Department of Education

HIGHER EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

Summary of Changes ..................................................................................................................T-7

Authorizing Legislation...............................................................................................................T-10

Appropriations History................................................................................................................T-16

Significant Items in FY 2014 Appropriations Reports..................................................................T-17

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

Activities:

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

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions......................................................................................T-65

Other aid for institutions:

International education and foreign language studies:

Domestic programs ..............................................................................................................T-75

Overseas programs..............................................................................................................T-90

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education .......................................................T-95

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education...T-101

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions.....................................T-105

Special programs for migrant students ...............................................................................T-111

Assistance for students:

Federal TRIO programs......................................................................................................T-118

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs ................................T-132

Graduate assistance in areas of national need.............................................................T-140

Child care access means parents in school........................................................................T-148

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation .................................................................................T-154

State higher education performance fund...........................................................................T-158

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

T-1

Appropriations Language

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

the Higher Education Act of 1965 (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, 

[$1,925,408,000]$2,060,080,000: Provided, That [$575,000] $52,000,000 shall be used for data 

collection [and], evaluation, research, and demonstration activities [for] relating to programs

under the HEA, including [such] activities [needed to comply with the Government Performance

and Results Act of 1993] that are designed to test approaches for providing grant, loan, or work 

assistance under title IV of the HEA in ways that promote access to, and completion of, 

affordable and high quality postsecondary education programs:

1 Provided further, That 

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:2 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:

3 Provided 

further, That, nothwithstanding any other provision of law, funds made available for title VI of the 

HEA may be used for awards to support cross-border collaborations between consortia of U.S. 

institutions of higher education and Southeast Asian or Sub-Saharan African institutions of 

higher education, or with both, for mutually beneficial educational partnerships and the 

exchange of students:4 [Provided further, That, of the amount available under subpart 2 of part 

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

projects originally supported under subpart 1 of part A of title VII of the HEA:]5 Provided further,
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-2

That up to 1.5 percent of the funds made available under chapter 2 of subpart 2 of part A of 

title IV of the HEA may be used for evaluation:6 Provided further, That up to $75,000,000 of the 

funds made available under this Act for part B of title VII of the HEA may be used for awards to 

institutions described in sections 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 322, and 502 of the HEA to undertake 

reforms and pursue innovations to improve the performance of those institutions in enrolling and 

graduating low-income students.7 (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2014.)

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 appropriation language.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-3

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 Provided, That [$575,000] $52,000,000 shall 

be used for data collection [and], evaluation, 

research, and demonstration activities [for] 

relating to programs under the HEA, including

[such] activities [needed to comply with the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993] that are designed to test approaches 

for providing grant, loan, or work assistance 

under title IV of the HEA in ways that promote 

access to, and completion of, affordable and 

high quality postsecondary education 

programs:

This language authorizes and provides funds 

for data collection, evaluation, research, and 

demonstration activities for programs 

authorized under the higher education act 

that do not have funds available for such 

activities, or where funding is insufficient, as 

well as for activities that are designed to test 

approaches for providing grant, loan, or work 

assistance under title IV of the Higher 

Education Act (HEA) in ways that promote 

access to, and completion of, affordable and 

high-quality postsecondary education 

programs.

2 Provided further, That notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, funds made available 

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

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

and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 may be 

used to support visits and study in foreign 

countries by individuals who are participating

in advanced foreign language training and 

international studies in areas that are vital to 

United States national security and who plan 

to apply their language skills and knowledge 

of these countries in the fields of government, 

the professions, or international development:

This language permits International Education 

programs authorized under title VI of the Higher 

Education Act (HEA) and the Mutual 

Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 

(MECEA) to use funds for visits and study in 

foreign countries by individuals (in addition to 

teachers and prospective teachers) who plan to 

apply their language skills and knowledge in 

world areas that are vital to United States 

national security in the fields of government, the 

professions, or international development.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-4

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

3 Provided further, That of the funds referred 

to in the preceding proviso up to 1 percent 

may be used for program evaluation, national 

outreach, and information dissemination 

activities: 

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.

4 Provided further, That, nothwithstanding any 

other provision of law, funds made available 

for title VI of the HEA may be used for awards 

to support cross-border collaborations 

between consortia of U.S. institutions of 

higher education and Southeast Asian or 

Sub-Saharan African institutions of higher 

education, or with both, for mutually beneficial 

educational partnerships and the exchange of 

students:

This language permits the Department to 

award grants to support institutional mobility 

grants in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan 

Africa. The budget request will provide 

assistance to institutions (or consortia of 

institutions) in the United States to support 

cross-border institutional collaborations with 

institutions in at least two participating 

countries in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan 

Africa.

5 [Provided further, That, of the amount 

available under subpart 2 of part A of title VII 

of the HEA, the Secretary may use up to

$1,485,000 to fund continuation awards for 

projects originally supported under subpart 1 

of part A of title VII of the HEA:]

This language permits the Department to use 

funds awarded under the Graduate 

Assistance in Areas of National Need in 2014 

to fund continuation awards in the Javits 

Fellowships program. The language is 

deleted because it is no longer needed.

6 Provided further, That up to 1.5 percent of 

the funds made available under chapter 2 of 

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

be used for evaluation:

This language permits the Department to use 

up to 1.5 percent of the funds appropriated 

for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness 

for Undergraduate Programs for evaluation. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-5

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

7Provided further, That up to $75,000,000 of 

the funds made available under this Act for 

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

awards to institutions described in sections 

316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 322, and 502 of the 

HEA to undertake reforms and pursue 

innovations to improve the performance of 

those institutions in enrolling and graduating 

low-income students.

This language provides funds provided for the 

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary 

Education are available to support college 

success grants for institutions eligible to apply 

for grants under title III, part A and title V of 

the HEA to undertake reforms and pursue 

innovations to improve the performance of 

those institutions in enrolling and graduating 

low-income students. This language also

provides funds to support a program to reward 

colleges that successfully enroll and graduate a 

significant number of low- and moderateincome students on time and encourage all 

institutions to improve their performance.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-6

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2013 2014 2015

Discretionary:

Disc apprAppropriation................................................................. $1,869,656 $1,925,408 $2,060,080

Disc apprAcross-the-board reduction (P.L. 113-6)...................... -3,739 0 0

Disc apprTotal, discretionary appropriation........................... 1,865,917 1,925,408 2,060,080

Disc apprSequester (P.L. 112-25) ............................................... -94,055 0 0

Total, adjusted discretionary appropriation............ 1,771,862 1,925,408 2,060,080

Comparative transfers to:

Innovation and Instructional Teams for

Teacher Quality Partnership......................................... -40,592 -40,592 0

Comparative transfer from:

Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring

Equity for: Special Programs for Migrant

Students........................................................................ 34,623 34,623 0

Total, comparable discretionary appropriation....... 1,765,893 1,919,439 2,060,080

Mandatory: 

Mand apprAppropriation ................................................................ 428,000 428,000 4,902,000

Mand apprSequester (P.L. 112-25) ............................................... -21,828 -30,816 0

Total, adjusted mandatory appropriation ............... 406,172 397,184 4,902,000

Total, comparable discretionary and

mandatory appropriation ..................................... 2,172,065 2,316,623 6,962,080
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-7

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2014 Discretionary .................................................................... $1,919,439

2014 Mandatory ........................................................................ 397,184

2015 Discretionary .................................................................... 2,060,080

2015 Mandatory ........................................................................ 4,902,000

Net change................................................................................ +4,645,457

Discretionary:

Increases: 2014 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Program Increase funding for International Education and Foreign 

Language Studies Domestic Programs to support 

programs that strengthen the American education system 

in the area of foreign languages and international studies. $65,103 +$4,000

Program Increase funding for the Fund for the Improvement of 

Postsecondary Education to support the First in the World 

initiative, which would provide awards to institutions to 

implement innovative strategies and practices shown to be 

effective in improving college completion and making 

college more affordable for students and families. Funds 

would also support a new College Success Grants to 

Minority-Serving Institutions initiative to support these 

institutions in developing sustainable strategies, 

processes, and tools to reduce costs and improve student 

outcomes. 79,400 +95,600

Program Increase funding for GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation 

to support data collection, evaluation, research, and 

demonstration activities for programs authorized under the 

Higher Education Act (HEA) that do not have funds 

available for such activities, or where funding is 

insufficient, as well as for activities that are designed to 

test approaches for providing grant, loan, or work 

assistance under title IV of the HEA in ways that promote 

access to, and completion of, affordable and high-quality 

postsecondary education programs. 575 +51,425

Subtotal, discretionary increases +151,025
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-8

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

Mandatory:

Increases: Change

Program: 2014 base from base

Program Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities program to return 

funding to the fiscal year 2015 authorized level. $27,840 +$2,160

Program Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Alaska 

Native and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions program to 

return funding to the fiscal year 2015 authorized level. 13,920 +1,080

Program Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening HBCUs 

program to return funding to the fiscal year 2015 authorized 

level. 78,880 +6,120

Program Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening 

Predominantly Black Institutions program to return funding to 

the fiscal year 2015 authorized level. 13,920 +1,080

Program Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Asian 

American- and Native American Pacific Islander-serving 

Institutions program to return funding to the fiscal year 2015 

authorized level. 4,640 +360

Program Increase funding for the mandatory Strengthening Native 

American-serving Nontribal Institutions program to return 

funding to the fiscal year 2015 authorized level. 4,640 +360

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

funding to the fiscal year 2015 authorized level. 92,800 +7,200

Program Increase to initiate a new mandatory State Higher Education 

Performance Fund competitive grant program for States to 

support, reform, and improve the performance of their public 

higher education systems. This program would call on States 

to make college more affordable and increase college access 

and success, especially for low-income. 0 +4,000,000

Program Increase to initiate a new mandatory College Opportunity and 

Graduation Bonus program to reward colleges that 

successfully enroll and graduate a significant number of

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

institutions to improve their performance. 0 +647,000

Subtotal, mandatory increases +4,665,360

Subtotal, discretionary and mandatory

 increases +4,816,385
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-9

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

Discretionary:

Decreases: Change

Program: 2014 base from base

Program Eliminate funding for Model Transition Programs for Students 

with Intellectual Disabilities into Higher Education because 

projects to improve the quality of education for disabled 

students may be funded under FIPSE. $10,384 -$10,384

Mandatory:

Decreases:

Program:

Program Eliminate funding for mandatory Master’s Degree Programs at 

HBCUs and Predominantly Black Institutions because the 

authorization for funding expires September 30, 2014. -10,672

Program Eliminate funding for mandatory Promoting Postbaccalaureate 

Opportunities for Hispanic Americans program because the 

authorization for funding expires September 30, 2014. -10,672

Program Eliminate funding for mandatory College Access Challenge 

Grant program because the authorization for funding expires 

September 30, 2014. -139,200

Subtotal, mandatory decreases -160,544

Subtotal, discretionary and mandatory 

decreases -170,928

Net change +4,645,457
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2014 

Authorized

footnote 2014 

Estimate

footnot

e 2015 

Authorized

Footnote 2015 

Request

Footnot

e

Aid for institutional development:

Strengthening institutions (HEA-III-A-311) Indefinite $79,139 Indefinite $79,139

Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and

universities (HEA-III-A-316) Indefinite 25,239 Indefinite 25,239

Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and 

Universities (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) $30,000 27,8401 $30,0001 30,0001

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving institutions (HEA-III-A-317) Indefinite 12,622 Indefinite 12,622

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving institutions (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 15,0001 13,9201 15,0001 15,0001

Strengthening historically Black colleges and 

universities (HEA-III-B-323) Indefinite 223,783 Indefinite 223,783

Strengthening historically Black colleges and 

universities (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 85,0001 78,8801 85,0001 85,0001

Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions

(HEA-III-B-326) Indefinite 57,872 Indefinite 57,872

Master’s degree programs at HBCUs and PBIs

(HEA VIII-AA-897) (mandatory) 11,5002 10,6722 0 0

Strengthening predominantly Black institutions

(HEA-III-A-318) Indefinite 9,092 75,000 9,092

Strengthening predominantly Black institutions 

(HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) 15,0001 13,9201 15,0001 15,0001

Strengthening Asian American and Native American

Pacific Islander-serving institutions (HEA-III-A-320) Indefinite 3,062 Indefinite 3,062

Strengthening Asian American and Native American 

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

(mandatory) 5,0001 4,6401 5,0001 5,0001

T-10
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2014 

Authorized

footnote 2014 

Estimate

footnot

e 2015 

Authorized

Footnote 2015 

Request

Footnot

e

Aid for institutional development:

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal 

institutions (HEA-III-A-319) Indefinite $3,062 Indefinite $3,062

Strengthening Native American-serving Nontribal 

institutions (HEA-III-F-371) (mandatory) $5,0001 4,6401 $5,0001 5,0001

Minority science and engineering improvement 

(HEA-III-E-1) Indefinite 8,971 Indefinite 8,971

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions:

Developing Hispanic-serving institutions (HEA-V-A) Indefinite 98,583 Indefinite 98,583

Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation 

programs (HEA III-F-371(b)(2)(B)) (mandatory) 100,0001 92,8001 100,0001 100,0001

Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for

Hispanic Americans (HEA-V-B-512) (discretionary) Indefinite 8,845 Indefinite 8,845

Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for

Hispanic Americans (HEA-VIII-AA-898) (mandatory) 11,5002 10,6722 0 0

Other aid for institutions:

International education and foreign language studies:

Domestic programs (HEA-VI-A and B) Indefinite 65,103 Indefinite 69,103

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

Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education 

(HEA-VII-B) Indefinite 79,400 3 Indefinite 175,0003

Model comprehensive transition and postsecondary

programs for students with intellectual disabilities into 

higher education (HEA-VII-D-2) Indefinite 10,384 Indefinite 0

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical

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

Migrant Education: Special programs for migrant

students (HEA-IV-A-5) Indefinite 34,623 Indefinite 34,623

T-11
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2014 

Authorized

footnote 2014 

Estimate

footnot

e 2015 

Authorized

Footnote 2015 

Request

Footnot

e

Assistance for students:

Federal TRIO programs (HEA-IV-A-2-1) Indefinite 838,252 Indefinite 838,252

Gaining early awareness and readiness for

undergraduate programs (HEA-IV-A-2-2) Indefinite 301,639 4Indefinite 301,639 4

Scholarships and fellowships:

Graduate assistance in areas of national need 

 (HEA-VII-A-2) Indefinite 29,293 Indefinite 29,293

Child care access means parents in school 

(HEA-IV-A-7) Indefinite 15,134 Indefinite 15,134

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation (Department of

Education Appropriations Act) $575 5 575 5$52,000552,0005

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

(mandatory) 139,200 6 139,200 6

0 60 6

State higher education performance fund (proposed 

legislation)(mandatory) 0 0 To be determined 4,000,000

College opportunity and graduation bonus (proposed 

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

Unfunded authorizations:

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

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

(discretionary) 0 0 0 0

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

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

Science and technology advanced foreign language

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

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

Loan repayment for civil legal assistance attorneys

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

T-12
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2014 

Authorized

footnote 2014 

Estimate

footnot

e 2015 

Authorized

Footnote 2015 

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations (cont’d):

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

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

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

Mathematics and science scholars program 

(HEA-VII-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

T-13
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2014 

Authorized

footnote 2014 

Estimate

footnot

e 2015 

Authorized

Footnote 2015 

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations (cont’d):

Capacity for nursing students and faculty 

(HEA-VIII-D) 0 0 0 0

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

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

Improving college enrollment by secondary schools 

(HEA-VIII-H) 0 0 0 0

Early childhood education professional development 

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

Improving science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics education with a focus on Alaska Native 

and Native Hawaiian students (HEA-VIII-J) 0 0 0 0

Pilot programs to increase college persistence and

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

Student safety and campus emergency management

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

Education disaster and emergency relief loan 

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

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

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

T-14
HIGHER EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2014 

Authorized

footnote 2014 

Estimate

footnot

e 2015 

Authorized

Footnote 2015 

Request

Footnot

e

Unfunded authorizations (cont’d):

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

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 $417,775 $382,000

Total appropriation $2,316,623 $6,962,080

Total discretionary appropriation 1,919,439 2,060,080

Portion of the discretionary request not authorized 575 52,000

Total mandatory appropriation 397,184 4,902,000

Portion of the mandatory request not authorized 0 4,647,000

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

3 Includes $1,126 thousand for Training and Job Placement of Realtime Writers. 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. 5 The program is authorized in fiscal year 2014 through appropriations language. The Administration proposes to continue funding this program in fiscal year 2015

through appropriations language. 6 Mandatory funds made available in fiscal year 2010 and each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2014. 7 The Administration proposes to fund these programs through appropriations language in fiscal year 2015.

T-15
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-16

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate to 

Congress

House 

Allowance foot

note

Senate 

Allowance

F

o

o

t

n

o

t

e

Appropriation Footno

te

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

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

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

2008 Mandatory 378,000 378,000 378,000

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

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

Recovery Act Supplemental 

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

2010 Discretionary 2,050,191 2,294,882 2,106,7494 2,255,6656

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

2011 Discretionary 2,131,493 2,177,9155 2,243,8954 1,903,944

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014 Mandatory 428,000 428,000 397,184

2015 Discretionary 2,060,080

2015 Mandatory 4,902,000

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

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

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

proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 4 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 5 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 6 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

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

Committee Action only. 8 The levels for the House and Senate allowance reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 9 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there is no Subcommittee action.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-17

Significant Items in FY 2014 Appropriations Reports

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

Managers’ The agreement includes up to $20,000,000 to be set aside for minority-serving 

Statement: institutions to improve their students’ persistence and completion rates while keeping 

costs under control. The agreement expects the Department to prioritize applications 

that target innovative strategies at low-income students. The agreement directs the 

Department to provide a briefing and submit a report detailing information on 

priorities and the proposed competition to the House and Senate Appropriations 

Committees not later than 30 days prior to announcing the competition.

Response: The Department will comply with this directive.

Federal TRIO Programs

Senate: S.R. 113-071. Many of the rural programs that were not renewed in the last round 

are located in areas of extreme poverty that would appear to be prime targets for 

Upward Bound grants. The Committee directs the Department to provide an analysis 

within 60 days of enactment of this act of how selection criteria and outcomes 

changed in the past Upward Bound grant cycle, to determine whether applicants 

from rural areas were put at a disadvantage compared to other applicants. 

Response: The Department will comply with this directive.

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs 

Senate: S.R. 113-071. The Committee directs the Department to submit a report to the 

Senate Committees on Appropriations and HELP that provides an update on how 

GEAR UP evaluation set-aside funds are being used and recommendations on how 

to improve student outcomes; the Committee expects the report no later than 

6 months after enactment of this act. 

Response: The Department will comply with this directive.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-18

Summary of Request

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2015

Category 2013 2014 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Higher Education

1. Aid for institutional development:

(a) Strengthening institutions (HEA III-A, section 311) D 76,406 79,139 79,139 0 0.000%

(b) Strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities (HEA III-A, section 316) D 24,368 25,239 25,239 0 0.000%

(c) Mandatory strengthening tribally controlled colleges and universities 

(HEA III-F, section 371) M 28,470 27,840 30,000 2,160 7.759%

Subtotal 52,838 53,079 55,239 2,160 4.069%

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

section 317) D 12,186 12,622 12,622 0 0.000%

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

institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 14,235 13,920 15,000 1,080 7.759%

Subtotal 26,421 26,542 27,622 1,080 4.069%

(f) Strengthening HBCUs (HEA III-B, section 323) D 216,056 223,783 223,783 0 0.000%

(g) Mandatory strengthening HBCUs (HEA III-F, section 371) M 80,665 78,880 85,000 6,120 7.759%

Subtotal 296,721 302,663 308,783 6,120 2.022%

(h) Strengthening historically Black graduate institutions (HEA III-B, section 326) D 55,874 57,872 57,872 0 0.000%

(i) Masters degree programs at HBCUs and predominantly Black 

institutions (HEA VIII, section 897) M 10,914 10,672 0 (10,672) -100.000%

(j) Strengthening predominately Black institutions (HEA III-A, section 318) D 8,778 9,092 9,092 0 0.000%

(k) Mandatory strengthening predominantly Black institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 14,235 13,920 15,000 1,080 7.759%

Subtotal 23,013 23,012 24,092 1,080 4.693%

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

institutions (HEA III-A, section 320) D 2,956 3,062 3,062 0 0.000%

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

Islander-serving institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 4,745 4,640 5,000 360 7.759%

Subtotal 7,701 7,702 8,062 360 4.674%

(n) Strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions (HEA III-A, section 319) D 2,956 3,062 3,062 0 0.000%

(o) Mandatory strengthening Native American-serving nontribal institutions (HEA III-F, section 371) M 4,745 4,640 5,000 360 7.759%

Subtotal 7,701 7,702 8,062 360 4.674%

(p) Minority science and engineering improvement (HEA III-E-1) D 8,971 8,971 8,971 0 0.000%

Subtotal, Aid for institutional development 566,560 577,354 577,842 488 0.085%

Discretionary D 408,552 422,842 422,842 0 0.000%

Mandatory M 158,009 154,512 155,000 488 0.316%

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

For mandatory programs, the levels shown in the 2014 Appropriation column reflects the 7.2 percent sequester that went into effect October 1, 2013, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25); 

the 2015 President's Budget column does not reflect a sequester in 2015. 

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Compared to 2014 Appropriation

2015 President's Budget 
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-18

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

(in thousands of dollars) 2015

Category 2013 2014 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Higher Education (continued)

2. Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions:

(a) Developing Hispanic-serving institutions (HEA V-A) D 95,179 98,583 98,583 0 0.000%

(b) Mandatory developing HSI STEM and articulation programs (HEA III-F, section 371(b)(2)(B)) M 94,900 92,800 100,000 7,200 7.759%

(c) Promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans (HEA V, section 512) D 8,540 8,845 8,845 0 0.000%

(d) Mandatory promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans

 (HEA VIII, section 898) M 10,914 10,672 0 (10,672) -100.000%

Subtotal 209,532 210,900 207,428 (3,472) -1.646%

Discretionary 103,718 107,428 107,428 0 0.000%

Mandatory 105,814 103,472 100,000 (3,472) -3.355%

3 Other aid for institutions:

(a) International education and foreign language studies:

(1) Domestic programs (HEA VI-A and B) D 63,103 65,103 69,103 4,000 6.144%

(2) Overseas programs (MECEA section 102(b)(6)) D 7,061 7,061 7,061 0 0.000%

Subtotal 70,164 72,164 76,164 4,000 5.543%

(b) Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education:

(1) Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (HEA VII-B) D 2,242 3,274 0 (3,274) -100.000%

(2) First in the World (HEA VII-B) D 0 75,000 100,000 25,000 33.333%

(3) College success grants for minority-serving institutions (HEA VII-B; proposed legislation) D 0 0 75,000 75,000 ---

(4) Training for realtime writers (HEA VIII) D 1,069 1,126 0 (1,126) -100.000%

Subtotal 3,311 79,400 175,000 95,600 120.403%

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

higher education (HEA VII-D-2) D 10,384 10,384 0 (10,384) -100.000%

(d) Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions (CTEA section 117) D 7,705 7,705 7,705 0 0.000%

(e) Special programs for migrant students (HEA IV-A-5)1 D 34,623 34,623 34,623 0 0.000%

 4. Assistance for students:

(a) Federal TRIO programs (HEA IV-A-2, Chapter 1) D 795,998 838,252 838,252 0 0.000%

(b) Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

(GEAR UP) (HEA IV-A-2, Chapter 2) D 286,435 301,639 301,639 0 0.000%

(c) Graduate assistance in areas of national need (HEA VII-A-2) D 29,293 29,293 29,293 0 0.000%

(d) Child care access means parents in school (HEA IV-A-7) D 15,134 15,134 15,134 0 0.000%

 5. GPRA data/HEA program evaluation (Department of Education Appropriations Act) D 575 575 52,000 51,425 8943.478%

 6. College access challenge grant program (HEA VII-E) M 142,350 139,200 0 (139,200) -100.000%

 7. State Higher Education Performance Fund (proposed legislation) M 0 0 4,000,000 4,000,000 ---

 8. College opportunity and graduation bonus (proposed legislation) M 0 0 647,000 647,000 ---

Total 2,172,065 2,316,623 6,962,080 4,645,457 200.527%

Discretionary 1 1,765,892 1,919,439 2,060,080 140,641 7.327%

Mandatory 406,173 397,184 4,902,000 4,504,816 1134.189%

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

For mandatory programs, the levels shown in the 2014 Appropriation column reflects the 7.2 percent sequester that went into effect October 1, 2013, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25); 

the 2015 President's Budget column does not reflect a sequester in 2015. 

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Adjusted for comparability. Includes $34,623 thousand in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 for Special Programs for Migrant Students that was appropriated to the Education for the Disadvantaged account, now the 

Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity account. Excludes $40,592 thousand in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 for Teacher Quality Partnership included in FY 2015 in the Innovation and Instructional Team account.

2015 President's Budget 

Compared to 2014 Appropriation
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-20

Summary of Request

The Department’s request for fiscal year 2015 includes a combination of discretionary and 

mandatory funding that would make available a total of $7 billion for programs in the 

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

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

of Americans with postsecondary degrees or industry-recognized certificates; and $4.6 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 2015, 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 $422.8 million in 

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

as the 2014 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 $79.1 million for the 

Strengthening Institutions Program. The Administration is also requesting $223.8 million for 

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); $57.9 million for

Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGIs); and $9.1 million for 

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

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

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

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

undergraduate and graduate levels to African Americans.

Also included in the request for Title III programs is $25.2 million for the Tribally Controlled 

Colleges and Universities program; $12.6 million for the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiianserving Institutions program; $3.1 million for the Native American-serving Nontribal 

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

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

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

students. Lastly, the Administration is requesting $9 million, the same as the 2014 

appropriation, for the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program to help 

improve science and engineering programs at postsecondary institutions with predominantly 

minority enrollments.

The Administration requests $98.6 million in discretionary funding for Developing 

Hispanic-serving Institutions (HSIs), the same as the 2014 appropriation. In addition, the 

request includes $8.8 million, the same as the 2014 appropriation, for the Promoting 

Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans. This funding demonstrates the 

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

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

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

life-long learning.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-21

Summary of Request (continued)

Overall, the Administration requests $76.2 million for the International Education and 

Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) programs, $4 million or 5.5 percent, more than the 

2014 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 $69.1 million for 

the Domestic Programs, an increase of $4 million, more than the 2014 appropriation; and

$7.1 million, the same as the 2014 appropriation, for the Overseas Programs.

The Administration’s requests $838.3 in discretionary funding for the Federal TRIO Programs, 

the same as the 2014 appropriation. The TRIO request includes funding for Student Support 

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

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

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

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

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

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

year 2014 appropriation level of $301.6 million. These programs are designed to increase 

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

and successfully complete college.

The Administration also requests $175 million for the Fund for the Improvement of 

Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) for fiscal year 2015. Approximately $100 million of these 

funds would be used for awards under the First in the World (FITW) initiative to support 

innovative strategies and practices shown to be effective in improving college completion and 

making college more affordable for students and families. The request also includes $75 million 

for a new College Success Grants to Minority-Serving Institutions initiative to support these

institutions in developing sustainable strategies, processes, and tools to reduce costs and 

improve student outcomes.

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

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

scholarships and fellowships for graduate students.

The Administration requests funding of $52 million for GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation

(GPRA/HEA) activities in fiscal year 2015, an increase of $51.4 million from the 2014 amount. 

The funding would allow the Department to conduct evaluations, data collection, research, and 

demonstration activities. Multiple offices across the Department will collaborate to design and 

implement the studies, with one of the evaluation offices taking the lead for the evaluations to 

ensure high-quality research. Within the amount requested for 2015, the Department would 

allocate the funds as follows: approximately $20 million to conduct research, evaluations, and 

demonstrations to test approaches that promote postsecondary access, program completion, 

and high-quality, affordable education programs; approximately $19 million to begin 

demonstrations and evaluations of alternative strategies for providing services; $12 million to 

support development and refinement of a new college rating system; and $1 million to support 

the development of a postsecondary and adult Data Quality Initiative (DQI).
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-22

Summary of Request (continued)

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

funds that are not included in the Department’s fiscal year 2015 budget request:

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

and V of the Higher Education Act—$85 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 

$30 million for Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, $15 million for Alaska Native and 

Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions, and $100 million for Developing Hispanic-serving 

Institutions.

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

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

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

Native American-serving Nontribal Institutions.

The President’s fiscal year 2015 request proposes the following new mandatory initiatives and 

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

• $4 billion for the State Higher Education Performance Fund that would provide mandatory 

funding through multi-year competitive grants to States to support the successful 

implementation of policy and funding reforms that encourage and reward improved college 

performance, as well as institutional innovation and reforms, focused on increasing or 

maintaining state investment in higher education and allocating funds on a performance basis. 

States would be required to match these resources dollar-for-dollar.

• $647 million for the College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus program that will reward 

colleges that successfully enroll and graduate a significant number of low- and moderate-income

students on time and encourage all institutions to improve their performance. Eligible 

institutions may receive a grant that will support innovation, interventions, and reforms to further 

increase college access and success based upon the number of Pell Grant recipients they 

graduate on time.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-23

Activities:

Aid for institutional development

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite (discretionary), $155,00 (mandatory)

Budget Authority:

Program 2014 2015 Change

Strengthening Institutions (Part A discretionary) $79,139 $79,139 0

Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges

and Universities 

TCCUs (Part A discretionary) 25,239 25,239 0

TCCUs (Part F mandatory) 27,840 30,000 +$2,160

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian-serving Institutions

ANNH (Part A discretionary) 12,622 12,622 0

ANNH (Part F mandatory) 13,920 15,000 +1,080

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges

and Universities

HBCUs (Part B discretionary) 223,783 223,783 0

HBCUs (Part F mandatory) 78,880 85,000 +6,120

Strengthening Historically Black Graduate

Institutions (Part B discretionary) 57,872 57,872 0

Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs and PBIs

(Title VIII, Part AA mandatory)

Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs 8,352 01 -8,352

Master’s Degree Programs at PBIs 2,320 01 -2,320

Subtotal 10,672 0 -10,672

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions

(Part A discretionary) 9,092 9,092 0

(Part B mandatory) 13,920 15,000 +1,080

Strengthening Asian American and Native

American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

 (Part A discretionary) 3,062 3,062 0

 (Part B mandatory) 4,640 5,000 +360

Strengthening Native American-serving

Nontribal Institutions 

 (Part A discretionary) 3,062 3,062 0

 (Part B mandatory) 4,640 5,000 +360

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement

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

 Total 577,354 577,842 +488

Discretionary 422,842 422,842 0

Mandatory 154,512 155,0002 +488

 1 The authorization for mandatory funding for this program expires on September 30, 2014. 2 These funds are not part of the fiscal year 2015 budget request, but are mandatory appropriations provided under 

Title III, Part F, Section 371 of the HEA.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-24

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

transferred mandatory funding for the Strengthening HBCUs and Other Minority Serving 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

faculty and academic program development; improvement in fund and administrative 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aid for institutional development

T-25

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

dollar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of Title V of the HEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 316 of the HEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

funds are distributed equally among eligible Tribal Colleges or Universities.

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

faculty and academic program development; improvement in fund and administrative 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

education technologies.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-26

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

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

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

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

of Title V of the HEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvement in fund and administrative management; renovation and improvement in 

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

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

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

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

institutions. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the HEA. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aid for institutional development

T-27

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

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

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

amount may be used for this purpose.

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

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

increase an institution’s endowment fund.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

funding under Part A. 

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

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

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

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

purposes:

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

including instructional and research purposes; 

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

and other instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of telecommunications 

technology equipment or services; 

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

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

telecommunications program materials; 

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

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

such program, preparation for teacher certification; and

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

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

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

affairs, or nursing or allied health professions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aid for institutional development

T-28

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

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

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

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

Clarke School of Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

student service programs designed to improve academic success.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Institutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aid for institutional development

T-29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

authorization for funding for this program expires on September 30, 2014. Both programs 

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

making a substantial contribution to graduate education opportunities for Black Americans at the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University; and Winston-Salem State University.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aid for institutional development

T-30

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

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

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

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

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

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

fiscal year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a grant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

matching requirements to those institutions complying with the matching requirement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aid for institutional development

T-31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PBI program activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

or Part A of Title V of the HEA.

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

• Has a high enrollment of needy students;

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

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

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

similar instruction;

• Has an enrollment of undergraduate students

- That is at least 40 percent Black American students;

- That is at least 1,000 undergraduate students;

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

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

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

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

which the institution is located;

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

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

junior or community college, an associate's degree;
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

authorized under Section 320.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

expires.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or Part A of Title V of the HEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

students or the students’ families.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-34

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

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

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

and engineering education at predominantly minority institutions and to increase the

participation of underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities in scientific and technological

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

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

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

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

purchase of scientific equipment, or development of research capabilities.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:Fisc

Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

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

. .

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. 

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST 

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration requests $422.8 million in discretionary funding for 

the Aid for Institutional Development programs, the same as the 2014 level. In addition, 

$155 million is available in mandatory funding in fiscal year 2015 for programs authorized under 

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

part of the fiscal year 2015 budget request. An important strategy in closing the gap in 

educational attainment between low-income and minority students and their high-income, 

non-minority peers is to strengthen the quality of educational opportunities in institutions 

dedicated to serving low-income and minority students. A significant number of postsecondary 

education institutions serving high percentages of minority students and students from 

low-income backgrounds face challenges that threaten their continued operation and ability to 

provide a high-quality education. The Administration is committed to assisting institutions 

enrolling a large proportion of disadvantaged students by providing funds to improve the 

academic programs and administrative and fundraising capabilities of these institutions.

• The Administration requests $79.1 million for the Part A, Section 311 Strengthening 

Institutions Program, the same as the fiscal year 2014 level. This funding level would 

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

educational opportunities to low-income and minority students. It would also allow the 

Department to continue the use of evidence in this program to ensure funds are being used 

for proven activities that will move our Nation closer to meeting the 2020 college completion 

goal.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-35

The 2012 Strengthening Institutions program (SIP) competition became the first Title III 

competition to include a competitive preference priority to support programs, practices, 

orstrategies for which there is strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness. Applications 

that scored within an established range were forwarded to the Institute of Education Sciences 

(IES) to undergo What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) certified review to determine whether 

their proposed activities were supported by evidence. Projects supported by strong evidence 

were given an additional 5 points while projects supported by moderate evidence were given 

an additional 2.5 points. Of the 14 new awards ultimately funded under this program in fiscal 

year 2012, the WWC reviewers determined that 8 projects were supported by strong 

evidence while 6 projects were supported by moderate evidence. The SIP competition also 

demonstrated that postsecondary institutions are interested in pursuing evidence-based 

funding—of the 151 eligible applications reviewed, 137 addressed the evidence priority.

In fiscal year 2013, the Department conducted two competitions for SIP grants: a regular 

competition for SIP individual development grants and a competition that included one 

absolute priority for applications supporting programs, practices, or strategies for which there 

is strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness. Fourteen applications were reviewed by IES

of which 11 met the requirements for funding. Based on available funding in fiscal year 2013, 

the Department funded 6 evidence-based projects. For fiscal year 2014, the Department 

intends to fund down the fiscal year 2013 grant slate to make new awards because a 

significant number of high-quality applicants remain on the fiscal year 2013 slate. The 

Administration believes that the field of education needs to use the best available evidence 

to inform policy and practices and, where strong evidence does not exist, to build evidence 

over time. Therefore, the Department expects continued use of the evidence priority in

fiscal year 2015.

• The request includes $25.2 million for the Part A, Section 316 Strengthening Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs) program, the same as the fiscal year 2014 

level. There are 32 fully accredited Tribal Colleges and Universities in the United States and 

one formal candidate for accreditation. Three additional universities are in Associate Status, 

meaning a tribal college seeking formal accreditation candidacy status. TCCUs are located 

mainly in the Midwest and Southwest. The majority of TCCUs are 2-year schools. TCCUs 

are located primarily in remote areas not served by other postsecondary education 

institutions. They offer a broad range of degree and vocational certificate programs to 

students for whom these educational opportunities would otherwise be geographically and 

culturally inaccessible.

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

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

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

unsuited for continued use as academic buildings. Grantees can conduct constructionrelated activities under their approved individual development grants.

The total enrollment in TCCUs increased by 56 percent, from 13,440 in fall 2000 to 20,990

in fall 2010; however, enrollment dipped to 18,920 in 2011 (approximately 2,070 fewer 

students when compared to enrollment in 2010). In 2011, nearly 14,950 students in TCCUs 

were American Indian/Alaska Native, representing 79 percent of total enrollment. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-36

Approximately 8 percent of all American Indian/Alaska Native college students were 

enrolled in TCCUs in 2011. American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment at TCCUs increased 

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

university enrollment generally (30.7 percent versus 23.1 percent). The traditional 

college-age population rose 12 percent between 2000 and 2011, and the percentage of 

18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college rose from 35.5 percent in 2000 to 42 percent in 2011. 

Between 1999–2000 and 2010-2011, the number of degrees conferred rose at all levels. 

The number of bachelor's degrees was 39 percent higher, the number of master's degrees 

was 58 percent higher, and the number of doctoral degrees was 38 percent higher. Despite 

the overall increases in college enrollment and degree attainment, American Indian/Alaska 

Native students continue to lag behind their White cohorts in overall educational attainment. 

In 2010-2011, American Indian/Alaska Natives earned only 0.6 percent of the bachelor’s 

degrees, 0.6 percent of the master’s degrees, and 0.7 percent of doctoral degrees awarded 

in the United States, though American Indian/Alaska Natives comprise 1.7 percent of the 

population.

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

TCCUs in fiscal year 2015. The Administration will award funding to all eligible TCCUs 

using the formula outlined in the program statute.

• The request includes $12.6 million for discretionary grants under Part A, Section 317 for the 

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

same as the fiscal year 2014 level. Like TCCUs, these institutions are typically located in 

remote areas not served by other postsecondary educational institutions. Between 1990

and 2011, American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment at institutions of higher education

increased from 102,800 students to 186,100 students; and Asian/Pacific Islander enrollment 

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

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

• The Administration requests $223.8 million for the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges 

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

2014 level. In addition, the Administration requests $57.9 million for the Strengthening 

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

same as the fiscal year 2014 level. The fiscal year 2015 request demonstrates the 

Administration’s continued support of these institutions that play a unique and vital role in 

providing higher education opportunities to minority and disadvantaged students. While the 

105 designated HBCUs make up nearly 3 percent of colleges and universities that grant 

associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV Federal financial aid programs, the 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that HBCUs have produced 

16 percent of the African Americans who currently hold undergraduate degrees. HBCUs 

enroll over 8.6 percent of all African American students in higher education. Figures 

compiled by NCES indicate that an estimated 263,400 African American students were 

enrolled at HBCUs in 2011.

African American enrollment at institutions of higher education more than doubled between 

1976 and 2011 from about 1.03 million students to just over 3 million students. Despite the 

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

to lag behind the national average in overall educational attainment. In 2010-2011,
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-37

African Americans earned only 10.4 percent of the bachelor’s degrees, 12.5 percent of the 

master’s degrees, and 7.5 percent of doctoral degrees awarded in the United States, though 

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

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

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

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

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

continue serving a growing population of students, and to encourage and prepare more of

these students to pursue advanced study by enabling these institutions to improve their

academic quality, institutional management, and fiscal stability.

In 2015, mandatory funding of $85 million is also provided under Section 371 of the HEA for 

HBCUs.

• The request includes $9.1 million for Part A, Section 318 Strengthening Predominantly Black 

Institutions (PBIs) program, the same as the fiscal year 2014 level. PBIs are primarily urban 

and rural 2-year colleges that enroll at least 40 percent Black American students and serve 

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

In addition, Section 371 of the HEA makes available $15 million in mandatory funds in 2015

for PBIs.

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

Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

(AANAPISIs) program, the same as the fiscal year 2014 level. Most AANAPISI institutions 

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

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

undergraduate students in higher education. They also serve communities with

disproportionately high numbers of English learners and individuals with low academic 

achievement.

In 2015, mandatory funding of $5 million is provided under Section 371 of the HEA for 

AANAPISIs.

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

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

as the fiscal year 2014 level. These institutions are not designated as TCCUs, yet enroll at 

least 10 percent Native American students and serve at least 50 percent low-income 

students. With increasing enrollment at institutions of higher education, nontribal institutions 

of higher education that serve large populations of Native American students require 

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

their Native American student population.

In 2015, mandatory funding of $5 million is also appropriated under Section 371 of the HEA 

for NASNTIs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-38

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

Improvement Program, the same as the fiscal year 2014 level. This request would maintain 

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

programs at institutions of higher education enrolling large numbers of minority students and

would further the Administration’s efforts to increase access to a quality higher education for 

individuals from underrepresented minority groups. According to the “Science and 

Engineering Indicators 2012” (NSB 12-01), published by the National Science Board, 

between 2000 and 2009:

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

students held steady at 9 percent, although Blacks comprise 13 percent of the 

population in the U.S. While Asian/Pacific Islanders account for approximately 5 percent 

of the U.S. population, S&E bachelor’s degrees awarded to them rose from 9 percent to 

10 percent. S&E degrees awarded to Hispanic students rose from 7 percent to 

9 percent; Hispanics comprise 16 percent of the population in the U.S.

The proportion of master’s degrees in S&E fields earned by U.S. citizens and permanent 

residents from underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities increased slightly between 

2000 and 2009. Blacks accounted for 10 percent of master’s degree recipients in 2009; up 

from 8 percent in 2000; Hispanic degree recipients increased from 5 percent in 2000 to 

7 percent in 2009; and American Indians/Alaska Natives from 0.5 percent to 0.6 percent.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 Footnote2014 Footnote2015

Strengthening Institutions:

SIP Number of new development awards 39 44 33

SIP Average new development award $518 $536 $520

SIP Total new development award funding $20,199 $23,593 1 $17,147

SIP Number of NCC development awards 153 136 132

SIP Average NCC development award $364 $408 $464

SIP Total NCC development award funding $55,754 $55,546 $61,201

SIP Peer review of new award applications $353 0 $791

SIP Total award funding (Section 311) $76,406 $79,139 $79,139

SIP Total development award funding 192 180 165

 1 Instead of conducting a new competition in fiscal year 2014, the Department intends to fund down the fiscal 

year 2013 grant slate to make new awards in fiscal year 2014 because a significant number of high-quality applicants 

remain on the fiscal year 2013 slate.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-39

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 Footnote2014 Footnote2015

Strengthening TCCUs:

TCCU Discretionary funding:

TCCU Number of development awards 34 34 1 34 1

TCCU Average development award $717 $742 $742

TCCU Total development award funding $24,368 $25,239 $25,239

TCCU Mandatory funding:

TCCU Number of development awards 34 34 34

TCCU Average development award $837 $819 $882

TCCU Total development award funding $28,470 $27,840 $30,000

TCCU Total award funding $52,838 $53,079 $55,239

TCCU Discretionary (Section 316) $24,368 $25,239 $25,239

TCCU Mandatory (Section 371) $28,470 $27,840 $30,000

TCCU Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory)

68 68 68

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian-serving Institutions:

ANNH Discretionary funding:

ANNH Number of new development awards 0 3 15

ANNH Average new development award 0 $651 $686

ANNH Total new development award funding 0 $1,952 $10,291

ANNH Number of NCC development awards 13 12 3

ANNH Average NCC development award $660 $678 $735

ANNH Total NCC development award funding $8,584 $8,139 $2,205

ANNH Number of NCC cooperative arrangement awards 3 3 0

ANNH Average NCC cooperative arrangement award $830 $827 0

ANNH Total NCC cooperative arrangement award funding $2,489 $2,481 0

ANNH Peer review of new award applications 0 $50 $126

ANNH Other (including supplemental awards) $1,113 0 0

 1 It is assumed that 34 TCCUs will apply for and receive designation as eligible institutions, and submit data on 

student enrollments and Indian student counts necessary to calculate grant allocations.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-40

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 Footnote2014 Footnote2015

Strengthening Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian-serving Institutions (cont’d):

ANNHMandatory funding:

ANNH Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available 

for obligation at the start of the fiscal year $21,586 $24,718 $22,973

ANNH Number of new renovation awards 0 12 0

ANNH Average new renovation award 0 $1,383 0

ANNH Total new renovation award funding 0 1 $16,595 0

ANNH Number of NCC renovation awards 11 0 12

ANNH Average NCC renovation award $981 0 $1,383

ANNH Total NCC renovation award funding $10,788 2 0 $16,595

ANNH Peer review of new award applications 0 $150 0

ANNH Total award funding $26,421 $26,542 $27,622

ANNH Discretionary (Section 317) $12,186 $12,622 $12,622

ANNH Mandatory (Section 371) $14,235 $13,920 $15,000

ANNH Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover

(mandatory funds remaining at the end of the 

fiscal year) $10,798

3

$7,973

3

$6,378

3

ANNH Total number of awards (discretionary and

mandatory 27 30 30

Strengthening HBCUs:

HBCU Discretionary funding:

HBCU Number of NCC awards 96 96 96

HBCU Average NCC award $2,251 $2,331 $2,331

HBCU Total NCC award funding $216,056 $223,783 $223,783

 1 The Department did not conduct a competition in fiscal year 2013 in order to develop a strategy for using the 

mandatory funding in 2014 that would address problems these institutions face, such as inferior infrastructure, 

problems in stabilizing their management and fiscal operations, challenges in strengthening their curriculum and

academic instruction, and providing student support services. 2 Includes $7,351 thousand in funding carried over from fiscal year 2012, and $3,437 thousand from 

the $14,235 thousand available for obligation in fiscal year 2013 that was obligated in fiscal year 2013. 3 Unobligated mandatory funding will be carried over for obligation in the succeeding fiscal year. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-41

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 Footnote2014 Footnote2015

Strengthening HBCUs (cont’d):

HBCU Mandatory funding:

HBCU Number of new awards 0 0 96

HBCU Average new award 0 0 $885

HBCU Total new award funding 0 0 $85,000

HBCU Number of NCC awards 96 96 0

HBCU Average NCC award $840 $822 0

HBCU Total NCC award funding $80,665 $78,880 0

HBCU Total award funding $296,721 $302,663 $308,783

HBCU Discretionary (Section 323) $216,056 $223,783 $223,783

HBCU Mandatory (Section 371) $80,665 $78,880 $85,000

HBCU Total number of awards (discretionary and 

mandatory) 192 192 192

Strengthening HBGIs:

HBGINumber of new awards 0 19 0

HBGIAverage new award 0 $1,850 0

HBGITotal new award funding 0 $35,142 0

HBGINumber of NCC awards 24 5 24

HBGIAverage NCC award $2,328 $4,740 $2,411

HBGITotal NCC award funding $55,874 $23,698 $57,872

HBGITotal award funding (Section 326) $55,874 $57,872 $57,872

HBGITotal number of awards 24 24 24

Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs and PBIs:

Mandatory funding for HBCUs:

Masters H BCU Number of NCC awards 18 18 0

Masters H BCUs Average NCC award $475 $464 0

Masters H BCUs Total NCC award funding $8,541 $8,352 0

Mandatory funding for PBIs:

Masters PBIs Number of NCC awards 5 5 0

Masters PBIs Average NCC award $475 $464 0

Masters PBIs Total NCC award funding $2,373 $2,320 0

Total Master’s Degree Programs funding $10,914 $10,672 0

Total Master’s Degree Programs awards 23 23 0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-42

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 Footnote2014 Footnote2015

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions

PBIs Discretionary funding (formula-based):

PBIs Number of NCC development awards 35 35 35

PBIs Average NCC development award $251 $260 $260

PBIs Total NCC development award funding $8,778 $9,092 $9,092

PBIs Mandatory funding (competitive):

PBIsTotal mandatory (Section 371) funds available 

for obligation at the start of the fiscal year $29,235 $28,155 $28,920

PBIs Number of NCC development awards 27 27 27

PBIs Average NCC award $556 $516 $556

PBIs Total NCC award funding $15,000 1 $13,920 $15,000

PBIs Total award funding $23,778 $23,327 $23,012

PBIs Discretionary (Section 318) $8,778 $9,092 $9,092

PBIs Mandatory (Section 371) $15,000 $14,235 $13,920

PBIs Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover

(mandatory funds remaining at the end of the 

fiscal year) $14,235 2 $13,920 2 $15,000 2

PBIs Total number of awards (discretionary and

mandatory) 62 62 62

Strengthening Asian American and Native

American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions:

AAN APISI Discretionary funding:

AAN APISI Number of new development awards 0 0 8

AAN APISI Average new development award 0 0 $379

AAN APISI Total new development award funding 0 0 $3,032

AAN APISI Number of NCC development awards 8 8 0

AAN APISI Average NCC development award $330 $323 0

AAN APISI Total NCC development award funding $2,640 $2,583 0

AAN APISI Other (including supplemental awards) $316 $479 0

AAN APISI Peer review of new awards applications 0 0 $30

 1 These are actual obligations made in fiscal year 2013 from funds that were appropriated in fiscal year 2012. 

Fiscal year 2012 funds were obligated in fiscal year 2013 as permitted by section 371((b)(1)(B) of the HEA. 2 Unobligated mandatory funding will be carried over for obligation in the succeeding fiscal year. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-43

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 Footnote2014 Footnote2015

Strengthening Asian American and Native

American Pacific Islander-serving Institutions 

(cont’d):

AAN APISI Mandatory funding:

AAN APISI Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available $9,745 $9,385 $9,640

AAN APISI Number of NCC development awards 11 11 11

AAN APISI Average NCC development award $382 $388 $356

AAN APISI Total NCC development award funding $4,200 $4,266 $3,919

AAN APISI Other (including supplemental awards) $800 $479 $721

AAN APISI Total award funding $7,956 $7,807 $7,702

AAN APISI Discretionary (Section 320) $2,956 $3,062 $3,062

AAN APISI Mandatory (Section 371) $5,000 1 $4,745 $4,640

ANNAPISI Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover

(mandatory funds remaining at the end of the 

fiscal year $4,745 2 $4,640 2 $5,000 2

AAN APISI Total number of awards (discretionary and

mandatory) 19 19 19

Strengthening Native American-serving 

Nontribal Institutions:

NASNT I Discretionary funding:

NASNT I Number of new development awards 0 0 8

NASNT I Average new development award 0 0 $379

NASNT I Total new development award funding 0 0 $3,032

NASNT I Number of NCC development awards 6 6 0

NASNT I Average NCC development award $386 $374 0

NASNT I Total NCC development award funding $2,316 $2,241 0

NASNT I Other (including supplemental awards) $640 $821 0

NASNT I Peer review of new awards applications 0 0 $30

 1 These are actual obligations made in fiscal year 2013 from funds that were appropriated in fiscal year 2012. 

Fiscal year 2012 funds were obligated in fiscal year 2013 as permitted by section 371((b)(1)(B) of the HEA 2 Unobligated mandatory funding will be carried over for obligation in the succeeding fiscal year. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-44

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 Footnote2014 Footnote2015

Strengthening Native American-serving 

Nontribal Institutions (cont’d):

NASNT I Mandatory funding:

NASNT I Total mandatory (Section 371) funds available

for obligation at the start of the fiscal year

$9,745 $9,385 $9,640

NASNT I Number of NCC development awards 13 13 13

NASNT I Average NCC development award $371 $365 $357

NASNT I Total NCC development award funding $4,829 $4,745 $4,640

NASNT I Other (including supplemental awards) $171 0 0

NASNT I Total award funding (discretionary and 

mandatory) $7,956 $7,807 $7,702

NASNT I Discretionary (Section 319) $2,956 $3,062 $3,062

NASNT I Mandatory (Section 371) $5,000 1 $4,745 $4,640

NASNT I Mandatory (Section 371) estimated carryover 

(mandatory funds remaining at the end of the 

fiscal year) $4,475 2 $4,640 2 $5,000 2

MSEIP Total number of awards (discretionary and

mandatory) 19 19 21

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 

Program:

MSEIP Number of new awards 12 12 14

MSEIP Average new award $229 $245 $220

MSEIP Total new award funding $2,748 $2,945 3 $3,076

MSEIP Number of NCC awards 26 25 24

MSEIP Average NCC award $236 $241 $242

MSEIP Total NCC award funding $6,135 $6,026 $5,806

MSEIP Peer review of new award applications $88 0 $89

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

MSEIP Total number of awards 38 37 38

 1 These are actual obligations made in fiscal year 2013 from funds that were appropriated in fiscal year 2012. 

Fiscal year 2012 funds were obligated in fiscal year 2013 as permitted by section 371((b)(1)(B) of the HEA. 2 Unobligated mandatory funding will be carried over for obligation in the succeeding fiscal year. 3

 Instead of conducting a new competition in fiscal year 2014, the Department intends to fund down the fiscal 

year 2013 grant slate to make new awards in fiscal year 2014 because a significant number of high-quality applicants 

remain on the fiscal year 2013 slate.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-45

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 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by the 

programs.

AANAPISI grantee institutions had the highest persistence rates in 2013 for 4-year and 2-year 

Title III institutions (81 percent and 71 percent, respectively), exceeding the national rate of 

79.5 percent and 58.4 percent, respectively. In addition, AANAPISI grantee institutions had the 

highest graduation rates for 4-year and 2-year grantee institutions—49 percent and 31 percent 

versus national rates of 59.4 percent and 21.3 percent in 2012, respectively. The performance 

results at AANAPISI grantee institutions do not provide a clear picture because many diverse 

subgroups make up the AANAPI population. The educational results of low-achievement 

subgroups are overshadowed by others in the same category that have high-achievement 

levels. All national persistence and graduation rates reflected below are estimates based on 

preliminary data from NCES/Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) and 

subject to minor changes.

Persistence Rates at Title III Institutions

51

71

50

53

64

58

64

81

71

65

75

50

72

80

43

55

0 25 50 75 100

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP 

National Rate

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP

National Rate

Institution

2013 Persistence %

4-year

2-year
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-46

Graduation Rates at Title III Institutions

18

31

14

15

15

21

32

49

35

33

47

13

46

59

22

19

0 25 50 75 100

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP 

National Rate

NASNTI

AANAPISI

PBI

HBCU

ANNH

TCCU

SIP

National Rate

Institution

2012 Graduation %

Goal: To improve the capacity of minority-serving institutions, which traditionally have 

limited resources and serve large numbers of low-income and minority students, to 

improve student success, and to provide high-quality educational opportunities for their 

students.

Objective: Maintain or increase the enrollment, persistence, and graduation rates at minorityserving institutions.

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

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

institutions.

Year Target Actual

2008 5.1% (4-year change)

2013 6.4% 11.3% (5-year change)

2018 TBD

Additional information: The data used to calculate these performance measures come from 

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

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

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

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

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

assess progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). 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 

4-year

2-year
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-47

funding in fiscal year 2008 which at the time was 5.1 percent. The actual enrollment data 

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

follows:

Awards from 2004-2007 

(147 grantees)

Awards from 2008-2012

(150 grantees)

Awards from 2013-2017

(155 grantees)

2004 382,890 2008 435,686 2013 581,340

2005 391,272 2009 454,477

2006 363,609 2010 493,315

2007 395,897 2011 511,882

2008 402,507 2012 499,414

2013 484,943

Change 5.1% Change 11.3%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

than likely due to the length of time used to measure each cohort—the average enrollment rate for 

the 2008 data year is measured over 4 years, while the average enrollment rate for the 2013 data 

year is measured over 5 years. Only 6 institutions received funding from both the 2004-2007 

period and the 2008-2012 period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010 72.0% 76.0% 62.0% 60.0%

2011 72.0 74.0 62.0 57.0

2012 73.0 73.0 62.0 57.0

2013 74.0 72.0 62.0 55.0

2014 74.0 62.0

2015 74.5 62.5
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-48

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

2010 49.5% 50.0% 22.0% 20.0%

2011 50.0 46.0 23.0 20.0

2012 50.5 46.0 23.0 19.0

2013 51.0 24.0

2014 51.5 24.0

2015 52.0 24.5

Additional information: Persistence at 4-year SIP institutions falls short of the target set for 

2013 and is 7 percentage points lower than persistence rates at all 4-year public and private 

schools (79.5 percent). In addition, the current performance level for 2-year SIP institutions is 

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

(58.4 percent) and is comparable to the 2-year persistence rates at HBCUs (53 percent). 

Persistence data for 2014 will be available in December 2014.

The targets on the 4-year graduation measure for fiscal year 2010 and beyond will serve to 

gradually narrow the gap between program and national (59.4 percent) performance. Graduation 

rates at 2-year SIP grantee institutions is comparable to the graduation rate at NASNTI-grantee 

institutions, but falls short of the national graduation rate at 2-year public and private institutions 

(21.3 percent). Graduation data for 2012-2013 will be available in December 2014. 

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 these performance measures come from 

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

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

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

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

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

assess progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). The initial target of 24 percent 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-49

for 2013 reflects the anticipated percentage increase in enrollment over the period fiscal year 

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

fiscal year 2008 (30 institutions). The actual enrollment data generating the percentage changes 

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

Awards from 2003-2007 

(30 grantees)

Awards from 2008-2012

(32 grantees)

Awards from 2013-2017

(34 grantees)

2003 7,776 2008 9,741 2013 11,419

2004 9,249 2009 9,433

2005 9,608 2010 11,674

2006 9,038 2011 12,759

2007 9,294 2012 11,581

2008 9,666 2013 11,228

Change 24.3% Change 15.3%

Student enrollment at TCCUs in 2008 was used to calculate the percentage change against 

student enrollment at TCCUs in the base year 2003. Likewise, student enrollment at TCCUs 

institutions in 2013 was used to calculate the percentage change against student enrollment in the 

base year 2008. Enrollment for data year 2018 will reflect the anticipated percentage increase in 

enrollment for the TCCUs receiving funding in fiscal year 2018, i.e., grantees who receive funding 

in fiscal years in 2013-2017. The 2013 data year includes 2 additional TCCUs—Tohono O’odham 

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

Enrollment data for 2018 will reflect the anticipated percentage increase in enrollment for TCCUs 

receiving funding in fiscal year 2018 with the addition of 2 additional TCCUs— Keweenaw Bay 

Ojibwa Community College and College of the Muscogee Nation.

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

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

in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same TCCU.

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

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

in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same TCCU.

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

2010 48.0% 51.0% 50.0% 54.0%

2011 49.0 50.0 51.0 41.0

2012 49.0 48.0 51.0 43.0

2013 50.0 50.0 52.0 43.0

2014 50.0 52.0

2015 50.0 52.0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-50

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

undergraduate students enrolled at 4-year 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

2010 37.0% 16.0% 27.0% 25.0%

2011 37.0 11.0 27.0 16.0

2012 16.5 13.0 28.0 22.0

2013 17.0 28.0

2014 17.0 28.0

2015 17.0 28.0

Additional information: The 2013 persistence rate at 4-year TCCUs is 2 percentage points 

higher than the 2012 rate and meets the target set for 2013. However, the persistence rate at 

2-year TCCUs is the same as the 2012 persistence rate.

The 2012 graduation rates at 4-year and 2-year TCCUs exceed the 2011 rates by 2 percentage 

points and 6 percentage points, respectively. However, the graduation rate for 2-year TCCUs 

exceeds the national rate (21.3 percent) by less than one percentage point. Graduation data for 

2012-2013 will be available in December 2014. Performance data for these measures are 

derived from electronic annual performance reports from program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. 

IPEDS data are reported by all institutions participating in these programs and are subject to 

NCES consistency and validity checks.

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

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

Year Target Actual

2008 -1.7% (5-year change)

2013 0 13.4% (5-year change)

2018 TBD

Additional information: The data used to calculate these performance measures come from 

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

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

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

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

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

will only assess progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). 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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-51

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:

Awards from 2003-2007 

(11 grantees)

Awards from 2008-2012

(11 grantees)

Awards from 2013-2017

(9 grantees)

2003 13,638 2008 23,438 2013 24,632

2004 13,739 2009 23,933

2005 13,717 2010 25,606

2006 13,695 2011 26,343

2007 13,529 2012 26,325

2008 13,407 2013 26,580

Change -1.7% Change 13.4%

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013-2017. Even though the both cohorts represented above awarded the same number of 

grants, an institution in the 2008-2012 cohort enrolled over 11,000 students each year between

2008-2012—the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

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

2010 75.0% 63.0%

2011 76.0 57.0

2012 76.5% 75.0 59.0% 63.0

2013 77.0 75.0 59.5 64.0

2014 77.0 59.5 

2015 77.5 71.0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-52

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

2010 29.0% 46.0% 16.0% 15.0%

2011 30.0 46.0 16.0 16.0

2012 46.5 47.0 16.0 15.0

2013 47.0 16.0

2014 47.0 16.0

2015 47.5 16.5

Additional information: The 2013 persistence rate at 4-year ANNH grantee institutions 

(75 percent) is the same as the 2011 persistence rate, but falls short of the national persistence 

rate at 4-year public and private schools (79.5 percent). The 2013 persistence rate at 2-year 

ANNH grantee institutions (64 percent) exceeds the target set for 2013 (59.5 percent) and the 

national rate (58.4 percent). ANNH-grantees had the second highest persistence rate for 2-year 

Title III institutions. 

Data for only four 2-year grantees were used to calculate the graduation rate for 2012. The 

graduation rate for 4-year ANNHs (47 percent) exceeded the target set for 2012 (46.5 percent) and 

is comparable to the 4-year graduation rate at SIP grantee institutions (46 percent). Both lag 

behind national graduation rates at 4-year and 2-year public and private schools (59.4 percent and 

21.3 percent, respectively). Graduation data for 2012-2013 will be available in December 2014. 

Performance data for these measures are derived from electronic annual performance reports from 

program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported by all institutions participating in 

these programs and are subject to NCES consistency and validity checks.

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

full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at HBCUs.

Year Target Actual

2008 8.0% (5-year change)

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

2018 TBD

Additional information: The data used to calculate these performance measures come from 

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

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

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

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

against the base year. There are no intermediate annual targets. The Department will only assess
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-53

progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). The initial target of 8 percent 

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

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

fiscal year 2008 (96 institutions). The actual enrollment data generating the percentage 

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

Awards from 2003-2007 

(97 grantees)

Awards from 2008-2012

(96 grantees)

Awards from 2013-2017

(94 grantees)

2003 200,369 2008 217,628 2013 222,919

2004 217,738 2009 218,676

2005 220,705 2010 228,399

2006 219,454 2011 230,847

2007 216,782 2012 226,493

2008 216,207 2013 217,080

Change 8.0% Change -0.3%

Student enrollment at HBCUs in 2008 was used to calculate the percentage change against 

student enrollment at HBCUs in the base year 2003. Likewise, student enrollment at HBCUs in 

2013 was used to calculate the percentage change against student enrollment in the base year 

2008. Enrollment for data year 2018 will reflect the anticipated percentage increase in 

enrollment for HBCUs receiving funding in fiscal year 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010 67.5% 68.0% 56.5% 53.0%

2011 68.0 66.0 56.5 50.0

2012 68.5 65.0 57.0 57.0

2013 69.0 65.0 57.0 53.0

2014 69.0 57.0

2015 69.5 57.5
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-54

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

2010 40.0% 34.0% 14.5% 17.0%

2011 40.0 33.0 15.0 17.0

2012 40.0 33.0 16.0 15.0

2013 40.0 16.5

2014 40.0 17.0

2015 40.0 17.5

Additional information: The 2013 persistence rates at 4-year HBCUs (65 percent) and 2-year 

HBCUs (53 percent) currently lag behind national persistence rates for 4-year public and private 

schools (79.5 percent) and 2-year public and private schools (58.4 percent). Both 4-year and 

2-year HBCUs missed the targets set for 2013 by 4 percentage points. The 4-year persistence 

rate at HBCUs compares favorably to the rate at 2-year NASNTI grantee institutions 

(64 percent). Persistence data for 2014 will be available December 2014.

The graduation rate for 2-year HBCUs falls short of the target set for 2012 by 1 percentage point 

and the national rate by 6 percentage points. Graduation data for 2012-2013 will be available in 

December 2014. The graduation rate at 4-year HBCUs is comparable to the rates at PBIs and 

NASNTI-grantee institutions. Performance data for these measures are derived from electronic 

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

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

checks.

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

full-time graduate students enrolled at HBGIs.

Year Target Actual

2008 13.0%

2013 13.0% 22.0

2018 TBD

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

awarded at HBGIs.

Year Target Actual

2010 4,774 6,459

2011 4,870 6,509

2012 4,967 6,720

2013 6,500

2014 6,600

2015 6,700
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-55

Additional information: The data used to calculate these performance measures come from 

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

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

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

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

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

will only assess progress against targets periodically (about every 5 years). Student enrollment 

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

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

is for the 5-year grant period 2008-2012 and includes 6 additional HBGIs added in 2008 when 

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

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

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

24 HBGIs grew by 22 percent, from 12,744 in 2008 to 15,535 in 2013, exceeding the target 

set for 2013 for student enrollment by 9 percentage points. The next enrollment period, 

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

The program’s performance exceeded the target set for 2012 for degree completion. Data for 

2013 will be available in December 2014. Performance data for these measures are derived 

from electronic annual performance reports from program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS 

data are reported by all institutions participating in these programs and are subject to NCES 

consistency and validity checks.

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

undergraduate students enrolled at PBIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 15.6% (1-year change)

2016 TBD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

years 2011-2013 is 0.6 percent.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-56

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

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

in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same PBI.

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

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

in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same PBI.

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

2010 73.0% 49.0%

2011 69.0 52.0

2012 72.0% 72.0 54.0% 53.0

2013 72.5 71.0 54.5 50.0

2014 73.0 54.5

2015 73.0 55.0

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

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

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

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

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

2010 28.0% 13.0%

2011 33.0 14.0

2012 29.0% 35.0 13.0% 14.0

2013 29.5 13.5

2014 29.5 13.5

2015 30.0 14.0

Additional information: The 2013 persistence rates at 4-year and 2-year PBI grantee 

institutions lag behind the national 2013 persistence rates; are lower when compared to the 

prior rates, and did not meet the targets set for 2013. The 2012 graduation rate at 4-year PBIs 

(35 percent) not only exceeds the target set for 2012, but is 2 percentage points higher than the 

2011 rates. The graduation rate at 2-year PBIs is comparable to the rates at ANNH-grantee 

institutions (15 percent) and HBCUs (15 percent). Graduation data for 2012-2013 will be 

available in December 2014. Performance data for these measures are derived from electronic 

annual performance reports from program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are 

reported by all institutions participating in these programs and are subject to NCES consistency 

and validity checks.

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

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

believes assessment of the performance of both programs should focus on enrollment, 

persistence, and graduation rates at PBIs. Therefore, performance data for the discretionary 

PBI program and the mandatory PBI program is combined.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-57

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 2011-2013 is 

6.2 percent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010 90.0% 73.0%

2011 79.0 69.0

2012 80.0% 77.0 70.0% 73.0

2013 80.0 81.0 70.0 71.0

2014 80.0 70.0

2015 80.5 70.5

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

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

enrollment.

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

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

enrollment.

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

2010 48.0% 20.0%

2011 48.0 27.0

2012 48.0% 49.0 23.0% 31.0

2013 48.5 23.0

2014 48.5 23.0

2015 49.0 23.0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-58

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

2013 targets set for persistence and the 2012 targets set for graduation. In addition, 

AANAPISI-grantee institutions exceeded the national persistence rate for 4-year (79.5 percent) 

and 2-year (58.4 percent) public and private schools by 1.5 percent and 12.6 percentage points, 

respectively. AANAPISIs’ also exceeded the national graduation rate for 2-year public and 

private schools (21.3 percent) by nearly 10 percentage points. The only other program to do so 

was TCCUs, with a 22 percent graduation rate in 2012. 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, as well as the highest graduation rate at 4-year 

Title III institutions (49 percent). Performance data for these measures are derived from 

electronic annual performance reports from program grantees and NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data 

are reported by all institutions participating in these programs and are subject to NCES 

consistency and validity checks.

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

undergraduate students enrolled at NASNTIs.

Year Target Actual

2011 16.7% (1-year change)

2016 TBD

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

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

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

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

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

Student enrollment at NASNTI grantee institutions in 2013 (20,637) was used to calculate the 

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

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

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

for fiscal years 2011-2013 is -1.0 percent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010 64.0% 57.0%

2011 71.0 51.0

2012 71.5% 63.0 52.0% 54.0

2013 72.0 64.0 52.5 51.0

2014 72.0 52.5

2015 72.0 53.0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-59

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

2010 33.0% 20.0%

2011 30.0 19.0

2012 33.5% 32.0 20.0% 18.0

2013 34.0 20.5

2014 34.0 20.5

2015 34.5 21.0

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

one percentage point higher than the 2012 persistence rate; however, falls short of the target by 

8 percentage points. The 2-year persistence rate at NASNTI-grantee institutions is comparable 

with the persistence rate at PBIs (50 percent).

The 4-year graduation rate falls short of the target set for 2012, but is comparable to the 

graduation rate at HBCUs (33 percent). Graduation data for 2012-2013 will be available in 

December 2014. Performance data for these measures are derived from electronic annual 

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

institutions and are subject to NCES consistency and validity checks.

The Department is re-examining the methodology used for the current measures of enrollment 

and graduation in the MSEIP program. The current enrollment measure is calculated by 

determining the percentage change between the average minority enrollment in the fields of 

engineering, mathematics, biological sciences, and physical sciences at grantee institutions just 

before the beginning of the MSEIP grant period and at the end of the grant period. However, 

the classification of enrollments into fields of study may not be very reliable, with many students 

unsure of their major upon enrolling. In addition, data are not available for some years because 

enrollment data by field of study is provided only biennially in IPEDS.

The current graduation measure is not calculated in the same manner as in IPEDS (graduating 

within 150 percent of normal time). The current MSEIP graduation measure uses degree 

completion data calculated using NCES/IPEDS Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) 

Codes developed to facilitate collection and reporting of postsecondary degree completions by 

major field of study using standard classifications. For 4-year institutions receiving continuation 

funding, the completion rate is calculated using data generated from 39 IPEDS CIP codes 

(covering 15 major fields of study) selected by the Department relevant to this program and data 

from IPEDS in 4 basic fields of study—math, engineering, biological sciences, and physical 

sciences. This measure is problematic because it compares minority enrollments in the 4 broad 

fields of study to minority completions using the 39 IPEDS CIP codes 6 years later.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-60

As an alternative, the Department used IPEDS data to determine whether the percentage of 

bachelor’s degrees conferred that were in STEM fields increased between 2005 and 2010. 

Specifically, data examined were:

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

in 2005 and 2010 that were in STEM fields;

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

2005 and 2010 that were in STEM fields.

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

were examined.

The intent is to examine whether an increasing percentage of students in MSEIP institutions 

earn degrees in STEM fields, given that one of the main purposes of the MSEIP program is to 

increase the participation of underrepresented minorities in scientific and technological careers. 

While it would not be possible to attribute changes to the MSEIP program, given the importance 

of STEM fields to the Nation’s future, increases would be expected over time.

STEM fields can include a wide range of disciplines. However, for purposes of this data 

analysis, STEM fields include computer and information sciences; engineering; engineering

technologies and engineering-related fields; biological and biomedical sciences; mathematics

and statistics; physical sciences; science technology/technicians; and agriculture, agriculture 

operations, and related sciences.

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

2005 and 2010.

MSEIP g rant ees and all Tit le IV in stitution s

MSEIP grantees All Title IV Institutions Number and p ercent age of B.A. d egrees

MSEIP2005 MSEIP2010 All in stitution s2005 All in stitution s2010

All students

Number of STEM degrees 4,430 4,896 288,543 323,328

Number of degrees 23,866 32,663 1,411,002 1,620,629

Percent of degrees that are in STEM fields 15.7% 15.0% 20.4% 20.0%

Black or African American students

Number of STEM degrees 915 847 19,611 19,278

Number of degrees 7,193 6,956 127,978 152,404

Percent of degrees that are in STEM fields 12.7% 12.2% 15.3% 12.6%

Hispanic students

Number of STEM degrees 1,237 1,713 20,224 25,555

Number of degrees 9,407 12,688 111,616 147,205

Percent of degrees that are in STEM fields 13.1% 13.5% 18.1% 17.4%
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-61

In 2005, approximately 15.7 percent of all bachelor’s degrees conferred by the 2005 cohort of 

MSEIP grantees were in STEM fields, a figure that was slightly higher than the 2010 

percentage. The percentages were lower than for all Title IV institutions, where approximately 

20 percent of all degrees conferred were in STEM fields.

Lower percentages of degrees conferred to Black or Hispanic students were in STEM fields, 

and the percentages did not change appreciably between 2005 and 2010.

The Master’s Degree Programs for HBCUs and PBIs received its first year of funding in 2009. 

The Department has developed program performance measures on enrollment, completion, and 

time to degree for these programs. More specifically: (1) the percentage change, over the period 

between the fall of the year the grant was issued and the fall after the end of the grant period, in 

the number of African American and/or low-income graduate students enrolled in the academic 

program(s) supported by the project; (2) the percentage change, over the previous fall semester 

before, in the number of African American and/or low-income students graduating in the academic 

program(s) supported by the project; and (3) median time to completion of a Master’s degree for 

African Americans and/or low-income graduate students, in the academic program(s) supported 

by the project during the period of the grant award. The percentage change for enrollment will be 

calculated against the base year. The Department will only assess progress against targets 

periodically (about every 6 years). Student enrollment at institutions in 2015 will be used to 

calculate the percentage change against student enrollment at institutions in the base year 2009. 

The target for 2015 will be developed as soon as data become available and will be used to 

measure success for the 6-year grant period 2009-2014. Performance data for these measures 

will be derived from annual performance reports from program grantees.

Efficiency Measures

The Department developed a common efficiency measure for the Aid for Institutional 

Development programs. These calculations do not take into account Federal student financial aid 

received by these institutions. Not only has the Department revised targets for 2013 based on a 

review of actual performance data from previous years for these programs to more accurately 

reflect program outcomes, but it has also based future calculations and targets to include both 

discretionary and mandatory funding in the TCCUs, ANNH-serving institutions, HBCUs, PBIs, 

AANAPISIs, and NASNTIs programs.

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

SIP institutions.

Year Target Actual

2010 $350 $441

2011 350 430

2012 350 393

2013 430

2014 425

2015 420
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-62

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

Year Target Actual

2010 $12,500 $35,879

2011 12,500 29,780

2012 12,500 27,486

2013 32,950 1

2014 32,650

2015 32,600

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 to accommodate the influx of mandatory funding resulting from SAFRA 

for these programs. SAFRA makes funding for minority-serving institutions available through fiscal year 2019 under 

section 371 of the HEA.

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

at ANNH-serving Institutions.

Year Target Actual

2010 $2,775 $2,259

2011 2,775 3,068

2012 2,775 1,448

2013 2,775 

2014 2,750

2015 2,725

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

at HBCUs.

Year Target Actual

2010 $5,400 $7,923

2011 5,400 7,205

2012 5,400 6,507

2013 7,415 1

2014 7,340

2015 7,265

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 because performance in this program was worse than expected.

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

Year Target Actual

2010 $12,700 $9,510

2011 12,700 9,655

2012 12,700 8,774

2013 9,355 1

2014 9,262

2015 9,165

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 because performance in this program was better than expected.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-63

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

Year Target Actual

2010 N/A $1,207

2011 N/A 911

2012 $1,800 1,008

2013 1,040 1

2014 1,030

2015 1,020

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 because performance in this program was better than expected.

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

AANAPISIs.

Year Target Actual

2010 N/A $310

2011 N/A 238

2012 $385 202

2013 300

2014 295

2015 290

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

Year Target Actual

2010 N/A $1,028

2011 N/A 672 

2012 $2,150 810

2013 1,0251

2014 1,015

2015 1,005

1 The Department revised targets for 2013 because performance in this program was better than expected.

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

divided by the number of undergraduate and graduate degrees awarded. Given that the 

average cost per successful outcome for 2009 and 2010 for many of the Aid for Institutional 

Development programs either significantly exceeded or was significantly lower than their 

targets, the Department has revised targets beginning in 2013 to more accurately reflect actual 

performance. A similar efficiency measure has been established for the Developing HSIs 

program and for Howard University. This metric may enable the Department to assess program 

performance across institutions with similar types of missions. Performance on efficiency 

measures exceeded the targets set for 2012 for nearly every Title III program except SIP, 

TCCUs, and HBCUs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for institutional development

T-64

For the Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs and PBIs, the Department has developed a 

measure of the cost of a successful outcome, where success will be defined as Master’s 

degrees earned by African American and low-income students, in the academic programs 

supported by the project during the period of the grant award. The target for 2015 will be 

developed as soon as data become available and will be used to measure success for the 

6-year grant period 2009-2014.

Other Performance Information

A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on “Low-Income and Minority Serving 

Institutions: Management Attention to Long-standing Concerns Needed to Improve Education’s 

Oversight of Grant Programs” found that institutions eligible to receive Title III and V grants had 

fewer resources, including endowment holdings and revenue from tuition and fees, and lower 

per student spending on equipment than ineligible institutions. They also served more students 

who were minority, low-income, and attended part-time. Title III and V grantees reported 

challenges in all four grant focus areas: academic quality, student support, institutional 

management, and fiscal stability. While nearly all grantees reported challenges related to 

strengthening institutional management and fiscal stability, expenditures in these areas 

represented less than one-quarter of all grant funds spent (almost $385 million in fiscal 

year 2006).
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-65

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title V, Parts A and B; Title III, Part F, Section 371(b)(2)(B); 

and Title VIII, Part AA, Section 898)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite (discretionary); $100,000 (mandatory)

Budget Authority:

Program 2014 2015 Change

Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions 

(discretionary) (HEA V-A) $98,583 $98,583 0

Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions 

Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics and Articulation 

(mandatory) (HEA III-F) 92,800 100,000 +$7,200

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities 

for Hispanic Americans (discretionary) 

(HEA V-B) 8,845 8,845 0

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities 

for Hispanic Americans (mandatory) (HEA 

VIII-AA, Section 898) 10,672 0

1

-10,672

Total 210,900 207,428 -3,472

Discretionary 107,428 107,428 0

Mandatory 103,472 100,000 2-3,472

 1 The authorization for mandatory funding for this program expires on September 30, 2014. 2 These funds are not part of the fiscal year 2015 budget request, but are mandatory appropriations provided 

under Title III, Part F, Section 371 of the HEA.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Aid for Hispanic-serving Institutions programs provide grants for direct support to 

institutions of higher education (IHEs) that educate a disproportionate share of Hispanic 

Americans. These Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) are defined as institutions that have an 

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

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

designed to expand and enhance the academic offerings, program quality, and institutional 

stability of the colleges and universities that are educating a large percentage of Hispanic 

college students.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-66

Grants of up to 5 years in duration are awarded competitively to HSIs to enable these 

institutions to improve and expand their capacity to serve Hispanic and low-income students. 

Individual development grants support efforts to resolve institutional problems. Cooperative 

arrangement development grants between two or more IHEs support efforts to resolve 

institutional problems common to the IHEs and enable IHEs to combine their resources to better 

achieve institutional goals and avoid costly duplication of effort. In addition, 1-year planning 

grants may be awarded for the preparation of plans and applications for a grant under this 

program.

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

academic program development; better management of funds and administration; construction 

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

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

community outreach programs that encourage elementary and secondary school students to 

develop the academic skills and the interest to pursue postsecondary education; and creating or 

improving facilities for Internet or other distance learning academic instruction, including 

purchase or rental of telecommunications technology equipment and services. Also, HSIs may 

use no more than 20 percent of the grant funds to establish or increase an institution’s 

endowment fund. The endowment funds must be matched at a rate of one non-Federal dollar 

for each Federal dollar. If an institution receives funding under this program, it cannot receive 

funding under Part A or Part B of Title III.

The HSI STEM and Articulation Program, authorized under Title III, Part F of the HEA, is 

designed to increase the number of Hispanic and other low-income students attaining degrees 

in fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and to develop model 

transfer and articulation agreements between 2-year and 4-year HSIs in such fields. The 

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 

to provide $100 million in mandatory funding per year for fiscal years 2010 through 2019 for this 

program.

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans program, authorized under 

Title V of HEA, seeks to help Hispanic Americans gain entry into and succeed in graduate 

study, a level of education in which they are underrepresented. To be eligible to apply, an 

institution of higher education must be an HSI that offers a postbaccalaureate certificate or 

postbaccalaureate degree-granting program.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide an 

additional $11.5 million in mandatory funding for this program for 6 years beginning in fiscal year 

2009. The authorization for this program expires on September 30, 2014. HSIs may apply for 

competitive 5-year grants, which are to be used to improve postbaccaulareate offerings. 

Institutions receiving grants under this program may also receive funds under Title V, Part A.

Authorized activities include: purchasing, renting, or leasing scientific or laboratory equipment 

used for educational purposes; construction, maintenance, renovation and facilities 

improvement, including telecommunications; purchasing library books, periodicals, journals, and 

other educational materials, including telecommunications program materials; supporting 

low-income postbaccalaureate students through outreach programs, academic support 

services, mentoring, and student financial assistance; supporting faculty exchanges, 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-67

Percent of 18- to 24-year olds enrolled 

in degree-granting institutions by 

race/ethnicity (2011)

37.1% 34.8% 44.7%

60.1%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

Asian

White

Black

Hispanic

Enrollment

development, and research, as well as curricular development and academic instruction; the 

creation or improvement of facilities for Internet or other distance education technologies; and 

collaboration with other IHEs to expand postbaccalaureate offerings. Other activities germane 

to the promotion of postbaccalaureate study at HSIs are permissible, provided that they 

contribute to the overall purpose of the program and are approved by the Department. 

Funding levels for the Aid for HSI programs for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2010..................................................................................$239,429 1

2011....................................................................................225,231 1

2012....................................................................................220,943 1

2013....................................................................................209,532 2

2014....................................................................................210,900 3

 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.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Department requests $98.6 million for the Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions (HSIs) 

program and $8.8 million for the Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic 

Americans (PPOHA) program, level with the 2014 appropriation. 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. These mandatory funds are not part of the Department’s fiscal year 

2015 request. The authority providing mandatory funds for the PPOHA program expires in 

2014. Approximately half of the discretionary funds for the Developing HSI program will support 

new awards, with the remaining funds supporting peer review costs and non-competing 

continuations. All of the funds for the PPOHA program would support new awards, while all of 

the funds for the HSI-STEM program would support non-competing continuations.

In 1976, about 383,800 Hispanic Americans attended degree-granting institutions of higher 

education. Since then, Hispanic enrollment has grown steadily, reaching 2.9 million in 2011. 

Hispanics constitute the largest minority group in the 

Nation, 17 percent of the total U.S. population. As of 

2012, the United States was home to 53 million Hispanic 

people. More than half the growth in the total US 

population between 2000 and 2010 was due to the 

increase in the Hispanic population. The Census Bureau 

projects that the Hispanic American population will triple 

between 2008 and 2050, reaching 132.8 million and 

30 percent of the overall population.

Hispanics have made significant gains in education over 

the last several decades. The increase in Hispanic 

enrollment is being driven by population growth and by 

increasing proportions of the population enrolling in 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-68

colleges and universities. In 1976, Hispanics represented 3.7 percent of the undergraduate 

enrollment; in 2011, they represented 16.5 percent of postsecondary enrollment and 25 percent 

of all students age 18 to 24 enrolled in 2-year institutions. From 2009 to 2010, the enrollment of 

Hispanics age 18 to 24 in undergraduate and graduate programs grew by 24 percent, and grew 

by an additional 15 percent from 2010 to 2011. Population growth among college-age 

Hispanics during the same period was only 7 percent. For the first time, Hispanics are the 

minority group with the largest number of students enrolled in 4-year colleges.

Although Hispanics have made significant gains in education, their enrollment rates and 

degree attainment remain lower than those of their non-Hispanic peers. In 2011, 

only 34.8 percent of all Hispanics in the age group 18-24 years were enrolled in degree-granting 

institutions, compared to 60.1 percent of Asian peers, 44.7 percent of all non-Hispanic White 

peers, and 37.1 percent of Black peers (see graph). In 2010-2011, Hispanics earned 

9.8 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 7.4 percent of master’s degrees, and 6.1 percent of PhDs 

awarded in the United States despite constituting nearly 17 percent of the total national 

population.

The Aid for Hispanic-serving Institutions programs provide critically needed support to carry out 

activities designed to improve the educational outcomes for low-income, minority, and other 

institutions with a significant share of Hispanic enrollment. HSIs enroll only 16 percent of all 

postsecondary students, but they enroll 54 percent of all Hispanic undergraduates. Because of 

the unique role these institutions play, they are vital to the improvement of Hispanic Americans’ 

educational attainment. The 2015 request, combined with the mandatory funding available 

through Title III, Part F of the HEA, is intended to help close the achievement gap between HSI 

and non-HSI students.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015 ootnotes

Developing HSIs

HSIs Number of new awards 11 32 80

HSIs Average new award $675 $588 $627

HSIs Total new award funding $7,427 $18,959 $50,150

HSIs Number of NCC awards 139 123 76

HSIs Average NCC award $631 $639 $624

HSIs Total NCC award funding $87,751 $78,638 $47,447

HSIs Peer review of new award applications 0 $985 $985

HSIs Total award funding $95,179 $98,583 $98,583

HSIs Total number of awards 150 155 156
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-69

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015 ootnotes

Promoting Postbaccalaureate 

Opportunities for Hispanic Americans

PPOHA Discretionary funding:

PPOHA Number of new awards 0 0 18

PPOHA Average new award 0 0 $491

PPOHA Total new award funding 0 0 $8,845

PPOHA Number of NCC awards 21 21 0

PPOHA Average NCC award $407 $421 0

PPOHA Total NCC award funding $8,540 $8,845 0

PPOHA Mandatory funding:

PPOHA Number of NCC awards 22 22 0

PPOHA Average NCC award $496 $485 0

PPOHA Total NCC award funding $10,914 $10,672 0

Total PPOHA award funding $19,454 $19,517 $8,845

Total number of PPOHA awards 43 43 18

HSI STEM and Articulation Programs

STEM Mandatory funding: 

STEM Number of NCC awards 109 109 109

STEM Average NCC award $917 $871 $851

STEM Total NCC award funding $100,000 1 $94,900 $92,800

STEM Total HSIs award funding $214,633 $214,856 $214,856

STEM Discretionary $103,719 $107,428 $107,428

STEM Mandatory $110,914 $105,572 $92,800

Total number of HSI awards 302 307 283

 1 These are actual obligations made in fiscal year 2013 from funds that were appropriated in fiscal year 2012, as 

allowed by section 371(b)(1)(B) of the HEA.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-70

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 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To improve the capacity of minority-serving institutions, which traditionally have 

limited resources and serve large numbers of low-income and minority students, to 

improve student success, and to provide high-quality educational opportunities for their 

students.

Objective: Increase the enrollment, persistence, and graduation rates at Hispanic-serving 

institutions.

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

full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolling at HSIs.

Year Target Actual

2008 11.2%

2013 11.0%

Additional Information: The Department recast the measure of long-term enrollment to focus 

on changes in enrollment rather than the absolute numbers of students enrolled. The 

new measure uses the same National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) fall enrollment data for all full-time 

degree-seeking undergraduate students used by the former measure except that the new 

measure tracks program enrollment at the beginning of, and 1 year after the end of, each 5-year 

grant period. The percentage change is calculated against the base year. There are no 

intermediate annual targets. Student enrollment at HSIs in 2008 (860,424) was used to 

calculate the percentage change against student enrollment at HSIs in the base year 2003 

(773,859). The target of 11 percent for 2013 will be used to assess success for the 5-year grant 

period 2008-2012 and was developed in late 2008. Data for 2013 are expected to be available 

in 2014.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-71

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

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

in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HSI.

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

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

in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same HSI.

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

2010 78.0% 77.0% 64.0% 58.0%

2011 78.0 72.0 64.0 65.0

2012 78.0 75.0 64.0 66.0

2013 78.0 65.0

2014 78.0 65.5

2015 78.0 66.0

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

undergraduates students enrolled at 4-year HSIs graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

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

undergraduates students enrolled at 2-year HSIs graduating within 3 years of enrollment.

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

2010 45.0% 41.0% 22.0% 17.0%

2011 45.0 40.0 22.0 20.0

2012 46.0 22.0 19.0

2013 46.0 22.0

2014 46.0 22.0

2015 46.0 22.0

Additional Information: Persistence at 2-year HSIs increased in fiscal year 2012, exceeding 

the target of 64 percent; persistence at 4-year HSIs improved, but still missed the target of 

78 percent.

Fiscal year 2011 data show that graduation rates fell one percentage point for 4-year HSIs, but 

increased for 2-year HSIs. Neither of the targets was met. The data are derived from grantees’ 

electronic annual performance reports and the NCES/IPEDS. IPEDS data are reported by all 

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

checks. Missing data for 2012 are expected to be available in 2014.

Objective: Improve the year-to-year increase in enrollment and graduation rates in 

postbaccalaureate programs at Hispanic-serving institutions.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-72

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

professional students enrolled at HSI institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 2.5%

Additional Information: The long-term measure for change in enrollment assesses the 

percentage change in enrollment at the grantee institutions over a 5-year period. For 2013, the 

measure will be calculated as the percentage change in the number of graduate students 

enrolling at the grantee institutions, using the 2008 baseline of 62,821 students. During the 

previous 5 years, 2003-2008, enrollment at these same institutions declined. However, in 2009, 

the enrollment at the 22 grantee institutions increased by 1.3 percent over the prior year. This 

rate of growth was used to establish the 2013 enrollment target.

Measure: The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of master's, 

doctoral and first-professional degrees and postbaccalaureate certificates awarded at HSI 

institutions.

Year Target Actual

2013 20%

Additional Information: The long-term measure for change in graduate degrees assesses the 

percentage change in degrees and certificates awarded over a 5-year period. For 2013, the 

measure will be calculated as the percentage change in the number of degrees and certificates 

awarded at the grantee institutions, using the 2008 baseline of 18,108 degrees and certificates.

Efficiency Measures

Developing HSIs: Cost per successful outcome: Federal cost per undergraduate and graduate 

degree at HSIs.

Year Target Actual

2010 $950 $1,506

2011 950

2012 950

2013 1,280 

2014 1,265

2015 1,250

Additional Information: The Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions efficiency measure is 

calculated by dividing the appropriation for the Developing HSIs program by the number of 

undergraduate and graduate degrees awarded. The Department established targets of $950 

per successful outcome for fiscal years 2009 through 2012. Fiscal year 2010 data show a 

marked increase in efficiency from the prior year, but efficiency has decreased since 2008. This 

variability is due in large part to the fact that success is defined as a bachelor’s degree or 

higher, 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 is 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-73

working to ensure the quality of data for 2011 through 2013, which are expected to be available 

in 2014.

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans: Cost per successful 

outcome: Federal cost per master's, doctoral and first-professional degree and 

postbaccalaureate certificate at HSI institutions.

Year Target Actual

2009 $597

2010 $2,215 741

2011 2,215 714

Additional Information: The efficiency measure can also be used to assess overall program 

performance over time. A similar efficiency measure has been established for the Title III Aid 

for Institutional Development programs as well as for Howard University. This metric may 

enable the Department to assess program performance across institutions with similar types of 

missions.

The PPOHA efficiency measure is calculated by dividing the appropriation for the PPOHA 

program by the number of graduate degrees and certificates awarded at grantee institutions. In 

fiscal year 2009, when the PPOHA appropriation was $11.5 million, grantee institutions awarded 

18,826 graduate degrees. The 2010 efficiency target was established on the basis of 

information on the performance of 117 potentially eligible institutions in 2007 and 2008, not 

actual grantees, and before 2009 data became available. In January 2014, data for 2011 

became available. Now that three data points are available, the Department plans to establish 

targets for 2014 and beyond in spring 2014.

The HSI STEM and Articulation program was initially funded by the College Cost Reduction and 

Access Act (CCRAA). Because funding was made available for only 2 years, the Department 

did not establish any performance measures for 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 measures have been put into place, although 

no data have been collected to date.

• The percentage change, over the 5-year grant period, of the number of full-time degreeseeking undergraduates enrolled at HSIs.

• The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students who were 

in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the 

current year at the same institution.

• The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at 

4-year HSIs graduating within 6 years of enrollment.

• The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at 

2-year HSIs graduating within 3 years of enrollment.

• Federal cost for undergraduate and graduate degrees at institutions in the HispanicServing Institutions STEM and Articulation Programs.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Aid for Hispanic-serving institutions

T-74

Other Performance Information

A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on “Low-Income and Minority Serving 

Institutions: Management Attention to Long-standing Concerns Needed to Improve Education’s 

Oversight of Grant Programs” found that institutions eligible to receive Title III and V grants had 

fewer resources, including endowment holdings and revenue from tuition and fees, and lower 

per student spending on equipment than ineligible institutions. They also served more students 

who were minority, low-income, and attended part-time. Title III and V grantees reported 

challenges in all four grant focus areas: academic quality, student support, institutional 

management, and fiscal stability. While nearly all grantees reported challenges related to 

strengthening institutional management and fiscal stability, expenditures in these areas 

represented less than one-quarter of all grant funds spent (almost $385 million in fiscal year 

2006).

Additionally, the HSI STEM program includes absolute priorities related to STEM and 

articulation activities and one competitive preference priority for data-based decision-making. 

To assess the impact of the adoption of these priorities on program outcomes, the Department 

collects data through the annual performance report and conducts special analyses to 

determine the changes that occur during the course of the grant period in:

• The percentage of graduates receiving STEM related degrees from grantee institutions; 

• The number of students transferring from 2-year grantee institutions to 4-year 

institutions; and

• The use of student data on enrollment, persistence, and completion by grantee 

institutions that select the Competitive Preference Priority in conducting project activities. 

Such data may include data from State longitudinal data systems or other reliable thirdparty resources. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-75

Other aid for institutions: International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VI, Parts A and B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$65,103 $69,103 +$4,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) Domestic Programs are 

designed to strengthen the capability and performance of American education in foreign 

languages and in area and international studies. The IEFLS programs have their origin in the 

National Defense Education Act of 1958 as a response to the need to strengthen instruction in 

foreign languages insufficiently taught in the United States as well as in area and international 

studies.

Funds are used to support a broad range of activities under nine Domestic Programs. Grants 

are awarded to support centers, programs, and fellowships in institutions of higher education to 

increase the number of experts in foreign languages and area or international studies to meet 

national needs and to strengthen the teaching of foreign languages and international education 

at all levels. Prior to the beginning of each grant cycle, the Department must consult with and 

receive recommendations from the head officials of a wide range of Federal Agencies to 

determine the areas of national need for expertise in foreign languages and world regions and 

make this list available to grant applicants. In addition, the Department must work with a variety 

of Federal Agency heads to submit a biennial report to Congress and the public identifying 

areas of national need in foreign language, area, and international studies as such studies 

relate to government, education, business, and nonprofit needs, and a plan to address those 

needs. In awarding grants, the Department is required to take into account the degree to which 

applicants’ activities address national needs and inform the public; the applicants’ records of 

placing students into postgraduate employment, education, or training in areas of national need; 

and the applicants’ plans to increase this number.

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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-76

Program legislation requires that institutions that receive funding under Title VI provide the 

following information to the Department, in accordance with the requirements of Section 117 of 

the HEA: (1) the amount of the contribution (including cash and the fair market value of any 

property) received from any foreign government or from a foreign private sector corporation or 

foundation during any fiscal year in which the contribution exceeds $250,000 in the aggregate; 

and (2) the aggregate contribution, or a significant part of the aggregate contribution, that is to 

be used by a center or program receiving funds under Title VI.

National Resource Centers support institutions of higher education (IHEs) or consortia of such 

institutions in establishing, operating, and strengthening comprehensive and undergraduate 

centers of excellence to train students, specialists, and other scholars; maintaining important 

library collections and related training and research facilities; conducting advanced research on 

issues on world affairs that concern one or more countries; establishing linkages between IHEs 

and other academic, governmental, and media entities; operating summer institutes in the 

United States or abroad; and providing outreach and consultative services at the national, 

regional, and local levels. Funds also support faculty, staff, and student travel in foreign areas, 

regions, or countries; the development and implementation of educational programs abroad for 

students; and projects that support students in the science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics fields to achieve foreign language proficiency. National Resource Centers are 

funded for up to 4 years, with funds allocated on an annual basis pending satisfactory 

performance by the Centers and availability of funds.

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program supports academic year and summer 

fellowships for graduate- and undergraduate-level training at IHEs having offering high quality 

performance-based programs of excellence. Students apply to IHEs that have received 

fellowship allocations from the Department of Education. Students receiving fellowships must 

be individuals who are engaged:

• In an instructional program with stated performance goals for functional foreign language 

use or in a program developing such performance goals, in combination with area studies, 

international studies, or the international aspects of a professional studies program;

• In the case of an undergraduate student, in the intermediate or advanced study of a less 

commonly taught language; or 

• In the case of a graduate student, in graduate study in connection with a program described 

above, including pre-dissertation level study, preparation for dissertation research, 

dissertation research abroad, or dissertation writing.

Before awarding a fellowship for use outside the United States, an institution must obtain 

approval from the Department of Education. A fellowship may be approved for use outside the 

United States if (1) the student is enrolled in an overseas modern foreign language program 

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. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-77

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 under Title V of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965. Grant awards are normally made for 2 years. However, organizations, 

associations, and institutional consortia are eligible for up to 3 years of support.

International Research and Studies Program supports projects carried out by IHEs, public and 

private nonprofit organizations, and individuals that are designed to: determine the need for 

improved or increased instruction in foreign language and area and international studies; 

develop more effective teaching methods and standardized measures of competency; develop 

specialized curriculum materials; evaluate the extent to which programs that address national 

needs would not otherwise be offered; study and survey the uses of technology in foreign 

language and area and international studies programs; and determine through studies and 

evaluations effective practices in the dissemination of international information throughout the 

education community, including elementary and secondary schools. Funds also include support 

for evaluation of the extent to which programs funded under Title VI reflect diverse perspectives 

and a wide range of views and generate debate on world regions and international affairs; the 

systematic collection, analysis, and dissemination of data that contribute to achieving the 

purposes of Title VI; and support for programs or activities to make data collected, analyzed, or 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-78

disseminated publicly available and easily understood. The Department funds participants 

through grants and contracts for up to 3 years.

Centers for International Business Education support IHEs or consortia of IHEs by paying the 

Federal share of the cost of planning, establishing, and operating centers that provide a 

comprehensive university approach to improving international business education by bringing 

together faculty from numerous disciplines. The Centers serve as national resources for the 

teaching of improved business techniques, strategies, and methodologies that emphasize the 

international context in which business is transacted; provide instruction in critical foreign 

languages and international fields needed to provide an understanding of the cultures and 

customs of U.S. trading partners; provide research and training in the international aspects of 

trade, commerce, and other fields of study; provide training to students enrolled in the institution 

or institutions in which a center is located; serve as regional resources to local businesses by 

offering programs and providing research designed to meet the international training needs of 

such businesses; and serve other faculty, students, and institutions of higher education located 

within their respective regions. Grants are made for 4 years. The Federal share of the cost of 

planning, establishing, and operating the Centers cannot exceed 90 percent, 70 percent, or 

50 percent in the first, second, third and following years, respectively.

Language Resource Centers support IHEs or consortia of IHEs in improving the teaching and 

learning of foreign languages. The activities carried out by the Centers must include effective 

dissemination efforts, whenever appropriate, and may include: the conduct and dissemination 

of research on new and improved teaching methods (including the use of advanced educational 

technology) to the education community; the development, application, and dissemination of 

performance testing appropriate to an educational setting for use as a standard and comparable 

measurement of skill levels in all languages; the training of teachers in the administration and 

interpretation of the performance tests; a significant focus on the teaching and learning needs of 

the less commonly taught languages and the publication and dissemination of instructional 

materials in those languages; the development and dissemination of materials designed to 

serve as a resource for foreign language teachers at the elementary and secondary school 

levels; and the operation of intensive summer language institutes. Language Resource Centers 

are eligible for up to 4 years of support.

American Overseas Research Centers Program makes grants to consortia of IHEs to promote 

postgraduate research, faculty and student exchanges, and area studies. Funds may be used 

to pay for all or a portion of the cost of establishing or operating a center or program. Costs 

may include faculty and staff stipends and salaries; faculty, staff, and student travel; operation 

and maintenance of overseas facilities; teaching and research materials; the acquisition, 

maintenance, and preservation of library collections; travel for visiting scholars and faculty 

members who are teaching or conducting research; preparation for and management of 

conferences; and the publication and dissemination of material for the scholars and general 

public. Centers are eligible for 4 years of support.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-79

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2010.................................................................................... $108,360

2011........................................................................................ 66,712

2012........................................................................................ 66,586

2013........................................................................................ 63,103

2014........................................................................................ 65,103

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests a total of $69.1 million for the Title VI Domestic Programs, an 

increase of $4 million, or 6 percent, more than the fiscal year 2014 level. The Administration’s 

request for fiscal year 2015 for the Domestic Programs is responsive to both the 

Administration’s National Security Strategy, released May 27, 20101

, and the Department’s 

International Strategy. The National Security Strategy lays out “a strategic approach for 

advancing American interests, including the security of the American people, a growing U.S. 

economy, support for our values, and an international order that can address 21st century 

challenges.” The Department will strengthen and enhance its programs in line with the 

President’s overall Asia-Pacific Rebalance and Global Engagement priorities.2

 The fiscal year 

2015 request for the Title VI Domestic Programs will support activities to make world language 

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 Department also believes our Nation needs citizens with global competence. The ability to 

compete and collaborate on the world stage requires an awareness and understanding of the 

world, the ability to communicate and collaborate with others from different cultures, and 

exposure to foreign languages. The Department believes that a world-class education must 

integrate global competencies and is committed to increasing the global competency of all 

United States students. Effective global engagement will involve American students and equip 

them with the knowledge, skills and awareness of other countries, cultures, languages and 

perspectives. Global competencies are essential skills for all U.S. students to support U.S. 

economic competitiveness and jobs, to enable young people to work with their counterparts all 

over the world in meeting global challenges, and to foster our national security and diplomacy. 

American students and teachers of all ages should be partnered with students and faculty

 1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf 2 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/asia_pacific_rebalance_factsheet_20130412.pdf
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-80

abroad, especially in priority countries, through connected classrooms, research opportunities, 

and exchanges.

The Administration’s budget includes a $4 million increase to funding the following:

• The request for the Domestic Programs includes $2 million to support new awards in the 

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language (UISFL) program to support

international studies and world language programs at undergraduate institutions, particularly 

those supported under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,

(such as minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and community colleges). These programs will 

lead the way in expanding access to international studies and world language programs in 

the United States, help deliver the opportunities of the global economy to a broader 

population, and better equip the Nation to meet its economic and security demand for 

professionals.

The Department proposes to make grants under the UISFL program to approximately 

31 institutions for the purpose of establishing or significantly enhancing international studies 

and world language programs. Our goal is to increase opportunities for many more 

American students to learn and develop proficiency in critical foreign languages, specifically 

those spoken in the Asia-Pacific and Sub-Saharan Africa regions, by increasing the capacity 

of institutions of higher education to teach such languages.

• The Administration also requests $2 million to support a new program for Institutional 

Mobility Grants in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The proposal will provide 

assistance to institutions (or consortia of institutions) in the United States to enable crossborder collaborations with institutions in at least two participating countries in Southeast Asia 

and Sub-Saharan Africa. The projects would be rooted in Memoranda of Understanding 

among the Department of Education, the Department of State, and the Education Ministries 

in the participating countries, with partner countries matching funding provided by the 

Department of Education. Initial countries under consideration for partnerships in these 

regions are Vietnam and Indonesia in Southeast Asia and Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, and 

Ethiopia in Africa. The Department, in consultation with the State Department and National 

Security Staff, will determine which countries will be selected to participate in this proposal. 

The Administration is requesting appropriations language that would allow the Department 

to use the funds for awards that support cross-border collaborations between consortia of 

U.S. institutions of higher education and Southeast Asian or Sub-Saharan African 

institutions of higher education, or with both, for mutually beneficial educational 

partnerships and the exchange of students.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-81

• The remaining $64 million request will be used to support continuation costs for grants 

awarded in prior fiscal years for Domestic Programs—National Resource Centers (NRCs), 

Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) fellowships, Centers for International Business 

Education (CIBE), Language Resource Centers (LRCs), American Overseas Research 

Centers (AORC), and UISFL. In fiscal year 2014, the Department intends to propose a 

number of absolute, competitive, and invitational priorities in these programs with a focus on

key regions identified as high-priority for the Administration—Southeast Asia and 

Sub-Saharan Africa in addition to a priority that focuses on the 78 priority languages 

selected from the Department’s list of Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs). The 

78 priority languages were developed through annual consultations with other Federal 

Agencies, such as the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and State. 

Fiscal year 2015 funding will be used to support the continuation of grants proposing 

priorities in these world regions and priority languages.

 $22.7 million for NRCs: NRCs are the primary mechanism for developing U.S. language 

and area studies expertise. These grants help institutions of higher education to 

establish, strengthen, and operate advanced centers for the teaching and learning of 

foreign languages and area and international studies. Funding for this program was cut 

drastically in 2011, from just under $34 million in fiscal year 2010 to $18 million. The 

fiscal year 2015 allocation of $22.7 million represents 67 percent of funding awarded in

2010. Fiscal year 2015 funds will be needed to continue support for activities that help 

to promote a globally competent workforce, in addition to producing our next generation 

of experts.

 $30.1 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 2015, funding for FLAS would 

be maintained at the same level allocated in fiscal year 2014. Competitive preference 

will be given to students who are eligible for Pell Grants when awarding undergraduate 

fellowships and to students who demonstrate financial need when awarding graduate 

fellowships. In addition, the Department will encourage institutions to award academic 

year FLAS fellowships to students undergoing advanced training in any of the priority 

languages used in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.

 $2.9 million for UISFL program continuation grants: For the UISFL program, the 

Department proposes to continue support for activities that strengthen and improve 

undergraduate instruction in international studies and foreign languages at underresourced institutions and minority serving institutions. In fiscal year 2014, the 

Department proposes to give priority to applications from institutions determined eligible 

under the Title III and V programs authorized by the HEA and to other under-resourced 

institutions such as community colleges. These grants will receive their second year of 

continuation funding in fiscal year 2015.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-82

 $2.5 million for LRCs: To strengthen our capacity across institutions and at all levels, 

the Department proposes to continue support enabling 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 Department 

proposes to give competitive preference to applications from institutions that collaborate 

with institutions determined eligible for funding under HEA Titles III and V and to other 

under-resourced institutions such as community colleges. Competitive preference is 

also proposed for applications that propose activities that focus on any of the 78 priority 

languages selected from the Department’s list of LCTLs.

 $4.7 million for CIBEs: The Department proposes to maintain funding at the 2014 level 

in the CIBE program. CIBEs are designed to serve as regional and national resources 

for businesses, students, and faculty at all levels. They meet the need for research and 

training in the international aspects of trade, commerce, and other fields of study. CIBEs 

prepare students for careers in the global economy by developing and promoting 

international business and economics academic programs and curricula. They also 

assist businesses in the region in exporting their products and services to other 

countries and/or importing what they need. CIBEs play an integral role in maintaining 

and increasing U.S. business global competitiveness. The Department will encourage 

applicants in this program to develop, maintain, or enhance linkages with overseas 

institutions of higher education or other educational organizations, especially those that 

focus on sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, in order to improve 

understanding of these societies and provide for greater engagement with institutions in 

these areas.

 $650,000 for AORCs: AORCs 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 budget request plays in integral role in helping to support one component of the President’s 

National Security Strategy, which is to increase international education and exchange. In 

addition, this request helps to fill two key gaps in the Department’s international and foreign 

language pipeline: language and career development programs at the undergraduate level, 

particularly for a broader population of students, and cross-border architecture to support 

student and researcher mobility in the Administration-identified priority regions of Southeast 

Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-83

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

National Resource Centers:

NRCs Number of new awards 0 105 0

NRCs Average new award 0 $217 0

NRCs Total new award funding 0 $22,743 0

NRCs Number of NCC awards 127 0 105

NRCs Average NCC award $136 0 $217

NRCs Total NCC award funding $17,219 0 $22,743

NRCs Total award funding $17,219 $22,743 $22,743

NRCs Total number of awards 127 105 105

Foreign Language and Area Studies 

Fellowships:

FLAS Academic year graduate fellowships 792 673 673

FLAS Average academic year fellowship $33 $33 $33

FLAS Academic year undergraduate fellowships 271 230 230

FLAS Average academic year fellowship $15 $15 $15

FLAS Summer fellowships 746 632 632

FLAS Average summer year fellowship $8 $8 $8

FLAS Number of new awards 0 108 0

FLAS Average new award 0 $281 0

FLAS Total new award funding 0 $30,399 0

FLAS Number of NCC awards 126 0 108

FLAS Average NCC award $281 0 $281

FLAS Total NCC award funding $35,399 0 $30,399

FLAS Total award funding $35,399 $30,399 $30,399

FLAS Total number of awards 126 108 108

Undergraduate International Studies

and Foreign Language Program:

UISF LNumber of new awards 0 31 10

UISF L Average new award 0 $94 $223

UISF LTotal new award funding 0 $2,929 $2,231

UISF LNumber of NCC awards 17 3 31

UISF L Average NCC award $92 $127 $94

UISF L Total NCC award funding $1,569 $380 $2,929

UISF L Total award funding $1,569 $3,309 $5,160

UISF LTotal number of awards 17 34 41
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-84

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Centers for International Business Education:

CIBE Number of new awards 0 14 0

CIBE Average new award 0 $339 0

CIBE Total new award funding 0 $4,751 0

CIBE Number of NCC awards 33 0 14

CIBE Average NCC award $166 0 $339

CIBE Total NCC award funding $5,468 0 $4,751

CIBE Total award funding $5,468 $4,751 $4,751

CIBE Total number of awards 33 14 14

Language Resource Centers:

LRC Number of new awards 0 15 0

LRC Average new award 0 $167 0

LRC Total new award 0 $2,500 0

LRC Number of NCC awards 15 0 15

LRC Average NCC award $162 0 $167

LRC Total NCC award funding $2,431 0 $2,500

LRC Total award funding $2,431 $2,500 $2,500

LRC Total number of awards 15 15 15

American Overseas Research Centers:

AORC Number of NCC awards 10 10 10

AORC Average NCC award $65 $65 $65

AORC Total NCC award funding $650 $650 $650

AORC Total award funding $650 $650 $650

AORC Total number of awards 10 10 10

Institutional Mobility Grants in Southeast

 Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa:

Mobility Number of new awards 0 0 15

Mobility Average new award 0 0 $133

Mobility Total new award funding 0 0 $2,000

Total award funding:

DomesticTotal new award funding 0 $63,322 $4,231

DomesticTotal NCC award funding $62,736 $1,030 $64,272

Program evaluation, national outreach, and 

information dissemination $367 $387 $387

Peer review of new award applications 0 $364 $213

Total Domestic funding $63,103 $65,103 $69,103

Total Domestic awards 328 252 338
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-85

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

Over the past year, the Department has been in the process of revising the program 

performance measures for the International Education and Foreign Language Studies programs 

authorized under Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended and the Mutual 

Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (commonly known as the Fulbright-Hays Act). 

The new performance measures are designed to improve the quality of program-level outcome 

data, as well as to increase transparency and accountability for the IFLE programs. The 

Department eliminated measures that do not provide useful data. 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 to 

judge a program’s performance.

Fiscal year 2014 data will be used to establish a baseline for the new measures and will be 

available in December 2015. Targets are expected to be set beginning in 2014. Grantees are 

required to submit annual performance reports via the International Resource Information 

System (IRIS), the web-based performance reporting system for the IEFLS programs.

The Department intends to use the following program performance measures:

• NRCs:

 Percentage of priority languages defined by the Secretary of Education taught at 

NRCs.

 Percentage of NRC grants teaching intermediate or advanced courses in priority 

languages as defined by the Secretary 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 

Secretary 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. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-86

 Percentage of FLAS master’s and doctoral graduates who studied priority languages 

as defined by the Secretary 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.

Program performance measures have not been finalized for the following Domestic Programs: 

International Research and Studies, Business and International Education, Technological 

Innovation and Cooperation for Foreign Information Access, and Institute for International Public 

Policy because no funding is requested in fiscal year 2015. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-87

Efficiency Measures

The Department intends to use the following efficiency measures:

• Cost per NRC that increased the number of intermediate or advanced level language 

courses in the priority and/or LCTL s during the course of the grant period.

• Cost per FLAS fellowship program fellow who increased his/her reading, writing, and/or 

listening/speaking language score by at least one proficiency level. 

• Cost per CIBE doctoral or Master's graduate employed in international business-related 

fields, including teaching in a business school or program within 8 years after graduation 

as measured by the IFLE Tracking Survey.

• 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 has initiated a number of studies to assess the effectiveness of the Title VI 

program. A study of the Language Resource Centers was completed in April 2011. The 

study found that the LRCs have (1) successfully implemented the key activities outlined in 

the statutory mandate; (2) engaged in a wide range of dissemination activities, particularly 

for postsecondary and professional audiences; (3) collaborated effectively with one another 

as well as with non-LRC organizations; and (4) produced high-quality products, materials, 

and services for their key constituents.

Studies are underway to assess the effectiveness of the National Resource Centers, 

Business and International Education, and Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign 

Language programs in order to determine their scope and potential impact and to identify 

areas for improvement. The results from the studies will be used to monitor the 

effectiveness of the program.

• The Department is also conducting a study that will support the development of outcome 

measures; analyzing existing performance data, making that information available to the 

public; and providing recommendations for developing a comprehensive program evaluation 

strategy for the Title VI programs.

• A number of studies have been conducted over the years to evaluate aspects of the 

Domestic Programs. A few are outlined below.

In 2007, the National Research Council of the National Academies completed its review of 

Title VI International Education programs supported under the Higher Education Act as well 

as Section 102(b)(6) Fulbright-Hays International Education programs in a study entitled

“International Education and Foreign Languages: Keys to Securing America’s Future.” The
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-88

National Research Council reviewed the adequacy and effectiveness of Title VI and 

Fulbright-Hays programs in addressing their statutory missions and in building the Nation's 

international and foreign language expertise—particularly as needed for economic, foreign 

affairs, and national security purposes. Despite its many recommendations for 

improvement, the Council recognizes that the Title VI/Fulbright-Hays programs have served 

as a foundation in the internationalization of higher education and should continue to do so. 

In addition, the Council:

 Found that within the Title VI/Fulbright-Hays programs, there was a need for better and 

more reliable data and for greater coordination within the Department and across other 

Federal agencies.

 Commented on the lack of rigorous, reliable information available on Title VI program 

performance and made recommendations for better program transparency and 

evaluation. Specifically, it found that the performance measures used by the 

Department and annual aggregate data reported by grantees provided insufficient 

information to appropriately judge program performance;

 Found that the language proficiency of Foreign Language and Area Studies fellowship 

recipients is not being adequately assessed, as the Department uses a self-evaluation 

approach to collect information about improvement in language proficiency;

 Concluded that the Department of Education does not have strategic coordination of 

foreign language and international programs within the Department or with other Federal 

agencies. They recommended creating a Senate-confirmed position within the 

Department to better coordinate programs within the Department and with other 

agencies;

 Commented that a key hindrance to establishing a pipeline of students who can 

eventually reach a high level of proficiency is the significant lack of K-12 teachers with 

foreign language and international expertise; and

 Stated that international education programs appear to have had little effect so far on the 

number of underrepresented minorities in international service. The Institute for 

International Public Policy Fellowship Program does not reach many students and has 

significant costs.

• A study of the Department’s graduate fellowship programs was published in September 2008. 

The study was designed to provide information on academic and employment outcomes (as of 

2006) of graduate students who received financial support through the Department’s graduate 

fellowship programs between 1997 and 1999, including the Foreign Language and Area 

Studies (FLAS) fellowship program. The results of the study confirmed the validity of 

performance report data on employment outcomes and improvement in language 

competency. Data from the study indicates:

 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,
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Domestic programs

T-89

and 35 percent of fellowships supported the study of a language spoken in central Asia, 

the Middle East, or Africa. About 70 percent of fellowships supported the study of a 

critical foreign language as defined by the Department of Education.

 Students who received FLAS fellowships were highly likely to complete their degrees. 

Master’s and first-professional degree students were far more likely (95-96 percent) than 

doctoral students (72 percent) to have completed their degrees at the time of the survey.

 Regardless of their degree completion status, FLAS fellows reported that their oral and 

written language skills improved over the course of their FLAS-supported study. At the 

time of the survey, FLAS fellows rated their abilities to speak, write, and read the 

languages they studied with FLAS support both at the time they began FLAS-supported 

study and at the time they completed that study at a variety of levels. They rated their 

speaking and listening ability on a 5-level scale, and their reading and writing abilities on 

6-level scales. On average, FLAS fellows reported a level 2 ability with respect to each of 

these skills at the time they began each FLAS-supported language study, and reported 

level 3 or 4 ability at the close of that study. FLAS fellowship recipients averaged a 

one-level gain in proficiency. These data compare favorably to data collected through 

IRIS on Title VI FLAS fellowship recipients.

 Nearly all fellows (92 percent) worked after completing their fellowships, and a majority

of fellows (71 percent) worked in jobs that involved expertise they had gained through 

their FLAS-supported study. Nearly all fellows who reported working in a related job 

considered that job to be part of a career they were pursuing.

 Among fellows who had held at least one job related to the field they had studied with 

FLAS support, three-quarters of fellows worked in education, one-fifth in a U.S. private 

sector job, and one-fifth in foreign or international jobs. About one in nine worked for the 

military or other Government positions.

 Of fellows who had worked for pay since completing the fellowship, 68 percent worked in 

a job in which teaching was a major responsibility. These fellows had taught for an 

average of 3 years at the time of the survey, and 86 percent of them had taught in a field 

related to the FLAS-supported study.

 FLAS fellows believed that FLAS was very helpful in their degree completion and at 

least somewhat helpful in obtaining employment in a desired field. Over one-half 

reported that receiving a FLAS fellowship influenced their occupation and career choices.

While these findings are encouraging, it should be noted that the overall response rate—the 

proportion of fellowships for which a survey was completed—was less than 50 percent. In 

addition, the study does not offer data on outcomes for an appropriate comparison group 

due to limitations in the Department’s data sources. Despite these reservations and 

limitations, the data indicate positive outcomes.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-90

Overseas programs

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

(Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Section 102(b)(6))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$7,061 $7,061 0

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 supports group training, research, and curriculum 

development in modern foreign languages and area studies for teachers, college students, and 

faculty for periods from 1 to 12 months. In addition, the program supports advanced overseas 

intensive language projects designed to take advantage of the opportunities in foreign countries 

by providing advanced language training to students for a period of up to 36 months. Projects 

focus on all major world areas with the exception of Western Europe.

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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

T-91

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 the less commonly taught foreign languages and those areas 

of the world in which those languages are spoken. Current participants and graduates of the 

Overseas Programs are important sources of information and expertise on many issues that 

dominate the international environment.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2010..................................................................................... $15,576

2011......................................................................................... 7,465

2012......................................................................................... 7,451

2013......................................................................................... 7,061

2014......................................................................................... 7,061

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST 

The Administration requests $7.061 million for the Overseas programs, the same as the 2014

appropriation. All of the funds would be used to support programs designed to develop 

expertise in strategic languages and area studies.

In 2015, about 62 percent of the funds requested ($4.361 million) would be used for new awards 

under the following programs: Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad program, which deepens 

research knowledge on and helps the Nation develop capability in areas of the world not 
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

T-92

generally included in U.S. curricula; and Group Projects Abroad – Short-term projects, which 

give teachers and faculty the opportunity to benefit from overseas study of modern foreign 

languages and area studies. In addition, $1.9 million would be used to cover continuation costs 

for the Group Projects Abroad – Advanced Overseas Intensive Language projects and 

$411 thousand for the China Seminar.

The Department plans to require applicants to all Overseas programs to focus on one or more 

of the following areas: Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia and Pacific Islands, South Asia, the 

Near East, East Central Europe and Eurasia, and the Western Hemisphere (Central and South 

America, Mexico, and the Caribbean). The Department also plans to give priority to applicants 

that focus on any of the 78 less commonly taught languages (LCTLs).

For the DDRA programs, the Department plans to give priority to projects that are proposed by 

applicants using advanced language proficiency in one of the 78 LCTLs in their research and 

who are in the fields of economics, engineering, international development, global education, 

mathematics, political science, public health, science, or technology. For the GPA – Short-term 

projects, the Department plans to give priority to projects that include K-12 teachers or 

administrators as at least 50 percent of the project participants.

For both the DDRA and GPA competitions, the Department plans to give priority to projects that 

focus on sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Group Projects Abroad:

GPA Number of new projects 16 17 17

GPA Average new project $71 $81 $80

GPA Total new project funding $1,140 $1,374 $1,361

GPA Number of NCC projects 11 11 11

GPA Average NCC project $195 $173 $173

GPA Total NCC project funding $2,148 $1,900 $1,900

GPA Total project funding $3,288 $3,274 $3,261

GPA Total number of projects 27 28 28

GPA Total number of participants 405 412 412

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad:

DDRA Number of new fellows 86 90 90

DDRA Average new fellowship $35 $34 $33

DDRA Number of new awards 34 35 35

DDRA Average new award $89 $87 $86

DDRA Total new award funding $3,036 $3,029 $3,000
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

T-93

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Seminars Abroad—Special Bilateral 

Projects:

Semi nars China Contract $389 $396 $411

Semi nars China Contract participants 16 16 16

Department of State administrative costs $250 $250 $250

Program evaluation, national outreach, 

and information dissemination

$32 $41 $70

Peer review of new award applications $66 $71 $69

Total Overseas funding $7,061 $7,061 $7,061

Total Overseas participants 507 518 518

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

Over the past year, the Department has been in the process of revising the program 

performance measures for the International Education and Foreign Language Studies (IEFLS) 

programs authorized under Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended and the 

Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961. The new performance measures are 

designed to improve the quality of program-level outcome data, as well as to increase 

transparency and accountability for the IEFLS programs. We eliminated measures that did not 

provide useful data. 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” and “cost per high-quality successfully-completed project” have been retired, as they did 

not provide enough useful data to judge a program’s performance.

Fiscal year 2014 data will be used to establish a baseline for the new measures and will be 

available in December 2015. Targets are expected to be set beginning in 2014. 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, in conjunction with OMB, developed the following new measures in fiscal year 

2013; as such, no data or targets are currently available.
HIGHER EDUCATION

International education and foreign language studies: Overseas programs

T-94

The Department intends to use the following program performance measures:

• 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).

Efficiency Measures

The Department intends to use the following efficiency measures:

• 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-95

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part B)

(dollars in thousands) 

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$79,400 $175,000 +$95,600

____________________________________________________________________________

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) supports exemplary 

projects that are models for innovative reform and improvement in postsecondary education. 

Under FIPSE, the Department has flexibility to establish specialized programs to support 

projects in areas of national need. Therefore, each year, the Department determines the 

competitions and funding priorities that will be announced and sets procedures for awarding 

grants. Discretionary grants and contracts are awarded to institutions of higher education and 

other public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

....... (dollars in thousands)

2010 .......................................................................................$159,403 1

2011 .......................................................................................... 19,607

2012 ........................................................................................... 3,494

2013 ............................................................................................ 3,311

2014 .......................................................................................... 79,400

1 Includes $101,507 thousand for Congressional earmarks.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $175 million for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary 

Education (FIPSE) for fiscal year 2015, $95.6 million more than the fiscal year 2014 level. Of 

these funds, $100 million would be used to support the second year of the First in the World 

(FITW) initiative, which supports grants to institutions of higher education to help ensure that 

they have access to and implement innovative strategies and practices shown to be effective in 

improving college completion and making college more affordable for students and families, with 

a priority for applications that target innovative strategies at low-income students.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

T-96

The request also includes approximately $75 million for a new College Success Grants for 

Minority-Serving Institutions initiative, a competitive grant program to provide additional support 

for minority-serving institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic 

Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, Tribally Controlled Colleges and 

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

Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions.

Institutions would be able to apply individually or in consortia. Grants would be awarded based 

on the quality of the proposals, including the likelihood that they would result in increased 

numbers of Pell Grant recipients completing postsecondary education. Grants would support 

implementation of sustainable strategies, processes and tools, including through the use of 

technology, to reduce costs and improve outcomes for students, including one or more of the 

following:

• Partnering with school districts and schools to provide college recruitment, awareness, and 

preparation activities, to enable students to enter and complete postsecondary education.

• Establishing high quality dual-enrollment programs.

• Implementing evidence-based course redesigns of high enrollment courses to improve 

student outcomes and reduce costs.

• Reforming institutional need-based aid policies 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.

• Reducing the need for, and improving the success of, remedial education.

Institutions 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 implement evidence-based approaches and systems, as well as for 

evaluation and continuous improvement. The request includes appropriations language 

authorizing a separate competition exclusively for minority-serving institutions.

The Administration is not requesting funds to continue support for Training for Realtime Writers, 

the Center for the Study of Distance Education and Technological Advancement, the Center for 

Best Practices to Support Single Parent Students, or the Analysis of Federal Regulations and 

Reporting Requirements on institutions of higher education. There are no continuation costs 

associated with these activities in fiscal year 2015.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

T-97

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

First in the World

FITW Number of new awards 0 TBD 1 TBD 1

0 TBD 1 TBD 1

FITW Total new award funding 0 $74,500 TBD 1

FITW Number of NCC awards 0 0 TBD 1

FITW Average NCC award 0 0 TBD 1

FITW Total NCC award funding 0 0 TBD 1

FITW Total number of awards 0 TBD 1 TBD 1

FITW Total award funding 0 $74,500 $99,225

FITW Peer review of new award applications 0 $500 $500 1

FITW Total program funding 0 $75,000 $99,725

College Success Grants for MinorityServing Institutions

MSI Number of new awards 0 0 TBD

MSI Average new award 0 0 TBD

MSI Total new award funding 0 0 $74,500

MSI Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $500

MSI Total program funding 0 0 $75,000

Center for the Study of Distance 

Education and Technological 

Advancement

Study Number of new awards 0 2 0

Study Average new award 0 $748 0

Study Total new award funding 0 $1,496 0

Study Total number of awards 0 2 0

Study Peer review of new award applications 0 $4

Study Total program funding 0 $1,500 0

1 The Administration has not determined whether 2014 awards will be frontloaded to support the entire 

duration of the grants or if the funds will support grantees in first year of their grants only. That decision will impact 

the number of awards and average award amount in fiscal year 2014, and the amount of funding available for new 

awards in fiscal year 2015.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

T-98

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

U.S./European Community Program

Eur ope Number of NCC awards 18 0 0

Eur ope Average NCC award $58 0 0

Eur ope Total NCC award funding $1,043 0 0

Eur ope Total award funding $1,043 0 0

Eur ope Total number of awards 18 0 0

U.S./Brazilian Program

Brazil Number of NCC awards 15 0 0

Brazil Average NCC award $62 0 0

Brazil Total NCC award funding $925 0 0

Brazil Total award funding $925 0 0

Brazil Total number of awards 15 0 0

Training for Realtime Writers

Realti me Number of new awards 4 3 0

Realti me Average new award $266 $374 0

Realti me Total new award funding $1,065 $1,122 0

Realti me Total new award funding $1,065 $1,122 0

Realti me Peer review of new award applications $4 $4 0

Realti me Total award funding $1,069 $1,126 0

Center for Best Practices to Support 

Single Parent Students

Center Number of new awards 0 1 0

Center Average new award 0 $496 0

Center Total new award funding 0 $496 0

Center Peer review of new award applications 0 $4 0

Center Total award funding 0 $500 0

Contracts

FIPSE Database $274 $274 $275

Reporti ng Analysis of Federal Regulations and 

Reporting Requirements on IHEs 0 $1,000 0

Total FIPSE funding $3,311 $79,400 $175,000

FIPSE Total number of awards 37 31 TBD
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

T-99

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, as well as the resources and 

efforts invested by those served by this program.

Goal: To improve postsecondary education by making grants to institutions in support of 

reform and innovation. 

Objective: Promote reforms that improve the quality of teaching and learning at postsecondary 

institutions.

Measure: The percentage of FIPSE grantees reporting project dissemination to others.

Year Target Actual

2010 92% 78%

2011 92 100

2012 93 96

2013 93

2014 94

Additional information: Practical limitations prevent FIPSE from measuring project replication 

on an annual basis. Therefore, data on project dissemination efforts are used as a proxy to 

track progress toward achieving the larger program goal. The data represent the percentage of 

grantees that report in their Annual Performance Reports that they disseminate their projects to 

other institutions. The Department has not established a target for 2015 because it is phasing 

out this measure in anticipation of the transition to First in the World. 2013 data will be available 

in August 2014.

Measure: The percentage of projects reporting institutionalization on their home campuses.

Year Target Actual

2010 93% 100%

2011 94 83

2012 94 90

2013 95

2014 95

Additional information: FIPSE places a strong emphasis on institutional contributions to 

projects and the development of long-term continuation plans. The result is an exceptionally 

high rate of institutionalization. The data represent the percentage of grantees that report in 

their Annual Performance Reports that they have institutionalized their projects on their home 

campuses. The Department has not established a target for 2015 because it is phasing out this
HIGHER EDUCATION

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

T-100

measure in anticipation of the transition to First in the World. 2013 data will be available in 

August 2014.

In light of the new FITW competition in fiscal year 2014, the Department is currently planning a 

major overhaul to the FIPSE performance measures to better align them with the objectives of 

the FITW program. The Department is considering establishing the following performance 

measures:

• The percentage of projects supported by FITW grants that provide evidence of their 

effectiveness at improving student outcomes and college affordability, especially for lowincome students.

• The percentage of projects supported by FITW grants that provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance feedback that allow for periodic assessment of 

progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

• The cost per student served by FITW grants.

• The cost per successful student outcome.

Other Performance Information

The last review of FIPSE performance was conducted in 2004 when the American Institute for 

Research found that FIPSE was successfully achieving its goals, but that a lack of emphasis on 

evaluation has resulted in evaluations of mixed quality. The study examined the performance of 

60 randomly selected projects funded under the Comprehensive Program from 1996 to 1998. It 

also convened subject-matter experts to assess project effectiveness in a wider context. 

Overall, the study confirmed that FIPSE funds a wide range of innovative and reform projects 

that tend to continue after Federal funding expires, share their work with others in the higher 

education community, and influence postsecondary education.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-101

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 2015 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Model Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities into Higher Education 

(TPSID) support competitive grants awarded to institutions of higher education or consortia of 

such institutions to create or expand high quality, inclusive model comprehensive transition and 

postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities. Grants under this program 

are awarded for a period of 5 years. Institutions of higher education receiving funds under this 

program are required to match Federal funds in an amount that is no less than 25 percent of the 

award amount.

Funds may be used for: student support services; academic enrichment, socialization, or living 

skills programs; integrated work experiences; the development of individualized instruction 

plans; evaluation of the model program, in cooperation with the Coordinating Center; 

partnerships with local educational agencies to support students with intellectual disabilities 

participating in the model program who are still eligible for special education and related 

services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; program sustainability; and 

development of a program credential.

The Department is also required to reserve 3 percent of the funds, or $240,000, whichever is 

greater, for a Coordinating Center, which develops evaluation standards for TPSID grantees 

and provides technical assistance, information, and opportunities for communication among 

institutions with postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fisca (dollars in thousands)

2010 ...................................................................................$11,000

2011 .....................................................................................10,978

2012 .....................................................................................10,957

2013 .....................................................................................10,384

2014 .....................................................................................10,384

2014 2015 Change

$10,384 0 -$10,384
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

T-102

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests no funds for the Model Transition Programs for Students with 

Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) in fiscal year 2015. Continuations for the 27 current grantees 

end in fiscal year 2014. Instead of continuing support for small categorical, narrowly-focused 

programs like TPSID, the Administration proposes to direct increased funding toward innovative 

strategies funded under the First in the World (FITW) initiative. Specifically, the Administration 

is requesting $100 million to support the second year of FITW, which supports grants to 

institutions of higher education to help ensure that they have access to and implement 

innovative strategies and practices shown to be effective in improving college completion and 

making college more affordable for students and families.

While the HEA requires TPSID grantees to work with a Coordinating Center to establish 

performance measures and to compile data on program participants and their student 

outcomes, the program is not designed to support evidence-based practices or to build 

evidence of program effectiveness. Grantees receiving the relatively modest TPSID awards are 

required to carry out a broad range of program activities, but applicants are not required to 

provide evidence that the proposed activities have had a significant effect on improving student 

outcomes or present any research-based findings to show that the proposed practices, 

strategies, or programs have the potential to improve outcomes. The Coordinating Center, 

which is required to conduct evaluations of the TPSID projects, must also provide technical 

assistance and recommendations for program standards. The Coordinating Center funding is 

insufficient for it to undertake rigorous evaluations of projects while simultaneously carrying out 

its other functions.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 oot

not

es 2015 ootnotes

TPSID Number of NCC awards 27 27 0

TPSID Average NCC award $373 $373 0

TPSID Total NCC award funding $10,073 1 $10,073 1 0

TPSID Coordinating Center $311 $311 0

 .

1 Each grantee is required to contribute a total of $4,500 to the Coordinating Center.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Grantees submit annual performance reports to the Department, which are used to assess the 

success of TPSID grantees in meeting the program’s goal of promoting the successful transition 

of students with intellectual disabilities into higher education.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

T-103

The Coordinating Center piloted an evaluation tool in 2011 and made modifications based 

on grantee feedback. The Center made the evaluation data collection system available for 

use in September 2012 and TPSID grantees completed entry of Year I (2010-2011) and 

Year II (2011-2012) data on December 31, 2012. In September 2013, the Coordinating Center 

released a report on grantees’ progress over the first 2 years of the program. The Department 

expects a report on Year III (2012-2013) to be published in 2014.

Performance measures have been established for the Coordinating Center, which has provided 

the following preliminary data.

Completion and Credential Measure: The percentage of students with intellectual disabilities 

who are enrolled in programs funded under TPSID who complete the programs and obtain a 

meaningful credential, as defined by the Center and approved by the Department. Of the 

725 students who exited a TPSID program during years 1-3, 363 students (50 percent) received 

a meaningful credential.

Standards Measure: The percentage of recipients that have grants under the TPSID program 

that meet Department-approved, Center-developed standards for necessary program 

components, such as academic, vocational social, and independent living skills, evaluation of 

student progress, program administration and evaluation, student eligibility, and program credit 

equivalency. Of the 27 grantees, 24 met these standards. The following table provides a 

breakout of the individual standards and the percentage of grantees that met each.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Model transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities into higher education

T-104

Standard

Percentage of 

TPSID 

grantees 

meeting 

standard in 

2012

1. Academic Access: To facilitate quality academic access for students with 

intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive postsecondary education program 

should provide access to a wide array of college course types that are attended 

by students without disabilities and address issues that may impact college 

course participation

89%

2. Career Development: To facilitate career development leading to competitive 

employment for students with intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive 

postsecondary education program should provide students with the supports and 

experiences necessary to seek and sustain competitive employment. 

93%

3. Campus Membership: To facilitate campus membership for students with 

intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive postsecondary education program 

should provide access to and support for participation in existing social 

organizations, facilities, and technology. 

100%

4. Self-Determination: To facilitate the development of self-determination in 

students with intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive postsecondary 

education program should ensure student involvement in and control of the 

establishment of personal goals through use of person centered planning and 

have a stated process for family involvement. 

96%

5. Alignment with College Systems and Practices: To facilitate alignment with 

college systems and practices for students with intellectual disabilities, the 

comprehensive postsecondary education should offer an educational credential 

(e.g., degree or certificate) established by the institution for students enrolled in 

the program, provide access to academic advising college campus resources, 

collaborate with faculty and staff, and adhere to the college’s schedules, policies 

and procedures, public relations, and communications. 

100%

6. Coordination and Collaboration: To facilitate collaboration and coordination, 

the comprehensive postsecondary education program should establish 

connections and relationships with key college/university departments and have 

a designated person to coordinate program-specific services of the 

comprehensive postsecondary education program. 

100%

7. Sustainability: To facilitate sustainability the comprehensive postsecondary 

education program should use diverse sources of funding and have a planning 

and advisory team. 

100%

8. Ongoing Evaluation: To facilitate quality postsecondary education services 

for students with intellectual disabilities, the comprehensive postsecondary 

program should conduct evaluation of services and outcomes on a regular basis.

100%
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-105

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

(Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, Section 117)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

PP2014 2015 Change

$7,705 $7,705 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2013; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program makes grants to tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions 

to provide career and technical education to Indian students.

In order to be eligible for a grant, a tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical 

institution must:

• Be formally controlled (or have been formally sanctioned or chartered) by a governing body 

of an Indian tribe or tribes;

• Offer a technical degree- or certificate-granting program;

• Demonstrate that it adheres to a philosophy or plan of operation that fosters individual 

Indian economic opportunity and self-sufficiency by providing, among other things, programs 

that relate to stated tribal goals of developing individual entrepreneurship and self-sustaining 

economic infrastructures on reservations;

• Have been operational for at least 3 years;

• Be accredited, or be a candidate for accreditation, by a nationally recognized accrediting 

authority for postsecondary career and technical education; 

• Enroll at least 100 full-time equivalent students, the majority of whom are Indians; and

• Receive no funds under Title I of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities 

Assistance Act of 1978 or the Navajo Community College Act.

Funds may be used by a grantee to train teachers; purchase equipment; and provide 

instructional services, child-care and other family support services, and student stipends; and 

for institutional support.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

T-106

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2010........................................................................................ $8,162

2011.......................................................................................... 8,146

2012.......................................................................................... 8,131

2013.......................................................................................... 7,705

2014.......................................................................................... 7,705

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2015 request includes $7.7 million for the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary 

Career and Technical Institutions (TCPCTI) program, the same amount as the 2014 

appropriation. Funds would be used to improve eligible institutions’ academic and career and 

technical offerings as well as for institutional support and capital expenditures. The budget 

request assumes that the program will be implemented in fiscal year 2015 under reauthorized 

legislation.

To date, only two institutions, Navajo Technical College (Navajo Tech), formerly Crownpoint 

Institute of Technology, and United Tribes Technical College (UTTC), have been able to 

demonstrate that they meet the statutory eligibility requirements for this program. Although the 

two institutions are different in many ways (for example, UTTC is located in an urban setting and 

serves a diverse Indian student population, while Navajo Tech is a rural institution that serves 

an almost entirely Navajo enrollment), they struggle with similar institutional and academic 

challenges. Both institutions serve an especially economically disadvantaged population and 

have difficulty providing sufficient financial aid to students. In addition, each school serves a 

number of students who lack preparation for postsecondary education and need academic and 

support services to help them develop academic and technical skills adequate for 

postsecondary work.

Furthermore, these institutions, according to Navajo Tech and UTTC officials, receive limited 

support from the tribes they serve because they are not the primary postsecondary institutions 

for those tribes. The institutions also receive limited financial support from such sources as 

student tuition, endowments, and State assistance and, therefore, they rely on Federal 

assistance to help them provide postsecondary career and technical education services to their 

students.

The Administration released its blueprint for reauthorization of the Perkins Act in April 2012. 

The reauthorization proposal would continue to provide support for the TCPCTI program while 

seeking to ensure that grantees under the program incorporate key reforms embodied in the 

broader reauthorization proposal, including linking career and technical education programs to 

in-demand occupations in high-growth sectors and ensuring linkages of those programs with 

industry and business.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

T-107

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

TCPCTI Range of awards $2,251-5,454 $2,251-5,454 $2,251-5,454

TCPCTI Number of awards 2 2 2

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This section presents selected program information, including, for example, GPRA goals, 

objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the progress 

made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on the 

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2015 

and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department collected baseline data for the performance indicators in 2008. Because the 

baseline data showed large differences in performance between the two grantees, the 

Department set individual grantee targets for most of the indicators.

At this time, the Department does not validate the data for these indicators, which are obtained 

from grantee performance reports. The Department has worked with the grantees to help 

ensure that they collect performance data consistently, but both grantees have acknowledged 

weaknesses in their data on post-program outcomes (such as placement in jobs or continuing 

education). The grantees have stated it is difficult to track students after they leave the 

institutions and that they need to develop strategies for collecting better data on this indicator.

Goal: To increase access to and improve career education that will strengthen workforce 

preparation, employment opportunities, and lifelong learning in the Indian community.

Objective: Ensure that career and technical education (CTE) students in tribally controlled 

postsecondary career and technical institutions make successful transitions to work or 

continuing education.

Measure: The percentage of CTE students who receive a degree, certificate, or credential.

Year

Target Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Actual 

Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target 

Percentage, 

UTTC

Actual Percentage, 

UTTC

2010 75% 79% 40% 38%

2011 80 95 50 47

2012 85 88 55 41

2013 86 60 53

2014 88 56

2015 90 58
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

T-108

Additional information: The percentage of CTE students who receive a degree, certificate, or 

credential is based on the number of CTE concentrators (students who have completed at least 

12 academic or CTE credits in a single program area or a full short-term CTE program 

comprised of less than 12 credits that results in an industry-recognized credential, certificate, or 

degree) who received an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree during the 

reporting year divided by the total number of CTE concentrators who left postsecondary 

education during the reporting year. The Department reset targets in 2014 based on actual 

performance over the preceding 5 years. Data for 2013 for Navajo Tech is not yet available due 

to changes in leadership in grant management. Data for 2014 will be available in early 2015.

Measure The percentage of students who are retained in, and complete, postsecondary CTE 

programs.

Year

Target Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Actual 

Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target 

Percentage, UTTC Actual Percentage, UTTC

2010 70% 77% 55% 58%

2011 75 82 60 57

2012 80 81 65 55

2013 82 70 51

2014 83 60

2015 85 65

Additional information: The percentage of students who are retained in, and complete, 

postsecondary CTE programs is based on the number of CTE concentrators who remained 

enrolled in their original postsecondary institution or transferred to another 2- or 4-year 

postsecondary institution during the reporting year and who were enrolled in postsecondary 

education in the fall of the previous reporting year, divided by the number of CTE concentrators 

who were enrolled in postsecondary education in the fall of the previous reporting year and who 

did not earn an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree in the previous 

reporting year. The Department reset targets in 2014 based on actual performance over the 

preceding 5 years. Data for 2013 for Navajo Tech is not yet available due to changes in 

leadership in grant management. Data for 2014 will be available in early 2015.

Measure: The percentage of students who meet State- or program-established industryvalidated CTE skills standards.

Year

Target Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Actual 

Percentage, 

Navajo Tech

Target 

Percentage, UTTC Actual Percentage, UTTC

2010 86% 53% 75% 67%

2011 88 61 80 67

2012 90 71 82 68

2013 90 83 73

2014 80 73

2015 85 80
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

T-109

Additional information: The percentage of students who meet State- or program-established 

industry-validated CTE skills standards is based on the number of CTE concentrators who 

passed technical skill assessments that are aligned with industry-recognized standards during 

the reporting year divided by the number of CTE concentrators who took technical skill 

assessments during the reporting year. The Department reset targets in 2014 based on actual 

performance over the preceding 5 years. Data for 2013 for Navajo Tech is not yet available due 

to changes in leadership in grant management. Data for 2014 will be available in early 2015.

Objective: Ensure that CTE students in the tribally controlled postsecondary career and 

technical institutions are placed in jobs or continuing education or complete postsecondary CTE 

programs.

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

2010 42% 61% 40% 74%

2011 50 69 50 83

2012 60 61 60 77

2013 70 70 87

2014 65 80

2015 70 85

Additional information: The Department requires Navajo Tech and UTTC to collect 

placement data during the second quarter after students graduate from or complete their 

programs. Since most students do so in late spring or early summer, both institutions generally 

collect these data at the end of the calendar year. The Department reset targets in 2014 based 

on actual performance over the preceding 5 years. Data for 2013 for Navajo Tech is not yet 

available due to changes in leadership in grant management. Data for 2014 will be available in 

early 2015.

Efficiency measures

The Department adopted cost per participant as the efficiency measure for this program. The 

Department could also calculate 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.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions

T-110

Measure: Annual cost per participant.

Year Cost per participant, 

Navajo Tech

Cost per participant, UTTC

2007 $7,180 $6,363

2008 4,445 8,703

2009 4,865 5,269

2010 4,705 4,878

2011 3,160 4,747

2012 3,104 4,128

Additional information: Since the statutory definition of Indian student count includes 

enrollment in both the fall and spring semesters (as well as in summer school and continuing 

education programs), but funding is distributed on an annual basis, the Department calculates 

the cost per participant by dividing the reported Indian student count by two. Data for fiscal year 

2013 will be available by the fall of 2014. Note that the validity of the student count data 

provided by the recipients is uncertain. The institutions sometimes submit multiple sets of data 

counts within the same year.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-111

Special programs for migrant students

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 5, Section 418A))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

PP2014 2015 Change

$34,623 $34,623 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Special Programs for Migrant Students provide 5-year grants to institutions of higher education 

(IHEs) and private nonprofit organizations to support educational programs designed for 

students who are engaged in, or whose families are engaged in, migrant and other seasonal 

farmwork.

Projects funded under the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) recruit migrant students 

aged 16 and over and provide academic and support services (including counseling, health 

services, stipends, and placement) to help those students obtain a high school equivalency 

certificate and subsequently to gain employment or admission to a postsecondary institution or 

training program.

Projects funded by the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) provide tutoring, academic 

assistance, and counseling services, as well as stipends, tuition, and room and board, to firstyear undergraduate migrant students and assist those students in obtaining student financial aid 

for their remaining undergraduate years.

HEP projects, located in college or university settings, operate residential and commuter 

programs of instructional services for out-of-school migrant youth; some HEP projects employ a 

commuter model in which students attend GED classes after work. Most CAMP projects use an 

on-campus residential design and provide a high level of support services in order to assist 

participants, virtually all of whom have had no prior contact with a college campus, to adjust to 

life at an institution of higher education. In making awards under both programs, the 

Department is required to consider applicants' prior experience in operating HEP and CAMP 

projects.

The Department may reserve up to one half of 1 percent of the funds appropriated for Special 

Programs for Migrant Students for outreach, technical assistance, and professional 

development activities. If the total amount appropriated is below $40 million, the remaining 

funds are to be distributed between the two programs in the same proportion as the amounts 

available for each program the previous year. If the appropriation is over $40 million, 45 percent 

of the remaining funds must be used for HEP and 45 percent for CAMP, and the remainder may 

be used for either program, based on the number, quality, and promise of applications received.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-112

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows: 

Year (dollars in thousands)

2010..........................................................................................$36,668

2011............................................................................................36,595

2012............................................................................................36,526

2013............................................................................................34,623

2014............................................................................................34,623

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2015, the Administration requests a total of $34.6 million for the Special Programs for 

Migrant Students, the same amount as the 2014 appropriation. These funds would support new 

and continuation grants awards under the High School Equivalency (HEP) and College 

Assistance Migrant (CAMP) programs, as well as outreach, technical assistance, and 

professional development activities.

Migrant youth are particularly at risk for poor educational, employment, and earnings outcomes. 

According to the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS) report, 

“Profile of Hired Farmworkers, a 2008 Update,” farmworkers tend to be younger, less educated, 

and less likely to speak English than other wage and salary workers in the United States. 

Individuals aged 15-21 constituted 15.1 percent of farmworkers in 2006, and 30 percent of 

farmworkers had attained less than a 9th-grade education. Further, an ERS analysis of data 

from the US Department of Labor’s “National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS)” showed that, 

over the period 1989-2006, the average median years of education for migrant farmworkers was 

6, compared to 9 for nonmigrant farmworkers, and that 66.2 percent of migrant farmworkers had 

no knowledge of English, compared to 27.1 percent for nonmigrant farmworkers. Migrant 

farmworkers are also more likely to have lower hourly wages than nonmigrant farmworkers, and 

their limited education affects their ability to pursue postsecondary education or obtain skilled 

work that pays higher wages.

A substantial number of migrant youth are living on their own. The 2002-03 NAWS found that 

migrant youth working in farmwork and on their own constitute 11 percent of the total farm labor 

force. Their likelihood of being able to support themselves for an extended period of time 

through farmwork is poor. The ERS 2008 Profile reported that unemployment rates of 

farmworkers are double those of all wage and salary workers; that hired farmworkers earned 

less than other workers; and that the rate of poverty among farmworkers was more than double 

that of all wage and salary employees.

The HEP and CAMP programs provide participants with assistance that can enable them to 

improve their earnings potential dramatically. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

“Occupational Outlook Handbook,” 2014-15 Edition, the median hourly wage for agricultural 

workers in 2012 was $9.09, and these types of workers are often paid based on how much they 

do instead of how many hours they work. By comparison, the National Center for Education 

Statistics reports in “The Condition of Education 2013” that in 2001 the median earnings for 

full-time, full-year wage and salary workers aged 25-34 with a high school diploma or equivalent

were $29,950 (equivalent to $14.40 per hour) and the median was $37,030 for a person with an

associate’s degree (equivalent to $17.80 per hour).
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-113

HEP and CAMP programs focus on finding and assisting migrant youth who have educational 

potential but who have not been able—due to limited or inconsistent educational opportunity—to 

complete high school or go on to postsecondary education. HEP and CAMP projects 

emphasize services to out-of-school-youth by conducting extensive outreach in locations where 

these youth live and work (e.g., farms, production facilities, and labor camps) and providing 

services at locations and times that meet the needs of an out-of-school, working population.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Outreach, technical assistance, and 

professional development $134 $173 $173

HEP:

HEP Number of students served 5,292 5,167 5, 165

HEP Number of awards:

HEP First year 0 17 14

HEP Second year 5 0 17

HEP Third year 10 5 0

HEP Fourth year 13 10 5

HEP Fifth year 17 13 10

HEP Total 45 45 46

HEP Funding:

HEP New awards 0 $5,856 $5,684

HEP Peer review of new award applications 0 188 188

HEP Continuation awards $18,836 $12,792 $12,791

HEP Average grant award 437 437 447

HEP Average Federal contribution per student 

(whole dollars) $3,777 $2,417 $3,615

CAMP:

CAMP Number of students served 1,925 1,882 1,882

CAMP Number of awards:

CAMP First year 0 14 12

CAMP Second year 9 0 14

CAMP Third year 7 9 0

CAMP Fourth year 10 7 9

CAMP Fifth year 14 10 7

CAMP Total 40 40 42

CAMP Funding:

CAMP New awards 0 $4,861 $4,869

CAMP Peer review of new award applications 0 165 157

CAMP Continuation awards $15,614 10,588 10,588

CAMP Average grant award 408 408 387

AMP Average Federal contribution per student 

(whole dollars) 8,505 8,664 8,213
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-114

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 2015 

and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

Goal: To assist migrant and seasonal farmworker students in obtaining the equivalent of 

a high school diploma, and, subsequently, in beginning postsecondary education, 

entering military service, or obtaining employment.

Objective: An increasing percentage of HEP participants will receive their General Educational 

Development (GED) credential.

Measure: The percentage of High School Equivalency Program (HEP) participants receiving a 

General Educational Development (GED) credential.

Year Target Actual

2010 69% 70%

2011 69 74

2012 69 67.4

2013 69

2014 69

2015 69

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data collected for 

fiscal year 2013 will be available in the spring of 2014.

Objective: An increasing percentage of HEP recipients of the GED will enter postsecondary 

education programs, upgraded employment, or the military.

Measure: The percentage of HEP GED credential recipients who enter postsecondary 

educational programs, career positions, or the military.

Year Target Actual

2010 80% 75%

2011 80 75

2012 80 79.3

2013 80

2014 80

2015 80
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-115

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for this 

measure are based on actual placement after receipt of a GED credential. The Department is 

providing technical assistance to grantees on collecting data on program participants after they 

are no longer receiving program services. Data for 2013 will be available in the spring of 2014.

Goal: Assist migrant and seasonal farmworker students in successfully completing their 

first academic year of college and in continuing their postsecondary education.

Objective: All CAMP students will complete their first academic year at a postsecondary 

institution in good standing.

Measure: The percentage of College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) participants 

completing the first year of their postsecondary program.

Year Target Actual

2010 86% 85%

2011 86 89

2012 86 85.5

2013 86

2014 86

2015 86

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for projects 

completing their first year of implementation are not included in the data for any given year 

because projects receive their initial funding in the fall, after the school year may have already 

started. Thus, the measure reflects the percentage of participants completing the first year of 

their postsecondary program between the second and fifth year of the project. In 2009, the 

Department adjusted its methods for calculating performance data for recipients that serve more 

students than they projected at the beginning of their grant period. Data collected for fiscal year 

2013 will be available in the spring of 2014.

Objective: A majority of CAMP students who successfully complete their first academic year of 

college will continue in postsecondary education.

Measure: The percentage of College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) participants who, 

after completing the first academic year of college, continue their postsecondary education.

Year Target Actual

2010 85% 88%

2011 85 95

2012 85 96.7

2013 85

2014 85

2015 85

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for this 

measure are based on actual placement after completion of the first year of college. The 

Department is providing technical assistance to grantees on collecting data on program 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-116

participants once the participants are no longer receiving program services. Data for 2013 will 

be available in the spring of 2014.

Efficiency measures

The Department established a cost-per-participant outcome measure to assess program 

efficiency for HEP and CAMP. For HEP, the measure is the cost per participant earning a GED 

credential and, for CAMP, it is the cost per participant who completes his or her first year of 

postsecondary education and then continues that postsecondary education. The Department 

established different costs for programs serving participants who commute, programs serving 

participants who reside at the institution of higher education where the program is based, and 

programs with both types of participants. Targets are based on actual costs in 2011 (the 

baseline year), multiplied by an estimate rate of inflation for college-associated costs and then 

decreased by an expected improvement in efficiency annually of 1 percent. Data for 2013 will 

be available in the spring of 2014.

HEP Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost per participant earning a GED, commuter programs.

Year Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2011 Baseline $7,529

2012 $7,910 $5,766

2013 $8,306

2014 $8,718

2015 $9,104

Measure: Cost per participant earning a GED, residential programs.

Year Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2011 Baseline $14,753

2012 $15,459 $11,201

2013 $16,195

2014 $16,962

2015 $17,719

Measure: Cost per participant earning a GED, programs with both commuting and resident 

students.

Year Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2011 Baseline $11,923

2012 $12,502 $11,160

2013 $13,104

2014 $13,732

2015 $14,344
HIGHER EDUCATION

Special programs for migrant students

T-117

CAMP Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, commuter programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2011 Baseline $11,486

2012 $12,003 $9,111

2013 $12,543

2014 $13,107

2015 $13,697

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, residential programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2011 Baseline $18,408

2012 $19,236 $14,860

2013 $20,102

2014 $21,007

2015 $21,952

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, programs with both commuting and resident students.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2011 Baseline $13,998

2012 $14,628 $11,748

2013 $15,286

2014 $15,974

2015 $16,693
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-118

Assistance for students:

Federal TRIO programs

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Chapter 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$838,252 $838,252 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal TRIO Programs consist primarily of five discretionary grant programs—Talent 

Search, Upward Bound, Student Support Services, Educational Opportunity Centers, and 

McNair Post Baccalaureate Achievement—that provide services to encourage individuals from 

disadvantaged backgrounds to enter and complete college and postgraduate education. 

Competitive grants are awarded for 5 years to eligible applicants, which include institutions of 

higher education; public and private agencies, including community-based organizations with 

experience in serving disadvantaged youth; and, as appropriate to the purposes of the program, 

secondary schools. At least two-thirds of the program participants must be low-income, firstgeneration college students (or individuals with disabilities for the Student Support Services 

program).

Talent Search encourages disadvantaged individuals who are between 11 and 27 years of age, 

and who have the potential for postsecondary education, to graduate from high school (or return 

to school, for those who have dropped out) and to enroll in a postsecondary education program. 

Projects must provide connections to academic tutoring services, advice on and assistance in 

selecting secondary and college courses, assistance in preparing for college entrance exams 

and in completing college applications, information on student financial aid and assistance in 

completing financial aid applications, connections to services designed to improve financial and 

economic literacy, and guidance and assistance in re-entering and completing secondary 

school. Projects also may provide academic tutoring; personal and career counseling; 

information on career options; exposure to college campuses; and services specially designed 

for students with disabilities or limited English proficiency, homeless children and youth, and 

students in foster care.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-119

Upward Bound provides services to high school students that are designed to generate the 

skills and motivation needed to pursue and complete a postsecondary education. Projects 

provide the same services as Talent Search projects, except that Upward Bound projects may 

provide an on-campus residential summer component and work-study positions that provide 

exposure to careers requiring a postsecondary degree. Upward Bound includes, besides the 

regular projects, Upward Bound Math/Science and Veterans projects. The Upward Bound 

Math/Science program establishes mathematics and science centers that encourage students 

to pursue postsecondary degrees in those fields specifically. The Veterans Upward Bound

projects are designed to assist veterans in preparing for a program of postsecondary education.

The Educational Opportunity Centers provide counseling and information on college admissions 

to adults who are at least 19 years old and who are seeking a postsecondary education degree. 

Services include disseminating information on higher education opportunities in the community; 

academic advice, personal counseling, and career workshops; help in completing applications 

for college admissions, testing, and financial aid; tutoring; mentoring; and services to improve 

financial and economic literacy.

The Student Support Services program offers a broad range of support services to 

postsecondary students to increase their retention and graduation rates and to increase their 

transfer rates from 2-year to 4-year institutions. All projects must provide academic tutoring, 

advice on postsecondary course selection, financial aid counseling, services to improve 

financial and economic literacy, assistance in applying for graduate and professional programs, 

and activities to help students in 2-year institutions enroll in 4-year programs. Projects may also 

provide personal and career counseling; exposure to cultural events; mentoring; services to 

secure temporary housing during academic breaks for students who are homeless; activities for 

students with disabilities, limited English proficiency students, homeless students, and students 

in foster care; and grant aid (not to exceed 20 percent of a project’s funds). Projects providing 

grant aid also must provide a match equal to 33 percent of the total funds used for that purpose, 

unless they are eligible to receive funds under Title III, Part A or B, or Title V of the Higher 

Education Act.

The McNair Post Baccalaureate Achievement program prepares disadvantaged undergraduate 

students for doctoral study to help them succeed in obtaining doctoral degrees. Projects must 

provide opportunities for research and other scholarly activities at the recipient institution or 

graduate center, summer internships, seminars, tutoring, academic counseling, and activities to 

help students enroll in graduate programs. Projects may also provide services to improve

financial and economic literacy, mentoring, and exposure to cultural events and academic 

programs not usually available to disadvantaged students.

The two largest programs, in terms of funding, are Upward Bound (which includes Veterans 

Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math-Science) and Student Support Services, which 

together accounted for nearly three-fourths of TRIO funding in 2013. TRIO programs vary 

greatly in service intensity, with per participant annual costs ranging from a high for the McNair 

Postgraduate Achievement program of $8,127 to a low of $243 for the Educational Opportunity 

Centers. The regular Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math Science projects, on average, 

spend approximately $4,219 and $4,183 per year per participant, respectively, while the 

Veterans Upward Bound projects, which do not have the residential summer component, had an 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-120

average per participant annual cost of $2,036 in 2013. 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 2013) 

Award Type

Number of 

Participants

Average number of 

participants

per project

Federal

cost per participant

Talent Search 299,683 663 $428

Upward Bound 59,143 73 $4,219

Veterans Upward Bound 6,404 128 $2,036

Upward Bound Math/Science 9,687 60 $4,183

Educational Opportunity Centers 181,441 1,440 $243

Student Support Services 197,663 192 $1,390

McNair 4,191 28 $8,127

Percentage of Funds by Institution Type (FY 2013)

 Institution Type

Talent 

Search

Upward 

Bound1

Educational 

Opportunity 

Centers

Student 

Support 

Services McNair

Postsecondary Institutions

Public, 4-year 41.6% 47.7% 38.2% 40.1% 71.9%

Public, 2-year 34.0 28.2 29.9 45.6 0.0

Private, 4-year 9.9 17.0 5.1 13.7 28.1

Private, 2-year 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0

Total, Postsecondary 85.7 93.2 73.2 100.0 100.0

Other organizations2 14.3 6.8 26.8 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 Includes regular Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math and Science, and Upward Bound Veterans. 2 Other includes nonprofit organizations, State agencies, local educational agencies, county and city 

governments, private profit-making organizations, Indian Tribes, and private elementary and secondary schools.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-121

In addition, TRIO funding supports training for project staff members, dissemination of best 

practices, evaluation activities, and administrative expenses.

Funding for Staff Training grants supports professional development activities and opportunities 

to improve the competency of project directors and staff members. Training is offered on such 

topics as: legislative and regulatory requirements for operating funded projects; assisting 

students in receiving adequate financial aid; the design and operation of model programs; the 

use of appropriate educational technology in the operations of funded projects; and strategies 

for recruiting and serving students with limited-English proficiency or with disabilities; homeless 

children and youth; foster care youth; or other disconnected students.

Funding for Evaluation activities helps to improve the effectiveness of TRIO programs and 

projects. The statute requires rigorous evaluation of TRIO programs and projects. The 

evaluation must examine the characteristics of the programs and projects that most benefit 

students.

Finally, up to 0.5 percent of the funds appropriated for TRIO may be used by the Department to 

support administrative activities that include obtaining additional qualified readers to review 

applications; increasing the level of oversight monitoring; supporting impact studies, program 

assessments, and reviews; and providing technical assistance to potential applicants and 

grantees.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

(dollars in thousands)

2010 ..................................................................................... $910,089 1

2011 ....................................................................................... 883,522 1

2012 ....................................................................................... 839,932

2013 ....................................................................................... 795,998

2014 ....................................................................................... 838,252

________________________

1 Includes $57,000 thousand in mandatory funds provided under Section 402C(g) of the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $838.3 million for the Federal TRIO programs in 2015, the 

same as the fiscal year 2014 level. This request reflects the Administration’s belief that the 

TRIO programs play an important role in assisting low-income students and students whose 

parents never completed college to enter and complete postsecondary education programs. 

The Administration would use approximately $286.9 million to support a new Student Support 

Services competition that would further align this program with the Administration’s higher 

education reform agenda. Most of the remaining funds would be used to support continuation 

awards to grantees that were successful in the 2010 Student Support Services competition, the 

2011 Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers competitions, the 2012 Upward 

Bound, Upward Bound Math-Science, Veterans Upward Bound, and McNair competitions, and 

the 2014 Staff Training competition.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-122

The requested level would enable the Department to maintain approximately the same number 

of TRIO projects in fiscal year 2015 as in previous years. It would also continue the 

Department’s efforts in the 2012 Upward Bound competition to place a greater emphasis on 

increasing productivity by having projects make inroads into serving and transforming the 

lowest-performing schools. These reforms will help expand the reach of TRIO projects and 

expand their effects on the schools that need the greatest help in sending more students on to 

postsecondary education. The request also includes $1.7 million to support the ongoing Upward 

Bound evaluation and $3.7 million to maintain Administrative Support for the TRIO programs, 

including the costs of collecting and analyzing grantee performance data.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures

2013

Funding

footnote

2014

Funding

footnote

2015

Funding

footnote

2013

Awards

footnote

2014

Awards

footnote

2015

Awards

footnote

Talent Search (TS)

(TS)Continuation Awards $128,117 $135,285 $136,385 452 452 452

(TS)Total 128,117 135,285 136,385 452 452 452

Upward Bound (UB)

(UB)Continuation Awards 249,526 266,744 265,636 816 816 816

(UB)Total 249,526 266,744 265,636 816 816 816

Veterans Upward Bound (VUB)

VUB:Continuation awards 13,037 13,806 14,119 50 50 50

VUB:Total 13,037 13,806 14,119 50 50 50

Upward Bound Math-Science (UBMS)

UBMS:Continuation awards 40,519 43,129 43,129 162 162 162

UBMS:Total 40,519 43,129 43,129 162 162 162

Educational Opportunity Centers 

(EOC)

EOC:Continuation awards 44,064 46,925 46,925 126 126 126

EOC:Total 44,064 46,925 46,925 126 126 126

Student Support Services (SSS)

New awards 0 0 286,932 0 0 1,018

SSS:Continuation awards 281,7061289,562 2,634 1,027 1,027 9

SSS:Total 281,706 289,562 289,566 1,027 1,027 1,027

McNair Postbaccalaureate (MPB)

MPB:Continuation awards 34,060 35,701 35,701 152 152 152

MPB:Total 34,060 35,701 35,701 152 152 152
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-123

Measures

2013

Funding

footnote

2014

Funding

footnote

2015

Funding

footnote

2013

Awards

footnote

2014

Awards

footnote

2015

Awards

footnote

Staff Training (ST)

ST:New Awards 0 $1,400 0 0 5 0

ST:Continuation awards $1,327 0 $1,400 6 0 5

ST:Total 1,327 1,400 1,400 6 0 5

Evaluation 2,000 2,000 1,700

Administrative expenses:

Peer review of new award

 applications 0 2,390 2,000

Other expenses 1,643 1,310 1,691

Total 1,643 3,700 3,691

Total 795,998 838,252 838,252 2,791 2,790 2,790

_____________________________

1 Includes $6,972 thousand used to pay 2014 NCC costs.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: Increase the percentage of low-income, first-generation college students who 

successfully pursue postsecondary educational opportunities.

Objective: Increase postsecondary enrollment rates of low-income, first-generation individuals 

in the academic pipeline.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-124

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

2010 79.5% 80.2% 75.0% 82.8% 60.0% 60.3%

2011 80.0 80.1 76.0 83.8 60.5 59.6

2012 80.0 79.8 76.0 81.8 61.0 60.6

2013 80.5 78.0 61.5

2014 80.5 80.5 61.5

2015 80.5 81.0 61.5

Additional information: This measure looks at the percentage of participants who enroll in 

college. Targets are set and data are calculated independently for each of the three programs 

for which this measure is relevant. Data are provided by the grantees in their Annual 

Performance Reports.

• For Talent Search, the measure looks at the percentage of “college ready” participants who 

enrolled in programs of postsecondary education during the reporting period or the next fall 

term. “College ready” participants are those who are high school seniors or are enrolled in 

an alternative education program at an academic level equivalent to that of a high school 

senior, adults who had graduated from high school or received a high school equivalency 

diploma, postsecondary dropouts, and potential postsecondary transfers. The measure 

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. 2013 data will be available in 

October 2014.

• 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). 2013 data will be available in 

October 2014.

• 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. 2013 data will be available in 

October 2014.

Objective: Increase postsecondary persistence and completion rates of low-income, firstgeneration individuals in the academic pipeline.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-125

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

2010 28.0% 36.1%

2011 28.5 40.7

2012 33.0 39.9

2013 34.0

2014 36.0

2015 37.0

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

2010 29.5% 42.2%

2011 30.0 49.3

2012 40.0 49.2

2013 41.0

2014 42.0

2015 43.0

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. 2013 data will be available in 

October 2014.

Measure: The percentages of TRIO McNair participants enrolling and persisting in graduate 

school.

Year Enrolling Target Enrolling Actual Persisting Target Persisting Actual

2010 40.0% 69.8% 80.0% 85.1%

2011 40.0 71.7 80.0 86.6

2012 50.0 70.8 81.0 86.3

2013 69.0 82.0

2014 69.0 83.0

2015 70.0 84.0

Additional information: The “Actual” figures for persistence differ slightly from those reported 

in previous years due to the correction of a clerical error. The Department is formally changing 

the enrollment measure to count as successes those McNair participants who enroll in graduate 

school within 3 years of postsecondary graduation, as research indicates that a substantial 

number of individuals who pursue graduate degrees begin their graduate programs within 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-126

3 years of receiving their baccalaureate degrees.

1

 The Department has re-calculated data from 

prior years to allow for comparisons across years. The reporting year in the table above 

represents the 3-year point of measurement. That is, 70.8 percent of McNair participants who 

graduated with their baccalaureate degree in 2009 had enrolled in graduate school by 2012. 

2013 data will be available in October 2014.

Efficiency Measures

In previous years, the Department used a common efficiency measure for the TRIO Student 

Support Services, Upward Bound, and Talent Search programs to track the average annual cost 

per successful outcome. The actual measure used was the gap between the cost per student 

served, which is the annual funding for the program divided by the number of participants, and 

the cost per successful outcome. However, the Department believes that this measure is 

unnecessarily confusing. Consequently, the Department has simplified the efficiency measure 

for these programs, changing it to the “cost per successful outcome.” The Department plans to 

establish targets for these new efficiency measures in fiscal year 2015 after an additional year 

of data collection.

Cost per successful outcome: The definition of a “successful outcome” varies by program. 

As a result, it is difficult to make valid comparisons across TRIO programs based on these data. 

The program-specific definitions are provided below.

• For Talent Search, the Department recently revised the methodology for determining what 

counts as a “success.” The new definition is consistent with the definition of “success” in 

Upward Bound. For 2011, the cost per successful outcome was approximately $420; in 

2012, the cost per successful outcome increased to $471.

• For Upward Bound (UB), participants are considered successful if they persist in high 

school, re-enter high school, or enroll in postsecondary school. The cost per successful 

outcome figures are obtained by dividing the program’s total funding by the number of 

successful participants. For 2012, this figure was approximately $4,518, a decrease from 

2011 ($4,602).

• In 2012, the cost per successful outcome for Student Support Services—in which a 

successful outcome is defined as graduation, transfer, or postsecondary persistence—was 

approximately $1,648. This figure was calculated by dividing the total program funding by 

the number of SSS participants that graduated, transferred, or persisted in postsecondary 

school. The 2012 cost per successful outcome decreased from 2011 ($1,735).

 1 Nevill, S.C., and Chan, X (2007). The Path Through Graduate School: A Longitudinal Examination 

10 Years After Bachelor’s Degree (NCES 2007-162). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.: National 

Center for Education Statistics, p. 18.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-127

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

2010 $412 $4,563 $1,620

2011 420 4,602 1,735

2012 471 4,518 1,648

2013

2014

2015

Additional information: The measures for these indicators are calculated using data from 

Annual Performance Reports. 2013 data will be available in October 2014.

For the McNair program, the efficiency measure is the Federal cost of each McNair program 

baccalaureate recipient who enrolls in graduate school within 3 years. The measure uses the 

Federal funding for the fiscal year in which the cohort of baccalaureate recipients was 

established, adjusted for those projects that were not funded in any 1 of the subsequent

3 years. The funding is divided by the number of students in the cohort of baccalaureate 

recipients who have enrolled in graduate school at any time during the subsequent 3 years.

Measure: The Federal cost of each McNair program baccalaureate recipient who enrolls in 

graduate school within 3 years.

Year Target Actual

2010 $38,000 $31,422

2011 38,000 32,672 

2012 35,000 27,790

2013 33,000

2014 33,000

2015 32,000

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 BA with the help of the McNair program but did not subsequently enroll in 

graduate school are not counted as successes according to this measure. The Department 

decreased the targets for future years, starting in 2012, to make them more ambitious. 

2013 data will be available in October 2014.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-128

Other Performance Information

The Department has invested significant resources in evaluations and studies of the Federal 

TRIO Programs. Each TRIO evaluation and study was conducted independently by outside 

contractors that reported to the Department’s evaluation offices.

• Talent Search: The national evaluation of the implementation of the Talent Search program, 

completed in 2004, provided descriptive information for 1999-2000 projects and reported 

that nearly three-quarters of participants were both from low-income families and potential 

first-generation college students, two-thirds were members of racial/ethnic minority groups, 

and nearly 70 percent were in the traditional age range for high school students. (See 

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/talentsearch/index.html)

An additional study, initiated in 1998 and completed in 2006, examined outcomes in three 

States—Florida, Indiana, and Texas—that were selected because of the availability of data 

in their administrative records. Twenty-two of the 31 Talent Search projects in these three 

States that were operating in 1995-96 were included in the study. The study relied on quasiexperimental matching techniques using administrative data; thus, it is not possible to 

attribute differences in outcomes to participation in the Talent Search program. In addition, 

the results are not representative of the Nation or the States, and participants with data may 

have been less disadvantaged, on average, than typical Talent Search students. (Less than 

half of the participants in the Texas sample were economically disadvantaged, as were 

participants in two of the five Florida projects.) However, the data do provide limited 

information on the outcomes of students who participated in Talent Search compared to 

outcomes for similar students who did not participate in the program.

 Talent Search participants were more likely than comparison students to apply 

for Federal financial aid. The difference in financial aid applications for Talent 

Search participants and nonparticipants was 17, 14, and 28 percentage points, 

respectively for Florida, Indiana, and Texas.

 Talent Search participants were more likely than nonparticipants to enroll in a 

public college or university in their State. Initial enrollment in postsecondary 

institutions was higher by 14, 6, and 18 percentage points, respectively for 

Florida, Indiana, and Texas.

 Since the study was not a randomized experiment, it is not possible to attribute 

differences in outcomes solely to participation in Talent Search. However, the 

study concludes that some of the differences in first-time applications for financial 

aid and initial postsecondary enrollment can be attributed to participation in 

Talent Search. The study findings also suggest that assisting low-income 

students who have college aspirations to overcome information barriers – an 

important objective of the Talent Search program – may be effective in helping 

these students achieve their aspirations.

• Upward Bound: The evaluation of Upward Bound, based on a random assignment design in 

a sample of 67 Upward Bound projects, was initiated in 1991. The final report, which was 

released in January 2009, did not provide evidence that Upward Bound has effects on most 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-129

key outcome measures for the average participant. The study found that approximately 

81 percent of Upward Bound participants and 79 percent of students who applied to 

participate in Upward Bound but who did not receive either Upward Bound or Upward Bound 

Math-Science services enrolled in some type of postsecondary institution. The difference 

between the 81 percent of participants and the 79 percent of applicants who enrolled in 

postsecondary education is not statistically significant. The study also did not find that 

program participation increased the chances of completing a postsecondary program 

(38 percent of participants, compared to 35 percent of nonparticipants, completed any type 

of degree, certificate, or license) or completing a 4-year college program (21 percent of 

Upward Bound participants compared to 22 percent of nonparticipants completed a 

bachelor’s degree.)

The evaluation, however, did find that Upward Bound increased postsecondary enrollment 

and completion rates for some subgroups of students. For the subgroup of students with 

lower educational expectations—that is, the students who did not expect to complete a 

bachelor’s degree—Upward Bound increased the rate of postsecondary enrollment by 

6 percentage points and postsecondary completion by 12 percentage points. The 

evaluation also found that longer participation in Upward Bound was associated with higher 

rates of postsecondary enrollment and completion.

The Department began a new evaluation of Upward Bound, which was being conducted by 

an independent contractor under the auspices of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 

in September 2006. However, Congress cancelled the evaluation due to concerns over the 

use of a randomized control design.

IES recently began a new study of Upward Bound promising practices, as required by 

section 402H(b)(1) of the Higher Education Act. The pilot project will support and test the 

use of practices aimed at improving college fit by evaluating the effectiveness of a 

professional development program for Upward Bound project staff that includes tools and 

resources, including information packets as well as recent research on in-person college 

guidance strategies, on college enrollment outcomes for participating Upward Bound 

students. The effort leverages work in the field by college access organizations to design 

effective informational materials on college costs and outcomes, application fee waivers, 

and guidance on colleges to which individual students could consider applying based on 

their location and standardized test scores. The training component will be designed so that 

it can be used with regular high school counselors or Upward Bound project staff to 

maximize the return on investment in the demonstration. The evaluation builds on the 

developing body of research suggesting that low-income students may not be attending 

colleges that match their academic abilities and career objectives, in part because they do 

not have adequate information about their college options.

• Upward Bound/Math/Science: The study of Upward Bound Math/Science (UBMS) 

examined the extent to which participants enroll in postsecondary institutions and pursue 

college majors in math and science fields. The study includes descriptive data gathered 

from a 1998 survey of project directors and outcome information for students who 

participated in the program in 1993-1995. The descriptive study found that the projects,

which were primarily hosted by 4-year colleges, hired staff with strong math and science 

qualifications, and often provided students with same-race role models. Approximately 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-130

60 percent of the students were female and nearly three-quarters were members of 

racial/ethnic minority groups.

To assess program impact, UBMS participants were compared to a comparison group of 

students that had applied for regular Upward Bound but did not participate in Upward 

Bound/Math/Science. Some of the comparison group students did participate in regular 

Upward Bound and some did not; the differences in outcomes between UBMS participants 

and comparison group students participating in regular Upward Bound were analyzed 

separately. Propensity score matching was used to control for demographic differences 

between UBMS and comparison group. The final report, released in the spring of 2010, 

indicates that Upward Bound Math/Science participants were more likely to enroll in and 

complete postsecondary education than comparison students. Furthermore, UBMS 

participants were more likely to enroll in selective postsecondary institutions. In addition, 

UBMS participants took more math and science credits than comparison students. 

However, UBMS students were no more likely than comparison students to major in math or 

science.

• Student Support Services: The final report of the national evaluation of Student Support 

Services (SSS), which was initiated in 1990, was released in 2010. The quasi-experimental 

study, which was based on a random cross-section of projects, examined the extent to 

which Student Support Services projects improved key student outcomes, such as 

persistence, transfers from 2-year to 4-year institutions, and degree completion. The study 

did not find differences between students who received services from SSS and those that 

did not. This finding is of limited validity, however, because it does not account for the fact 

that non-SSS students may have received support services elsewhere. The report does 

indicate that participation in supplemental services, generally—whether or not they were 

offered directly by SSS projects—was related to improved student outcomes and that higher 

service levels were associated with better student outcomes. This finding is important 

because the descriptive portion of the report revealed that the function of many SSS 

projects is to coordinate campus-wide support services, referring students to the proper 

providers as needed.

• Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement: The study of the Ronald E. McNair 

Postbaccalaureate Achievement is a descriptive analysis of McNair participants’ educational 

and employment outcomes. The study, which was released in March 2008, found that 

approximately 6 percent of participants served from 1989 to 1998 had earned a doctoral 

degree by 2003, with the largest number of degrees in the life sciences (26 percent), 

followed by the social sciences (24 percent). Another 6 percent of participants earned 

professional degrees, e.g., degrees in law, medicine, or pharmacy. More of the students 

included in the analyses may have completed degrees later: approximately 14 percent of 

students participating from 1989 through 1993, who thus had more years to complete their 

degrees before the 2003 data collection, completed doctorates.

On September 8, 2008, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report summarizing 

findings from a review of how the Department’s Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) 

awarded prior experience points in the 2006 Educational Opportunity Centers and Talent 

Search grant competitions. The report recommended that OPE cease awarding prior 

experience points for grantees that do not meet certain minimum program requirements and 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal TRIO programs

T-131

cease awarding partial prior experience points. The report further recommended that the 

Department improve its quality controls and use clearly documented data to support the 

calculations of prior experience (PE) points. The Department addressed these 

recommendations by revising program regulations governing the awarding of PE points—

published October 26, 2010—and by implementing a fully transparent, equitable, and objective 

process for calculating each grantee’s PE points. As stated in the program regulations for each 

of the Federal TRIO programs, an applicant that is eligible for PE points will not receive any PE 

points for the assessment year if the project served less than 90 percent of the number of 

participants the project was funded to serve in that year.

For all TRIO grant competitions since the OIG report was issued (the fiscal year 2010 Student 

Support Services competition, the fiscal year 2011 Talent Search and Educational Opportunity 

Centers grant competitions, and the fiscal year 2012 Upward Bound and McNair grant 

competitions), the Department has successfully implemented improved processes for 

calculating PE points. The Department uses a grantee’s annual performance report (APR) data 

that are submitted electronically and the grantee’s approved project objectives to calculate the 

PE points earned. By using technology to ensure consistent and fair evaluations of a grantee’s 

performance, the Department has substantially improved the quality and consistency of the PE 

assessments by eliminating calculation and transposition errors inherent in a manual process. 

Further, to ensure transparency in how the results of these analyses are reported to grantees, 

the Department prepares individualized grantee PE reports that summarize the Department’s 

policies and procedures used in assessing a grantee’s prior experience, clearly display each of 

the PE calculations, and provide individualized explanations when full points are not awarded.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-132

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 2015 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$301,639 $301,639 0

_____________________________________________________________________________

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) provides 

6-year grants to States and partnerships to support early college preparation and awareness 

activities at the State and local levels to ensure low-income elementary, middle, and secondary 

school students are prepared for and pursue postsecondary education. Applicants may also 

apply for an optional seventh year of funding to provide services at an institution of higher 

education to follow students through their first year of college attendance.

GEAR UP has two major service components. First, projects provide a comprehensive set of 

early intervention services including mentoring, tutoring, academic and career counseling, and 

other college preparation activities like exposure to college campuses and financial aid 

information and assistance. Second, projects provide college scholarships to participating 

students. In making awards to State applicants, the Department must give priority to funding 

entities that have carried out successful GEAR UP programs prior to enactment of the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act, have a prior, demonstrated commitment to early intervention 

programs, and ensure that students previously served by GEAR UP programs receive services 

through the completion of secondary school. States and partnerships must provide matching 

funds of at least 50 percent of the total project costs with cash or in-kind contributions from 

nonfederal sources accrued over the full duration of the grant award. The Department may 

authorize a reduction in the required match for partnerships under certain circumstances.

GEAR UP supports two types of grants:

State Grants—States receiving funds are required to provide both an early intervention and a 

scholarship component, targeted to low-income students in grades K-12. At least 50 percent, 

but not more than 75 percent, of the grant funds must be used to provide scholarships to 

participating students. Conversely, at least 25 percent, but not more than 50 percent, of the 

funds must be used for early intervention services. State grantees must, unless they request a 

waiver, hold in reserve funds for scholarships equivalent to the effective minimum Pell grant 

amount multiplied by the number of students the project is serving that the State estimates will 

enroll in an eligible institution of higher education. The State must make these funds available 

to eligible students who meet certain benchmarks. These scholarships are portable and may be 

used outside the State in which the GEAR UP program is located. States must provide all
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-133

students served by the program with a personalized 21st Century Scholar Certificate to indicate 

the amount of Federal financial aid that they may be eligible to receive for college.

Partnership Grants—Partnerships receiving funds are required to provide an early intervention 

component to at least one cohort or grade level of students beginning no later than the 7th

grade, in a school that has a 7th grade and in which at least 50 percent of the students enrolled 

are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch—or to an entire grade level of students, not later than 

the 7th grade, who reside in public housing. Partnerships must ensure that services will 

continue to be provided through the 12th grade. Partnerships may also provide scholarships. 

Partnerships must provide all students served by the program with a personalized 21st Century 

Scholar Certificate to indicate the amount of Federal financial aid that they may be eligible to 

receive for college. Partnerships must include one or more degree granting institutions of 

higher education, one or more local educational agency, and at least two community 

organizations or entities such as businesses, professional associations, State agencies, or other 

public or private organizations.

Of the amount appropriated for GEAR UP, not less than 33 percent must be used to fund State 

grants and not less than 33 percent must be used to fund Partnership grants, with the remainder 

being awarded at the Department’s discretion, taking into consideration the number, quality, and 

promise of applications and, to the extent practicable, the geographic distribution of grants and 

the distribution of grants between urban and rural applicants. Additionally, 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. Language in the fiscal year 2014 appropriation allows up to 1.5 percent of 

fiscal year 2014 funds to be used for this purpose. The Administration is seeking this flexibility 

again in fiscal year 2015.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010.....................................................................................$323,212

2011...................................................................................... 302,816

2012...................................................................................... 302,244

2013...................................................................................... 286,435

2014...................................................................................... 301,639
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-134

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $301.6 million for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for 

Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) in fiscal year 2015, the same as the fiscal year 2014 

level.

The Administration’s budget request for GEAR UP is based on the demonstrated promise of the 

program’s approach with some indications that GEAR UP is making progress in achieving its 

near-term objectives, such as increasing students’ and parents’ knowledge of postsecondary 

opportunities and increasing rigorous course-taking. GEAR UP supports State efforts and 

builds partnerships within communities, targets entire cohorts of students in high-poverty middle 

schools, provides students with a full range of services through the 12th grade, and in some 

cases through the first year of college, and offers financial support to attend college. By 

targeting entire grades of students no later than the 7th grade, serving them throughout middle 

and high school, and providing them with significant scholarship funding, GEAR UP offers a 

unique approach to ensuring that low-income students have the skills and resources to attend 

college. Furthermore, the considerable State and local investments GEAR UP requires through 

both the creation of partnerships and matching contributions help ensure that the program will 

have a sustainable impact on the educational outcomes of low-income middle and high school 

students.

Most of the requested funds will be used to support continuation awards for State and 

Partnership grantees that were successful in the fiscal year 2011 and 2014 competitions. The 

2014 competition will include a focus on promoting the use of successful practices aimed at 

improving college fit, college readiness, and helping ensure students achieve the necessary 

milestones that provide a pathway to college success. The Administration believes a stronger 

emphasis on promising strategies is important as research indicates that significant numbers of 

low-income students do not enroll in colleges that fit their academic abilities and career 

interests, which may negatively impact students’ likelihood of graduating.

The Administration also believes a stronger emphasis on early identification of students who 

may not be on track to graduate college-ready is warranted. Nearly one third of all students 

enrolling in postsecondary education are placed into remedial courses. Remedial education is 

one of the leading barriers to postsecondary persistence and completion, often increasing 

students’ time-to-degree and, accordingly the cost of attending college. Funds will also be used 

to support the web data collection contract and, potentially, evaluation.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-135

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

State Grants:

State:Number of new awards 0 12 0

State:Average new award 0 $3,321 0

State:State:Total new award funding 0 $39,859 1 0

State:Number of NCC awards 34 29 37

State:Average NCC award $3,611 $3,814 $3,979

State:Total NCC award funding $122,794 $110,616 $147,230

State:Total award funding $122,794 $150,475 $147,230

State:Total number of awards 34 41 37

Partnership Grants:

Partnershi p:Number of new awards 0 25 0

Partnershi p:Average new award 0 $1,594 0

Partnershi p:Total new award funding 0 $39,859 1 0

Partnershi p:Number of NCC awards 91 64 83

Partnershi p:Average NCC award $1,717 2 $1,702 $1,754

Partnershi p:Total NCC award funding $163,518 2 $108,899 $145,616

Partnershi p:Total award funding $163,518 $148,758 $145,616

Partnershi p:Total number of awards 91 89 83

Evaluation 0 2,267 1 2,267 1

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 $400 0

Web data collection $123 $139 $141

Undistributed 0 0 $6,385 3

Total program funding $286,435 $301,639 $301,639

Total number of awards 125 130 120 . .

1 The Administration is still exploring ideas for evaluation in 2014. Decisions regarding evaluation 

spending could impact the funding totals for new awards and evaluation in fiscal year 2014.

 2 Includes $7,268 thousand used to cover 2014 continuation costs for high-performing grantees that 

were originally funded in fiscal year 2011. These funds are excluded from the “average NCC award” 

calculation.

 3 The Administration has not yet determined the allocation these funds in fiscal year 2015. Potential 

uses include frontloading fiscal year 2016 NCC costs and allocating additional funds towards evaluation.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-136

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 2015 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.

Measure: The percentage of GEAR UP high school seniors who graduated from high school.

Year Target Actual

2010 86.0% N/A

2011 86.0 84.8%

2012 86.0 86.4

2013 87.0

2014 87.0

2015 88.0

Additional Information: This measure indicates the percentage of GEAR UP high school 

seniors that graduated from high school. That is, the denominator used in the calculation 

includes only those GEAR UP participants that persisted until the 12th grade. Since there were 

no new cohorts served in fiscal year 2004, there were no GEAR UP students expected to 

graduate in 2010. Consequently, no data are available for this measure for 2010. The 2011 

figure has been adjusted from the figure reported last year due to the submission of additional 

Final Performance Reports. The figure reported for 2012 relates to the 2006 cohort. 2013 data 

will be available in August of 2014.

Measure: The percentage of former GEAR UP high school graduates who immediately 

enrolled in college.

Year Target Actual

2010 59.0% N/A

2011 59.0 59.9%

2012 60.0 62.2

2013 60.0

2014 61.0

2015 61.0
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-137

Additional Information: This measure indicates the percent of GEAR UP students who 

graduated from high school and enrolled in postsecondary education the following September. 

Data from NCES put the performance data into context. According to NCES, 68.1 percent of all 

high school completers enrolled in postsecondary education immediately following high school 

graduation in 2010. In that same year, 52 percent of low-income students enrolled in 

postsecondary education immediately following high school graduation, according to the same 

NCES research. Since there were no new cohorts served in fiscal year 2004, there were no 

GEAR UP students expected to enroll in college in 2010. Consequently, no data are available 

for this measure for 2010. The 2011 figure has been adjusted from the figure reported last year 

due to the submission of additional Final Performance Reports. The figure reported for 2012 

relates to the 2006 cohort. 2013 data will be available in August of 2014.

Objective: Increase the academic performance and preparation for postsecondary education of 

GEAR UP students.

Measure: The percentage of GEAR UP students who enrolled in pre-algebra by the end of the 

7th grade who passed the course and the percentage of GEAR UP students enrolled in Algebra I 

by the end of the 9th grade who passed the course.

Year Pre-algebra Target Pre-algebra Actual Algebra I Target Algebra I Actual

2010 32% 35.7% 50% 52.0%

2011 32 32.5 50 51.4

2012 33 39.8 51 61.0

2013 33 29.4 51 67.5

2014 34 53

2015 34 53

Additional Information: This measure tracks completion rates for two mathematics classes 

that research has shown are key indicators of college readiness. Data for this measure, 

collected through Annual Performance Reports, reflect student completion levels from the prior 

year. It should be noted that, as the measure tracks only the percent of those students who are 

enrolled that pass the class, the percentage of the entire cohort who are on the path to collegereadiness is likely to be considerably lower. The figures reported for 2010 and 2011 have been 

adjusted to include APR modifications submitted by grantees.

Efficiency Measures

The efficiency measure for this program is the cost of a successful outcome, where success is 

defined as enrollment in postsecondary education by GEAR UP students immediately following 

high school graduation. The Department is still determining how best to calculate this measure 

but one option is to divide the annual funding supporting closeout grantees (grantees serving 

cohorts that would be expected to graduate and enroll 12th graders in a particular reporting year) 

by the total number of postsecondary enrollees they produce. For instance, the 35 grantees 

that began serving 7th graders in 2006 would be expected to enroll their participants in college 

during the 2012-13 school year. Using this methodology, the annual cost per successful 

outcome for this GEAR UP cohort was $1,436. The Department provided approximately 

$45 million per year to the grantees in this cohort, which produced 32,147 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 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-138

the help of GEAR UP programs but do not enroll in postsecondary education are not considered 

“successes” under this methodology.

Other Performance Information

Prior evaluations:

In 2001, the Department initiated an evaluation on the early effects of the GEAR UP program. 

This study, which was released in 2008, reported on the program’s impact on participants 

attending middle schools and their parents, and the effects of GEAR UP on middle schools and 

on the sustainability of the program’s activities after Federal funds are no longer available. The 

study did not report on two key outcomes of interest—secondary school graduation and 

postsecondary enrollment—because the data were not yet available. Overall, the study found 

that GEAR UP had significant impacts on students’ and parents’ knowledge and behavior and 

on the academic offerings at GEAR UP schools. Regarding GEAR UP students and their 

parents, the study included the following findings:

• Students in GEAR UP middle schools were offered and took more rigorous academic 

courses than students in the non-GEAR UP schools, particularly above-grade-level science 

and algebra courses.

• GEAR UP especially affected the overall academic rigor of courses taken by African 

American students, who took more high-level classes than their non-GEAR UP peers.

• GEAR UP had a positive effect on students’ knowledge concerning the postsecondary 

education opportunities available to them. This was particularly true for African American 

students. GEAR UP students were more likely to visit college campuses and receive 

information about getting ready for college.

• GEAR UP had positive effects on improving parents’ knowledge about postsecondary 

education opportunities and on parents’ involvement in their children’s education. GEAR UP 

increased parents’ expectations about college for their child.

• GEAR UP schools provided more services than non-GEAR UP schools. Tutoring and 

academic activities, to individuals or in small groups, remained at the core of GEAR UP 

services. GEAR UP increased the amount of guidance counseling that students received.

Impacts were not found for other outcomes such as grade point averages, school attendance or 

disciplinary problems, or on students’ academic expectations, which were already high.

The study noted that GEAR UP middle schools are more likely than non-GEAR UP middle 

schools to offer honors and above grade level classes. This finding is significant because the 

study also found that enrolling in higher level classes is usually not the student’s decision, but a 

function of the availability of such courses and decisions made by guidance counselors using 

teacher recommendations, standardized test scores or class grades.

The study found that many grantees encountered difficulties in transitioning their projects from 

middle school into high school. The study also noted that the difficulties experienced by 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs

T-139

grantees, such as inadequate staffing and administrative barriers, were similar to those 

experienced 2 years earlier when the grants were initially implemented in the middle school. 

Projects experiencing the smoothest transitions tended to provide services to high school 

students that were similar to those provided to middle school students. The study also found 

evidence that some aspects of GEAR UP will be sustained in middle schools beyond Federal 

funding. The prospects for sustainability appear strongest in those projects with strong 

partnerships, school administrative commitment, and the ability to secure financial resources 

from other sources.

The Department concluded at the end of fiscal year 2012 an evaluation designed both to identify 

promising practices and to build grantees’ capacity to evaluate their own projects. Through a 

contractor, the Department issued planning awards to 44 GEAR UP grantees in fiscal year 2010 

to design evaluations of specific interventions. After peer reviewers assessed these 44 plans, 

the contractor issued 12 implementation awards to the grantees with the most sophisticated 

proposed evaluation strategies. While the contractor provided guidance to grantees in 

developing individual evaluation reports, these reports were intended to be independent reports 

that summarized the implementation of the strategy/service and the rigorous evaluation 

undertaken by each grantee, with an emphasis on significant outcomes or lessons learned 

about what worked and why. The contractor was also tasked with writing an Executive 

Summary that described the activities that were undertaken to help build evaluation capacity 

within the GEAR UP program. In this summary, the contractor included a comprehensive 

overview of each phase undertaken, discussing the technical support provided to grantees, and 

any challenged encountered at each phase. The summary also included a review of each 

grantee report covering specific goals, accomplishments, limitations, and lessons learned.

In addition, in September 2013, the Department concluded an evaluation activity designed to 

assist GEAR UP grantees in obtaining and using longitudinal student-level data to improve the 

services delivered by their projects. GEAR UP grantees have traditionally used only their own 

project data to complete their annual performance reports and to guide their own project 

improvement strategies. However, as student-level longitudinal data becomes more readily 

available, from States, districts, and other sources, GEAR UP grantees can access new 

information that can be used to measure student performance, better align program services 

with student needs, identify factors that contribute to student success, and track student 

outcomes over time. In order to aid GEAR UP grantees in accessing and utilizing these 

additional sources of data, the Department, through an independent contractor, reviewed 

proposals and selected 9 grantees to receive data utilization awards to assist them in making 

data-based project improvements. The project also established an on-line resource center to 

facilitate the sharing of information about strategies for acquiring and analyzing data. The 

Department has elected not to exercise the option year period under this contract.

Upcoming evaluation:

The Department is still determining its approach to evaluating GEAR UP in fiscal year 2014 and 

2015. Potential uses of evaluation funding include assessing the effectiveness of strategies 

proposed in the 2014 competition. 
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-140

Scholarships and fellowships:

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part A, Subpart 2)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: $35,000

Budget Authority:

 2014 2015 Change

$29,293 $29,293 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) provides fellowships, through 3-year 

grants to degree-granting postsecondary institutions, to graduate students of superior ability and 

high financial need studying in areas of national need. The Department may also award grants 

to non-degree-granting institutions that have formal arrangements for the support of doctoral 

dissertation research with degree-granting institutions. Applicants must set forth policies and 

procedures to ensure that they will seek talented students from traditionally underrepresented 

backgrounds. Recipients must have excellent academic records and financial need and must 

be pursuing a doctoral degree or the highest graduate degree in the academic field at the 

institution of higher education that they are attending.

After consultation with appropriate agencies and organizations, such as the National Science 

Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security, the 

Department designates those fields of study that are considered “areas of national need” by 

taking into account the extent to which those areas fulfill a compelling national interest, the 

extent to which other Federal programs support post-baccalaureate studies in those areas, and 

the most significant impact that can be made with available resources. The designated areas of 

national need for the most recent competition were: area studies; biological sciences/life 

sciences; chemistry; computer and information sciences; engineering; foreign languages and 

literatures; mathematics; nursing; physics; and educational evaluation, research, and statistics.

Institutions use program funds to award fellowships of up to 5 years of study. Each fellowship 

consists of a student stipend to cover living costs, and an institutional payment to cover each 

fellow's tuition and other expenses. The stipend is the lesser of demonstrated need or the level 

of support provided by the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowships 

program. The institutional payment is adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-141

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:

•....... (dollars in thousands)

2010 .....................................................................................$31,030

2011 .......................................................................................30,968

2012 .......................................................................................30,909

2013 .......................................................................................29,293

2014 .......................................................................................29,293

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $29.3 million for the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need

(GAANN) program for fiscal year 2015, level with the 2014 appropriation. Through its support of 

study in key disciplines, GAANN helps address the problem of insufficient numbers of students 

pursuing graduate-level education in critical scientific and technical fields and other areas of 

national need. GAANN provides students with exceptional promise and high financial need with 

the resources that they need to pursue graduate studies. The request recognizes the role that 

graduate education plays in the advancement of national prosperity, particularly in areas of 

national need, and demonstrates the Administration’s commitment to educational achievement at 

the graduate level.

In fiscal year 2015, 80 percent of the funds requested would be used to support 126 new awards. 

The remaining funds would be used to cover the continuation costs of awards previously made 

under the GAANN program. The Administration proposed consolidating the GAANN and Javits 

fellowship programs in its fiscal year 2012 request and Congress responded by eliminating 

separate funding for the Javits fellowship program in the 2012 appropriation bill. Funds provided 

under the GAANN program in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 supported non-competing continuations 

for Javits fellows. Fiscal year 2014 is the final year of Javits continuations.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-142

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

GAANN Number of new awards 18 9 126

GAANN Number of new fellowships 86 27 500

GAANN Average new award $214 $141 $188

GAANN Total new award funding $3,846 $1,268 $23,629

GAANN Number of NCC awards 136 154 27

GAANN Number of NCC fellowships 479 565 113

GAANN Average NCC award $157 $173 $198

GAANN Total NCC funding $21,423 $26,532 $5,340

GAANN Average institution payment $15 $15 $15

GAANN Average stipend $30 $32 $32

GAANN Total average fellowship $45 $47 $47

Number of NCC Javits fellowships 97 31 0

Average NCC Javits fellowship $45 $47 0

Total NCC Javits funding $4,024 1 $1,458 0

Javits Peer review of new award 

applications 0 0 $293

Funds returned to Treasury 0 $35 2 $31 2

GAANN Total number of awards 256 3 4 194 3 153

GAANN Total number of fellowships 662 4 623 613

GAANN Total program funding $29,293 $29,293 $29,293

 1 This figure includes $267 thousand in forward funding. 2 Awards are statutorily required to be equivalent in size to the National Science Foundation fellowships. 

Therefore, a portion of the program’s appropriation remains unspent after the maximum number of fellowships of the 

predetermined size are awarded. Each year, these remaining funds expire and are returned to Treasury. 3 This figure represents the number of GAANN awards plus the number of Javits awards. 4 This figure includes six forward-funded awards for the Javits program.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-143

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 2015 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.

Measure: The percentage of GAANN fellows completing the terminal degree in the designated 

areas of national need.

Year Target Actual

2010 58% 65%

2011 58 67

2012 59 60

2013 59

2014 60

2015 60

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

program’s final performance reports, the Department’s Grants and Payments database, and the 

GAANN program database. The measure is calculated by dividing the number of GAANN 

fellows in the last year of their fellowships who have successfully completed their doctoral studies 

by the total number of GAANN fellows who are in the last year of their fellowships. Because a 

fellow can receive no more than 5 years of funding and most doctoral students take 6-7 years to 

complete their doctoral programs, advancing to candidacy is used as a proxy for degree 

completion where appropriate.

For example, in 2008, 39 percent of the fellows who were considered successful had advanced 

to candidacy and 23 percent had completed degrees. Use of such proxy data may inflate the 

performance data, as most, but not all, doctoral candidates who advance to candidacy actually 

complete their doctoral degrees. In fiscal year 2012, GAANN fellows exceeded the target 

completion rate for the seventh year in a row, despite declining from the previous year. Data for 

2013 are expected in 2014. In fiscal year 2014, the Department plans to reconsider targets.

In 2008, the Department completed a comprehensive evaluation of all of the Department's 

graduate fellowship programs, including the GAANN program. It found that 78 percent of 

GAANN fellows completed the degree they were pursuing within 10 years of receiving their 

award between 1997-1999, with an additional 9 percent still enrolled or otherwise pursuing their 

degrees. In contrast, the study cited national data from the Baccalaureate and Beyond 
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-144

Longitudinal Study indicating that 62 percent of U.S. students who enrolled in a graduate degree 

program completed that degree program within 10 years. As such, the study’s findings seem to 

confirm the validity of the annual performance report data.

Measure: Median time to degree completion (years).

Year Target Actual

2010 5.1 5.0

2011 5.1 4.9

2012 5.0 4.9

2013 5.0

2014 5.0

2015 5.0

Additional Information: This measure, along with the measure on the percent completing, 

shows that the program supports fellows who have a high likelihood of successfully completing 

their degree in a relatively short period of time. Data collected through annual performance 

reports show that the program had a median time to completion of 4.9 years in 2012. According 

to the most recent national data provided by the National Opinion Resource Center’s annual 

“Survey of Earned Doctorates,” the median time to doctoral degree completion for all graduate 

programs in the United States was 7.7 years in 2009. During that same period, the average 

time to completion was 6.7 years for the physical sciences, 6.9 years for engineering, and 

7.0 years for life sciences. These figures are not directly comparable to those of the GAANN 

program, insofar as they begin counting years to completion at first enrollment into graduate 

education, not necessarily doctoral work. Moreover, the GAANN completion rate does include 

students completing Master’s programs who are likely to complete their degrees in a few years. 

However, research shows that students with high financial need, such as those served by the 

GAANN program, typically take longer to complete terminal graduate degrees than the national 

student body as a whole. As such, achieving a level of performance that is comparable or 

better than the national average for graduate students suggests that the program is successfully 

meeting its performance goal. Notably, the median time to completion for GAANN fellows has 

held steady around 5.0 years since 2007.

In 2008, the Department’s comprehensive evaluation of all of the Department's graduate 

fellowship programs, including the GAANN program, found that GAANN fellows pursuing a 

doctoral degree who received a grant between 1997 and 1999 completed their degrees in an 

average of 6 years. The study also found that GAANN doctoral fellows completed their degrees 

in less time than the averages of 8 to 9 years reported by doctorate recipients in the 1990s and 

early 2000s on the Survey of Earned Doctorates. The study’s findings seem to confirm the 

validity of the performance data.

Efficiency Measure

The efficiency measure for this program is the cost of a successful outcome, where success is 

defined as terminal graduate program completion. This measure is directly tied in with the 

program’s performance measures.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-145

Measure: Cost per PhDs and those who pass preliminary exams.

Year Target Actual

2011 $70,000 $57,238

2012 69,500 54,894

2013 69,000

2014 68,500

2015 68,500

The data used to calculate the efficiency measure come from the program’s final performance 

reports, the Department’s Grants and Payments database, and the GAANN program database. 

The efficiency measure is calculated by dividing the total amount of Federal funds provided to 

support a cohort of fellows for the 3 years of the grant period by the number of GAANN fellows 

who complete their degree or successfully advance to candidacy during the 5-year fellowship 

period. Under the program’s traditional funding structure, no new fellowships are awarded 

every third year, which is why there are no data or targets for 2010; given recent funding 

fluctuations, the program has not operated on this 3-year cycle since 2010. As the efficiency 

measure is based on data from a relatively small number of students, significant year-to-year 

fluctuations may be expected. This may reduce the usefulness of the measure at the program 

level. However, given the improvements in cost per outcome since 2005, more ambitious 

targets have been established for 2011 through 2015. The Department plans to reconsider 

targets in fiscal year 2014.

Other Performance Information

A study of the Department’s graduate fellowship programs was initiated in 2004. The study was 

designed to provide information on educational and employment outcomes of participants in the 

Department’s graduate fellowship programs, including the GAANN program. The final report 

was published in September 2008. In order to be able to examine completion and employment 

outcomes for GAANN fellows, the study tracked the characteristics and progress of two cohorts 

of GAANN fellows, from the years 1997-1998. The study noted the following characteristics of 

GAANN fellows:

• GAANN awards are concentrated in a relatively small number of institutions of higher 

education. For example, of the approximately 2,000 institutions that granted a master’s 

degree or higher in 2004, only about 4 percent had enrolled a GAANN fellow between 1997 

and 1999;

• GAANN fellows included relatively more women (40 percent), more White students 

(80 percent), more Black students (7 percent), and fewer Asian students (8 percent) than all 

graduate students in comparable fields in the years that the study examined;

• About 19 percent of fellows studied in biological sciences, 19 percent in physics, 18 percent 

in engineering, 18 percent in mathematics, 14 percent in chemistry, 8 percent in computer 

and information science, and about 3 percent in other fields;
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-146

• Three quarters of fellows first received GAANN funding during their first year of graduate 

study. Twenty-one percent reported that their funding ended their first year of graduate 

study, 22 percent their second year, 24 percent their third year, and 34 percent in the fourth 

year or after; and

• Slightly over three-quarters of fellows received additional funding from their institutions; 

45 percent in equal or lower amounts and the remaining in amounts greater than the 

GAANN funding.

The study also investigated the extent to which fellowship recipients completed their doctoral 

studies and obtained employment in areas that correspond to their fields of study. Of the 

GAANN fellows receiving awards between 1997 and 1999:

• About three-quarters (78 percent) had completed the degree supported by the GAANN 

fellowship within 10 years. In addition, another 9 percent were still pursuing these degrees, 

and 13 percent had stopped working on them. In contrast, national data from the 

Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study show that 10 years after completing their 

bachelor’s degrees, 62 percent of U.S. students who enrolled in a graduate degree program 

completed that degree, 15 percent were still enrolled, and 23 percent had dropped out;

• The average time to degree completion among GAANN doctoral fellows was 6 years and 

66 percent of fellows who completed their degree did so within 7 years. The study found 

that GAANN doctoral fellows completed their degrees in less time than the averages of 8 to 

9 years reported by doctorate recipients in comparable fields in the period that the study 

examined, according to the Survey of Earned Doctorates;

• A majority of fellows (88 percent) had worked in jobs in which they used the expertise they 

had gained through the GAANN-supported study. Of these fellows, 97 percent considered 

that work to be part of a long-term career they were pursuing; and

• When fellows were asked what they expected to be doing in the next 3 years, the majority 

(88 percent) reported they planned to be working in a job related to the expertise they 

gained with fellowship support.

These data indicate that GAANN fellows have higher graduation rates and complete their 

studies in less time than the national average for comparable academic fields. Furthermore, the 

study found that the overwhelming majority of GAANN fellows complete their studies and go on 

to find employment in areas that correspond to their field of studies.

Finally, the study probed participants’ perceptions of the extent to which the GAANN fellowships 

influenced their decisions to enter their field of study and remain in their chosen career field. 

The data on the self-reported perception of program participants found that:

• Nearly all fellows (93 percent) first learned of the GAANN fellowship after they had chosen a 

major field of study to pursue in graduate school;
HIGHER EDUCATION

Graduate assistance in areas of national need

T-147

• Nearly all fellows (96 percent) believed that the GAANN fellowship had been somewhat or 

very helpful in finishing their degree, and 76 percent believed it was somewhat or very 

helpful in obtaining employment in their desired field.

These data highlight the fact that fellowship recipients do not perceive that the program 

influenced their choice of studies, but do believe that it was helpful in ensuring that they 

completed their course of studies and found employment in areas that correspond to their field 

of studies. A recent national survey by the Council of Graduate Schools found that 80 percent 

of doctoral completers credited financial support, such as fellowships and grants, as one of the 

main factors that contributed to their doctoral completion.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-148

Child care access means parents in school

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 7)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$15,134 $15,134 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program is designed to support 

the participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education through campus-based child 

care services. Under this program, discretionary grants of up to 4 years in duration are awarded 

competitively to institutions of higher education. Priority is given to child care programs that 

(1) leverage significant local or institutional resources and (2) utilize a sliding fee scale.

Institutions may use the funding to support or establish a campus-based child care program 

primarily serving the needs of low-income students enrolled at the institution. Grants may also 

be used to provide before and after school services. The authorizing statute defines a 

“low-income student” as a student eligible to receive a Pell Grant during the year of enrollment 

at the institution or who would otherwise be eligible to receive a Pell Grant, except that the 

student fails to meet the requirements of: (1) Section 401(c)(1) of the Higher Education Act 

(HEA) because the student is enrolled in a graduate or first professional course of study; or 

(2) Section 484(a)(5) of the HEA because the student is in the United States for a temporary 

purpose. Grants are only to be used to supplement existing child care services or start a new 

program. Funds may not be used for grants that supplant funds for current child care services.

An institution is eligible to receive a grant for a fiscal year if the total amount of Pell Grant funds 

awarded to students at the institution for the preceding fiscal year equals or exceeds $350,000. 

When the appropriation for the program reaches $20 million, this amount decreases to 

$250,000. The maximum grant award cannot exceed 1 percent of the total amount of all Pell 

Grant funds awarded to students enrolled at the institution during the preceding fiscal year. The 

minimum grant amount is $10,000. This amount increases to $30,000 when the program’s 

appropriation reaches $20 million.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

T-149

Grantees must submit annual reports to the Department regarding their activities. The reports 

must contain data on the population served by the grant; information on campus and community 

resources and funding used to help low-income students access child care services; information 

on progress made toward accreditation of any child care facility; and information on the impact 

of the grant on the quality, availability, and affordability of campus-based child care services. 

An institution receives a continuation award only if the Department determines, on the basis of 

the annual reports, that the institution is making a good faith effort to ensure that low-income 

students have access to affordable, quality child care services.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal (dollars in thousands)

2010.. ..................................................................................$16,034

2011.. ....................................................................................16,002

2012.. ....................................................................................15,970

2013.. ....................................................................................15,134

2014.. ....................................................................................15,134

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $15.1 million for the Child Care Access Means Parents in School 

(CCAMPIS) program, the same as the fiscal year 2014 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 2015 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 2015 funding maintains support to enable institutions to sustain or establish 

campus-based child care programs; establish emergency back-up care and provide summer 

child care and before and after school services; subsidize the costs of child care for low-income 

students; and establish programs involving parents.
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

T-150

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

CCAMPIS Number of new awards 58 38 0

CCAMPIS Average new award $163 $88 0

CCAMPIS Total new award funding 9,466 3,347 0

CCAMPIS Number of NCC awards 55 78 116

CCAMPIS Average NCC award $100 $151 $130

CCAMPIS Total NCC award funding $5,521 $11,787 $15,134

CCAMPIS Peer review of new award applications $147 0 0

CCAMPIS Total award funding $15,134 $15,134 $15,134

CCAMPIS Total number of awards 113 116 116

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 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To support the participation of low-income parents in the postsecondary 

education system through the provision of campus-based child care services.

Objective: Increase access for low-income parents to postsecondary institutions.

Measure: Percentage of CCAMPIS program participants enrolled at CCAMPIS grantee 

institutions receiving child care services who remain in postsecondary education at the end of 

the academic year, as reported in the annual performance report.

Year 4-year/2-year

Target

4-year/2-year

Actual

4-year

Target

4-year

Actual

2-year 

Target

2-year

Actual

2011 54.6% 63.5% 44.3%

2012 55.7 62.5 46.4

2013

2014 TBD TBD TBD

2015
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

T-151

Additional information: The overall persistence rate in 2012 for students participating in the 

CCAMPIS program is 55.7 percent (2,774 out of 4,977 student participants). The persistence 

rate for 2012 is calculated by dividing the total number of students participating in the program 

in academic year 2010-2011 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 2011-2012. Data for the 2013 persistence rate of program participants,

i.e., students who participated in the program in academic year 2011-2012, who, as of academic 

year 2012-2013 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 2014.

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 41%

2013

2014 TBD

2015 TBD

Additional information: Beginning in 2012, the CCAMPIS program will report data for 

graduation rates at 2-year CCAMPIS grantee institutions only. More specifically, the program 

will report 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 2012 graduation rate for students participating in the 

CCAMPIS program from 2-year institutions is 41 percent. The Department expects to establish 

targets for the new completion measure in March 2014.

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 

certify that the information reported in the APR is accurate, complete, and readily verifiable. All 

student participants are assigned a unique CCAMPIS participant identification (ID) number that

will be used to track them throughout their postsecondary education. Grantees will use the 

same number for each participant each time annual data is reported to the Department. Also, 

grantees will code whether each participant has:

• Completed the term without completing his/her studies, graduating, transferring, or 

withdrawing during the term or at the end of the term;

• Earned a certificate/diploma, associate’s, bachelor’s, or teaching credential during or at the 

end of the term;
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

T-152

• Transferred from a 2-year institution of higher education to a 4-year institution or from one 

4-year institution to another 4-year institution during or at the end of the term;

• Officially withdrawn from the grantee-institution during the term;

• Not returned/dropped out/stopped out from the grantee-institution (without official notification 

to the institution) during the term;

• No further need for CCAMPIS funded services (examples: student is no longer eligible for 

Pell Grants; family member cares for the child; child aged out of care; etc.); and

• Participated in the CCAMPIS program while enrolled at the grantee-institution or declined 

CCAMPIS participation at any point while enrolled.

The CCAMPIS program serves a wide variety of student-parents with various needs. Multiple 

factors make it difficult to track students. Some students may not need services from year-toyear because their child is of school age, because they obtained alternative childcare from 

family members, or because of changes to the timing and number of hours required to attend 

class. The Department believes these revisions to the APR will yield more accurate persistence 

and completion data than what has been collected in the past.

The Department dropped the performance measure that focused on completion rates at 4-year 

CCAMPIS grantee institutions. The methodology used for this measure was problematic 

because the denominator included students who had not been in school long enough to 

graduate even if they persisted without interruption. CCAMPIS grantees at 4-year institutions 

will continue to be required to submit completion rate data for students served by their projects, 

however, the data will not be aggregated to obtain completion rates at 4-year CCAMPIS grantee 

institutions.

Efficiency Measure

The efficiency measure tracks student cost per successful outcome.

Measure: Federal cost per CCAMPIS student enrolled at CCAMPIS-grantee institutions 

receiving child care services who remain in postsecondary education at the end of the academic 

year, as reported in the annual performance report.

Year Target Actual

2011 $8,553

2012 5,757

2013 TBD

2014 TBD

2015
HIGHER EDUCATION

Child care access means parents in school

T-153

Additional information: For 2012, the cost per successful outcome of $5,757 was calculated 

by dividing the program allocation of $15,969,760 by 2,774, 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. Data for 2013 will be available 

March 2014.

Other Performance Information

Data from the 2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) showed that: 

• The majority of Pell Grant recipients with children under 12, like Pell Grant recipients overall 

and Pell Grant recipients with no children, were non-White, female, and single, widowed, or 

divorced. Pell Grant recipients with children of child care age were more likely than those 

without children to be women (81 versus 57 percent, respectively); Black, non-Hispanic 

(29 versus 21 percent); and married (32 versus 4 percent).

• Approximately 49 percent of Pell Grant recipients with children under age 5 and 31 percent of 

those whose youngest child was 5 to 11 reported using child care. Among Pell Grant 

recipients with children, those who reported using child care were more likely to be single 

parents than those not using child care, 72 percent compared to 54 percent.

• Child care was a major expense for Pell Grant recipients who used it. Average monthly child 

care expenditures for Pell Grant recipients with children under age 5 was higher than child 

care expenditures for those with children 5 to 11 ($390 versus $288 per month), or an 

average of $4,680 versus $3,450 per year, if annualized.

Data from the 2009 and 2010 Grantee Performance Reports submitted in 2011 showed that:

• Forty-six percent of the institutions served are 2-year public institutions, 51 percent are 

4-year public institutions, and the remaining 3 percent are 4-year private institutions.

• Nearly all CCAMPIS participants were Pell Grant recipients (89 percent) and the vast majority 

were female (85 percent). In terms of race/ethnicity, the largest proportion of participants 

was White (48 percent), and a sizable minority were Hispanic or Latino (22 percent).
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-154

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

(Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2014)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 0 1

Budget Authority:

__________________

1 The Administration proposes to continue funding this program in fiscal year 2015 through appropriations 

language.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation program provides funds for data collection and 

evaluation activities for Higher Education Act (HEA) programs. The funding enables the 

Department to obtain data on performance measures needed to measure progress and to carry 

out evaluations of performance for HEA programs that do not have funds available for such 

activities, or where funding set-asides are not sufficient to cover costs. The Department makes 

a determination each year about the specific kinds of information that are needed to assess the 

performance of individual programs and gives priority to those that are most critical. The 

program is authorized through appropriations language.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $52 million for GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation (GPRA/HEA) 

activities in fiscal year 2015, an increase of $51.425 million from the 2014 appropriation. The 

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

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

funding set-asides are not sufficient to cover costs; to collect and analyze data needed to 

measure program progress; to conduct pilot and demonstration programs and evaluations

2014 2015 Change

$575 $52,000 +$51,425

Year

(dollars in thousands)

2010 ...........................................................................................$609

2011 ............................................................................................ 608

2012 ............................................................................................ 607

2012 ............................................................................................ 607

2013 .............................................................................................575

2014 ............................................................................................ 575
HIGHER EDUCATION

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

T-155

of alternative strategies relating to programs under the HEA, including activities that are 

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

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

postsecondary programs; to support the development and refinement of a new college rating 

system; and to provide technical assistance to improve data quality.

The Administration is requesting appropriations language that would allow the Department to 

use the funds for data collection, evaluation, research, and demonstration activities. Multiple 

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

the evaluation offices taking the lead for the evaluations to ensure high-quality research.

In 2015, the Department proposes supporting the activities listed below.

• Pilot and Demonstration Programs. The Department would use approximately $30 million to 

conduct research, evaluations, and demonstrations to test approaches that promote 

postsecondary access, program completion, and high-quality, affordable education 

programs. In 2015, the Department plans to spend more than $169.8 billion on student aid 

programs. The Department also spends considerable resources on higher education grant 

programs: the Administration’s 2015 request includes $2.1 billion for discretionary programs 

in the Higher Education account to help achieve the President’s goal of making college more 

affordable and significantly increasing the percentage of Americans with postsecondary 

degrees or industry-recognized certificates. Given the size of this investment, the 

Department must understand how such funding is helping students to access and complete 

postsecondary education. Research and experimentation are critical for Federal higher 

education investments to be even more effective, so that students achieve their goals and 

the Nation remains globally competitive.

For example, the Department may explore pilot and demonstration programs that support 

earlier awareness and notification of federal financial aid for students; provide financial 

incentives to students to promote on-time completion; further simplify the application for 

Federal financial aid to increase participation; and support innovations that can improve 

student persistence and academic success, result in shorter time to degree, and reduce 

costs and student loan indebtedness.

• Postsecondary evaluation. The Department would use approximately $11 million to begin 

demonstrations and evaluations of alternative strategies for providing services. The specific 

studies would be determined through procedures established by the Department’s Evidence 

Planning Team, a cross-office group that ensures activities are non-duplicative and useful to 

a wide audience. Examples of possible study areas include:

 Evaluating the impacts of different loan counseling models on borrower behavior. 

Strategies could include altering the timing, content delivery, and type of counseling 

provider. Schools provide counseling services before students take out loans to help 

them learn about repayment options, but the intensity and quality of counseling vary 

widely. An evaluation could identify effective counseling or other information 

dissemination practices that help borrowers better understand their debt obligations, limit 

their borrowing, avoid delinquency and default, and improve their repayment rates.
HIGHER EDUCATION

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

T-156

 Examining the impacts of consumer information on aid application and college selection. 

Consumer information made available to students, such as the College Scorecard and 

the Financial Aid Shopping Sheet, is designed to help students and families make 

informed decisions about postsecondary institutions that provide the best value for them. 

• College rating system. The Department would use $10 million to support further 

development and refinement of a new college rating system. The Administration is 

committed to improving the quality of information available on college value and affordability, 

not only to help parents and students make informed choices, but also to guide the Nation’s 

investments in higher education. The President has directed the Department to develop and 

publish a new college rating system by the 2015-16 school year, and the Department has 

been soliciting information from representatives of the higher education community and the 

public to inform the development of the system. (See, for example, the Request for 

Information published in the December 17, 2013, Federal Register: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-12-17/pdf/2013-30011.pdf.)

The rating system will encourage colleges to improve and help students compare the value 

of colleges. In addition, performance information could be used in the future to allocate 

financial aid. Funds from the 2015 appropriation would be used to further develop and 

refine the college rating system.

• Postsecondary and Adult Data Quality Initiative (DQI). The Department would use $1 million 

to support the development of a postsecondary and adult DQI, which would be modeled 

after the existing elementary and secondary education DQI supported under the Fund for 

the Improvement of Education. The elementary and secondary education DQI supports 

activities designed to improve the quality, analysis, and reporting of the Department’s 

elementary and secondary program performance data. The DQI contractor provides 

program office staff with guidance on how to structure grant competitions so as to 

encourage grantees to plan for and collect high-quality program performance and evaluation 

data; provides technical assistance to grantees as they collect the data; and provides 

assistance to program offices and program analysis staff to improve the quality of data 

analysis. The postsecondary and adult DQI would support similar activities at the 

postsecondary level.
HIGHER EDUCATION

GPRA data/HEA program evaluation

T-157

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Pilot and demonstration programs 0 0 $30,000

Postsecondary evaluation 0 0 11,000

College rating system 0 0 10,000

Data quality initiative 0 0 1,000

Student financial assistance experimental sites study $555 $454 TBD1

Language Resource Center (LRC) market analysis 20 0 0

Other activities 0 121 0

 Total 575 575 52,000

_________________

1

 Additional funds may be needed for the student financial assistance experimental sites study in 2015. If this is 

the case, funding would come from the amount reserved for pilot and demonstration programs.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

GPRA Data/HEA Program Evaluation program funds are used for data collection, analysis, or 

evaluation studies for programs authorized under HEA. These activities have played an 

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

budgetary decisions, and conducting program assessments.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-158

State higher education performance fund

State higher education performance fund

(Legislation sought)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

Authority2014 2015 Change

0 $4,000,000 +$4,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The State Higher Education Performance (SHEP) Fund is a proposed competitive grant 

program for States to support, reform, and improve the performance of their public higher 

education systems. Building on the President’s College Value and Affordability agenda and 

previous Budget proposals, this initiative calls on States to make college more affordable and 

increase college access and success, especially for low-income students. The SHEP Fund 

would provide 4-year grants to support: 1) the successful implementation of policy and funding 

reforms that encourage and reward improved college performance, as well as institutional 

innovation and reforms; and 2) maintaining State expenditures in higher education in States with 

a strong record of investment, or increasing State support in low-investment States.

To be eligible for funding, States would need to adopt critical higher education reform policies 

and allocate the Federal and State resources under this program to institutions through a 

performance-based funding program for higher education. Specifically, States would need to:

• Adopt policies to ensure seamless transitions into higher education for all students 

(including older adults) and among 2-year and 4-year public institutions of higher education 

through greater alignment with the K-12 system, including guaranteed credit transfers;

• Establish clear postsecondary pathways from the workforce system;

• Allocate State financial aid primarily on the basis of need;

• Improve transparency to empower students and families with clear and relevant consumer 

information about the return on investment at colleges and universities and encourage 

colleges to improve.

In awarding grants, priority would be given to States with a strong record of investment in higher 

education, or states that commit to increasing their support for higher education.
HIGHER EDUCATION

State higher education performance fund

T-159

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration requests $4 billion in mandatory funding to support the 

State Higher Education Performance Fund. States would be required to match these resources 

dollar-for-dollar, for a total of $8 billion over 4 years.

Federal and state matching resources would be allocated among institutions based upon a 

performance formula developed by each State that meets minimum criteria set by the 

Department of Education, including that funding gaps for under-resourced institutions are not 

exacerbated in order to ensure all students have a chance to succeed, and would also support 

the successful implementation of State policy and funding reforms. States would have to set 

performance goals tied to a timeline, with specific goals for graduating low-income students and 

making college more affordable. Funds provided through this program could be used to support 

and scale up effective and innovative practices that improve access and success at public 

colleges and universities while reducing cost per degree, including:

• Providing comprehensive academic and student support services;

• Allocating need-based aid tied to progress toward completion;

• Providing accelerated learning opportunities and degree pathways, such as dual enrollment;

• Advancing competency-based education; and,

• Reforming remedial education, especially for low-income, adult, and other underrepresented 

students.

Funding to institutions would be conditional upon making satisfactory progress to meet the goals 

that States establish in their applications. As part of their applications, States would have to 

submit an implementation plan that identifies which reforms require legislative action, 

demonstrate participation from all public institutions, and describe a long-term plan for 

sustainable performance-based funding beyond the grant period. During the grant period, 

funding levels could also be adjusted (through a higher level of Federal match) explicitly to 

reward States that commit to larger funding increases to public higher education, including 

need-based financial aid and reduced net price.
HIGHER EDUCATION

T-160

College opportunity and graduation bonus

College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus

(Legislation sought)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

Authority2014 2015 Change

0 $647,000 +$647,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus program would reward colleges that 

successfully enroll and graduate a significant number of low- and moderate-income students on 

time and encourage all institutions to improve their performance. Eligible institutions may 

receive a grant that will support innovation, interventions, and reforms to further increase 

college access and success based upon the number of Pell Grant recipients they graduate on 

time. Eligible institutions would receive an annual grant equal to their number of on-time Pell 

Grant recipient-graduates multiplied by a tiered bonus amount per student, varying by institution 

type.

In addition, this new program would encourage institutions to continue improving their 

performance and graduate even more low-income students by providing a larger bonus amount 

for additional Pell graduates. Eligibility would be based on Pell students comprising a significant 

share of an institution’s graduating class, as well as on graduation and student loan default 

rates.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration requests $647 million in mandatory funding to support 

the College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus program. The grants made through this 

program would be used for making key investments and adopting best practices that will further 

increase college access and success for low-income students, such as by awarding additional 

need-based financial aid, enhancing academic and student support services, improving student 

learning and other outcomes while reducing costs, using technology to scale and enhance 

improvements, establishing or expanding accelerated learning opportunities, as well as other 

innovations, interventions, and reforms. Funds awarded will supplement and not supplant 

existing institutional expenditures.