same as the fiscal year 2016 level. Approximately $350 million of these funds will support 

new Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math and Science, Veterans Upward Bound, and McNair 

Postbaccalaureate competitions that would encourage applicants to identify and implement

evidence-based strategies in these programs. Approximately $525 million would be used to 

support continuation awards to grantees that were successful in TRIO competitions in 2011 

(Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers), 2012 (Upward Bound, Upward Bound 

Math and Science, Veterans Upward Bound, and McNair), 2015 (Student Support Services),

and 2016 (Talent Search, Educational Opportunity Centers, and Staff Training). The request 

also includes $3.4 million to maintain administrative support for the TRIO programs, including 

the costs of collecting and analyzing grantee performance data, and an additional $2 million for 

program evaluation. 

The TRIO programs are among the Department’s largest and most important higher education 

investments. These programs can best serve students who are low-income or whose parents 

never completed college by supporting strategies proven to improve student outcomes. For this 

R-115
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

reason, as is the case in other higher education grant programs, the Department has begun to 

place an increasing emphasis on promoting evidence-based practices in TRIO grant 

competitions. In the fiscal year 2015 Student Support Services competition, the Department 

included competitive priorities for evidence-based strategies to provide individualized counseling 

and address non-cognitive contributors to student outcomes. In the fiscal year 2016 Talent 

Search competition announced in December 2015, the Department included priorities for 

evidence-based strategies to provide academic tutoring and mentoring. The 2016 Educational 

Opportunity Centers competition will include a selection factor for projects based on strong 

theory. The Department plans to continue engaging with the TRIO community in order to 

support priorities for evidence-based practices in the fiscal year 2017 Upward Bound, Upward 

Bound Math and Science, Veterans Upward Bound, and McNair Postbaccalaureate 

competitions.

The Administration seeks to further these efforts by using up to $20 million of the requested 

funding to develop a TRIO Demonstration Initiative, in consultation with the TRIO community,

that would give TRIO grantees, or consortia of grantees, the opportunity to compete for 

increased funding to: 1) implement additional evidence-based college access and success 

strategies and serve additional students, and 2) participate in evaluations of such strategies to 

contribute to the growing body of evidence about the effectiveness of particular student support 

activities. The Department would work with the broader TRIO grantee community in 

determining the interventions to be implemented and enter into cooperative agreements with 

grantees, or consortia of grantees, to support implementation and evaluation activities. 

Evaluation methods could range from experimental designs to quick turnaround studies that use 

administrative data, and would be designed to contribute to what is known in the field about 

commonly applied practices. In the future, strategies that show evidence of effectiveness when 

implemented at scale and that are generalizable to different institutional settings could be 

adopted more broadly by all TRIO grantees. The Department could support this initiative while 

still increasing the levels of support for the Upward Bound and McNair competitions.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures

2015

Funding

footnote

2016

Funding

footnote

2017

Funding

footnote

2015

Awards

footnote

2016

Awards

footnote

2017

Awards

footnote

Talent Search (TS)

TS: New awards 0 $139,889 0 0 466 0

TS: Continuation awards $135,055 16,088 $149,101 450 37 500

TS: Total 135,055 154,995 149,101 450 503 500

R-116
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures

2015

Fundingfootnote

2016

Fundingfootnote

2017

Fundingfootnote

2015

Awardsfootnote

2016

Awardsfootnote

2017

Awardsfootnote

Upward Bound (UB)

UB:New awards 0 0 $254,115 0 0 790

UB: Continuation awards $263,412 $275,0551 19,264 814 814 46

(UB)Total 263,412 275,055 273,379 814 814 836

Veterans Upward Bound (VUB)

VUB: New awards 0 0 14,025 0 0 49

VUB:Continuation awards 13,548 16,6571 0 49 49 0

VUB:Total 13,548 16,657 14,025 49 49 49

Upward Bound Math and Science (UBMS)

UBMS:New awards 0 0 44,000 0 0 162

UBMS:Continuation awards 43,050 49,3881 0 162 162 0

UBMS:Total 43,050 49,388 44,000 162 162 162

Educational Opportunity Centers 

(EOC)

EOC:New awards 0 40,562 0 0 111 0

EOC:Continuation awards 46,925 15,519 50,220 126 32 136

EOC:Total 46,925 56,081 50,220 126 143 136

Student Support Services(SSS)

SSS: New awards 273,538 0 0 1,011 0 0

SSS: Continuation awards 23,718 303,7931 303,393 72 1,072 1,072

SSS:Total 297,257 303,793 303,393 1,083 1,072 1,072

McNair Postbaccalaureate (MPB)

MPB:New awards 0 0 38,000 0 0 170

MPB:Continuation awards 33,2912 35,2291 0 151 151 0

MPB:Total 33,291 35,229 38,000 151 151 170

Staff Training (ST)

ST:New awards 0 2,500 0 0 6 0

ST:Continuation awards 1,525 0 2,500 8 0 6

ST:Total 1,525 2,500 2,500 8 6 6

1 Includes 2016 funds used to increase award amounts for existing grantees and funds used to pay 2017 

continuation costs in the following amounts: Upward Bound-$1,976 thousand; Veterans Upward Bound-

$2,437 thousand; Upward Bound Math and Science-$4,965 thousand; McNair-$4,501 thousand. The funds used 

to pay 2017 continuation costs are excluded from the totals in the 2017 column.

2 Includes $8,026 thousand used to frontload 2016 continuation awards.

R-117
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures

2015

Funding

footnote

2016

Funding

footnote

2017

Funding

footnote

2015

Awards

footnote

2016

Awards

footnote

2017

Awards

footnote

TRIO Demonstration (TD)

:TD: New awards 0 0 $20,000 0 0 16

TD: Total 0 0 20,000 0 0 16

Total awards

DomesticTotal new awards $273,620 $181,451 370,140 1,019 583 1,187

DomesticTotal Continuation awards 560,443 709,747 524,878 1,832 2,317 1,760

Evaluation 2,000 2,000 2,000

Administrative expenses:

Peer review of new award

 applications 2,478 2,618 1,650

Other expenses 1,211 1,583 1,778

Total 3,689 4,301 3,428

Total 839,752 900,000 900,000 2,851 2,900 2,947

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 2017 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.

R-118
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

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

2012 80.0% 79.8% 76.0% 81.8% 61.0% 60.6%

2013 80.5 80.6 78.0 83.2 61.5 59.0

2014 80.5 79.7 80.5 85.3 61.5 57.6

2015 80.5 81.0 61.5

2016 81.0 81.5 61.5

2017 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.

R-119
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

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

2012 33.0% 39.9%

2013 34.0 39.0

2014 36.0 39.2

2015 37.0

2016 37.5

2017 38.0

Measure: The percentage of Student Support Services first-year students completing a 

Bachelor's degree at their original institution within 6 years.

Year Target Actual

2012 40.0% 49.2%

2013 41.0 50.4

2014 42.0 50.7

2015 45.0

2016 47.0

2017 49.0

Additional information: Grantees provide data on college completion in their Annual 

Performance Reports (APR). The Department’s implementation of a Web-based annual 

performance report system that flags inconsistencies for grantees as they enter their data has 

led to more accurate reporting. A continuing shortcoming of these measures is that they only 

measure degree completion of participants who remain at the grantee institution because the 

grantees are unable to track the students who transfer and complete their degrees at other 

institutions. It is likely that some students complete their education at a different institution, 

and that the measures therefore understate performance. The Department has increased 

2015-2017 targets for the Bachelor’s degree measure to make them more ambitious.

Measure: The percentages of TRIO McNair participants enrolling and persisting in graduate 

school.

Year Enrolling Target Enrolling Actual Persisting Target Persisting Actual

2012 50.0% 70.8% 81.0% 86.3%

2013 69.0 72.5 82.0 77.2

2014 69.0 71.8 83.0 84.3

2015 70.0 84.0

2016 70.0 84.5

2017 71.0 85.0

Additional information: The methodology for this enrollment measures counts as successes 

those McNair participants who enroll in graduate school within 3 years of postsecondary 

graduation. The reporting year in the table above represents the 3-year point of measurement. 

That is, 71.8 percent of McNair participants who graduated with their baccalaureate degree in 

2011 had enrolled in graduate school by 2014.

R-120
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

Efficiency Measures

Measure: The cost per successful outcome.

Year

Talent 

Search 

Target

Talent 

Search 

Actual

Upward 

Bound

Target

Upward 

Bound 

Actual

Student 

Support 

Services 

Target

Student 

Support 

Services 

Actual

2012 $471 $4,518 $1,648

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

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

2012 $35,000 $27,790

2013 33,000 27,032

2014 33,000 25,029

2015 32,000

2016 31,000

2017 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. 

Other Performance Information

The Department has invested significant resources in evaluations and studies of the Federal 

TRIO Programs. Each TRIO evaluation and study was conducted independently by outside 

contractors that reported to the Department’s evaluation offices. These studies are available at 

the following link: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#postsecondary. 

R-121
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

The Institute of Education Sciences began a new evaluation of Upward Bound promising 

practices in 2013, as required by section 402H(b)(1) of the Higher Education Act. The study will 

support and test the use of practices aimed at improving college fit by evaluating the 

effectiveness of a professional development program for Upward Bound project staff 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 will be designed so that it can 

be used with regular high school counselors or Upward Bound project staff to maximize the 

return on investment in the demonstration. The evaluation builds on the developing body of 

research suggesting that low-income students may not be attending colleges that match their 

academic abilities and career objectives, in part because they do not have adequate information 

about their college options. The Department expects to publish results from this evaluation in 

the fall of 2017.

R-122
HIGHER EDUCATION

GAINING EARLY AWARENESS AN D READINESS FOR UNDERGRADU ATE 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 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$322,754 $322,754 0

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

year 2017.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) provides 

6-year grants to States and partnerships to support early college preparation and awareness 

activities at the State and local levels to ensure low-income elementary, middle, and secondary 

school students are prepared for and pursue postsecondary education. Applicants may also 

apply for an optional seventh year of funding to provide services at an institution of higher 

education to follow students through their first year of college attendance.

GEAR UP has two major service components. First, projects provide a comprehensive set of 

early intervention services including mentoring, tutoring, academic and career counseling, and 

other college preparation activities like exposure to college campuses and financial aid 

information and assistance. Second, projects provide college scholarships to participating 

students. In making awards to State applicants, the Department must give priority to funding 

entities that have carried out successful GEAR UP programs prior to enactment in 2008 of the 

Higher Education Opportunity Act; have a prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention 

programs; and ensure that students previously served by GEAR UP programs receive services 

through the completion of secondary school. States and partnerships must provide matching 

funds of at least 50 percent of the total project costs with cash or in-kind contributions from 

nonfederal sources accrued over the full duration of the grant award. The Department may 

authorize a reduction in the required match for partnerships under certain circumstances.

GEAR UP supports two types of grants:

State Grants—States receiving funds are required to provide both an early intervention and a 

scholarship component, targeted to low-income students in grades K-12. At least 50 percent, 

but not more than 75 percent, of the grant funds must be used to provide scholarships to 

participating students. Conversely, at least 25 percent, but not more than 50 percent, of the 

R-123
HIGHER EDUCATION

funds must be used for early intervention services. State grantees must, unless they request

and receive a waiver, hold in reserve funds for scholarships equivalent to the effective minimum

R-124
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

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

2012.....................................................................................$302,244

2013...................................................................................... 286,435

2014...................................................................................... 301,639

2015...................................................................................... 301,639

2016...................................................................................... 322,754

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $322.8 million in fiscal year 2017 for Gaining Early Awareness and 

Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, the same as the fiscal year 2016 level. The 

Administration’s request for GEAR UP is based on the demonstrated promise of the program’s 

approach, given indications that GEAR UP is making progress in achieving its near-term 

objectives, such as increasing students’ and parents’ knowledge of postsecondary opportunities 

and increasing rigorous course-taking. GEAR UP supports State efforts and builds partnerships 

within communities, targets entire cohorts of students in high-poverty middle schools, provides 

R-125
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

students with a full range of services through the 12th grade (in some cases through the first 

year of college), and offers scholarships to attend college. By targeting entire grades of 

students no later than the 7th grade, serving them throughout middle and high school, and 

providing them with scholarship funding, GEAR UP offers a unique approach to ensuring that 

low-income students have the skills and resources to attend college. Furthermore, the 

considerable State and local investments GEAR UP requires (both through the creation of 

partnerships and matching contributions) help ensure that the program will have a sustainable 

impact on the educational outcomes of low-income middle and high school students.

Most of the requested funds will be used to support continuation awards for State and 

Partnership grantees that were successful in the fiscal year 2011 and 2014 competitions. The 

2014 competition included a focus on promoting practices aimed at improving college fit and 

readiness, and helping ensure students achieve the necessary milestones that provide a 

pathway to college success. The competition also encouraged projects designed to serve and 

coordinate with Promise Zones. The Department would use approximately $54 million to

conduct competitions for new State and Partnership awards. These competitions would further 

align the GEAR UP program with the Administration’s evidence-building agenda. The 

Department would use the remaining funds to support evaluation and for the Web data collection 

contract, which enables the Department to collect and analyze performance data. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 footnote2016 footnote2017

State Grants:

State:Number of new awards 1 2 8

State:Average new award $2,669 $3,250 $3,375

State:Total new award funding $2,669 $6,500 $27,000

State:Number of continuation awards 36 37 31

State:Average continuation award $3,715 $3,812 $3,736

State:Total continuation award funding $133,751 $141,052 $116,156

State:Total award funding $136,420 $147,552 $143,156

State:Total number of awards 37 39 39

Partnership Grants:

Partnershi p:Number of new awards 3 6 14

Partnershi p:Average new award $1,761 $1,696 $1,928

Partnershi p:Total new award funding $5,283 $10,180 $27,000

Partnershi p:Number of continuation awards 85 85 80

Partnershi p:Average continuation award $1,813 $1,843 $1,873

R-126
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 footnote2016 footnote2017 footnote

Partnership Grants (continued):

Partnershi p:Total continuation award funding $156,509 $164,007 $149,892

Partnershi p:Total award funding $161,792 $174,187 $176,892

Partnershi p:Total number of awards 88 91 94

Total award funding:

DomesticTotal new award funding $7,951 $16,680 $54,000

Domestic Total continuation award 

funding $290,261 $305,891 $266,049

Evaluation $3,300 0 $2,200

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 0 $322

Web data collection $125 $183 $183

Total program funding $301,639 $322,754 $322,754

Total number of awards 125 130 133

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 and those requested in 

FY 2017 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.

R-127
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

Measure: The percentage of GEAR UP high school seniors who graduated from high school.

Year Target Actual

2012 86.0% 86.4%

2013 87.0 82.8

2014 87.0 86.5

2015 88.0

2016 88.0

2017 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 2014 relates to the 2008 cohort. 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

2012 60.0% 62.2%

2013 60.0 75.3

2014 61.0 77.3

2015 61.0

2016 62.0

2017 62.0

Additional Information: This measure indicates the percent of GEAR UP students who 

graduated from high school and enrolled in postsecondary education the following September. 

Data from NCES provide context for these data. According to NCES, 65.9 percent of all high 

school completers enrolled in postsecondary education immediately following high school 

graduation in 2013. In that same year, 45.5 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 2014 relates to the 2008 cohort.

Objective: Increase the academic performance and preparation for postsecondary education of 

GEAR UP students.

R-128
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

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

2012 33% 41.3% 51% 61.0%

2013 33 37.3 51 62.7

2014 34 60.4 53 58.3

2015 34 58.3 53 67.7

2016 55 54

2017 55 54

Additional Information: This measure tracks completion rates for two mathematics classes 

that research has shown are key indicators of college readiness. Data for this measure, 

collected through Annual Performance Reports, reflect student completion levels from the prior 

year. It should be noted that, as the measure tracks only the 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 considerably 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 

2008 would be expected to enroll their participants in college in the fall of 2014. Using this 

methodology, the annual cost per successful outcome for this GEAR UP cohort was $1,748. 

The Department provided approximately $58 million per year to the grantees in this cohort, 

which produced 33,412 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 

R-129
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

on the academic offerings at GEAR UP schools. The study is available at the following link: 

(http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/gearup/early-outcomes.pdf).

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 and will provide 

them with a series of electronic communications through text messages and emails throughout 

the summer and into the fall of their first expected year of college. The messages will remind 

students about key college-related tasks they need to complete, customized to the specific 

activities and deadlines of the colleges or universities in which they intend to enroll. The 

reminders will 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 will 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 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 

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.

R-130
HIGHER EDUCATION

GRADU ATE ASSISTANCE IN AREAS OF NATION AL NEED

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part A, Subpart 2)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$29,293 $29,293 0

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

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.

R-131
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

Institutions must match 25 percent of the Federal grant amount. The institutional match may be 

used for the following: to provide additional fellowships to graduate students not already receiving 

institutional or GAANN fellowships; to meet the 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)

2012 .................................................................................... $30,909

2013 ...................................................................................... 29,293

2014 ...................................................................................... 29,293

2015 ...................................................................................... 29,293

2016 ...................................................................................... 29,293

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $29.3 million for the GAANN program for fiscal year 2017, the same 

as the fiscal year 2016 level. All of the program funds would be used to cover the continuation 

costs of awards made under the program in 2015 and 2016. 

Through its support of graduate study in key disciplines, GAANN helps address the problem of 

insufficient numbers of students pursuing graduate degrees in critical scientific and technical fields 

and other areas of national need. GAANN provides students with superior ability and financial 

need with the resources that they need to pursue graduate studies. The request recognizes the 

role that graduate education plays in the advancement of national prosperity and demonstrates 

the Administration’s commitment to educational achievement at the graduate level and providing 

greater postsecondary access to students in financial need and those from traditionally 

underrepresented backgrounds.

In 2015, the Administration made 125 new awards to eligible institutions of higher education to 

provide approximately 500 fellowships to students pursuing graduate study in areas of national 

need. In 2016, the Administration plans to fund down the 2015 slate to make approximately 

20 new awards to provide 92 additional fellowships. The Administration will use fiscal year 2017

funds to support continuation costs for these ongoing fellowships.

In 2015, the last year in which a competition was conducted, the numbers of awards by eligible 

academic discipline were as follows: area studies – 1; biology – 15; chemistry – 18; computer 

science – 9; education – 3; engineering – 34; foreign languages – 3; interdisciplinary – 19; 

mathematics – 24; nursing – 4; and physics – 6. 

R-132
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 footnote2016 footnote2017 footnote

Number of new awards 95 20 0

Number of new fellowships 475 89 0

Average new award $246 $219 0

Total new award funding $23,376 $4,383 0

Number of NCC awards 24 101 115

Number of NCC fellowships 114 504 564

Average NCC award $234 $183 $202

Total NCC funding $5,622 $24,910 $29,293 1

Average institution payment $15 $15 $16

Average stipend $34 $34 $34

Total average fellowship $49 $49 $50

Peer review of new award applications $293 0 0

Funds returned to Treasury $220 0

Total number of awards 119 121 115

Total number of fellowships 589 593 564

Total program funding $29,293 $29,293 $29,293

1 In fiscal year 2017, approximately $867 thousand will be used to forward fund continuations for 2018. 2 Awards are statutorily required to be equivalent in size to the National Science Foundation fellowships. 

Therefore, a portion of the program’s appropriation often remains unspent after the maximum number of fellowships 

of the predetermined size are awarded. These remaining funds expire and are returned to Treasury.

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 2017 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.

R-133
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

Measure: The percentage of GAANN fellows completing the terminal degree in the designated 

areas of national need.

Year Target Actual

2012 59% 60%

2013 59 67

2014 60

2015 60

2016 60

2017 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 2013, GAANN fellows exceeded the target completion rate for 

the seventh year in a row. In fiscal year 2016, the Department plans to reconsider targets.

Measure: Median time to degree completion (years).

Year Target Actual

2012 5.0 4.9

2013 5.0 5.2

2014 5.0

2015 5.0

2016 5.0

2017 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 5.2 years in 2013. 

According to the most recent publicly available national data provided by the National Opinion 

Resource Center’s annual “Survey of Earned Doctorates,” the median time to doctoral degree 

completion for all graduate programs in the United States was 7.7 years in 2012. During that 

same period, the average time to completion was 6.7 years for the physical sciences, 6.7 years 

for engineering, and 6.9 years for life sciences. These figures are not directly comparable to 

those of the GAANN program, insofar as the GAANN measures begin counting years to 

completion at first enrollment in any type of graduate education, not just doctoral study. For 

example, the GAANN completion rate includes students in Master’s programs who are likely to 

complete their degrees in a shorter number of years than doctoral students. However, research 

R-134
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

shows that students with financial need, such as those served by the GAANN program, typically 

take longer to complete terminal graduate degrees than the national student body as a whole. 

Accordingly, achieving a level of performance that is comparable or better than the national 

average for graduate students suggests that the program is successfully meeting its 

performance goal. Notably, the median time to completion for GAANN fellows has held steady 

around 5.0 years since 2007. 

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

2012 $69,500 $54,894

2013 69,000 64,000

2014 68,500

2015 68,500

2016 68,500

2017 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. However, given the improvements in cost per outcome since 

2005, more ambitious targets have been established for 2011 through 2015. The Department 

plans to reconsider targets in fiscal year 2016.

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.

R-135
HIGHER EDUCATION

CHILD CARE ACCESS MEANS PARENTS IN SCHOOL

Child care access means parents in school

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 7)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$15,134 $15,134 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

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.

R-136
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

Grantees must submit annual reports to the Department regarding their activities. The reports 

must contain data on the population served by the grant; information on campus and community 

resources and funding used to help low-income students access child care services; information 

on progress made toward accreditation of any child care facility; and information on the impact 

of the grant on the quality, availability, and affordability of campus-based child care services. 

An institution receives a continuation award only if the Department determines, on the basis of 

the annual reports, that the institution is making a good faith effort to ensure that low-income 

students have access to affordable, quality child care services.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012.. ..................................................................................$15,970

2013.. ....................................................................................15,134

2014.. ....................................................................................15,134

2015.. ....................................................................................15,134

2016.. ....................................................................................15,134

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $15.1 million in fiscal year 2017 for the Child Care Access Means 

Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program, the same as the fiscal year 2016 level. The CCAMPIS 

program helps to ensure that low-income student parents enroll in, persist in, and complete 

postsecondary education by helping to meet their needs for affordable and convenient child 

care. All of the funds requested for the CCAMPIS program in fiscal year 2017 would support 

continuation awards.

Data from the National Center for Education Statistics “Descriptive Summary of 2003-04 

Beginning Postsecondary Students: Three Years Later,” a longitudinal study (2004-2006), 

indicated that by 2006, 56 percent of students who were single parents when they first began at 

a 4-year institution were no longer enrolled and had not completed any certificate or degree, 

compared to 15 percent of dependent students (students under 24, unmarried, and with no 

dependents of their own). Similarly, research shows that at 2-year public institutions, 60 percent 

of beginning postsecondary students who were single parents in 2003-2004 were no longer 

enrolled and had not completed any certificate or degree—23 percentage points higher than the 

rate for dependent students. One barrier to completion for students with dependents, especially 

low-income students and single parents, is the lack of convenient and affordable quality child 

care services.

Fiscal year 2017 funding maintains support to enable institutions to sustain or establish 

campus-based child care programs; establish emergency back-up care and provide summer 

child care and before and after school services; subsidize the costs of child care for low-income 

students; and establish programs involving parents.

R-137
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

C Number of NCC awards 85 85 85

Average NCC award $178 $178 $178

Total NCC award funding $15,134 $15,134 $15,134

Total award funding $15,134 $15,134 $15,134

Total number of awards 85 85 85

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 2017

and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department recently dropped a performance measure that focused on completion rates at 

4-year grantee institutions. The methodology used for this measure was problematic because 

the denominator included students who had not been in school long enough to graduate even if 

they persisted without interruption. The Department does not plan to replace this measure. 

CCAMPIS grantees at 4-year institutions will continue to be required to submit completion rate 

data for students served by their projects, however, the data will not be aggregated to obtain 

completion rates at 4-year CCAMPIS grantee institutions.

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

2012 61.2% 69.3% 49.2%

2013 45.8 46.4 45.0

2014 TBD

2015 TBD

2016 TBD

2017 TBD TBD TBD

R-138
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

Additional information: The overall persistence rate in 2013 for students participating in the 

CCAMPIS program is 45.8 percent (3,466 out of 7,566 student participants). The persistence 

rate for 2013 is calculated by dividing the total number of students participating in the program 

in academic year 2012-2013 by the number of students who were either still attending, had 

transferred from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution of higher education, or had graduated 

during academic year 2012-2013. Data for the 2014 persistence rate of program participants,

i.e., students who participated in the program in academic year 2013-2014, who, as of academic 

year 2013-2014 are either still attending, had transferred from a 2-year institution to a 4-year 

institution of higher education, or had graduated will be available in March 2016. The 

Department expects to establish targets for this measure in March 2016.

Measure: Percentage of CCAMPIS program participants enrolled at 2-year CCAMPIS grantee 

institutions receiving child care services who graduate from postsecondary education within 

3 years of enrollment.

Year 2-year Target 2-year Actual

2012 31.0%

2013 35.0

2014

2015

2016

2017 TBD

Additional information: The CCAMPIS program began reporting data for graduation rates at 

2-year CCAMPIS grantee institutions in 2012. More specifically, the program is now reporting 

data collected from CCAMPIS grantee participants enrolled at 2-year CCAMPIS grantee 

institutions who graduate within 3 years of enrollment. The 2-year graduation measure is 

consistent with the Department’s standard graduation rate for 2-year institutions, calculated as 

the percentage of recipients who graduated from their postsecondary institution within 

150 percent of normal completion time. This means graduating within 3 years of beginning 

studies at a 2-year institution. The 2013 graduation rate for students participating in the 

CCAMPIS program from 2-year institutions is 35 percent, an increase of 4 percentage points as 

compared to the 2012 rate of 31 percent. The Department expects to establish targets for the 

new completion measure in March 2016.

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;

R-139
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

• Earned a certificate/diploma, associate’s, bachelor’s, or teaching credential during or at the 

end of the term;

• Transferred from a 2-year institution of higher education to a 4-year institution or from one 

4-year institution to another 4-year institution during or at the end of the term;

• Officially withdrawn from the grantee-institution during the term;

• Not returned/dropped out/stopped out from the grantee-institution (without official notification 

to the institution) during the term;

• No further need for CCAMPIS funded services (examples: student is no longer eligible for 

Pell Grants; family member cares for the child; child aged out of care; etc.); and

• Participated in the CCAMPIS program while enrolled at the grantee-institution or declined 

CCAMPIS participation at any point while enrolled.

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

2012 $5,757

2013 4,608

2014

2015

2016

2017 TBD

Additional information: For 2013, the cost per successful outcome of $4,608 was calculated 

by dividing the program allocation of $15,969,760 by 3,466, the total number of students 

receiving child care services who remain in postsecondary education at the end of the academic 

year at 4-year and 2-year CCAMPIS-grantee institutions. The Department plans to establish 

targets for this program in fiscal year 2016.

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).

R-140
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

• 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).

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 were Hispanic or Latino 

(22 percent).

R-141
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

Teacher and principal pathways

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 2016 2017 Change

0 $125,000 +$125,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The proposed Teacher and Principal Pathways (TPP) program is designed to help institutions of 

higher education (IHEs) and nonprofit organizations, working closely with high-need school 

districts, carry out effective teacher and principal preparation. Promoting a variety of high 

quality pathways into teaching and school leadership is an essential component of the 

Administration’s strategy for ensuring that new teachers and principals receive the training they 

need to serve in high-need schools and for addressing inequities in access to effective and 

highly effective educators. The TPP program will have two components – Teacher Pathways 

and Principal Pathways.

Teacher Pathways

Teacher Pathways would fund competitive grants to IHEs and nonprofit organizations to support 

the creation or expansion of high quality pathways into the teaching profession. These 

pathways would emphasize partnerships with high-need local educational agencies (LEAs) that 

are designed to increase the number of effective and highly effective teachers serving in highneed schools. The Teacher Pathways program would build on and replace current efforts to 

improve teacher preparation through the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) program, which is 

more prescriptive about the particular program improvement activities that IHEs can implement.

Under the Teacher Pathways program, priority would be given to applicants that propose to 

(a) expand teacher preparation programs with a strong track record of successfully placing 

teachers in high-need schools and subject areas and whose diverse pool of teachers have high 

retention rates and a demonstrated positive impact on student learning, or (b) replicate 

preparation models, or their components, with evidence of promise or effectiveness in preparing 

and placing a diverse pool of effective teachers in high-need schools and subject areas or that 

propose a new model that uses evidence-based practice to improve the effectiveness and 

diversity of their graduates. In addition, applicants would need to demonstrate formal 

partnerships with high-need LEAs or strong historical demand for a program’s graduates from 

high-need LEA hiring authorities. Grantees would be required to maintain specialized 

accreditation or to demonstrate that their graduates have content and pedagogical knowledge,

high-quality clinical preparation, and meet rigorous exit requirements.

R-142
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher and principal pathways

The program would promote rigorous recruitment practices coupled with a competitive selection 

process, based on research indicating that these program components are critical to identify a 

diverse pool of teacher candidates who are likely to have a positive impact on their students. 

For example, grantees could raise admission standards to ensure that participants were in the 

top third of the distribution of all aspiring applicants, accounting for academic measures (such 

as GPA) or non-academic measures (such as leadership skills). Grantees could also improve 

the quality of the program’s training in ways such as incorporating significant practical 

experience in the classroom. 

Other key goals of the program would include preparing teachers to teach to high standards that 

will prepare students for college and careers and to meet the needs of high-need schools and 

areas (including rural areas), hard-to-staff fields and subjects (such as science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM)), or high-need students (such as English learners and 

students with disabilities). Programs preparing teachers under both “traditional” and 

“alternative” routes to State certification or licensure would be eligible for funding. The 

Administration may give priority to applicants focused on improving the preparation of STEM 

teachers, consistent with the program's emphasis on preparing more teachers for high-need 

fields and subjects and the President’s goal of developing 100,000 new effective and highly 

effective STEM teachers while also building evidence on the characteristics and requirements of 

high quality STEM teacher preparation programs.

Principal Pathways

Principal Pathways would fund competitive grants to principal preparation programs operated by 

IHEs and nonprofit organizations, in partnership with high-need LEAs, to support the creation 

or expansion of high quality pathways that prepare participants to be effective principals in 

high-need schools. The Principal Pathways program would build on current Department efforts 

under the reauthorized School Leader Recruitment and Support program, the successor to the 

School Leadership program, which includes a focus on in-service professional development.

Similar to the Teacher Pathways program, the Principal Pathways program would promote 

rigorous recruitment and competitive selection of principal candidates, including innovative ways 

to recruit candidates with experience as an effective teacher, and to identify those with the 

strongest potential to be effective school leaders in high-need schools. Projects would provide 

instruction, practice, and feedback aimed at helping aspiring principals to master essential 

school leadership skills, such as evaluating and providing feedback to teachers, using student 

data to inform decisions, developing school leadership teams, strengthening the capacity of 

school staff through distributive leadership models, and creating a supportive school 

environment with a culture of high expectations. The program would also support projects that 

deepen aspiring principals’ understanding of college- and career-ready standards and effective 

instruction aligned to those standards.

R-143
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher and principal pathways

Projects would also include activities aimed at improving the effectiveness of principals’

managers, such as by providing coaching or support for district superintendents, based on 

research showing that district-level staff can play an important role in helping develop and retain 

strong principals.1

Principal Pathways applicants would need to demonstrate formal partnerships with high-need 

LEAs or strong historical demand for program graduates from LEA hiring authorities. 

Successful applicants would commit to using evidence-based approaches to training effective 

new principals, especially those who are prepared to lead high-need schools, and to conducting 

rigorous evaluations of innovative strategies to help build the evidence base about what works 

to train effective principals.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $125.0 million for the Teacher and Principal Pathways in fiscal year 

2017: $90.0 million for the Teacher Pathways program and $35.0 million for the Principal 

Pathways program, an overall increase of $81.9 million above the fiscal year 2016 level for the 

TQP program. Not less than 5 percent of the program funds would be awarded to HBCUs and 

MSIs.

Great teachers and principals matter enormously to the learning and the lives of children. Every 

parent knows it, and study after study proves it. However, research has made it clear that too 

many teacher and principal preparation programs today are not equipping educators with the 

skills they need to be successful. The Teacher and Principal Pathways programs would support 

evidence-based investments in the recruitment, competitive selection, preparation, placement 

and retention of new teachers and principals to meet the specific needs of low-performing 

schools and high-need LEAs. By supporting effective approaches to identifying, training, 

placing, and supporting teachers and principals, the Administration believes we can make a 

meaningful impact on the overall quality of the teaching and learning happening every day in 

America’s schools.

Teacher Pathways

Teaching is one of the most important and challenging careers. Increasingly, research indicates 

that of all the school-related factors that impact student academic performance, great teachers 

matter most.2

 Yet new research shows that many teacher preparation programs offer inflated 

grades and too little rigorous training.3

 Far too many teachers report they are unprepared when 

they first enter the classroom after completing their teacher preparation program. New teachers 

are entering the profession as schools are beginning to implement rigorous academic standards 

that are designed to improve student outcomes. Furthermore, our schools face an imbalance of 

1 Béteille, Tara, et al., “Stepping Stones: Principal Career Paths and School Outcomes,” CALDER Working 

Paper No. 58 (2011); Mitgang, Lee, “Districts Matter: Cultivating the Principals Urban Schools Need,” Wallace

Foundation (2013). 2 RAND Corp., “Teachers matter: Understanding teachers' impact on student achievement” (2012). 3 National Council on Teacher Quality, “Training Our Teachers: Easy A’s and What’s Behind Them” (2014).

R-144
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher and principal pathways

supply and demand; far too many candidates are certified in fields with limited job availability, 

such as elementary education, while there are shortages of teachers in high need grade spans 

and subjects.

These current weaknesses in teacher preparation have been shown to harm students of new 

teachers with weak preparation backgrounds. One study found that the difference in student 

learning outcomes in mathematics between the top-performing teacher preparation program 

and the lowest-performing program can be greater than the effect of poverty.1

To help address these challenges, the Administration has proposed regulations designed to 

strengthen teacher preparation programs. These proposed regulations call for States to 

measure the performance of teacher preparation programs through outputs, ensure that their 

graduates are prepared to work and stay in our most challenging schools, identify and reward 

the top performing programs, and facilitate continuous improvement in all programs.

States and communities are developing promising, innovative approaches to preparation 

focused on equipping teachers with strong content knowledge coupled with robust practical

experience. For example, the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, in 

partnership with New York State, middle and high schools, and the Center for Education Policy, 

Applied Research, and Evaluation at the University of Southern Maine, received a Teacher 

Quality Partnership (TQP) grant to refine, expand, and institutionalize its pilot residency 

program that grants Master of Arts in Teaching degrees with a Specialization in Earth Science 

for grades 7–12. The project integrates theory with practice and is specifically focused on 

high-need, urban schools with diverse student populations, including English learners and 

students with special needs.

The Department is also beginning a study to determine the feasibility and design of a 

large-scale impact evaluation of teacher preparation and professional development.2

 This work 

will identify high-leverage aspects of teacher preparation, support a rigorous impact evaluation,

and collect information from potential providers and study participants to inform study options. 

Finally, the Department has worked closely with States through the Excellent Educators for All 

Initiative to help ensure that all students have access to great teachers and leaders and meet

the need to attract and retain great teachers in high-need schools. Under this initiative, all 

50 States developed and submitted State Plans to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent 

Educators (State Plans) to the Department. These State Plans identify the most critical gaps in 

the rates at which students from low-income families and students of color are taught by 

inexperienced, unqualified, and out-of-field teachers and outline the strategies that States will 

implement to eliminate these gaps. The new Teacher Pathways program would be an important 

tool for States and districts as they implement their strategies to address the significant need for 

better, more responsive teacher preparation.

1 Goldhaber, Dan, et al., “The Gateway to the Profession: Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs Based on 

Student Achievement,” Economics of Education Review (2013). 2 “Feasibility and Design of an Impact Evaluation of Teacher Preparation and Professional 

Development,” http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_feasibility.asp.

R-145
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher and principal pathways

Principal Pathways

Effective principals are crucial to strengthening teaching and school communities. Second only 

to classroom instruction, school leadership is the most important school-based variable affecting 

student achievement.1

 Emerging research shows that effective leaders play a critical role in 

students’ academic success, especially in high-need schools, by creating cultures of high 

expectations and by recruiting and retaining highly effective teachers.2

 A school leader directly 

impacts the quality of instruction through hiring decisions of instructional staff and decisions 

about professional development activities.3

 Effective principals also provide instructional 

leadership in addition to carrying out administrative responsibilities.4

 Teachers cite a principal’s 

support and effectiveness as a leading factor that contributes to their decisions to remain in the 

profession.5

 Highly effective school leaders make teachers feel valued and allow them to focus 

on student learning, inducing them to stay in the classroom.6

 Effective leaders also create a 

vision of academic success for all children in their schools and encourage other educators to 

take on leadership roles and responsibilities.

The Department has begun to help build evidence around what successful principal preparation 

looks like. For example, the 2013 School Leadership competition encouraged applicants to 

address the challenges of preparing and supporting principals through projects that would help 

expand the evidence base for high quality principal preparation, professional development for 

principals, or both. In addition, the Department launched the Turnaround School Leaders 

Program (TSLP) in fiscal year 2014 using national activities funds under the School 

Improvement Grants (SIG) program. Although no longer authorized under the ESEA, the TSLP 

provided grants to LEAs to help ensure that leaders of schools eligible for or receiving SIG 

funds possess the specialized skills needed to drive successful efforts to turn those schools 

around. Finally, the Department has begun an evaluation of the impact of support for principals 

on teacher retention, effectiveness of instructional staff, and student academic achievement.7

Greater investment is needed specifically for stronger recruitment, competitive selection, 

preparation, and placement of leaders for the critical role of principal, especially for high-need 

schools. In particular, high-poverty schools are more likely to be led by principals who are 

weaker on various quality measures (including leadership ratings from staff and years of 

1 Leithwood, Kenneth, et al., “How Leadership Influences Student Learning” (2004).

2 Loeb, Susanna, et al., “Effective Schools: Teacher Hiring, Assignment, Development, and Retention,” Journal 

of Education Finance and Policy (2012). 3 Papa, Frank, et al., “Hiring Teachers in New York’s Public Schools: Can the Principal Make a Difference?” 

(2003). 4 Wallace Foundation, “The School Principal as Leader: Guiding Schools to Better Teaching and Learning” 

(2013). 5 Futernick, Ken, “A Possible Dream: Retaining California Teachers So All Students Can Learn,” California State 

University (2007). 6 Ikemoto, Gina, et al., New Leaders, “Playmakers: How great principals build and lead great teams of teachers” 

(2012). 7 “Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals,” http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_principals.asp

R-146
HIGHER EDUCATION

experience) than those in lower poverty schools.1

 Strong principals are essential to the

improvement of low-performing schools and are vital for schools to retain their strongest

teachers.2

 Further, many candidates who enter existing leadership training programs never use 

their credentials to become a principal or obtain other administrative positions.

National Leadership Activities

The Department would reserve up to 5 percent of the TPP request for national leadership 

activities, including technical assistance to States to strengthen teacher preparation reporting 

and accountability; align preparation program policies and processes such as approval, 

monitoring, and support processes; integrate preparation and placement strategies with 

approaches to ongoing support, retention and advancement; and capacity-building assistance 

so that States can help struggling preparation programs improve. A portion of the national 

leadership activities set-aside would also be used to support the development of teacher and 

principal survey tools, aligned with new requirements under the Department’s proposed Title II 

regulations, that States could use to gather feedback about teacher preparation programs from 

graduates and their employers; results would help inform the development of more meaningful 

teacher preparation accountability systems. The Department would reserve an additional 

0.5 percent for evaluation.

The Teacher Pathways and Principal Pathways programs would replace the current TQP

program. This proposed change is consistent with a longstanding principle of the 

Administration’s policy to replace small, narrowly targeted, categorical programs with broader, 

more flexible authorities that better meet local needs. The purpose of the TQP program would 

be realized more effectively through the new Teacher and Principal Pathways programs. 

Continuation costs for the TQP program in fiscal year 2017 would be funded from the 

appropriation for the Teacher and Principal Pathways programs.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017

Teacher Pathways (TP)

Funding for new awards $55,880

Number of new awards 20

Average new award $2,794

1 Clotfelter, Charles, et al., “High-Poverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers and Principals,” National 

Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) Working Paper No. 1 (2007); Horng, 

Eileen, et al., “Principal Preferences and the Unequal Distribution of Principals Across Schools,” CALDER Working 

Paper No. 36 (2009). 2 Schleicher, Andreas (Ed.), “Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st Century: Lessons 

from around the World,” OECD (2012).

R-147
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher and principal pathways

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017

Teacher Pathways (cont’d) (TP)

TP Peer review of new award applications $150

National leadership activities $4,500

Evaluation $225

Principal Pathways (PP)

Funding for new awards $32,975

Number of new awards 15

Average new award $2,198

PP Peer review of new award applications $100

National leadership activities $1,750

Evaluation $175

Continuation costs for Teacher Quality Partnership $29,245

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

Teacher and Principal Pathways programs. Grantees would report on the placement, retention, 

and effectiveness of program participants and on the results of new teacher and employer 

surveys consistent with the Administration’s proposed regulations to strengthen teacher 

preparation. Grantees would also report on efficiency measures about program costs.

R-148
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$43,092 0 -$43,092

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

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).

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, 

R-149
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

among other things, implementing curriculum changes that improve and assess how well 

prospective teachers develop teaching skills; using teaching and learning research so that 

teachers implement research-based instructional practices and use data to improve classroom 

instruction; developing a high-quality and sustained preservice clinical education program that 

includes high-quality mentoring or coaching; creating a high-quality induction program for new 

teachers; implementing initiatives that increase compensation for qualified early childhood 

educators who attain 2-year and 4-year degrees; developing and implementing high-quality 

professional development for teachers in partner high-need LEAs; developing effective 

mechanisms, which may include alternative routes to certification, to recruit qualified individuals 

into the teaching profession; and strengthening literacy instruction skills of prospective and new 

elementary and secondary school teachers.

Teaching Residency program — Grants are provided to develop and implement teacher 

residency programs that are based on models of successful teaching residencies and that serve 

as a mechanism to prepare teachers for success in high-need schools and academic subjects. 

Grant funds must be used to support programs that provide rigorous graduate-level course work 

to earn a master’s degree while undertaking a guided teaching apprenticeship; learning 

opportunities alongside a trained and experienced mentor teacher; and clear criteria for 

selecting mentor teachers based on measures of teacher effectiveness. Programs must place 

graduates in targeted schools as a cohort in order to facilitate professional collaboration. 

Programs must also provide a 1-year living stipend or salary to members of the cohort, which 

must be repaid by any recipient who fails to teach full time at least 3 years in a high-need school 

and subject or area.

School Leadership program — Grants are provided to develop and implement effective school 

leadership programs to prepare individuals for careers as superintendents, principals, early 

childhood education program directors, or other school leaders. Such programs must promote

strong leadership skills and techniques so that school leaders are able to:

• Create a school climate conducive to professional development for teachers;

• Understand the teaching and assessment skills needed to support successful classroom 

instruction; 

• Use data to evaluate teacher instruction and drive teacher and student learning; 

• Manage resources and time to improve academic achievement; 

• Engage and involve parents and other community stakeholders; and 

• Understand how students learn and develop in order to increase academic achievement. 

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 

R-150
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

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. 

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)

2012.............................................................. ................$42,833

2013.............................................................. ..................40,592

2014.............................................................. ..................40,592

2015.............................................................. ..................40,592

2016.............................................................. ..................43,092

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2017 budget request includes no funding for the Teacher 

Quality Partnership (TQP) program. The Administration instead requests funding for the 

proposed broader, more flexible Teacher and Principal Pathways program. This request is 

consistent with a longstanding principle of the Administration’s budget and legislative policy, 

which is to replace small, narrowly targeted, categorical programs into broader, more flexible 

authorities that better meet locally determined needs. Promoting a variety of high quality 

pathways is an essential mechanism for preparing new teachers and principals to serve 

high-need schools and addressing inequities in access to effective and highly effective 

educators. The new Teacher and Principal Pathways program would fund competitive grants to 

teacher and principal preparation programs operated by institutions of higher education (IHEs) 

and nonprofit organizations to support the creation or expansion of high quality pathways into 

the teaching profession and school leadership, including alternative routes to certification. 

These pathways would emphasize partnerships with local educational agencies (LEAs) and 

increasing the number of effective and highly effective educators serving in high-need schools 

and working in high need fields and subjects. 

R-151
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

Under the Administration’s request, Teacher Quality Partnership continuation grant costs in 

fiscal year 2017 would be funded from the appropriation for the new Teacher and Principal 

Pathways programs.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2015 Footnote2016 footnote2017

Partnership Grants:

New partnership grants 0 $7,500 0

Continuations partnership grants $37,6181 34,954 2 0

Subtotal partnership grants 37,618 42,454 0

Post-project data collection grants 2,45130 0

State teacher quality accountability reports 523 538 0

Program totals:

New 2,451 7,500 0

Continuations 38,141 35,492 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 100 0

Total 40,592 43,092 0

1 The fiscal year 2015 continuation awards total includes approximately $11,521 thousand in fiscal year 2015 

funds used to support fiscal year 2016 continuation costs. 2 The fiscal year 2016 continuation awards total includes approximately $7,183 thousand in fiscal year 2016 

funds used to support fiscal year 2017 continuation costs. 3 Under 34 C.F.R. §75.250(b), the Department is authorized to award funds for a data collection period of up to 

72 months after the end of the project period. In fiscal year 2015, the Department made awards to fiscal year 2010 

grantees under this program to support ongoing data collection on prior program graduates.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets. Achievement of program results is 

based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

In 2008, the program was reauthorized and extensively revised as part of the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act. The Department concluded that the performance measures that had been 

developed for the antecedent program were no longer appropriate. As a result, the Department 

developed new measures for the program. Data for the new measures was originally expected 

to be available in fall 2015 at the earliest. Due to data quality concerns, the Department now 

expects data for these measures not to be available until summer 2016. For the interim period, 

R-152
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

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

2015

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 

covering years 4 and 5, respectively of the project periods. Grantee performance in the fiscal 

year 2010 cohort for pre-baccalaureate projects was markedly higher than those for the fiscal 

year 2009 cohort – a 92 percent retention rate compared to a 70 percent retention rate. The 

Department is currently investigating the causes of this variation, but continues to believe that 

success among residency projects and the FY 2010 cohort of pre-baccalaureate projects 

signals quality performance overall among grantees. Data for 2014 is expected in 

summer 2016.

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.

R-153
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

Interim Measure: The percentage of beginning teachers who are retained in teaching in the 

partner high-need LEA or early childhood education (ECE) program 1 year after initial 

employment.

Year

Pre-Baccalaureate

Target

Pre-Baccalaureate

Actual

Residency

Target

Residency

Actual

2013 Baseline 90% Baseline 91%

2014

2015

2016

2017

Additional information: Data for this measure for residency projects reflects data for the 

fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 cohorts of grantees, but only the fiscal year 2009 cohort 

of pre-baccalaureate projects. Data are not yet available from the fiscal year 2010 

pre-baccalaureate projects for inclusion in this measure. Performance on this measure is 

comparable with the retention rates for beginning teachers overall. The Department is 

continuing to collect data on this measure and will continue to work with grantees to ensure that 

beginning teachers have the academic content knowledge and teaching skills to be successful 

in the classroom and be retained in the LEA. Data for 2014 is expected in summer 2016. 

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. 

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 

Due to the nature of the TQP program, there is a particularly marked lag in data availability on 

this measure. Graduates of pre-baccalaureate programs would not begin qualifying for 

inclusion in the denominator until year 4 of the project, at the earliest, assuming that they 

graduated in year 1. Thus, in a normal reporting cycle and project period, pre-baccalaureate 

projects would be unable to report on any graduates who completed their preparation programs 

in years 3, 4, or 5 of the project. For residency programs, teachers who are residents in year 1 

would not be eligible for inclusion into the denominator until year 3, and projects would typically 

be unable to report on year 4 and year 5 residents. As such, the Department expects results on 

this measure to be higher than the actual Federal cost due to the constraints of the reporting 

periods. For data on the 2013 program year, data are only currently available for a subset of 

fiscal year 2009 grantees (7 of 16 pre-baccalaureate grantees and 8 of 19 residency grantees). 

Additionally, due to the reasons cited above, interim results - $113,445 for pre-baccalaureate 

grantees and $376,007 for residency grantees – are higher than the Department expects will be 

the final estimate. The Department believes that, as more graduates qualify for inclusion in the 

denominator, these figures will decrease. Additionally, because graduates (particularly those in 

the pre-baccalaureate program) have no requirement to teach in the partner high-need LEA, 

these cost estimates do not accurately reflect the Federal cost per teacher, but only the Federal 

cost per retained teacher in the high-need LEA. The Department expects additional and more 

complete data for 2013 and 2014 in summer 2016.

R-154
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

Other Performance Information

In 2010, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) awarded a contract for an evaluation of the 

teacher residency projects supported through the TQP program to Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. Although the evaluation was originally intended to be an impact study that would 

examine whether having a teacher residency program graduate as a teacher had an effect on 

student achievement, IES determined that an experimental research design was not feasible. 

Instead, the evaluation was restructured as an implementation study.

In spring 2011, the evaluator surveyed all 28 TQP teacher residency projects in order to collect 

descriptive information on the characteristics and implementation of the projects. In order to 

limit the administrative burden on schools and districts, for a subset of projects, the evaluator 

conducted interviews with project directors and surveyed teacher residents and their mentors in 

spring 2011. In spring 2012, the evaluator began conducting additional surveys of the teachers 

of record, collecting student administrative data and teacher employment verification data, and 

conducting a survey on teacher mobility. 

The implementation study addressed the following research questions:

• How do teachers who complete teacher residency projects compare to other novice 

teachers and to all teachers in their district?

• What is the retention rate of the residency project teachers compared to their novice 

colleagues who weren’t prepared through a teacher residency project?

• What are the characteristics of the teacher residency projects (e.g., length of overall 

program, nature of required coursework and apprenticeship activities, characteristics of their 

assigned mentor teacher, criteria for selecting program participants)?

• What are the characteristics of the teacher applicants and participants in the teacher 

residency projects?

The study (http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20154002) determined that 

TQP projects provided residents with an average of 450 hours of coursework (the equivalent of 

10 college courses) focusing on content, pedagogy, classroom management, and student 

assessment. Sixty eight percent of residents reported spending 4 or 5 full days per week in 

their mentor’s classroom during the first half of their residency, during which time residents 

averaged 21 days fully in charge of instruction. During the second semester, 78 percent of 

residents reported spending 4 or 5 days in their mentor’s classroom. During that same 

semester, residents averaged 37 days fully in charge of instruction. Eighty three percent of 

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 

R-155
HIGHER EDUCATION

Teacher quality partnership

demographically similar to non-residency teachers. Residency teachers also had similar 

retention rates as non-residency teachers in the same district from spring 2012 to fall 2012 

(92 percent versus 90 percent).

The study also found that mentors had significant prior teaching experience (10 years, on 

average) and significant prior mentoring experience (3.5 semesters, on average). Mentors also 

received extensive training – averaging 37 hours – from residency programs prior to beginning 

their role as mentors.

A follow-up to this study, covering teacher retention for this cohort using data collected in 

fall 2013, is expected by fall 2015.

R-156
HIGHER EDUCATION

America’s college pr omise

America’s college promise

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined

2016 2017 Change

0 $1,257,334 +$1,257,334

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Nearly a century ago, a movement that made high school widely available helped lead to rapid 

growth in the education and skills training of Americans, driving decades of economic growth 

and prosperity. America thrived in the 20th century, in large part, because we had the most 

educated workforce in the world. But other nations have matched or exceeded our success. 

Today, more than ever, Americans need the knowledge and skills to meet the demands of a 

growing global economy without having to take on decades of debt before they even embark on 

a career. By 2020, an estimated 65 percent of job openings will require postsecondary 

education or training, and the number of jobs requiring some level of higher education is 

expected to grow more rapidly in the next decade than those that do not. Meanwhile, 

approximately 100 million adults in America today have had no postsecondary education.

America’s College Promise is a proposed mandatory grant program for States to make 

community colleges free for responsible students, enabling them to earn an associate’s degree

or certificate, or up to 2 years’ worth of credits toward a bachelor’s degree, at no cost. This 

proposal would create a new partnership with States to help them waive tuition in high-quality 

programs for these students, while promoting key reforms to help more students complete at 

least 2 years of college and help meet the demands of a growing global economy.

Reflecting America’s higher education model of shared responsibility, America’s College 

Promise will require everyone to do their part: 1) States must invest more in high-performing 

higher education and training; 2) community colleges must strengthen their programs and 

supports for students to increase the number of students who graduate; and 3) students must 

take responsibility for their education through earning good grades and staying on track to 

graduate. Specifically, America’s College Promise will require the following:

• Ensuring Shared Responsibility with States: Federal funding will cover about three-quarters 

of the average cost of community college. Allocation of the Federal portion will be based, in 

part, on a formula that includes both student enrollment and outcomes such as program 

completion or transfer to 4-year institutions. States that choose to participate will be 

expected to contribute any remaining funds necessary to eliminate community college tuition

for eligible students. States that already invest more and charge students less can make 

smaller contributions, though all participating States will be required to put up some 

matching funds. States must also commit to continue existing investments in higher

R-157
HIGHER EDUCATION

America’s college promise

education; better align high schools, community colleges, and 4-year institutions to reduce

the need for remediation and repeated courses; and allocate a significant portion of funding

based on performance, not enrollment alone. Low-cost States (States whose current 

funding levels plus America’s College Promise funding exceed tuition and fees at community 

colleges) that provide tuition-free community college and have funds left over can spend the 

remaining funds on expanding quality community college offerings, improving affordability at

4-year public universities, and improving college readiness, through outreach and early 

intervention. The implementation of this grant program by States will occur gradually, as 

participation phases in, with the expectation that all States will have such programs in place 

within 8 years.

• Building High Quality Community Colleges: Community colleges will be expected to offer 

programs that are either: academic programs that fully transfer to public 4-year colleges 

and universities, giving students a chance to earn half of the credit they need for a 4-year 

degree; or, occupational training programs with high graduation rates and lead to degrees 

and certificates that are in demand among employers. Other types of programs will not be 

eligible for free tuition. Colleges must also adopt promising and evidence-based institutional 

reforms and innovative practices to improve student outcomes.

• Enhancing Student Responsibility and Cutting the Cost of College for All Americans: 

Students who attend at least half-time, maintain a 2.5 grade point average while in college, 

and make steady progress toward completing their program, will have their tuition 

eliminated. The program eliminates tuition and fees for all eligible students for a maximum 

of 3 years. Students with an adjusted gross income of $200,000 and above would not be 

eligible.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) 

play a unique role in creating and advancing educational opportunities for many of our nation’s 

first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students. Their role is essential to building 

our Nation’s economy and strengthening the American middle class. America’s College 

Promise will also provide grants to 4-year HBCUs and MSIs to provide more low-income new or 

transfer students with up to 2 years at a 4-year college at free or at significantly reduced tuition. 

This investment will encourage more students to successfully complete a bachelor’s degree by 

enrolling as new students (direct pathways) or transferring from community college (transfer 

pathways). 

To be eligible to participate, HBCUs and MSIs would also need to serve a significant share of 

low-income students (at least 35 percent share of enrollment), implement promising evidencebased reforms and innovative practices to improve student outcomes. This includes improving 

completion rates and having guaranteed transfer and admission articulation agreements with 

community colleges. Students who meet the criteria above would be eligible to have their tuition 

waived or significantly reduced.

R-158
HIGHER EDUCATION

America’s college promise

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration requests $1.3 billion in mandatory budget authority to 

support America’s College Promise. The proposal would cost $60.8 billion in mandatory outlays 

over 10 years. Funds provided under this program would be used to:

• Eliminate community college tuition and fees for eligible first-time students, regardless of 

age or whether they are recent high school graduates. Accordingly, low- and moderateincome students would continue to be eligible for Federal student aid (including Pell Grants) 

that they can use to cover other costs of attending college, such as books, supplies, 

housing, and transportation. America’s College Promise funds would be awarded before 

other student aid and scholarship programs. America’s College Promise fund would be a 

tuition waiver program funded by new Federal and State resources. States’ performance 

funding formulas must meet minimum criteria set by the Department that will work to ensure 

no funding gaps between different types of public institutions are developed so that all 

students have a chance to succeed.

• Award grants to 4-year HBCUs and other MSIs to waive or reduce tuition and fees for up to 

60 credits for Pell-eligible students. The grant amount would be based on a per-student 

cost of tuition and fees, capped by the national average of tuition and fees at public 4-year 

institutions, multiplied by the number of eligible students enrolled. The amount per student 

may not increase by more than 3 percent annually, while tuition and fees during the first 

year of the grant may not increase at a rate greater than any annual increase at the eligible 

institution in the previous 5 years.

R-159
HIGHER EDUCATION

College opportunity and graduation bonus

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined

2016 2017 Change

0 $547,787 +$548,787

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Despite historic investments to provide college access to millions of additional low-income 

students, low-income youth are still eight times less likely than their high-income peers to obtain 

a bachelor’s degree by the age of 24. While half of all people from high-income families have a 

bachelor’s degree by age 24, just one in ten people from low-income families do. While the Pell 

Grant program has significantly improved access in higher education for students from lowerincome families, Pell Grant recipients still face many challenges in terms of degree completion. 

Among new students seeking a bachelor’s degree, the graduation rate for Pell Grant recipients 

is 50 percent versus the national average of 60 percent. However, several institutions have 

made significant progress in closing these gaps by implementing effective practices and key 

reforms, which highlights the important role that colleges and universities play in the success of 

Pell Grant recipients in postsecondary education. As part of our ongoing efforts to improve 

college completion rates, it is critical to identify institutions with a record of postsecondary 

access and success, and support their efforts. 

The College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus program would reward colleges that 

successfully enroll and graduate a significant number of Pell students on time and encourage all 

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

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

based upon the number of Pell Grant recipients they graduate on time. Annual grants would be 

equal to the institutions’ number of on-time Pell Grant recipient-graduates multiplied by a tiered 

bonus amount per student.

In addition, this new program would encourage institutions to continue improving their 

performance and graduate even more low-income students by providing a significantly larger 

bonus amount for additional Pell graduates. Institutional eligibility would be based on Pell 

students comprising a significant share of an institution’s graduating class, as well as other 

institutional performance metrics.

R-160
HIGHER EDUCATION

College opportunity and graduation bonus

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $548 million in fiscal year 2017 mandatory budget authority, an 

investment of $5.7 billion in mandatory outlays over the next decade, to support the College 

Opportunity and Graduation Bonus program. The grants made through this program would be 

used for making key investments and adopting best practices that will further increase college 

access and success for low-income students, which may include such reforms as: 

• Partnering with school districts and schools to provide college recruitment, student-based 

incentive payments, awareness, and preparation activities to enable students to enter and 

complete postsecondary education. 

• Reforming institutional need-based aid policies and awarding additional need-based 

financial aid to enhance educational opportunities for low-income students and provide 

incentives for on-time completion.

• Providing comprehensive student support services, both academic and non-academic, 

including mentoring and advising. 

• Reducing the need for, and improving the success of, remedial education. 

• Implementing evidence-based course redesigns of high-enrollment courses to improve 

student outcomes and reduce costs. 

• Using technology to scale and enhance improvements.

• Establishing or expanding accelerated learning opportunities, such as dual or concurrent 

enrollment programs.

Funds awarded will supplement and not supplant existing institutional expenditures.

R-161