U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Academic Competitiveness and

National SMART Grant Programs:

Lessons Learned,

2006–07 Through 2009–10 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Academic Competitiveness and 
 

National SMART Grant Programs: 

Lessons Learned, 2006–07 Through 2009–10 

Susan P. Choy 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

John Lee
 

Amy Topper 

JBL Associates 

For
 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

2012 
 

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Task Order Number ED-04-CO-0036/002 

with RTI International. The project monitor was Sharon K. Stout in the Policy and Program Studies Service. The 

views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No 

official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. This publication 

contains addresses and references to publications created and maintained by private organizations. This information 

is provided for the reader’s convenience. The U.S. Department of Education is not responsible for controlling or 

guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information. Further, the inclusion 

of a publication, other commercially available products or a website address does not reflect the importance of the 

organization, nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Arne Duncan 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Carmel Martin 

Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Stuart Kerachsky 

Director 

June 2012 

This report is in the public domain. The cover photograph was used with permission from iStockphoto © Chris 

Schmidt, 2008. Authorization to reproduce this report in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this 

publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation 

and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Academic Competitiveness and National SMART 

Grant Programs: Lessons Learned, 2006–07 Through 2009–10. Washington, D.C., 2012. 

This report is available on the Department’s website at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/index.html. 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For 

more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818. 

Content Contact 

Sandra H. Furey 

(202) 401-4614 

Sandra.Furey@ed.gov 
Contents 

Page 

List of Exhibits .............................................................................................................................. v 

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ ix
 

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... xi
 

Background ................................................................................................................................ xi
 

Study Questions and Design ...................................................................................................... xi
 

ACG and National SMART Grant Awards .............................................................................. xii
 

Lessons Learned...................................................................................................................... xvii
 

Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
 

Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
 

Study Questions and Design ....................................................................................................... 2
 

Data ............................................................................................................................................. 3
 

Chapter 2. Implementation .......................................................................................................... 5
 

Controversy Over Merit Component .......................................................................................... 6
 

First-Year Concerns .................................................................................................................... 6
 

Resolution of Concerns............................................................................................................... 7
 

Student Awareness .................................................................................................................... 11
 

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 12
 

Chapter 3. Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) Program Participation...................... 13
 

Grant Aid for Undergraduates .................................................................................................. 13
 

ACG Merit Requirements ......................................................................................................... 14
 

ACG Awards............................................................................................................................. 16
 

ACG Renewals.......................................................................................................................... 33
 

Pell Grant Renewals for ACG Versus Pell Grant–Only Recipients ......................................... 37
 

Chapter 4. National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) 

Grant Program Participation................................................................................................ 39
 

National SMART Grant–Eligible Majors................................................................................. 40
 

National SMART Grant Awards .............................................................................................. 40
 

National SMART Grant Renewals ........................................................................................... 54
 

Pell Grant Renewals for National SMART Grant Versus Pell Grant–Only Recipients ........... 58
 

— iii — 
CONTENTS 

Page
 

Chapter 5. Lessons Learned....................................................................................................... 61
 

Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 61
 

Participation .............................................................................................................................. 61
 

References .................................................................................................................................... 63
 

Appendix A. Recognized Rigorous High School Programs .................................................... 65
 

Appendix B. National SMART Grant–Eligible Majors .......................................................... 69
 

Appendix C. History of the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs........................... 77
 

Appendix D. Data Sources ......................................................................................................... 91
 

Appendix E. Supplemental Tables on ACG and National SMART Grant Program
 

Participation by Institution Type: 2009–10 ......................................................................... 93
 

Appendix F. STEM Majors in 2003–04 and 2007–08 ............................................................ 113
 

Appendix G. Estimating the Impact of Expanded Eligibility for the ACG and 

National SMART Grant Programs..................................................................................... 119
 

— iv — 
 

Exhibits
 

Exhibit	 Page 

A Number of undergraduates, numbers of Pell Grant, ACG, and SMART Grant 

recipients, and number and percent change: 2006–07 through 2009–10......................... xiv
 

B	 Percentage distribution of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 first-year ACG recipients 

by ACG and Pell Grant status the following year............................................................ xv
 

C Percentage distribution of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 third-year SMART Grant 

recipients by SMART and Pell Grant status the following year...................................... xvi
 

1 Development and resolution of salient concerns about eligibility requirements for
 

ACGs and National SMART Grants................................................................................ 9 

2 Broad-based state merit aid programs.............................................................................. 14 

3 Percentage distribution of ACG recipients by method of qualifying for an ACG: 

2006–07 through 2009–10 ............................................................................................... 16 

4 Number of undergraduates, Pell Grant recipients, and ACG recipients and year-toyear change: 2006–07 through 2009–10.......................................................................... 17 

5 Percentage of eligible institutions awarding ACGs, by type of institution: 2006–07 

through 2009–10 .............................................................................................................. 19 

6 Percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients who received an ACG, by
 

type of institution attended: 2006–07 through 2009–10 .................................................. 23 

7 Percentage of ACGs that were full awards: 2006–07 through 2009–10 ......................... 24 

8 Percentage distribution of ACG-participating institutions by the number of ACGs 

awarded and average number awarded: 2006–07 through 2009–10 ............................... 25 

9 Percentage of dependent ACG and Pell Grant–only recipients at ACG-participating
 

institutions who were from families with incomes of $30,000 or more: 2006–07 

through 2009–10 .............................................................................................................. 27 

10 Average Pell Grant and ACG amounts awarded to dependent ACG recipients, by
 

Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–07 through 2009–10 ................................. 28 

— v — 
 

 

EXHIBITS 

Exhibit	 Page 

11 At four-year ACG-participating institutions, number of first- and second-year 

students with Pell Grants, number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, 

and change in percentage, by student’s state of residence: 2006–07 through 2009–10 .. 30 

12 At two-year ACG-participating institutions, number of first- and second-year students 

with Pell Grants, number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, and 

change in percentage, by student’s state of residence: 2006–07 through 2009–10 ......... 32 

13 Percentage distribution of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 first-year ACG recipients 

by ACG and Pell Grant receipt status the following year................................................ 34 

14 Percentage of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 first-year ACG recipients who 

received an ACG the following year, by type of institution............................................ 36 

15 Percentage of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 Pell Grant–only and ACG recipients 

who received a Pell Grant the following year.................................................................. 38 

16 Number of Pell and SMART Grant recipients and year-to-year change: 2006–07 

through 2008–09 .............................................................................................................. 42 

17 Percentage of eligible institutions awarding SMART Grants, by type of institution: 

2006–07 through 2009–10 ............................................................................................... 43 

18 Percentage of SMART Grants that were full awards: 2006–07 through 2009–10 .......... 46 

19 Percentage distribution of SMART Grant–participating institutions by the number of
 

SMART Grants awarded and average number awarded: 2006–07 through 2009–10 ..... 47 

20 Percentage of dependent SMART Grant and Pell Grant–only recipients at SMART 

Grant–participating institutions who were from families with incomes of $30,000 or 

more: 2006–07 through 2009–10 ..................................................................................... 48 

21 Average Pell and SMART Grant amounts awarded to dependent SMART Grant 

recipients, by Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–07 through 2009–10 ........... 49 

22 Percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study: 2006–07 

through 2009–10 .............................................................................................................. 50 

23 Percentage distribution of SMART Grants in computer science by type of institution: 

2006–07 through 2009–10 ............................................................................................... 51 

24 Number of third- and fourth-year students at SMART Grant–participating institutions 

with Pell Grants, number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with SMART 

Grants, and change in percentage, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07 through 

2009–10............................................................................................................................ 53 

— vi — 
 

 

EXHIBITS 

Exhibit	 Page 

25 Percentage distribution of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 third-year SMART Grant 

recipients by SMART and Pell Grant receipt status the following year.......................... 55 

26 Percentage of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 third-year SMART Grant recipients 

who received a SMART Grant the following year, by type of institution....................... 56 

27 Percentage of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 third-year SMART Grant recipients 

who received a SMART Grant the following year, by field of study.............................. 57 

28 Percentage of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 Pell Grant–only and SMART Grant 

recipients who received a Pell Grant the following year ................................................. 59 

E-1 Number and percentage of eligible institutions participating in the ACG and SMART 

Grant programs: 2009–10 ................................................................................................ 94 

E-2 Number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs or SMART Grants at
 

participating institutions: 2009–10 .................................................................................. 95 

E-3 Average number of Pell Grants, ACGs, and SMART Grants at participating
 

institutions: 2009–10........................................................................................................ 96 

E-4 Percentage distribution of institutions participating in the ACG and SMART Grant 

programs by the number of grant recipients: 2009–10 .................................................... 97 

E-5 Percentage distribution of institutions participating in the ACG and SMART Grant 

programs by the percentage of Pell Grant recipients who received ACGs or SMART 

Grants: 2009–10............................................................................................................... 98 

E-6 Number and percentage distribution of ACG and Pell Grant recipients by class level 

and percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients with ACGs: 2009–10 .... 99 

E-7 Number and percentage distribution of SMART Grants and Pell Grant recipients by
 

class level and percentage of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients with 

SMART Grants: 2009–10................................................................................................100 

E-8 Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant 

recipients by gender, citizenship, and age, and percentage of Pell Grant recipients
 

with ACGs or SMART Grants: 2009–10.........................................................................101 

E-9 Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant 

recipients by dependency status and income and percentage of Pell Grant recipients
 

with ACGs or SMART Grants: 2009–10.........................................................................102 

E-10 Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant 

recipients by Expected Family Contribution (EFC) and percentage of Pell Grant 

recipients with ACGs or SMART Grants: 2009–10 ........................................................103
 

— vii — 
EXHIBITS 

Exhibit	 Page 

E-11 Average amounts of Expected Family Contribution (EFC), income of dependent 

students’ parents, and average Pell Grant, ACG, and SMART Grant amounts: 

2009–10............................................................................................................................104 

E-12 Number of grants, total dollar amounts, and average grant amounts awarded to 

dependent students with ACGs or SMART Grants, by Expected Family Contribution 

(EFC) of the students: 2009–10 .......................................................................................105 

E-13 Number and percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study:
 

2009–10............................................................................................................................106 

E-14 Among students who received an ACG in 2008–09, number and percentage who 

received an ACG, SMART Grant, or Pell Grant in 2009–10, by class level and type of 

institution ........................................................................................................................107 

E-15 Among students who received a SMART Grant in 2008–09, number and percentage 

who received a SMART Grant or Pell Grant in 2009–10, by class level and type of 

institution ........................................................................................................................108 

E-16 Among students who received a SMART Grant in 2008–09, number and percentage 

who received a SMART Grant or Pell Grant in 2009–10, by class level and field of 

study in 2008–09..............................................................................................................109 

E-17 Among students at ACG- or SMART Grant–participating institutions who received 

Pell Grants only in 2008–09, number and percentage who received a Pell Grant or a 

Pell Grant and an ACG or SMART Grant in 2009–10, by ACG or SMART Grant 

status in 2008–09 .............................................................................................................110 

E-18 Number and percentage of students at ACG- or SMART Grant–participating
 

institutions who received Pell Grants only in 2008–09 and their ACG, SMART Grant, 

or Pell Grant status in 2009–10........................................................................................111 

F-1	 Total number of undergraduates and the number and percentage of them who were in 

STEM majors, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08 ........114 

F-2	 Total number of Pell Grant recipients and the number and percentage of them who 

were in STEM majors, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 and 

2007–08............................................................................................................................116 

G-1	 Beginning postsecondary students who met various ACG requirements: 2003–04 ........121 

G-2	 Third-year and above undergraduates in bachelor’s degree programs who met various 

SMART requirements: NPSAS 2003–04 ........................................................................122 

— viii — 
 

 

Acknowledgments 

The authors wish to thank the many individuals who contributed to this report. The report was 

reviewed by staff in the Department’s Office of General Counsel (OGC), Budget Service, Office 

of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

(OPEPD), Office of the Under Secretary (OUS), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), and 

Federal Student Aid (FSA). 

Kathleen Wicks, director of the Grants and Campus Based Division of the Federal Student Aid 

Office, provided the data files on grant awards. 

The programming was done by Xiaojie Li. Barbara Kridl, of MPR Associates, managed the 

production of the report. The report was edited by Andrea Livingston and formatted by Alicia 

Broadway. At JBL Associates, Sue Clery and Monika Artnz assisted with formatting, and Barry 

Christopher and Alvin Marcetti provided editorial assistance. 

— ix — 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Background 

Two new grant programs for low-income undergraduates—the Academic Competitiveness Grant 

(ACG) for first- and second-year students and the National Science and Mathematics Access to 

Retain Talent (National SMART) Grant for third- and fourth-year students were implemented in 

2006–07. The ACG was intended to increase students’ chances of success in college by 

encouraging them to take challenging courses in high school and enroll in college full-time. The 

National SMART Grant was designed to encourage students to major in science, technology, 

engineering, or mathematics (STEM) fields or in selected foreign languages deemed critical to 

the national interest. First-year ACG recipients could get up to $750, and second-year recipients, 

up to $1,300. National SMART Grants were worth up to $4,000. Both programs ended at the end 

of the 2010–11 award year. 

To receive either grant, a student had to be a U.S. citizen, enroll full-time, and qualify for a 

Federal Pell Grant. An ACG recipient also had to graduate from high school after Jan. 1, 2006, if 

a first-year student, or Jan. 1, 2005, if a second-year student; complete a rigorous high school 

program; enroll in a degree program; and have a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of at 

least 3.0 at the end of the first year of college to receive an ACG as a second-year student. 

National SMART Grant recipients had to major in an eligible field and maintain a cumulative 

GPA of at least 3.0 in course work required for their major. 

Starting in 2009–10, eligibility for both grants was expanded to include part-time students and 

Pell Grant–eligible noncitizens. In addition, students in certificate programs lasting a year or 

longer at a degree-granting institution could get an ACG, and students in the fifth year of an 

eligible five-year program could receive a National SMART Grant. 

Study Questions and Design 

This report addresses the following questions: 

1)	 What implementation issues were encountered and how were they addressed? 

2)	 How many students received each type of grant, how much did they receive, what types 

of institutions did they attend, and how did the numbers change over time? 

3)	 How many recipients re-qualified for each grant for a second year? 

— xi — 
 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

4)	 How do college persistence rates for ACG and National SMART Grant recipients 

compare with that of Pell Grant–only recipients?
 

The review of implementation issues is based on examination of documentation from negotiatedrulemaking sessions held in early 2007, interviews with representative stakeholder organizations, 

and reviews of stakeholder websites. The description of participation in the grant programs used 

federal administrative data on Pell Grant, ACG, and National SMART Grant participation from 

2006–07 through 2009–10 provided by the Office of Federal Student Aid. 

In interpreting the numbers presented in the report, it is important to keep in mind that 

substantial changes were made to the ACG and National SMART Grant legislation that 

increased the pool of eligible recipients. As indicated above, eligibility was expanded beginning 

in the fourth award year (effective July 2009) to include students enrolled at least half-time, 

students in one- to two-year certificate programs at degree-granting institutions, and eligible 

noncitizens. The list of eligible SMART Grant majors was also expanded, as was eligibility for 

students enrolled in the fifth year of a five-year degree program. 

This is the fourth report from this five-year study.1

 Each of the four reports summarizes the 

legislative and regulatory history to date, describes the status of implementation concerns, and 

adds the most recent ACG and National SMART Grant program participation data. After the first 

year, each report also includes grant renewal rates (how many students with grant awards in one 

year re-qualified the following year). 

ACG and National SMART Grant Awards 

Analysis of the federal data on participation through the fourth program year (2009–10) yielded 

the following major findings: 

1) The number of ACGs more than doubled over the first four years of the program, driven 

largely by increases in the number of Pell Grant recipients and expanded eligibility, but the 

percentage of Pell Grant recipients with an ACG remained low. 

Between 2006–07 and 2009–10, the number of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients grew 

from 3.0 million to 5.5 million (or 82 percent) (Exhibit A). During the same period, the number 

of ACG recipients grew from 301,700 to 636,400 (or 111 percent). This observed increase is the 

net effect of the increase in the number of Pell Grant recipients, the expansion of the eligibility 

criteria, and other unknown factors not taken into account here. If the actual ACG increase had 

simply followed the Pell Grant increase and not been affected by any other factors, the expected 

number of ACGs would have been only about 547,900 (i.e., less than the observed increase). 

1

 The earlier reports (U.S. Department of Education 2009, 2010, and 2011b) can be accessed at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#higher 

— xii — 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Thus, the increase in Pell Grant recipients is a major reason for the ACG growth but does not 

fully explain it. It was estimated that the expanded eligibility criteria would have increased the 

number of Pell Grant recipients receiving an ACG by about 15 percent. On this basis, the 

expected number of new ACG recipients on top of the increase due to Pell Grant increases would 

be about 630,000, which is about 36,400 (or 6 percent) fewer than the actual number. This 

suggests that most—but not necessarily all—of the increase in ACG awards can be attributed to 

increases in Pell Grant awards and expanded eligibility. 

The proportion of Pell Grant recipients who also received an ACG remained low overall 

(between 10 and 12 percent). However, it was much higher at public and private nonprofit fouryear institutions (30 and 28 percent, respectively in 2009–10) than at other types of institutions 

(between 2 and 9 percent in 2009–10). 

2) Only about one-quarter of first-year ACG recipients received another ACG the 

following year. 

To receive an ACG as a second-year student, a first-year ACG recipient had to meet the same 

requirements as in the first year and also have a cumulative 3.0 GPA at the end of the first year. 

Only 27 percent of the first-year students who received an ACG in 2006–07 were able to do so 

(Exhibit B). For the next two cohorts, the renewal rates were 25 and 24 percent. 

The first-year students who received another Pell Grant in the following year but not an ACG 

still had low incomes but could not meet the stricter ACG requirements. The remaining students 

in each cohort either were no longer eligible for a Pell Grant or had dropped out. 

3) The number of students receiving a National SMART Grant was relatively stable during the 

first three years of the program and then increased substantially, exceeding Pell Grant growth. 

A total of 62,400 students received a National SMART Grant in 2006–07 (Exhibit A). Over the 

next two years, the number of National SMART Grant awards did not keep pace with the 

increase in Pell Grant awards. However, in 2009–10, the number of National SMART Grants 

— xiii — 
—

Exhibit A.—

Exhibit A. Number of undergraduates, numbers of Pell Grant, ACG, and SMART Grant recipients, and number and percent c

2009–10 

Change 2006–07 

to 2007–08 

Change 2007–

to 2008–09 

Undergraduates and grant recipients 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 Number Percent Number Perc

Undergraduates Fall enrollment in degree-granting 

 institutions 15,184,000 15,604,000 16,366,000 17,565,000 419,000 2.8 762,000 

Pell Grant recipients Total Pell Grant recipientsa 5,165,000 5,543,000 6,157,000 8,094,000 378,000 7.3 614,000 1

First- and second-year Pell Grant 

a recipients in institutions with any ACGs 3,010,000 3,382,000 3,889,000 5,466,000 372,000 12.4 507,000 1

Third- and fourth-year recipients in

 institutions with any SMART Grants 1,208,000 1,289,000 1,329,600 1,637,000 81,000 6.7 40,600 

ACG recipients Number estimated prior to implementationb 420,000 460,000 † † † † † 

Total ACG recipientsa 301,700 398,700 441,900 636,400 97,000 32.2 43,200 1

SMART Grant recipients Number estimated prior to implementationa 80,000 80,000 † † † † † 

Total SMART Grant recipients 62,400 65,400 64,400 115,200 3,000 4.8 -1,000 

— xiv — 

Exhibit reads: Fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions was 15,184,000 in 2006–07 and increased by 2.8 percent to 15,604,000 in 2007–0

† Not applicable.

a Totals include recipients with unknown institution type.b Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 127, p. 37998.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2008 (NCES 2009-020), table

Education Statistics, 2009 (NCES 2010-013), table 194; and Digest of Education Statistics, 2010 (NCES 2011-015), table 202; U.S. DepartmenPostsecondary Education, 2006–07, 2007–08, 2008–09, and 2009–10 Federal Pell Grant Program End-of-Year Reports ; and U.S. Department 

Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), an
—

Exhibit B.—

Exhibit B.	 Percentage distribution of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 first-year ACG recipients by ACG 

and Pell Grant receipt status the following year 

Percent 

100 

80 

27 

48 

26 

25 

47 

28	 

24 

56 

21 

No Pell Grant or not enrolled 60 

Pell Grant, no ACG 

40 

ACG and Pell Grant 

20
 

0
 

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10
 

Second-year grant status
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Exhibit reads: Among first-year ACG recipients in 2006–07, 27 percent received another ACG and Pell Grant in 2007–08;
 

48 percent received another Pell Grant but not an ACG; and 26 percent received no Pell Grant or were not enrolled.
 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Each year, the category Pell Grant, no ACG includes 1 percent
 

who achieved third-year status and received a SMART Grant.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607
 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

awarded increased by 79 percent to 115,200, much more than the 23 percent increase in Pell 

Grants awarded to third- and fourth-year students. As with ACGs, this observed increase is the 

net effect of the increase in the number of Pell Grant recipients, the expansion of the eligibility 

criteria, and other unknown factors not taken into account here. Some of the increase is 

obviously due to the increase in Pell Grants. However, if the number of National SMART Grants 

had increased in tandem with Pell Grants (23 percent), the number of National SMART Grants in 

2009–10 would have been 79,200, which is considerably less than the 115,200 awarded. Thus, 

other factors must have contributed to the observed growth. 

The impact of expanding the program to include part-time students, eligible noncitizens, and 

fifth-year students was estimated to produce a 48 percent increase in the number of Pell Grant 

recipients who would have been eligible for a National SMART Grant. Applying this increase to 

the 79,200 expected because of increases in Pell Grants produces an estimate of about 117,000. 

This suggests that most of the observed increase in National SMART Grant awards may have 

been driven by the increase in Pell Grant awards together with the expanded eligibility criteria 

for the National SMART Grants. 

— xv — 
 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

4) The percentage of Pell Grant recipients receiving a National SMART Grant increased. 

In the first three years of the program, 5 percent of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients 

received a National SMART Grant. In 2009–10, 7 percent did so. This reflects, at least in part, 

expanded eligibility for these grants. 

5) More than one-half of third-year students who received a National SMART Grant received 

another one the following year. 

Fifty-seven percent of third-year students who received a National SMART Grant in 2006–07 

had their grants renewed the following year (Exhibit C). Among the next two cohorts of thirdyear students, 54 and 58 percent, respectively, had their grants renewed. The National SMART 

Grant renewal rates were substantially higher than the ACG renewal rates, but it is not surprising 

that students who have successfully reached their third year with a 3.0 GPA in course work 

required for their major would meet the renewal requirements more easily than first-year 

students. 

Exhibit C.—	 Percentage distribution of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 third-year SMART Grant recipients 

Exhibit C.—by SMART and Pell Grant receipt status the following year
 

Percent 

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Fourth-year grant status 

57 54 58 

22 22 

26 

22 24 16 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

No Pell Grant or not enrolled 

Pell Grant, no SMART Grant 

SMART and Pell Grants 

Exhibit reads: Among third-year SMART Grant recipients in 2006–07, 57 percent received another SMART and Pell
 

Grant in 2007–08; 22 percent received another Pell Grant but not a SMART Grant; and 22 percent received no Pell Grant
 

or were not enrolled.
 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607
 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

— xvi — 
 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Some third-year National SMART Grant students did not qualify for a National SMART Grant 

renewal in their fourth year, but did receive a Pell Grant (22 percent for the first two cohorts and 

26 percent for the third). This means that they did not meet the GPA requirement; were not 

enrolled full-time (except in 2009–10, when part-time students were eligible); changed their major 

to an ineligible one; or were not taking at least one course to meet the requirements of their major. 

The remaining students were either not enrolled or no longer qualified for a Pell Grant. 

6) First-year ACG recipients and third-year National SMART Grant recipients persisted at 

higher rates than their counterparts with a Pell Grant only. 

A Pell Grant renewal means that a student is known to have persisted to the following year. Pell 

Grant renewal rates for first-year students who received an ACG in addition to their Pell Grant 

were considerably higher than for their peers who had received a Pell Grant only. For example, 

79 percent of those who had received an ACG as a first-year student in 2008–09 received another 

Pell Grant in 2009–10 (with or without an ACG). In comparison, just 62 percent of first-year 

students who received a Pell Grant only in 2008–09 received another one in 2009–10. 

Similarly, National SMART Grant recipients had higher Pell Grant renewal rates than their Pell 

Grant–only peers. For example, among third-year Pell Grant recipients in 2008–09, 75 percent of 

those who had received Pell Grants only received another Pell Grant in the next year. In 

comparison, 83 percent of their counterparts who had also qualified for a National SMART 

Grant received another Pell Grant the next year. 

While the additional financial support provided by the ACG may contribute to the observed 

higher persistence rates for the recipients of these grants, other factors may be equally or even 

more important. ACG and National SMART Grant recipients are among the most academically 

qualified Pell Grant recipients and therefore would be expected to persist at higher rates than 

students who did not meet the academic qualifications for the grants. 

Lessons Learned 

	 Both the ACG and the National SMART Grant programs were relatively small 

programs that had to be quickly implemented before regulations were finalized. 

Moreover, they required simultaneous confirmation of academic and financial 

eligibility for a Pell Grant. This caused many administrative problems for 

participating institutions, especially in the first year, and most awarded very few 

grants. A longer lead time would have allowed a smoother implementation. 

	 Many recipients did not meet academic requirements necessary to qualify for renewal 

of their initial ACG and SMART grants. Students who met the GPA and other 

requirements for a grant were more likely to be from families with higher incomes 

among the Pell-eligible students. 

— xvii — 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Introduction 

Background 

The Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA), signed into law in February 2006, 

created two new grant programs for low-income undergraduates—the Academic 

Competitiveness Grant (ACG) for first- and second-year students and the National Science and 

Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (National SMART) Grant for third- and fourth-year 

students. The ACG was intended to increase students’ chances of success in college by 

encouraging them to take challenging courses in high school and enroll in college full-time. The 

National SMART Grant was designed to encourage students to major in science, technology, 

engineering, or mathematics (fields considered to be in high demand in the global economy) or 

in selected foreign languages deemed critical to the national interest. 

First-year ACG recipients could get up to $750 (depending on their financial need), and secondyear recipients, up to $1,300. National SMART Grants were worth up to $4,000, again 

depending on financial need. Congress authorized $4.5 billion over five years for the two 

programs (2006–07 through 2010–11), after which both ended. Funds not expended in one year 

could be carried forward to the next. During the first four award years, expenditures totaled $2.3 

billion ($1.3 billion for the ACG program and $969 million for the National SMART Grant 

program).2 

The authorizing legislation specified that for either grant, a student had to qualify for a Federal 

Pell Grant (a need-based grant for low-income undergraduates),3

 enroll full-time, and be a U.S. 

citizen. In addition, an ACG recipient had to 

	 graduate from high school after Jan. 1, 2006, if a first-year student, or Jan. 1, 2005, if 

a second-year student; 

	 complete a rigorous high school program as defined by the secretary of education;4 

	 enroll in a degree program at a two- or four-year degree-granting institution; and 

2

 U.S. Department of Education (2011c).
 3

 The Pell Grant program is described in detail at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/fpg/index.html.
 4

 Chapter 3 and Appendix A contain details on what constitutes a rigorous high school program and the process for 

recognizing one. 

— 1 —
 
 

 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

	 have a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of at least 3.0 on a 4.0 scale, or its 

numeric equivalent, at the end of the first year of college to receive an ACG as a 

second-year student. 

In addition to meeting the requirements common to both grants, National SMART Grant 

recipients had to 

	 major in an eligible field;5 and 

	 maintain a cumulative GPA of at least 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale) in course work required for 

the major. 

Although eligibility for an ACG or National SMART Grant required Pell Grant eligibility, not all 

Pell Grant recipients were eligible for one of the new grants. Low-income students who attended 

at least half-time, were eligible noncitizens,6

 or enrolled in certificate programs could receive a 

Pell Grant but not an ACG or National SMART Grant. 

The Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (H.R. 5715), signed into law in 

May 2008, modified the eligibility criteria to bring them more in line with Pell Grant eligibility. 

This legislation expanded eligibility for ACGs and National SMART Grants to include part-time 

students and eligible noncitizens. In addition, it opened up the ACG program to students in 

certificate programs lasting a year or longer at a degree-granting institution and allowed students 

in the fifth year of an eligible five-year program to receive a National SMART Grant. These 

changes were to be effective in January 2009, but the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 

(H.R. 4137) (enacted in August 2008) delayed implementation of the eligibility changes until 

July 2009 to make them coincide with a new award year. Thus, students enrolled in the 2009–10 

academic year were the first to benefit from the expanded eligibility rules. 

The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 also gave state officials—rather than the 

secretary of education—the authority to identify the rigorous secondary school programs of 

study in their states starting July 1, 2009. Secondary school programs of study that had 

previously been recognized by the secretary as rigorous still qualified, however. 

Study Questions and Design 

This report addresses the following questions: 

1)	 What implementation issues were encountered and how were they addressed? 

5

 Appendix B includes a complete list of eligible majors.
 6

 Eligible noncitizens are primarily permanent U.S. residents but include several other groups, such as refugees. See 

http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/help/fotw15a.htm.
 

— 2 — 
 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

2)	 How many students received each type of grant, how much did they receive, what types 

of institutions did they attend, and how did the numbers change over time? 

3)	 How many recipients re-qualified for each grant for a second year? 

4)	 How do college persistence rates for ACG and National SMART Grant recipients 

compare with that of Pell Grant–only recipients?
 

In interpreting the numbers presented in the report, it is important to keep in mind that 

substantial changes were made to the ACG and National SMART Grant legislation that 

increased the pool of eligible recipients. As indicated above, eligibility was expanded beginning 

in the fourth award year (effective July 2009) to include students enrolled at least half-time, 

students in one- to two-year certificate programs at degree-granting institutions, and eligible 

noncitizens. The list of eligible SMART Grant majors was also expanded, as was eligibility for 

students enrolled in the fifth year of a five-year degree program. 

This is the fourth and final report from this five-year study.7 Each of the four reports summarizes 

the legislative and regulatory history to date, describes the status of implementation concerns, 

and adds the most recent ACG and National SMART Grant program participation data. After the 

first year, each report also includes grant renewal rates (how many students with grant awards in 

one year re-qualified the following year). While this final report summarizes the key findings of 

the full study, earlier reports contain more detailed information on the following topics: 

	 High school graduation requirements and approved rigorous high school programs in 

each state (U.S. Department of Education 2009); 

	 Baseline information on trends in high school course taking, trends in degrees 

awarded in National SMART Grant–eligible majors, and estimates of the numbers of 

students who would be eligible for the grants developed prior to implementation (U.S. 

Department of Education 2009); 

	 Implementation history and issues (U.S. Department of Education 2009, 2010); and 

	 Analysis of survey data on student awareness of the existence and requirements of 

these grants (U.S. Department of Education 2010). 

Data 

The study used federal data on Pell Grant, ACG, and National SMART Grant participation from 

2006–07 through 2009–10. The Office of Federal Student Aid provided the program 

7

 The earlier reports (U.S. Department of Education 2009, 2010, 2011b) can be accessed at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#higher. 

— 3 — 
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

participation data used in this report and the three earlier ones. Student-level records of all Pell 

Grant recipients were merged with ACG and National SMART Grant award records and 

information from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Appendix D contains 

more detail on these data. In 2009–10, the final year covered by this study, there were 

approximately 8 million Pell Grant recipients, 636,400 ACG recipients, and 115,200 National 

SMART Grant recipients. 

The numbers of Pell Grants, ACGs, and National SMART Grants reported here may not exactly 

match numbers reported elsewhere. The Federal Student Aid (FSA) files used to generate the 

participation data come from an administrative database that is updated continuously with data 

from institutions on disbursements and cancellations. Consequently, the exact number of awards 

can vary slightly from day to day. However, most financial aid data for the previous academic 

year is finalized by September so differences between the numbers reported here and in other 

publications using data generated after September 30 should be minor. Unless otherwise 

indicated, the Pell Grant totals reported here are limited to institutions participating in the ACG 

or National SMART Grant programs. They are lower than Pell Grant totals reported elsewhere 

because they exclude Pell Grant recipients at less-than-two-year institutions and at two- and 

four-year institutions that did not award any ACGs or National SMART Grants. 

— 4 — 
 

 

 

CHAPTER 2 

Implementation 

As indicated in Chapter 1, the ACG and National SMART Grant legislation was signed into law 

in February 2006, with the first award year slated to begin in July 2006. This timing posed 

significant staffing, procedural, and fiscal challenges, given that the processing of financial aid 

applications for an upcoming award year typically begins in January. In the months following the 

passage of the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA), the Department notified 

the public of this new source of potential financial aid; provided guidance and Interim 

Regulations to schools; set up processes to disburse funds to schools; worked with 

representatives from institutions with direct interest to develop Final Regulations for 2006–07; 

and began the process of establishing regulations for subsequent years. 

To meet this challenge, the U.S. Department of Education engaged in extensive outreach efforts. 

Postsecondary institutions worked to identify eligible students and award these new grants, 

despite trepidation about the administrative demands introduced by the new requirements. This 

chapter provides an overview of the salient concerns expressed by institutional representatives 

and representatives from several education associations that needed to be aware of the grants and 

how they were to be awarded. The Department worked with the higher education community to 

resolve these concerns over the early years of the programs. One of the issues was finding ways 

to make students aware of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. A detailed account of 

the history and concerns voiced in the negotiated regulations process, interviews with 

representatives from education associations, and a review of reports and press stories published 

during the first two implementation years can be found in the first two reports from this study 

(U.S. Department of Education 2009, 2010). 

This review of implementation issues is based on examination of documentation from 

negotiated-rulemaking sessions8

 held in early 2007, interviews with representative stakeholder 

organizations,9

 and reviews of stakeholder websites. These stakeholder organizations are among 

8

 Negotiated rulemaking” (Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 561–570) is a process in which different 

interest groups come together to negotiate the terms of an administrative rule and propose changes. It is entirely 

voluntary and the agency does not have to adopt the changes suggested by the advisory committee. The Department 

held four regional sessions in fall of 2006 that helped create the agenda for the three ACG and National SMART 

Grant negotiated-rulemaking sessions that took place in the spring of 2007. Comments on the negotiated-rulemaking 

process and the subsequent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp. 9

 These included the American Association of Community Colleges, National Academic Advising Association, 

National Association for College Admission Counseling, National Association of Student Financial Aid 

— 5 —
 
 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2. IMPLEMENTATION 

those responsible for advising students, disseminating information about financial aid, or 

disbursing financial aid. More detail on the history and resolution of implementation concerns 

can be found in the first report in this series (U.S. Department of Education 2009). 

Controversy Over Merit Component 

The Department’s undergraduate financial aid programs primarily provide grant aid based 

entirely on a family’s ability to pay. The Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Education 

Amendments of 1972 introduced and expanded federal need-based aid, including the 

establishment of the Pell Grant (originally known as the Basic Education Opportunity Grant) for 

those students with the least ability to pay. To some in the higher education community, the 

merit components of ACGs and National SMART Grants signaled a significant change in federal 

financial aid policy. 

Namely, commentators took issue with the ACG requirement that students complete a rigorous 

secondary school curriculum and maintain a 3.0 GPA at the end of their first year of college, and 

the National SMART Grant requirement that students maintain a cumulative 3.0 GPA in course 

work required for their major at the end of each term. Although the intent behind these programs 

was grounded in research on the characteristics of degree completers (Adelman 1999, 2006), 

commentators argued that the academic requirements might lead students to take less challenging 

classes so that they would receive the grades necessary to qualify for the award. Some analysts 

also argued that the merit component of these grants would favor those students with the least 

need, namely Pell Grant recipients at the upper end of the financial threshold.10 

First-Year Concerns 

A more practical concern was how to implement the statutory requirements within a short time 

frame given the administrative and budgetary constraints faced by postsecondary institutions. 

Colleges and universities had less than six months to prepare for the first award year, and many 

institutions, particularly those with open-access policies, did not have the procedures or staff in 

place to verify the eligibility of students as required in the regulations. Unlike other federal aid 

programs, the ACG and National SMART Grant legislation did not include funds to help defray 

the implementation costs. 

One complaint about the implementation of the programs as defined in the regulations was the 

requirement that institutions had to make awards to eligible National SMART Grant majors even 

before they had a chance to clarify the regulations to make sure they were in compliance. 

Administrators, United States Student Association, American School Counselor Association, National Association
 

of Secondary School Principals, and the National Parent Teacher Association.

10 Inside Higher Ed, “The Gift Colleges Don’t Want,” By Doug Lederman, January 24, 2006
 

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/01/24/smart#ixzz1f25wg7WF. 

— 6 — 
 

CHAPTER 2. IMPLEMENTATION 

The same concerns were expressed about the process for calculating a qualifying high school 

GPA and curriculum, which required a four-year high school transcript as confirmation, because 

many community colleges did not require transcripts prior to enrollment. The problem was even 

greater in the several states that did not have a systematic process in place to identify whether a 

high school curriculum was rigorous or not; in those cases colleges had to determine eligibility 

on an individual student basis. Some states could not verify that all high school students had 

access to rigorous curricula, which made the problem of qualifying students even more difficult. 

Interviews conducted in fall 2006 with representatives from associations with membership from 

both high school and college communities, ranging from the PTA to financial aid administrators, 

revealed substantial concerns over the ability of postsecondary admissions offices and financial 

aid administrators to effectively implement the regulatory requirements in time for the first 

award year. Most colleges and universities did not have a method in place to link four-year high 

school transcripts (needed to verify ACG eligibility) to the calculation of Pell eligibility in 

financial aid offices. Those responsible for implementing this process reported that many 

colleges and universities, particularly those with open admission, did not have the infrastructure 

or staff in place to determine student eligibility. 

Some confusion also existed about how to verify whether recipients were meeting the GPA and 

programmatic requirements after they enrolled. A more detailed review of all the major first-year 

concerns raised by those interviewed can be found in Chapter 2 of this study’s first report (U.S. 

Department of Education 2009). 

Aside from the philosophical and implementation challenges raised during the first year, college 

and university administrators expressed a number of policy concerns during the first award year. 

The list included requests to include part-time students, expand eligibility to students enrolled in 

certificate programs, loosen the U.S. citizenship requirement, and relax the definition of 

“academic year.” 

Resolution of Concerns 

Many of the initial confusions described above were clarified in the Final Regulations and 

subsequent Dear Colleague letters, as well as with the passage of the Ensuring Continued Access 

to Student Loans Act of 2008 (H.R. 5715) and the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 

(H.R. 4137). Although many of the requirements were not changed, such as the mandatory 

participation of institutions, several provisions that had been criticized in the original legislation 

and regulations were addressed. These changes included expanding access to a larger proportion 

of Pell Grant recipients, providing states more control over defining rigorous high school 

programs, including students enrolled in five-year degree programs, and approving several 

liberal arts curricula as National SMART Grant–eligible majors. Exhibit 1 provides a summary 

— 7 — 
 

CHAPTER 2. IMPLEMENTATION 

of the salient concerns voiced by higher education representatives and how these concerns were 

resolved. A comprehensive account of the history of the ACG and National SMART Grant 

programs can be found in Appendix C. 

— 8 — 
 

 

 

CHAPTER 2. IMPLEMENTATION 

Exhibit 1. Development and resolution of salient concerns about eligibility requirements for ACGs and 

National SMART Grants 

Salient Issues Source and Resolution: 

Effective 2006–07 and 

2007–08 Academic Years 

Ensuring Continued 

Access to Student 

Loans Act of 2008 (H.R. 

5715): Effective Jan. 1, 

2009 

Higher Education 

Opportunity Act (H.R. 

4137): Effective July 1, 

2009 

Eligibility Requirements for ACGs and National SMART Grants 

Adding “Merit” Aid to 

Basic Pell Grant 

Requirements 

Legislation; No changes to 

the Final Regulations dated 

Oct. 29, 2007. 

No change. No change. 

Full-time Enrollment Legislation; No changes to 

the Final Regulations dated 

Oct. 29, 2007. 

Students enrolled at least 

half-time became eligible. 

No change. 

Degree Programs Legislation; No changes to 

the Final Regulations dated 

Oct. 29, 2007. 

Students enrolled in oneto two-year certificate 

programs at degreegranting institutions 

became eligible. 

Change to “program of 

study.” 

U.S. Citizenship Legislation; No changes to 

the Final Regulations dated 

Oct. 29, 2007. 

Some students who are 

noncitizens (permanent 

residents) became 

eligible. 

No change. 

Rigorous High School 

Program Regulations dated Oct. 29, 

2007. 

The secretary recognized 

at least one rigorous 

secondary school program 

of study for each state 

annually. States could 

submit proposals for 

recognition or could elect 

to accept rigorous 

secondary school 

programs of study prerecognized by the 

secretary. 

No changes to the Final States were given 

increased control to define 

rigorous secondary school 

programs of study. 

The secretary no longer 

recognized rigorous 

secondary school 

programs of study. 

No change. 

Cont’d. next page. 

— 9 — 
 

 

CHAPTER 2. IMPLEMENTATION 

Exhibit 1. Development and resolution of salient concerns about eligibility requirements for ACGs and 

National SMART Grants—Continued 

Salient Issues Source and Resolution: 

Effective 2006–07 and 

2007–08 Academic Years 

Ensuring Continued 

Access to Student 

Loans Act of 2008 (H.R. 

5715): Effective Jan. 1, 

2009 

Higher Education 

Opportunity Act (H.R. 

4137): Effective July 1, 

2009 

Regulations 

“Academic Year” 

Defining Students’ Initial 

and Ongoing Eligibility 

Statutory requirements, 

Interim and Final 

Regulations. The 

Department issued 

clarifications in the Final 

Regulations but did not 

change the definition of 

“academic year.” 

“Academic year” changed 

to “year.” 

No change. 

Mandatory Participation Interim and Final 

Regulations. 

No changes to the Final 

Regulations dated Oct. 29, 

2007. 

No change. No change. 

Four-year High School 

Transcript Requirement 

Interim and Final 

Regulations. 

No changes to the Final 

Regulations dated Oct. 29, 

2007. 

Regulatory requirement, 

no change. 

No change. 

Determining Eligibility of 

Majors/Declaration of 

Majors 

The Department issued 

clarifications in the 2007 

Final Regulations and 

provided institutions with a 

process to petition for the 

inclusion of additional 

majors. 

Extended eligibility for a 

National SMART Grant to 

a student enrolled in a 

qualifying liberal arts 

curriculum. 

National SMART Grant 

eligibility expanded to 

include students enrolled 

in the fifth year of a fiveyear degree program. 

No change. 

Postsecondary GPA Legislation; The 

Department issued 

clarifications in the Final 

Regulations dated Oct. 29, 

2007. 

No change. No change. 

— 10 — 
 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2. IMPLEMENTATION 

Student Awareness 

Research has shown that students often do not understand the financial aid process and are not 

aware of their funding options (Childress 2009). Low-income students are less likely than 

higher-income students to apply for financial aid (complete a FAFSA) and may be less aware of 

their financial aid options or the programs’ eligibility requirements (King 2006; Kantrowitz 

2009; Lee and Albert 2010). College and high school counselors and admissions officers, who 

are often not aware of the finer points of student aid themselves, thought that the complexity of 

the ACG and National SMART Grant requirements, coupled with the already large number of 

financial aid programs, would leave students relatively confused about how to qualify for the 

ACG and SMART Grants. 

Many students had already applied for financial aid by the time that the authorizing legislation 

for the new grants was passed in February 2006. In an attempt to reach those students, the 

Department sent emails or letters to those whose financial aid applications indicated that they 

met the nonacademic requirements for a Pell Grant. Those communications described the 

academic requirements and invited students to self-identify as eligible. Students applying for 

financial aid after July 1, 2006, could self-identify on their financial aid application by answering 

questions about their high school courses taken. Institutions then verified the eligibility of 

students who self-identified before awarding grants to them. 

The student interview administered as part of the 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:08) included questions designed to find out what potentially eligible students 

knew about the grant programs. First- and second-year students who were U.S. citizens, who 

were enrolled in a degree program, and who seemed likely to be eligible for a Pell Grant based 

on their income were asked if they had heard of the ACG program. Just 7 percent of this group 

reported that they had heard of it (U.S. Department of Education 2010). The same thing occurred 

in SMART Grant identification. Only 5 percent of third- and fourth-year low-income students 

who were U.S. citizens had heard of the National SMART Grant. 

If the ACGs and National SMART Grants were to fulfill their ultimate goals—increasing college 

preparedness, increasing postsecondary enrollment, and influencing low-income students’ choice 

of a major—counselors, advisors, and admissions officers would need to be involved in 

promoting the programs. The Department asked states to support efforts to increase program 

awareness by incorporating information about these grants into existing state, local, and 

institutional outreach programs and provided some specific early examples of what some states 

had done.11 

11 See https://www.ed.gov/programs/smart/results2007/national.pdf. 

— 11 — 
CHAPTER 2. IMPLEMENTATION 

Conclusion 

The rapid implementation of the ACG and National SMART Grant programs and the complex 

eligibility requirements were challenging for all parties in the first year. The Department had a 

short amount of time to define the process for awarding these grants. The list of actions included 

notifying the public of this new source of financial aid and providing guidance and Interim 

Regulations to inform colleges and universities about how to stay in compliance in the 2006–07 

academic year. In addition, it was necessary to determine students’ ongoing eligibility, develop 

processes to disburse funds to institutions, and work with different interest groups to develop 

Final Regulations for subsequent years. This abrupt start may have contributed to the resistance 

from some in the higher education lobby. Even with extensive outreach efforts by the 

Department and work by states, institutions, and the Department to resolve the operational 

problems, the concerns continued to be expressed and Congress did not fund the programs in the 

2011–12 academic year. 

— 12 — 
 

 

 

CHAPTER 3 

Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) Program 

Participation 

Grant Aid for Undergraduates 

Although award amounts, eligibility requirements, and funding levels have undergone a number 

of changes since the Pell Grant program was established as the Basic Education Opportunity 

Grant in 1972, the intent is still to provide help to students who might not otherwise be able to 

afford college. Awarded entirely on the basis of financial need, the Pell Grant is the foundation 

of financial aid, upon which other aid from federal and nonfederal sources is added. Pell Grant 

amounts depend on the student’s Expected Family Contribution (EFC); the price of attendance 

(as determined by the institution); the student’s enrollment status (full- or part-time); and the 

number of terms enrolled. The family EFC takes into account income, assets, household size, and 

the number of family members, other than parents, in college. Adjustments are made for 

dependency status and whether or not the student has dependents of his or her own. Congress 

legislates a maximum Pell Grant amount, but the actual maximum in a given year depends on the 

amount appropriated. The actual maximum Pell Grant in 2006–07 was $4,050, and it increased 

to $4,310 in 2007–08; $4,731 in 2008–09; $5,350 in 2009–10; and $5,500 in 2010–11. 

At the state level, the majority of financial aid programs have always been based on need, but 

broad-based state merit aid programs12 have grown in popularity since the introduction of 

Georgia’s HOPE (Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally) Scholarship in 1993. As Exhibit 2 

demonstrates, similar state merit aid programs have spread to more than 15 states over the past 

two decades (Heller and Marin 2004). 

State merit aid programs are quite diverse and cannot be easily compared across states. Programs 

vary in both how they are funded and in their eligibility requirements. Merit grants may be 

awarded on the basis of test scores, performance (athletics, music, art), class rank, grades, or 

some combination of student performance. The grade requirement can be modest, with some 

states only requiring a high school GPA of 2.0 to qualify. There are also several states that have 

implemented “hybrid” merit aid programs that include a need component in addition to academic 

requirements. 

12 Broad-based merit aid programs serve a larger pool of students than merit aid programs that target specific 

populations of students, but have merit components, such as career-oriented programs or programs for dependents of 

fallen officers. 

— 13 —
 
Exhibit 2. —Broad-based state merit aid programs 

Implementation 

date State Name of award 

1986 Missouri Higher Education Academic Scholarship Program 

1990 Indiana 21st Century Scholars 

1993 Georgia Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally 

1995 Mississippi Eminent Scholars Program 

1997 Florida Bright Futures Scholarship 

1997 Louisiana Tuition Opportunity Program for Students 

1997 New Mexico Lottery Success Scholarship 

1998 Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship 

1998 South Carolina Hope Scholarship 

1999 Alaska Scholars Award 

1999 Michigan Merit Award Scholarship 

1999 West Virginia Providing Real Opportunities for Maximizing In-State Student Excellence 

2000 Nevada Millennium Scholarship 

2004 Tennessee Education Lottery Scholarship Program 

2005 Massachusetts John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program 

Various years Delaware Academic Memorial Scholarships 

SOURCE: National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs Annual Survey Reports, 1991–2009; Heller, D. 

2004. State Merit Scholarship Programs: An Overview . In D. Heller and P. Marin (eds.), State Merit Scholarship Programs 

and Racial Inequality (pp.15–22). The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. 

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Funding for non-need-based state aid programs for undergraduates increased 230 percent 

between 1998–99 and 2008–09 (National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs 

2010). During that same period, funding for programs based only on need grew by 105 percent. 

In 2008–09, less than half (48 percent) of state aid for undergraduates was based only on 

financial need. 

ACG Merit Requirements 

Among the eligibility requirements for the ACG is a provision that required a recipient to have 

completed a rigorous high school program of study after Jan. 1, 2006, if a first-year student, and 

after Jan. 1, 2005, if a second-year student. It also specified that a second-year recipient had to 

have a 3.0 grade point average (on a 4.0 scale) at the end of his or her first year in college. 

There were four ways to meet the rigorous high school program requirement (detailed in 

Appendix A). Briefly, these were by 

 completing high school course work specified by the U.S. Department of Education, 

including four years of English; three years of mathematics (including algebra I and a 

higher-level course); three years of science (including at least two courses chosen 

— 14 — 
 

 

 

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

from biology, chemistry, or physics); three years of social studies; and one year of a 

language other than English;
 

	 completing at least two Advanced Placement (AP) courses with a score of 3.0 or 

higher (out of 5.0) or at least two International Baccalaureate (IB) courses with a 

score of 4.0 or higher (out of 7.0); 

	 earning recognition through the federally funded State Scholars Initiative,13 which 

required students to complete all state-mandated high school graduation requirements 

and also a series of courses that was even more demanding than the ED-specified 

curriculum described above; 

	 completing an existing advanced, honors, or other state-established program approved 

by the secretary of education. As of July 1, 2009, the secretary no longer recognizes 

new rigorous secondary school programs of study. Instead, designated state officials 

report to the secretary the rigorous secondary school programs of study that prepare 

students for college in their state.14 

In each ACG program year, more than 90 percent of recipients qualified either by completing the 

course work specified by the Department or by meeting the requirements of a state-specific 

rigorous program, with a slight shift toward the latter over time. The proportion of students 

qualifying by meeting the ED-specified course work declined from 57 to 52 percent, and the 

proportion qualifying by completing an approved state-established program increased from 35 to 

39 percent (Exhibit 3). Students may qualify on more than one basis, but their institutions report 

just one and may choose the easiest one for them to verify. 

If states vary in how demanding their approved rigorous programs are, one might expect the 

number of ACG awards to be higher in states with less demanding programs. No attempt was 

made to identify such patterns because while some approved state programs appear to be more 

demanding than the ED course–based curriculum and some appear to be less demanding, 

meaningful comparisons are difficult. For example, some state programs had more rigorous 

requirements than the ED course–based curriculum in one subject but less rigorous ones in 

another. Also, some approved state programs had requirements other than course taking, such as 

a minimum score on a state test. See U.S. Department of Education (2009) for a detailed 

comparison of approved state programs. 

13 The State Scholars Initiative was offered in selected districts in 22 states in 2006–07 and in 24 states in 2007–08 

and 2008–09. Since then, State Scholars programs have continued to operate independently in 14 states (see 

Appendix A for more details). 

14 A description of the recognized programs in each state is available at: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/about/acsmart/state-programs.html. 

— 15 — 
 

 

—

Exhibit 3.—

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 3.	 Percentage distribution of ACG recipients by method of qualifying for an ACG: 2006–07 

through 2009–10 

Method of qualifying	 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

 Total	 100 100 100 100 

U.S. Department of Education-specified course work 57 55 53 52 

State program 35 37 38 39 

AP or IB* 5 4 4 4 

State scholars 2 2 2 2 

Unknown 2 2 3 2 

Exhibit reads: Among ACG recipients in 2006–07, 57 percent qualified for an ACG by completing the ED course-based 

curriculum.
 

* Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate.
 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

Transcript studies show that high school graduates are completing more challenging curricula 

now than they did in the past, with the proportion completing a rigorous curriculum increasing 

from 5 percent in 1990 to 13 percent in 2009 (U.S. Department of Education 2011a).15 During 

the same period, the percentage completing a midlevel curriculum increased from 26 to 46 

percent. 

ACG Awards 

The rest of the exhibits in this chapter describe participation across the first four program years 

(2006–07 through 2009–10). Appendix E contains additional detail on 2009–10 awards by 

institution type, class level, and student characteristics. Appendixes of previous reports in this 

series contain comparable detail for earlier program years in correspondingly numbered tables 

(U.S. Department of Education 2009, 2010, 2011b). 

In fall 2009, a total of 17.6 million undergraduates were enrolled in degree-granting institutions 

in the United States, representing a 7 percent increase over the previous year (Exhibit 4). The 

increase in the number of Pell Grant recipients was greater, however. In 2009–10, a total of 8.1 

million students received a Pell Grant, 31 percent more than the previous year. Among all Pell 

15 “Rigorous” is defined as four years of English; three years of social studies; four years of mathematics (including 

pre-calculus or higher); three years of science (including biology, chemistry, and physics); and three years of a 

foreign language. “Midlevel” has the same English and social studies requirements but requires only three years of 

mathematics (including geometry and algebra I or II) and one year of a foreign language. Like its rigorous 

counterpart, the midlevel curriculum requires three years of science, but it requires only two years of biology, 

chemistry, and physics. 

— 16 — 
— 17 — 

.t 4ibihEx — e:gan cheary-ot-ear yds antenipeci rGC Ad ans,tenipeci rtanr Glel Pes,atuadrgerdn uf oermbuN 2006–07 t guorh h 2

Change 2006–07

to 2007–08

Change 2007–

to 2008–09

Undergraduates and grant recipients 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 Number Percent Number Perc

UndergraduatesFall enrollment in degree-granting 

 institutions 15,184,000 15,604,000 16,366,000 17,565,000 419,000 2.8 762,000 

Two-year institutions 6,518,000 6,618,000 6,971,000 7,521,000 99,000 1.5 353,000 

Four-year institutions 8,666,000 8,986,000 9,395,000 10,044,000 320,000 3.7 409,000 

Pell Grant recipients

Total Pell Grant recipientsa 5,165,000 5,543,000 6,157,000 8,094,000 378,000 7.3 614,000 1

Two-year institutions 2,357,000 2,486,000 2,832,000 3,779,000 130,000 5.5 346,000 1

Four-year institutions 2,808,000 3,054,000 3,322,000 4,286,000 245,000 8.8 268,000 

First- and second-year Pell Grant 

a recipients in institutions with any ACGs 3,010,000 3,382,000 3,889,000 5,466,000 372,000 12.4 507,000 1

Two-year institutions 1,561,000 1,710,000 1,971,000 2,905,000 149,000 9.5 261,000 1

Four-year institutions 1,449,000 1,672,000 1,918,000 2,552,000 224,000 15.4 246,000 1

ACG recipients

Number estimated prior to implementationb 420,000 460,000 † † † † † 

Total ACG recipientsa 301,700 398,700 441,900 636,400 97,000 32.2 43,200 1

Two-year institutions 38,300 65,600 81,300 143,000 27,300 71.3 15,700 2

Four-year institutions 263,400 333,100 360,600 492,900 69,700 26.5 27,500 

n 2007–0

e

en

 

abl

m

 an

 t

t

ent

epar

m

,

,020)

t

000 i

 D

epar

 2010)

.S

 D

604,

 2009-

.

.

 17,

 U

S.

S

eb.

o 15,

F

ECN

e 202;

 and U

 t

 (

abl

st ;

0809 (

ent

 2008

 t

Y

,

c

epor

8 per

s

015)

 A,

,

 R

ci

ed by 2.

ts

 2011-

ear

i

Y

 2008)

at

-

ton S

S

of

 25,

EC

ndov.

eas

i

N

at

 E

N

r

 (

nc

duc E

 2010

amogr

0708 (

n 2006–07 and i

 of

r

Y

,s

t

 P

 A

ges

citsi

ant

,

at

r

iD

t

 G

,

 2007)

scit

on S

lel

i

 P

 21,

000 i

s

.

i

at

al

att

duc

eder

ept

184,

on S

S

 E

F

 of

 15,

iat

t

as

duc

 w

 E

iD

 and 2009–10 

0607 (

ges

Y Aes

ons

or

li

 f

 F

i

er

 and 

uttit

ype.

ent

ns

 C

e 194;

entpii

on t

ec

ng i

i

 R

i

onal

abl

ut

ant

 37998.

i

 t

 2008–09,

,

ti

ant

t

at

r

gr

ns

 N

013)

e G

een i

on,

now

 p.

i

 2007–08,

ac

n degr

at

 2010-

f

 127,

duc

er

h unk

S

nt

 E

E

 2006–07,

 I

 i

o.

S

ent

C

t

 N

P

i

 of

N

C

m

 w

l

s

ol

 71,

ent

(

on,

-D

ent

m

i

O

 enr

.ol

t

at

 C

pii

l

 V

 2009 ,s

d,

al

ec

,

epar

i

er

ci

duc

t

t

 A

 F

e.

 D.

i

S

y E

abl

ead

t

c

ude r

s

s

s:

.

at

l

egi

i

 U

 R

udent

 r

al

ondar

t

i

i

C

on S

b

 appl

nc

:

t

E

 i

 S

s

ec

al

al

eder

R

at

i

ot

duc

s

U

xh

ot

t

Oos

eder

E† N

 T F

abSEPF
 

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

Grant recipients, 5.5 million were first- or second-year students at an institution participating in 

the ACG program and therefore potentially eligible for an ACG. This was 41 percent more than 

in the previous year. 

Overall, just over three-quarters of institutions awarding Pell Grants also awarded ACGs, with 

higher participation rates at four-year than at two-year institutions. 

About 3,600 degree-granting institutions were eligible to participate in the Federal Pell Grant 

program in 2006–07. The number increased to about 4,100 the following year and remained at 

that level throughout the program (Appendix Table E-1 and U.S. Department of Education, 

2009, 2010, 2011b). Institutions participating in the Pell Grant program were required by law to 

participate in the ACG program as well, but they may not always have any students who meet 

the more stringent requirements for an ACG. In 2009–10, about 3,100 institutions participated in 

the ACG program (defined as awarding at least one grant). This represented 77 percent of all Pell 

Grant–eligible institutions in 2009–10, in the same range as previous years (73–78 percent) 

(Exhibit 5). 

Caution is needed when looking at institutional participation, because some multicampus 

institutions report data centrally, while others report separately by campus. Consequently, what 

may appear to be a change in the number of eligible or participating institutions may reflect, in 

part, a change in how institutions report their data. Community college systems and for-profit 

institutions with multiple campus locations often do not provide information at the campus level, 

for example. In the for-profit sector, mergers and acquisitions may affect the numbers as well. 

Public four-year institutions consistently had the highest participation rate in the ACG program 

(about 95 percent each year). Among private nonprofit four-year institutions, the participation rate 

increased slightly—from 83 to 87 percent—between 2006–07 and 2009–10, and among public 

two-year colleges, it decreased slightly—from 87 to 83 percent. Most notable was the increase in 

participation among for-profit institutions—from 62 to 83 percent of institutions at the four-year 

level and from 28 to 37 percent at the two-year level. The number of participating private for-profit 

institutions is relatively small, however. In 2009–10, there were just 241 participating two-year 

institutions and 189 participating four-year institutions (Appendix Table E-1). 

— 18 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG)

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

— 19 — 

Exhibit 5.—Percentage of eligible institutions awarding ACGs, by type of institution: 2006–07 through 

Exhibit 5.—2009–10

37

36

83

83

87

95

77

29

32

81

80

87

95

75

25

30

82

73

85

95

73

28

42

87

62

83

94

78

0 20 40 60 80 100

For-profit two-year

Private nonprofit two-year

Public two-year

For-profit four-year

Private nonprofit four-year

Public four-year

Total

Percent

Type of institution

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

Exhibit reads: Overall, 78 percent of all eligible institutions awarded ACGs in 2006–07.

NOTE: Eligible institutions are those that participate in the Pell Grant program and award degrees.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

The number of ACGs more than doubled over the first four years of the program, largely 

driven by increases in the number of Pell Grant recipients and expanded eligibility. 

Over the first four years of the ACG program, the number of grants increased each year, growing 

from 301,700 in 2006–07 to 636,400 in 2009–10 (Exhibit 4). This observed increase is the net 

effect of the increase in the number of Pell Grant recipients, the expansion of the eligibility 

criteria, and other unknown factors. Because ACG receipt is tied to Pell Grant eligibility and 

because legislation broadened eligibility criteria for the fourth year, it is useful to look at the 

year-to-year changes along with changes in Pell Grant receipt and other eligibility criteria. 

Note that the eligible pool increased automatically each year because of the authorizing 

legislation’s requirement that first-year recipients graduate from high school after Jan. 1, 2006. 

Therefore, in 2006–07, only immediate college entrants were eligible for a first-year ACG. In 

2007–08 and later, however, students who delayed entering college became eligible for a firstyear ACG. How much this increased the pool is unknown, but the effect is likely to be small and 

to have had a diminishing effect over time, because delayed entrants are less likely than 

immediate entrants to meet the ACG academic criteria.16 

FIRST YEAR 

In the first year of the program (2006–07), 301,700 students received an ACG, considerably 

fewer than the 420,000 estimated prior to implementation. 17 The implementation difficulties 

described in Chapter 2 almost certainly contributed to the lower-than-expected initial 

participation. However, the estimate of the number of eligible students may simply have been too 

high. Reasonably reliable estimates of the number of eligible first-year students could be made 

using data from National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) longitudinal studies, but there 

were no data to suggest how many second-year students would be eligible. 

SECOND YEAR 

The following year (2007–08), the number of ACG recipients rose by 32 percent, to 398,700. 

The 12 percent increase in the number of Pell Grant awards to first- and second-year students at 

ACG-participating institutions undoubtedly contributed significantly to the increase, but because 

the number of ACG awards increased proportionately more than the number of Pell Grant 

awards, the Pell Grant increase could not be the only reason for the increase in ACG awards. An 

expanded pool of high school graduates could not likely account for the rest of the increase 

either. This suggests that institutions may have been more successful in identifying and verifying 

16 Among students enrolled in postsecondary education in 1999–2000, just 7 percent of those who had delayed entry
 

for a year or more were in the top 20 percent in terms of curriculum rigor, compared with 29 percent of those who 

had enrolled without delay (Horn et al. 2005). 17 The Department’s Budget Service derived the estimates using national data collected by NCES. Assumptions, 

limitations, and data sources are described in the Federal Register (Vol. 71, No. 127, 37998). 

— 20 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

eligible students as awareness increased and implementation difficulties were resolved. It would 

have been too soon to reasonably expect changes in high school course taking in response to the 

grant incentive. 

The increase in ACG awards from 2006–07 to 2007–08 was particularly notable at two-year 

institutions—71 percent, compared with a 9 percent increase in the number of Pell Grant awards 

to first- and second-year students. This disproportionate increase in ACG awards at two-year 

institutions suggests that they had begun to resolve some of the first-year difficulties they had 

verifying student eligibility, a common problem because they did not always have high school 

transcripts. 

THIRD YEAR 

In 2008–09, the number of ACG awards increased again, by 11 percent to 441,900. This was 

considerably less than the previous year’s 32 percent increase. In addition, in contrast to the 

previous year, the 11 percent ACG increase was less than the 15 percent Pell Grant increase 

among first- and second-year students. There is no way to determine why proportionately fewer 

Pell recipients would have been eligible in the third year of the program than in earlier years. 

However, assuming that the implementation problems were largely solved by then, either 

proportionately fewer met the academic criteria, proportionately fewer met the attendance 

criteria, or both. 

The increase in ACG awards was again greater at two-year institutions than at four-year ones— 

this time 24 vs. 8 percent. However, at both types of institutions, the increase was less than the 

71 and 26 percent respective increases the previous year. 

FOURTH YEAR 

In the fourth year, 2009–10, the number of ACG awards grew to 636,400, a 44 percent increase 

over the previous year. Contributing to this observed increase was the 41 percent increase in 

first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients. Also contributing to the increase in the fourth year 

was an expanded pool of potential recipients, including eligible noncitizens, part-time students, 

and students in certificate programs at two-year degree-granting institutions. This broadening of 

eligibility brought approximately 25,000 eligible noncitizens into the program (Appendix Table 

E-8). Without these additional students, the increase in the number of ACGs would have been 38 

percent, which is lower than the 41 percent increase in the number of Pell Grant recipients. 

The number of part-time and certificate students brought into the program is unknown. Because 

most of these students would likely have been at two-year institutions, their inclusion in the 

eligible pool likely contributed to the much larger increase in ACGs at two-year institutions (76 

percent) than at four-year institutions (37 percent) (Exhibit 4). The increase in Pell Grant 

— 21 — 
 

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

recipients was also greater at two-year than four-year institutions (47 vs. 33 percent), but not 

enough to account fully for the gap in ACG growth at the two types of institutions. 

OVERALL CHANGE 

Between 2006–07 and 2009–10, the number of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients grew 

from 3.0 million to 5.5 million, or 82 percent. During the same period, the number of ACG 

recipients grew from 301,700 to 636,400, or 111 percent. If the ACG increase had paralleled the 

Pell Grant increase (i.e., the number of ACG recipients had grown by 82 percent), the number of 

ACGs would have been only about 547,900. Thus, the increase in Pell Grant recipients is not the 

only reason for the ACG growth. 

While it is difficult to estimate exactly how many new students would have been brought into the 

program by the expanded eligibility criteria, rough estimates based on data from the Beginning 

Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study conducted by NCES in 2003–04 suggest an 

expansion of about 15 percent.18 On this basis, the expected number of new ACG recipients on 

top of the increase due to Pell Grant increases would be about 630,000 (547,900 x 1.15), which 

is about 36,400 (or 6 percent) less than the actual number. This suggests that most of the increase 

in ACG awards might be attributed to increases in Pell Grant awards and expanded eligibility. 

The proportion of Pell Grant recipients receiving an ACG increased but remained low. 

The proportion of Pell Grant recipients meeting all the criteria for an ACG increased but 

remained low overall (between 10 and 12 percent), with large differences by institution type 

(Exhibit 6). The 2009–10 percentages were boosted by the inclusion of eligible noncitizens, parttime students, and students in certificate programs. 

The expanded criteria would have the most effect at public two-year institutions because of the 

characteristics of their student populations. In 2007–08, almost three-quarters (71 percent) of 

their students attended part-time, and 18 percent were enrolled in certificate programs (Staklis 

2010). At these institutions, the proportion of Pell Grant recipients with an ACG increased (from 

3 to 5 percent) (Exhibit 6). Nevertheless, participation rates at public two-year institutions were 

much lower than at public and private nonprofit four-year institutions. At the four-year 

institutions, the percentage of Pell Grant recipients with an ACG rose slightly each year, 

reaching 30 percent and 28 percent, respectively, in 2009–10. 

18 See Appendix G for more detail on these estimates. 

— 22 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG)

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

— 23 — 

Exhibit 6.—Percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients who received an ACG, by type 

Exhibit 6.—of institution attended: 2006–07 through 2009–10

2

9

5

2

28

30

12

2

9

4

2

26

27

11

2

10

4

2

25

26

12

1

8

3

1

22

23

10

0 10 20 30 40 50

For-profit two-year

Private nonprofit two-year

Public two-year

For-profit four-year

Private nonprofit four-year

Public four-year

Total

Type of institution

Percent 

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

Exhibit reads: Overall, 10 percent of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients also received an ACG in 2006–07.

NOTE: This figure includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college (1 percent).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

Just over half of the grants went to students at public four-year institutions. 

Of the 636,400 ACG grants awarded in 2009–10, just over half (329,200, or 52 percent) went to 

students at public four-year institutions (calculated from data in Appendix Table E-2). Another 

143,200 went to students at private nonprofit four-year institutions, and 133,800 to students at 

public two-year institutions. Thus, 95 percent of all ACGs went to students at these three types of 

institutions. Most of the rest of the grants went to students at private for-profit institutions 

(27,800, or 4 percent of the total), and the remaining few went to private nonprofit two-year 

institutions. 

Each year, a majority of ACG students received the maximum award. 

A full ACG award (defined here as exactly $750 for a first-year student or $1,300 for a secondyear student) means that the student enrolled for the entire academic year and had sufficient 

financial need to qualify for the full amount. Students would have received less if they attended 

for only one term or if the full amount had exceeded their financial need. 

In the first year of the ACG program (2006–07), 83 percent of first-year awards were for the full 

amount (Exhibit 7). That percentage dropped for the next three years to 76 percent, 77 percent, 

and then 67 percent. The pattern was similar for second-year recipients. While there is no 

obvious reason for the initial drop, the larger decline in the final year almost certainly reflects, at 

least in part, the inclusion of reduced awards for part-time students. 

Exhibit 7. —Percentage of ACGs that were full awards: 2006–07 through 2009–10 

Percent 

100 

83 

77 76 80 72 

67 68 67

60 

60 

40 

20 

0 

First-year Second-year 

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Exhibit reads: Among first-year ACGs in 2006–07, 83 percent were a full award.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

— 24 — 
—

Exhibit 8.—

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

The average number of ACGs awarded per institution almost doubled. 

Reflecting the overall growth in the program, the average number of ACGs awarded per 

institution increased each year, starting at 107 in the first year and growing to 203 in 2009–10 

(Exhibit 8). Nevertheless, the ACG program remains small in many institutions, with just over 

half of all institutions (55 percent) awarding 100 or fewer ACGs in 2009–10. 

Public four-year institutions often handled high volumes—42 percent awarded more than 500 

ACGs in 2009–10—but no more than 4 percent of any other type of institution made that many 

awards (Appendix Table E-4). At the other end of the distribution, 32 percent of private 

nonprofit four-year institutions and 38 percent of public two-year institutions awarded 50 or 

fewer grants. Reflecting the high participation rates discussed earlier, 37 percent of public fouryear institutions awarded ACGs to 40 percent or more of their Pell Grant recipients, as did 46 

percent of private nonprofit institutions (Appendix Table E-5). 

Exhibit 8.	 Percentage distribution of ACG-participating institutions by the number of ACGs awarded 

and average number awarded: 2006–07 through 2009–10
 

Percent 

50 

40 

33 

29 28 30 24 22 21 20 21

17 17 19 18 18 20 16 15 13 12 10 11 11 10

10 6 7

4
 

0
 

Average number of 

ACGs awarded 

2006–07: 107 

2007–08: 134 

2008–09: 146 

2009–10: 203 

1–10	 11–50 51–100 101–200 201–500 More than 500 

Number of ACGs awarded 

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Exhibit reads: Among institutions participating in the ACG program in 2006–07, 22 percent awarded 1–10 ACG grants.
 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

— 25 — 
 

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

About three-quarters of all ACG recipients were first-year students. 

The distribution of award recipients between first- and second-year students did not change. 

Each year, 77 or 78 percent of all ACG recipients were in their first year, and 22 or 23 percent 

were in their second year. In contrast, among students who received a Pell Grant only, between 

65 and 69 percent were in their first year, and between 30 and 36 percent were in their second 

year, depending on the year (Appendix Table E-6 and U.S. Department of Education 2009, 2010, 

and 2011b). The fact that a lower percentage of ACG than Pell Grant–only awards go to secondyear students suggests that it is difficult for low-income students to meet the cumulative 3.0 GPA 

requirement for a second-year ACG. 

Because the ACG program was signed into law in spring 2006, second-year students who 

received an ACG in 2006–07 could not have known when they were first-year students that 

earning a 3.0 GPA would make them eligible for this grant. In later years, first-year ACG 

recipients would presumably have been told that if they had a 3.0 GPA at the end of their first 

year, they could get another, even larger, ACG in their second year. One might expect this 

prospect to motivate first-year ACG recipients to make an extra effort to earn high grades. Had 

this been the case (other things being equal), the proportion of grants going to second-year 

students should have increased after 2006–07, but it did not. Either the grants did not have the 

expected motivating effect or the effect was overshadowed by other factors. 

ACG recipients were disproportionately located at the higher end of the family income 

distribution of Pell Grant recipients. 

Although all ACG recipients are from low-income families, they tend to have higher incomes 

than their peers with Pell Grants only. For example, among dependent students19 in 2009–10, 42 

percent of ACG recipients came from families with incomes of $30,000 or more, compared with 

34 percent of students who received only a Pell Grant (Exhibit 9). The pattern was the same in 

the earlier years of the program as well. A more detailed income distribution can be found in 

Appendix Table E-9 for 2009–10 and in U.S. Department of Education (2009, 2010, 2011b) for 

earlier years. 

19 For students who are considered financially dependent for financial aid eligibility purposes, parents’ financial 

resources are considered. For independent students, only the student’s and spouse’s financial resources are 

considered. Students under 24 years of age are considered financially dependent unless they have a dependent; are 

married; or are graduate students, wards of the court, orphans, or veterans. 

— 26 — 
Exhibit 9. —Percentage of dependent ACG and Pell Grant–only recipients at ACG-participating institutions 

Exhibit 9.—who were from families with incomes of $30,000 or more: 2006–07 through 2009–10 

C H A P T E R 3 . A C A D E M I C C O M P E T I T I V E N E S S G R A N T ( A C G ) 

P R O G R A M P A R T I C I P A T I O N 

25 

30 30 

34 36 

39 39 

42 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

Percent 

2006–07 2007–08 

Pell Grant only 

2008–09 

ACG and Pell Grant 

2009–10 

Exhibit reads: Among dependent Pell Grant recipients in 2006–07, 25 percent of those with a Pell Grant only and 

36 percent of those with an ACG and Pell Grant were from families with incomes of $30,000 or more.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

As the Expected Family Contribution (EFC) increased, the ACG award contributed a greater 

proportion to the combined ACG and Pell Grant amount. 

The Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is a measure of a family’s ability to pay for college 

and is used as an index number to calculate the Pell Grant amount. As income increases, the EFC 

increases and the size of the Pell Grant decreases. Because the ACG amount does not vary with 

income, the ACG accounts for an increasing proportion of the combined ACG and Pell Grant 

award as income rises (Exhibit 10). This was true each year. The minor differences in the 

average ACG across EFC levels and over time reflect different mixes of first- and second-year 

students (who were eligible for different award amounts) and different mixes of students 

receiving full- or part-year awards. Starting in 2009–10, when part-time students became eligible 

for grants, the differences may also reflect variations in the mix of full- and part-time students. 

Over time, the Pell Grant contributed proportionately more to the total award at all 

EFC levels. 

As indicated previously, the maximum Pell Grant increased from $4,050 in 2006–07 to $5,350 in 

2009–10. Meanwhile, the ACG amount remained constant. At the highest EFC level (3,000 or 

more), the average ACG amount for dependent students was greater than the average Pell Grant 

amount in 2006–07 and 2007–08. In 2008–09 and 2009–10, the reverse was true. 

— 27 — 
—

Exhibit 10.—

 

 

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 10.	 Average Pell Grant and ACG amounts awarded to dependent ACG recipients, by Expected 

Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–07 through 2009–10 

$6,000 2006–07

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 $810 

$630 0 

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more 

$3,800 $3,500 $2,400 $1,500 

$760 $810 

$800 

$810 

$6,000 2007–08 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more 

$4,000 $3,700 $2,700 $1,700 $760 

$750 $800 

$790 

$790 

$790 

$6,000 2008–09 ACG
 5,000
 

4,000 

$4,400 $4,100 $3,100 $2,100 $1,200 

$750 $790 

$780 

$790 

$790 

Pell Grant 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more 

$6,000 2009–10 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more 

Dependent student EFC 

$5,100 $4,800 $3,700 $2,800 

$1,500 

$750 $790 

$780 

$780 

$780 

Exhibit reads: Among dependent ACG recipients with a zero EFC in 2006–07, the average Pell Grant amount was 

$3,800, and the average ACG amount was $760. 

NOTE: The federal Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is a measure of a family’s financial strength and indicates how 

much of a student’s and family’s financial resources (for dependent students) should be available to help pay for a 

student’s education. The EFC is an index number used to determine the Pell Grant amount. The average family incomes 

corresponding to these EFC categories were $9,900, $21,500, $31,400, $36,300, and $40,400 in 2006–07 and increased 

each year. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011). 

— 28 — 
 

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

The percentage of Pell Grant recipients with an ACG varied widely by state. 

Based on the percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients at four-year institutions 

with an ACG, Massachusetts consistently had the highest level of participation, with between 32 

and 38 percent of Pell Grant recipients in that state receiving an ACG, depending on the year 

(Exhibit 11).20 Four additional states had participation rates of more than 30 percent in 2009–10: 

Vermont, California, Maine, and Pennsylvania. On the other hand, six states had participation 

rates below 10 percent: Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, Utah, Nevada, and Alaska. 

The overall participation rate at four-year institutions was relatively stable across the four 

program years, but eight states (Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, Indiana, and Delaware) and Puerto Rico increased their participation rates by 5 

percentage points or more between 2006–07 and 2009–10. 

At two-year institutions, the overall participation rate remained low but doubled from 2.5 to 5.0 

percent between 2006–07 and 2009–10 (Exhibit 12). Seven states—Texas, Florida, Maine, South 

Dakota, Arkansas, Wyoming, and South Carolina—and the District of Columbia had 

participation rates of over 7 percent in 2009–10, but four states had less than 2 percent 

participation: Michigan, Washington, Nevada, and Vermont. 

One might expect ACG participation to be highest in states with the most rigorous high school 

graduation requirements, but comparing rigor across states is difficult. Some states simply 

specify a number of credits needed for a diploma, while others specify a particular level that 

must be reached in some or all subjects or describe content that must be included. Another 

complicating factor is that some states prescribe minimums and allow districts to add their own 

requirements. As a result, the state requirement may not be a true reflection of what is required 

for a diploma. Finally, some states have exit exams, and they vary in difficulty. Information on 

high school graduation requirements and planned changes was collected in the first year of the 

study. However, because of the above-mentioned difficulties in making comparisons across 

states, it was not feasible to categorize states according to the rigor of their requirements and 

therefore not possible to determine whether states with more rigorous high school graduation 

requirements had higher ACG participation rates (see U.S. Department of Education 2009 for 

more detail). 

20 Exhibit 11 is based on students’ state of residence, regardless of where they attended college. 

— 29 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

Exhibit 11.—	 At four-year ACG-participating institutions, number of first- and second-year students with 

Exhibit 11.—Pell Grants, number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, and change in 

Exhibit 11.—percentage, by student’s state of residence: 2006–07 through 2009–10 

Percent of first- and second-year 

Pell Grant recipients with ACGs 

State 

Number of 

first- and 

second-year 

students with 

Pell Grants 

2009–10 

Number of 

Pell Grant 

recipients 

with ACGs 

2009–10 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Change 

2006–07 to 

2009–10 

Total 2,459,245 489,460 18.5 20.3 19.2 19.9 1.4 

Massachusetts 30,553 11,616 32.0 36.7 35.4 38.0 6.0 

Vermont 4,038 1,317 26.4 32.6 32.8 32.6 6.2 

California 157,968 51,127 28.8 30.9 30.0 32.4 3.6 

Maine 10,584 3,301 24.8 28.4 29.3 31.2 6.4 

Pennsylvania 84,278 26,206 28.1 30.8 30.2 31.1 3.0 

Connecticut 15,626 4,622 22.7 28.1 27.3 29.6 6.9 

Rhode Island 6,135 1,756 19.7 23.8 26.5 28.6 8.9 

Nebraska 12,278 3,469 29.2 31.4 29.0 28.3 -0.9 

New Jersey 44,020 12,276 24.4 25.0 24.7 27.9 3.5 

New Hampshire 8,561 2,240 20.7 25.4 25.1 26.2 5.5 

Iowa 17,585 4,456 26.3 31.7 27.4 25.3 -1.0 

Wisconsin 41,499 10,053 25.3 27.7 25.5 24.2 -1.1 

Minnesota 38,318 9,140 23.8 26.9 24.7 23.9 0.1 

Illinois 79,340 18,257 18.7 22.8 21.6 23.0 4.3 

Indiana 66,067 15,018 17.5 22.5 21.2 22.7 5.2 

Texas 169,751 37,814 20.0 21.8 21.8 22.3 2.3 

Washington 30,871 6,742 17.7 21.8 21.8 21.8 4.1 

Louisiana 36,327 7,839 20.2 23.1 20.2 21.6 1.4 

Puerto Rico 87,873 18,952 13.4 16.1 18.3 21.6 8.2 

South Dakota 8,508 1,814 19.2 22.3 21.9 21.3 2.1 

Kentucky 40,178 8,560 17.3 21.2 21.3 21.3 4.0 

South Carolina 42,514 8,777 21.3 25.8 20.6 20.6 -0.7 

North Carolina 72,468 14,618 24.4 25.2 21.5 20.2 -4.2 

Tennessee 59,383 11,802 15.2 18.0 18.5 19.9 4.7 

New York 199,122 39,314 19.4 17.7 17.7 19.7 0.3 

Oregon 19,018 3,684 20.7 23.2 17.4 19.4 -1.3 

Maryland 32,805 6,135 20.3 21.7 19.0 18.7 -1.6 

Ohio 124,206 23,222 20.9 21.3 18.3 18.7 -2.2 

Kansas 17,377 3,239 20.2 20.6 18.6 18.6 -1.6 

North Dakota 5,748 1,060 20.6 24.4 18.5 18.4 -2.2 

All others* 6,846 1,256 20.4 16.5 16.8 18.3 -2.1 

Hawaii 7,353 1,332 14.2 16.2 16.5 18.1 3.9 

Oklahoma 31,128 5,382 16.5 19.5 19.0 17.3 0.8 

Delaware 4,915 843 12.2 16.8 14.8 17.2 5.0 

Colorado 33,189 5,553 16.6 19.2 17.3 16.7 0.1 

Virginia 55,163 9,152 19.7 17.9 15.9 16.6 -3.1 

Idaho 18,894 3,116 13.6 16.8 15.9 16.5 2.9 

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of exhibit. 

— 30 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

Exhibit 11.—	 At four-year ACG-participating institutions, number of first- and second-year students with 

Exhibit 11.—Pell Grants, number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, and change in 

Exhibit 11.—percentage, by student’s state of residence: 2006–07 through 2009–10—Continued 

Percent of first- and second-year 

Pell Grant recipients with ACGs 

State 

Number of 

first- and 

second-year 

students with 

Pell Grants 

2009–10 

Number of 

Pell Grant 

recipients 

with ACGs 

2009–10 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Change 

2006–07 to 

2009–10 

Georgia 113,887 18,242 16.0 17.5 16.4 16.0 0.0 

Missouri 55,921 8,618 14.8 16.1 15.0 15.4 0.6 

Arkansas 29,789 4,547 15.9 16.0 15.7 15.3 -0.6 

Montana 10,285 1,480 13.8 16.6 15.8 14.4 0.6 

Florida 212,280 29,584 11.3 12.1 11.4 13.9 2.6 

Michigan 97,423 12,903 9.9 12.9 13.4 13.2 3.3 

West Virginia 17,523 2,151 12.6 15.1 12.3 12.3 -0.3 

Wyoming 2,085 241 16.5 16.6 14.9 11.6 -4.9 

Mississippi 28,910 3,234 16.1 15.5 12.2 11.2 -4.9 

District of Columbia 6,545 714 11.7 15.7 10.8 10.9 -0.8 

Arizona 36,055 3,582 7.3 10.8 9.2 9.9 2.6 

New Mexico 23,516 1,911 6.5 9.1 7.3 8.1 1.6 

Alabama 46,390 3,724 10.0 10.4 9.4 8.0 -2.0 

Utah 30,376 1,868 4.1 5.5 6.3 6.1 2.0 

Nevada 22,603 1,334 11.3 6.7 5.4 5.9 -5.4 

Alaska 5,098 256 3.5 6.6 5.4 5.0 1.5 

Exhibit reads: Among first- and second-year students at four-year ACG-participating institutions in 2009–10, a total 

of 2,459,245 had a Pell Grant, and 489,460 had an ACG. 

* Including all other U.S. jurisdictions except Puerto Rico (i.e., American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia,
 

Guam, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Marianas, Palau, and the Virgin Islands). Also included are ACG-eligible
 

students with an unknown state of residence.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

— 31 — 
CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

Exhibit 12.—	 At two-year ACG-participating institutions, number of first- and second-year students with 

Exhibit 12.—Pell Grants, number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, and change in 

Exhibit 12.—percentage, by student’s state of residence: 2006–07 through 2009–10 

Percent of first- and second-year 

Pell Grant recipients with ACGs 

State 

Number of 

first- and 

second-year 

students with 

Pell Grants 

2009–10 

Number of 

Pell Grant 

recipients 

with ACGs 

2009–10 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Change 

2006–07 to 

2009–10 

Total 2,826,570 141,684 2.5 3.9 4.2 5.0 2.5 

All others* 4,675 683 2.6 2.5 2.5 14.6 12.0 

Texas 246,655 27,022 5.2 7.5 8.6 11.0 5.8 

Florida 136,746 13,101 5.5 7.0 7.9 9.6 4.1 

Maine 7,193 639 2.0 7.1 6.5 8.9 6.9 

South Dakota 2,419 190 3.5 3.9 5.9 7.9 4.4 

District of Columbia 1,307 96 3.1 2.0 9.3 7.3 4.2 

Arkansas 31,444 2,264 4.0 5.2 5.1 7.2 3.2 

Wyoming 3,700 264 5.4 6.4 6.3 7.1 1.7 

South Carolina 50,812 3,532 2.4 3.7 4.4 7.0 4.6 

Nebraska 17,254 1,175 4.4 7.2 6.3 6.8 2.4 

New York 98,866 6,625 3.5 6.4 6.8 6.7 3.2 

Wisconsin 46,098 3,057 2.0 4.8 4.6 6.6 4.6 

Kansas 24,184 1,532 3.3 5.7 5.2 6.3 3.0 

Tennessee 54,412 3,419 3.8 5.4 5.2 6.3 2.5 

New Hampshire 4,632 281 2.7 4.7 5.2 6.1 3.4 

Delaware 6,004 348 1.3 2.3 4.6 5.8 4.5 

North Dakota 2,482 143 5.3 4.1 4.4 5.8 0.5 

North Carolina 113,031 6,476 2.1 3.9 4.6 5.7 3.6 

Pennsylvania 87,485 4,898 2.2 4.3 4.6 5.6 3.4 

Oklahoma 28,433 1,564 5.5 6.1 5.7 5.5 0.0 

Mississippi 57,662 3,039 3.6 7.2 7.5 5.3 1.7 

New Jersey 65,982 3,474 3.1 4.2 3.9 5.3 2.2 

Alabama 52,781 2,768 3.8 5.2 4.9 5.2 1.4 

Massachusetts 38,067 1,977 1.8 3.0 4.0 5.2 3.4 

Maryland 44,533 2,296 2.0 3.1 4.4 5.2 3.2 

Rhode Island 7198 371 0.4 3.0 3.7 5.2 4.8 

Connecticut 21,198 1,077 0.7 2.5 2.7 5.1 4.4 

Louisiana 40,090 2,033 3.6 4.5 3.6 5.1 1.5 

Iowa 35,667 1,682 1.8 4.1 4.5 4.7 2.9 

Minnesota 50,683 2,145 2.1 3.4 3.4 4.2 2.1 

Idaho 10,130 426 1.5 3.0 3.4 4.2 2.7 

Missouri 58,467 2,408 2.9 3.8 3.4 4.1 1.2 

Georgia 99,727 3,804 1.9 2.6 3.4 3.8 1.9 

Illinois 119,031 4,506 1.5 2.3 2.4 3.8 2.3 

Hawaii 7,000 254 1.2 3.7 3.7 3.6 2.4 

Virginia 59,001 2,065 2.1 2.6 2.7 3.5 1.4 

California 414,397 14,482 1.1 2.5 3.0 3.5 2.4 

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of exhibit. 

— 32 — 
 

—

Exhibit 12.—

Exhibit 12.—

 

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

Exhibit 12.	 At two-year ACG-participating institutions, number of first- and second-year students with 

Pell Grants, number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs, and change in 

percentage, by student’s state of residence: 2006–07 through 2009–10—Continued 

Percent of first- and second-year 

Pell Grant recipients with ACGs 

State 

Number of 

first- and 

second-year 

students with 

Pell Grants 

2009–10 

Number of 

Pell Grant 

recipients 

with ACGs 

2009–10 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Change 

2006–07 to 

2009–10 

Montana 4,414 153 4.2 4.7 4.8 3.5 -0.7 

Utah 13,439 426 1.0 3.4 3.3 3.2 2.2 

Ohio 126,121 3,809 1.5 2.4 2.7 3.0 1.5 

Puerto Rico 39,466 1,156 3.0 3.9 3.8 2.9 -0.1 

Indiana 69,559 1,969 1.5 2.6 2.2 2.8 1.3 

Alaska 504 14 1.6 2.3 3.4 2.8 1.2 

West Virginia 8,885 245 1.4 2.1 2.4 2.8 1.4 

Arizona 70,395 1,581 0.7 1.8 1.8 2.2 1.5 

New Mexico 20,859 457 1.0 1.5 1.6 2.2 1.2 

Colorado 38,661 816 0.6 0.8 1.4 2.1 1.5 

Oregon 48,806 1,013 1.1 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.0 

Kentucky 47,426 980 1.1 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.0 

Michigan 124,166 2,033 0.7 1.3 1.4 1.6 0.9 

Washington 53,042 804 0.7 1.5 1.3 1.5 0.8 

Nevada 8,201 80 1.0 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.0 

Vermont 3,042 22 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.7 -0.3 

Exhibit reads: Among first- and second-year students at two-year ACG-participating institutions in 2009–10, a total 

of 2,826,570 had a Pell Grant, and 141,684 had an ACG. 

* Including all other U.S. jurisdictions except Puerto Rico (i.e., American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia,
 

Guam, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Marianas, Palau, and the Virgin Islands). Also included are ACG-eligible
 

students with an unknown state of residence.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

ACG Renewals 

ACG renewal rates were calculated for three cohorts of students—first-year students in 2006–07, 

2007–08, and 2008–09—by searching the recipient files for the following year. First-year ACG 

recipients appeared in the data file the following year if they received another Pell Grant (with or 

without an ACG). If they did not have a record for the next year, it meant that they either 

dropped out of school or were enrolled but had lost their Pell Grant eligibility, but there is no 

way to know which. 

— 33 — 
 

 

—

Exhibit 13.—

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

Only about one-quarter of first-year ACG recipients received another grant the following year. 

To receive an ACG as a second-year student, a first-year ACG recipient must again have an 

income low enough to qualify for a Pell Grant, enroll in a degree program full-time (or part-time 

starting in 2009–10), and have a cumulative 3.0 GPA at the end of their first year. Only 27 

percent of the first-year students who received an ACG in 2006–07 met all the requirements for 

another one in 2007–08 (Exhibit 13). For the next two cohorts, the renewal rates were 25 and 24 

percent, respectively. 

Exhibit 13.	 Percentage distribution of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 first-year ACG recipients by ACG
 

and Pell Grant receipt status the following year
 

Percent 

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Second-year grant status 

27 25 24 

48 47 56 

26 28 

21 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

No Pell Grant or not enrolled 

Pell Grant, no ACG 

ACG and Pell Grant 

Exhibit reads: Among first-year ACG recipients in 2006–07, 27 percent received another ACG and Pell Grant in 2007–08;
 

48 percent received another Pell Grant but not an ACG; and 26 percent received no Pell Grant or were not enrolled.
 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Each year, the category Pell Grant, no ACG includes 1 percent
 

who achieved third-year status and received a SMART Grant.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607
 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

— 34 — 
 

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

Meeting the low-income requirement for a Pell Grant does not appear to have been the major 

barrier to receiving a second-year ACG. Between 72 and 80 percent of ACG recipients each year 

qualified for a Pell Grant the following year. Pell Grant eligibility does not require full-time 

attendance, and each college can set its own academic progress criteria, which are usually based 

on course completion (a minimum number of credits earned per term) rather than a minimum 

GPA. Thus, roughly half of the first-year ACG recipients continued to have low incomes their 

second year but did not meet the stricter ACG enrollment and GPA requirements needed for 

another ACG. 

Part-time students could receive an ACG in 2009–10 but not earlier. Therefore, if there had been 

an increase in the renewal rate for the last cohort, it might have suggested that maintaining fulltime enrollment status had been an important barrier. No such increase was observed, which 

suggests that the GPA requirement was the major barrier to renewal. 

The remaining students in each cohort (between 21 and 28 percent) did not receive another ACG 

either because they were no longer eligible for a Pell Grant or had dropped out. No data are 

available to indicate how many first-year ACG recipients did not receive another ACG for which 

reason. 

ACG renewal rates for first-year recipients were lower in the public sector than in the 

private one. 

In each cohort, about a quarter (between 23 and 25 percent) of the first-year ACG recipients at 

public four-year institutions had their grants renewed the following year (Exhibit 14). The 

renewal rate at private nonprofit four-year institutions was 33 percent for the first cohort, but it 

dropped in subsequent years to 31 percent and then 28 percent. The lowest renewal rate was at 

public two-year institutions (about 20 percent for each cohort). 

— 35 — 
—

Exhibit 14.—

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 14.	 Percentage of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 first-year ACG recipients who received 

an ACG the following year, by type of institution 

Percent First-year ACG in 2006–07 

100 Four-year institutions	 Two-year institutions 

80 

60 

38 33	 32 

Public Private For-profit Public Private For-profit 

nonprofit nonprofit 

ACG in 2007–08 ACG in 2007–08 

Percent First-year ACG in 2007–08 

100 Four-year institutions Two-year institutions 
 

80
 

60
 

31 28 40 24 27	 21 

Public Private For-profit Public Private For-profit 

nonprofit nonprofit 

ACG in 2008–09	 ACG in 2008–09 

Percent First-year ACG in 2008–09 

Four-year institutions Two-year institutions 100
 

80
 

60
 37 

28 25 

Public Private For-profit Public Private For-profit 

nonprofit nonprofit 

ACG in 2009–10 ACG in 2009–10 

25 

20 25 

0 

20 

40 

19 

0 

20 

23 21 23 

0 

20 

40 

Exhibit reads: Among first-year ACG recipients at public four-year institutions in 2006–07, 25 percent received another
 

ACG in 2007–08.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607
 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

— 36 — 
 

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 
 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
 

Pell Grant Renewals for ACG Versus Pell Grant–Only Recipients 

Are low-income students who receive ACGs in addition to their Pell Grants more likely than 

their Pell Grant–only peers to persist in college? The Pell Grant renewal rate is not a complete 

measure of persistence because, as already indicated, a Pell Grant recipient who does not receive 

another grant the following year may have persisted but no longer qualifies for a Pell Grant for 

income-related reasons. However, if a first-year Pell Grant recipient does receive a Pell Grant the 

following year, that is evidence that the student persisted. Therefore, the Pell Grant renewal rate 

can be considered a very conservative estimate of the actual persistence rate. 

Based on Pell Grant renewal rates, first-year ACG recipients consistently persisted at a higher 

rate than their peers with a Pell Grant only. 

The Pell Grant renewal rates for first- and second-year students who received an ACG in 

addition to their Pell Grant in 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2009–10 were considerably higher than for 

their counterparts who had received a Pell Grant only (Exhibit 15). For example, 79 percent of 

those who had received an ACG as a first-year student in 2008–09 received another Pell Grant in 

2009–10 (with or without an ACG) and therefore were known to have persisted. In comparison, 

just 62 percent of first-year students who received a Pell Grant only in 2008–09 received another 

one in 2009–10. These renewal rates were higher than for the two previous cohorts, reflecting the 

growth in the number of Pell Grant recipients in 2009–10 (Exhibit 4). Because more students 

were receiving Pell Grants, more were found in the file the following year. 

While the additional financial support provided by the ACG may contribute to the observed 

higher persistence rates for the recipients of these grants (perhaps reducing the need to work 

during the school year), other factors may be equally or even more important. Particularly, ACG 

recipients are among the most academically qualified Pell Grant recipients and therefore would 

be expected to persist at higher rates than students who did not meet the academic qualifications 

for the grant. 

— 37 — 
—

Exhibit 15.—

 

CHAPTER 3. ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS GRANT (ACG) 

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 15.	 Percentage of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 Pell Grant–only and ACG recipients who 

received a Pell Grant the following year 

Percent 

100 

84

79	 79 75 76 80 72 68 

62 62 

56 

62 57 60 

40 

20 

0 

First- Second- First- Second- First- Secondyear year year year year year 

Class level in 2006–07 Class level in 2007–08 Class level in 2008–09 

Pell Grant only ACG and Pell Grant 

Exhibit reads: Among first-year students in 2006–07 who received a Pell Grant only, 56 percent received another Pell 

Grant in 2007–08, and among those who received an ACG in 2006–07, 75 percent received another Pell Grant in 2007–08 

(whether or not they received another ACG). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011). 

— 38 — 
CHAPTER 4 

National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain 

Talent (SMART) Grant Program Participation 

While the ACG and National SMART Grant programs were established in the same legislation, 

their intent was quite different. The ACG program was designed to increase access and 

persistence for low-income students, while the National SMART Grant program was intended to 

encourage low-income students to major in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) fields or in foreign languages critical to the national interest. 

It is important to consider when any motivating effect of the National SMART Grant program on 

students’ choices of major might be discernible. Students cannot select a STEM or foreign 

language major in their third or fourth year without taking the introductory courses required for 

advanced study in these fields. Therefore, in the first two years of the National SMART Grant 

program (2006–07 and 2007–08), only students who had prepared for an eligible major prior to 

knowing about the program would have been eligible for a grant. Consequently, one could not 

attribute any observed increase in National SMART Grant awards in those years to a motivating 

effect of the grants. However, an effect could potentially be observed in 2008–09. Students who 

entered college as freshmen in 2006–07, when the program went into effect, might have been 

motivated by the possibility of a grant to prepare for an eligible major so they could receive one 

when they became third-year students in 2008–09. To the extent that the existence of the grant 

motivated any high school students to take appropriate courses in high school and choose an 

eligible major in college, one would have to wait until 2010–11 to see the impact. In that year, 

high school juniors in 2006–07 would become third-year college students. 

The number of students enrolled in STEM majors increased between 2003–04 and 2007–08, 

from 2.6 million to 2.9 million (Appendix Table F-1). However, this increase appears to simply 

reflect the increase in total enrollment, because the proportion of undergraduates who were 

STEM majors did not change. In both years, 14 percent of all undergraduates were STEM majors 

(including 17 percent of third-year students and 19 percent of fourth-year students). The 

proportion of Pell Grant recipients who majored in STEM fields was also 14 percent (Appendix 

Table F-2). Appendix F provides additional detail on STEM majors by type of institution and 

student characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity, dependency status, and income. 

— 39 —
 
 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

National SMART Grant–Eligible Majors 

Prior to the implementation of the National SMART Grant program, the secretary of education 

provided a list of majors eligible for National SMART Grants at the six-digit level of the 

Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP)21 code. This list was expanded for 2007–08 to 

include certain scientifically oriented majors within the broader fields of natural resources and 

conservation, psychology, and food science and technology. Two interdisciplinary majors were 

also added: biopsychology and nutrition sciences. Finally, certain colleges that offered only 

liberal arts degrees were permitted to award grants to students whose programs were comparable 

to those of National SMART Grant–eligible majors at other colleges. No changes were made for 

2008–09. For the 2009–10 award year, the list of eligible foreign languages was expanded from a 

limited number to all foreign languages. Appendix B contains a complete list of eligible majors 

through 2009–10, noting which ones have been added to the original list and when. The 

implications of these changes for the number of National SMART Grants awarded are discussed 

later in this chapter. 

The CIP classification was updated in 2010. As a result of the recoding, 67 new majors were 

added to the National SMART Grant–eligible majors list for 2010–11.22 These changes do not 

affect any data in this report, which covers program activity only through 2009–10. Looking 

ahead, however, it is not clear that these changes expanded eligibility for the National SMART 

Grant because students in the newly added majors were probably already in an eligible code. For 

example, under the four-digit code for “Electrical, Electronics, and Communications 

Engineering” (14.10), several new six-digit codes have been added, including one for “Laser and 

Optical Engineering” (14.1004). Prior to 2010, a student with this major would probably have 

been considered to be in “Electrical and Electronics Engineering” (14.1001), a major that also 

was eligible. 

National SMART Grant Awards 

The exhibits in this chapter describe participation in the first four program years (2006–07 

through 2009–10). Appendix E contains additional detail on 2009–10 awards by type of 

institution, class level, and student characteristics. Appendixes of previous reports in this series 

contain comparable detail for earlier program years in correspondingly numbered tables (U.S. 

Department of Education 2009, 2010, 2011b). 

21 The Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) is a taxonomy used for accurate tracking and reporting of fields
 

of study and program completions activity. The CIP was originally developed by NCES in 1980 and has been
 

revised periodically, most recently in 2000 and 2010. More information on CIP codes is available at:
 

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/Default.aspx?y=55. 22 The list of eligible majors for 2010–11 can be found at: 

http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/SmartGrants.jsp. 

— 40 — 
 

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

In 2006–07, there were 1.2 million third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients in institutions that 

awarded any National SMART Grants (Exhibit 16). The U.S. Department of Education 

estimated that 80,000 of these students would be eligible for a National SMART Grant in that 

year. As is the case with ACGs, National SMART Grant participation is sensitive to changes in 

Pell Grant participation and in the maximum Pell Grant amount. The number of third- and 

fourth-year Pell Grant recipients at four-year institutions that awarded any National SMART 

Grants increased by 7 percent from 2006–07 to 2007–08 and by 3 percent from 2007–08 to 

2008–09. The following year the increase was much larger—23 percent—although it was less 

than the 38 percent increase in the overall number of Pell Grant recipients at ACG- or SMART 

Grant–participating institutions shown in Exhibit 4. 

About seven out of 10 four-year institutions participate in the National SMART 

Grant program. 

To participate in the National SMART Grant program, institutions must be eligible to participate 

in the Pell Grant program and offer bachelor’s degrees in one of the designated science, 

technology, engineering, mathematics, or foreign language fields. In each year, approximately 

2,100 four-year colleges and universities were eligible to participate in the Pell Grant program 

(Appendix Table E-1 and U.S. Department of Education 2009, 2010, 2011b). The number of 

institutions participating in the National SMART Grant program was lower, because not all 

institutions participating in the Pell Grant program offer degrees in National SMART Grant– 

eligible fields. In 2006–07, about 1,425 institutions participated, and the numbers increased 

slightly to about 1,480 in 2007–08 and 2008–09, and then to 1,497 in 2009–10. 

The overall National SMART Grant participation rate for institutions with Pell Grant recipients 

was about 70 percent in each year (Exhibit 17). The participation rate was highest at public fouryear institutions (from 85 to 88 percent, depending on the year) and lowest at for-profit four-year 

institutions (from 41 to 48 percent). At public and private nonprofit four-year institutions, the 

institutional participation rates have remained about the same over time, but at for-profit fouryear institutions, the rate increased slightly each year. 

— 41 — 
— 42 — 

Exhibit 16. —Number of Pell and SMART Grant recipients and year-to-year change: 2006–07 through 2009–10 

Change 2006–07 

to 2007–08 

Change 2007–0

to 2008–09 

Undergraduates and grant recipients 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 Number Percent Number Perc

Pell Grant recipients Third- and fourth-year recipients in

 institutions with any SMART Grants 1,208,000 1,289,000 1,329,600 1,637,000 81,000 6.7 40,600 3

SMART Grant recipients 

Number estimated prior to implementationa 80,000 80,000 † † † † † 

Total SMART Grant recipients 62,400 65,400 64,400 115,200 3,000 4.8 -1,000 -

b Major

Life sciences 23,800 26,000 25,500 41,400 2,200 9.2 -500 -

Engineering 13,200 13,600 12,800 23,900 400 3.0 -800 -

Computer science 9,800 10,000 11,000 19,900 200 2.0 1,000 

Physical science 6,000 6,200 5,800 9,500 100 3.3 -400 -

Mathematics 4,200 4,000 3,900 6,600 -200 -4.8 -100 -

Technology 3,000 3,100 2,900 5,200 0 3.3 -200 -

Multidisciplinary studies 1,700 1,700 1,600 3,000 0 0.0 -100 -

Foreign language 600 800 1,000 5,600 200 33.3 200 2

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, there were 1,208,000 third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients in institutions with any SMART Grants, and that nuby 6.7 percent to 1,289,000 in 2007–08. † Not applicable.a Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 127, p. 37998.b New eligible majors were added to life sciences and multidisciplinary studies for 2007–08 (see Appendix B). No new majors were added for 20

eligibility was expanded to include all foreign languages and students in their fifth year of a five-year program.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 (Sept. 21, 2007), AY

AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

— 43 — 

Exhibit 17.—Percentage of eligible institutions awarding SMART Grants, by type of institution: 2006–07 

Exhibit 17.—through 2009–10

48

67

86

71

45

66

85

69

43

67

85

70

41

65

88

69

0 20 40 60 80 100

For-profit four-year

Private nonprofit four-year

Public four-year

Total

Percent 

Type of institution

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

Exhibit reads: Overall, 69 percent of all eligible institutions awarded SMART Grants in 2006–07.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

The number of students receiving a National SMART Grant was relatively stable during the 

first three years of the program and then increased substantially, exceeding Pell Grant growth. 

FIRST THREE YEARS 

A total of 62,400 students received a National SMART Grant in 2006–07, fewer than the 80,000 

predicted (Exhibit 16). As with the ACG program, the difficulty in accurately estimating the 

number of students who would be eligible and the start-up difficulties common with new 

programs both may have contributed to the lower-than-expected participation. 

Over the next two years, the number of National SMART Grant awards did not keep pace with 

the increase in Pell Grant awards. In 2007–08, the number of National SMART Grant recipients 

increased by 5 percent to 65,400, which was less than the 7 percent increase in the number of 

Pell Grants awarded to third- and fourth-year students at National SMART Grant–participating 

institutions. Moreover, about 1,800 of the additional 3,000 National SMART Grants were 

awarded to students in newly eligible fields of study. In 2008–09, a total of 64,400 grants were 

awarded, a slight decline from the previous year, despite a 3 percent increase in the number of 

Pell Grant recipients. 

FOURTH YEAR 

In 2009–10, the number of National SMART Grants awarded increased by 79 percent to 

115,200, much more than the 23 percent increase in third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients 

at institutions with any National SMART Grants. Some of the increase is obviously due to the 

increase in Pell Grants. However, if, the number of National SMART Grants had increased in 

tandem with Pell Grants (23 percent), the number of National SMART Grants in 2009–10 would 

have been 79,200, which is considerably fewer than the 115,200 awarded. Thus, other factors 

must have contributed to the growth. 

In an analysis similar to that conducted for the ACG, the impact of expanding the program to 

include part-time students, eligible noncitizens, and fifth-year students was estimated to produce 

a 48 percent increase in the number of Pell Grant recipients who would have been eligible for a 

National SMART Grant.23 Applying this increase to the 79,200 expected because of increases in 

Pell Grant awards produces an estimate of about 117,000 eligible recipients. This number 

represents several thousand more than the actual awards, which leads to the same conclusion 

reached regarding ACGs. That is, most of the observed increase in National SMART Grant 

awards may have been driven by the increase in Pell Grant awards together with the expanded 

eligibility criteria for the National SMART Grants. As with ACGs, however, the observed 

change is the net effect of the changes in the number of Pell Grant recipients, the expansion of 

the eligibility criteria, and other unknown factors not taken into account here. 

23 See Appendix G for more details. 

— 44 — 
 

 

 

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Another contributor to the increase in 2009–10 would have been the expansion of eligible fields 

to include all foreign languages rather than only those considered critical to the national interest. 

A 23 percent increase in the 2008–09 number of foreign language awards to reflect the Pell 

Grant growth would produce an estimate of about 1,200 foreign language awards in 2009–10. 

The actual number was 5,600, suggesting that the expansion of eligible foreign languages may 

have contributed as many as 4,400 of the new grants. 

About two-thirds of National SMART Grant recipients were at public institutions. 

Students at public institutions received 77,800 National SMART Grants in 2009–10, which 

represented 68 percent of the total awarded. Another 26,900 (23 percent) went to students at 

private nonprofit institutions, and the remaining 10,476 (9 percent) went to students at for-profit 

institutions (Appendix Table E-2). 

The percentage of Pell Grant recipients receiving a National SMART Grant increased. 

In the first three years of the program, 5 percent of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients 

received a National SMART Grant. In 2009–10, 7 percent did so. This increase coincided with 

expanded eligibility for the program. 

The percentage of National SMART Grant recipients receiving the maximum $4,000 award 

declined after the first year. 

As described in the discussion of ACG awards, a full award (exactly $4,000 for a National 

SMART Grant) means that the student enrolled for the entire academic year and had sufficient 

financial need to qualify for the full amount. Students would have received less if they attended 

for only one term (which would include those who graduated mid-year) or if their financial need 

was fully met with a Pell Grant and partial National SMART Grant. The latter might be more 

common for National SMART Grant recipients than ACG recipients because of the higher 

amount of the award. 

In 2006–07, 59 percent of third-year and 62 percent of fourth-year National SMART Grant 

recipients received the full-year award of $4,000 (Exhibit 18). The percentage declined after that, 

which may be at least partly attributable to clarification of the requirement that students be 

enrolled in at least one course that meets the specific requirements of their National SMART 

Grant–eligible major each term they receive a grant. This clarification did not come until 

October 2007.24 However, the percentage of ACG recipients receiving the full amount also 

declined, so this is not the only possible explanation. The decline for third-year students (to 47 

percent) may reflect, in part, the new eligibility of part-time students. 

24This clarification came in a Dear Colleague letter (GEN-07-07) issued in October 2007, which is available at: 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/GEN0707.html. 

— 45 — 
 

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 18. —Percentage of SMART Grants that were full awards: 2006–07 through 2009–10 

Percent 

100 

Third-year Fourth-year* 

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

59 62 

55 55 54 51 47 

53 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

Exhibit reads: Among third-year SMART Grants in 2006–07, 59 percent were a full award. 

* Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants).
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607
 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

For most institutions, the National SMART Grant program is small. 

Institutions awarded an average of 44 National SMART Grant awards in each of the first three 

years of the program, increasing to 77 awards in 2009–10 (Exhibit 19). Consistent with the 

increase in the average number of awards, there was a shift in the distribution of institutions by 

the number of awards. The number of participating institutions awarding 10 or fewer awards 

dropped from 38 percent in the first year of the program to 27 percent in 2009–10. Nevertheless, 

even in 2009–10, more than 80 percent of all participating institutions still awarded 100 or fewer 

National SMART Grants. 

In 2009–10, public four-year institutions awarded an average of 146 National SMART Grants 

(Appendix Table E-3). Private nonprofit four-year institutions awarded an average of 31 grants, 

and for-profit four-year colleges, an average of 97 grants. The corresponding numbers of grants 

awarded in 2008–09 were 80, 20, and 52 (U.S. Department of Education 2011b). 

— 46 — 
 

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 19.—	 Percentage distribution of SMART Grant–participating institutions by the number of 

Exhibit 19.—SMART Grants awarded and average number awarded: 2006–07 through 2009–10 

Percent 

50 

44 42 42 40 39 38 38 40
 

30 27

20
 

11 11 10 10	 10 

10 6 6 6 6

3 3 3 3 1 1 1 

0 

Average number of 

SMART Grants awarded 

2006–07: 44 

2007–08: 44 

2008–09: 44 

2009–10: 77 

1–10	 11–50 51–100 101–200 201–500 More than 500 

Number of SMART Grants 

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Exhibit reads: Among institutions participating in the SMART Grant program in 2006–07, 38 percent awarded 1–10 

ACG grants.
 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607
 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

Dependent National SMART Grant recipients were overrepresented at the higher end of the 

family income distribution of Pell Grant recipients. 

Like ACG recipients, dependent National SMART Grant recipients were overrepresented in each 

year of the program at the higher end of the family income distribution of Pell Grant recipients 

when compared with Pell Grant–only recipients. For example, among dependent students in 

2009–10, 43 percent of National SMART Grant recipients came from families with incomes of 

$30,000 or more, compared with 40 percent of third- and fourth-year students who received Pell 

Grants only (Exhibit 20). 

At the higher EFC levels, the average National SMART Grant amount was much larger than 

the average Pell Grant amount. 

The size of the Pell Grant decreases as the Expected Family Contribution (EFC) increases, while 

the National SMART Grant amount is the same for all recipients, regardless of their EFC. 

Therefore, the National SMART Grant contributes proportionately more to the combined amount 

as EFC increases (Exhibit 21). Each year through 2008–09, the average National SMART Grant 

amount was larger than the average Pell Grant amount for students with an EFC of 1,000 or 

higher. Because of increases in the maximum Pell Grant, however, by 2009–10, the average 

National SMART Grant amount was larger only for students with an EFC of 2,000 or higher. 

— 47 — 
 

 

—

Exhibit 20.—

Exhibit 20.—

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 20.	 Percentage of dependent SMART Grant and Pell Grant–only recipients at SMART 

Grant–participating institutions who were from families with incomes of $30,000 or more: 

2006–07 through 2009–10 

Percent 

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Pell Grant only SMART and Pell Grants 

31 

35 35 

40 

36 

40 40 

43 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

Exhibit reads: Among dependent Pell Grant recipients in 2006–07, 31 percent of those with a Pell Grant only and 

36 percent of those with a SMART Grant were from families with incomes of $30,000 or more.
 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

Life science was the most common major of National SMART Grant recipients. 

In 2009–10, about three-quarters of National SMART Grant recipients majored in one of three 

fields of study: life sciences (36 percent), engineering (21 percent), or computer science (17 

percent) (Exhibit 22). Despite changes in the numbers of grants awarded, the distribution of 

awards across majors was similar across the years, with the notable exception of critical foreign 

languages. After all foreign language majors became eligible for a National SMART Grant 

starting in 2009–10, the proportion of awards going to students with those majors more than 

doubled over the previous year (5 vs. 2 percent). 25 

25 The critical foreign languages category originally included primarily Asian and middle-eastern languages such as 

Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Arabic (see Appendix B). When all languages became eligible, students majoring in 

European languages such as Spanish, French, and German could also receive grants. 

— 48 — 
—

Exhibit 21.—

 

 

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 21.	 Average Pell and SMART Grant amounts awarded to dependent SMART Grant recipients, by 

Expected Family Contribution (EFC): 2006–07 through 2009–10 

$10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

$10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

$10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

$10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

$3,900 $3,600 $2,500 $1,500 $630 

$3,200 $3,300 

$3,400 

$3,300 $3,300 

2006–07 

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more 

2007–08 

$4,200 $3,800 $2,700 $1,800 $760 

$3,100 $3,200 

$3,200 $3,200 $3,300 

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more 

SMART Grant 2008–09 

Pell Grant 

$4,600 $4,200 $3,100 $2,200 $1,200 

$3,100 $3,200 

$3,200 $3,200 

$3,200 

Zero 1–999 1,000–1,999 2,000–2,999 3,000 or more 

2009–10 

$5,600 $5,200 $4,000 $2,900 $1,600 

$3,200 $3,200 

$3,200 

$3,300 

$3,300 

Zero 1–999 1,000– 2,000– 3,000 or 

1,999 2,999 more 

Dependent student EFC 

Exhibit reads: Among dependent SMART Grant recipients with a zero EFC in 2006–07, the average Pell Grant amount 

was $3,900, and the average SMART Grant amount was $3,200. 

NOTE: The federal Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is a measure of a family’s financial strength and indicates how 

much of a student’s and family’s financial resources (for dependent students) should be available to help pay for a 

student’s education. The EFC is an index number used to determine the Pell Grant amount. The average family incomes 

corresponding to these EFC categories were $9,700, $19,700, $31,000, $36,000, and $39,900 in 2006–07 and increased 

each year. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011). 

— 49 — 
CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

— 50 — 

Exhibit 22.—Percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study: 2006–07 through 2009–10

5

3

5

6

8

17

21

36

2

2

5

6

9

17

20

40

1

3

5

6

9

15

21

40

1

3

5

7

10

16

21

38

0 10 20 30 40 50

Critical foreign language

Multidisciplinary studies

Technology

Mathematics

Physical sciences

Computer science

Engineering

Life sciences

2006–07

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

Percent 

*

Exhibit reads: In 2006–07, 38 percent of all SMART Grants were awarded to students majoring in one of the life sciences.

* Life sciences includes biological and biomedical sciences, agriculture, natural resources and conservation, and 

psychology (physiological psychology and psychobiology only).

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

For-profit institutions awarded a growing proportion of the National SMART Grants in 

computer science and technology. 

Public four-year institutions consistently awarded between 70 and 79 percent of the National 

SMART Grants in life sciences, engineering, physical sciences, and mathematics (Appendix 

Table E-13 and U.S. Department of Education 2009, 2010, 2011b). Private nonprofit four-year 

institutions awarded 44 percent of the grants for critical foreign languages in 2006–07, with that 

proportion increasing to 60 percent by 2008–09 (U.S. Department of Education 2009, 2010, 

2011b). However, with the expansion of eligibility to include all foreign languages rather than a 

select list, the proportion of grants in this field going to private nonprofit four-year institutions 

declined to 38 percent in 2009–10 (Appendix Table E-13). 

For-profit four-year institutions awarded relatively few National SMART Grants overall, 

accounting for just 9 percent of all recipients in 2009–10. Nevertheless, they awarded a growing 

percentage of the grants in computer science (increasing from 33 percent in 2006–07 to 43 

percent in 2009–10) (Exhibit 23). In absolute numbers, they awarded more National SMART 

Grants in computer science (8,500) than did public four-year institutions (7,400) or private 

nonprofit four-year institutions (4,000) in 2009–10 (Appendix Table E-13). 

Exhibit 23.—	 Percentage distribution of SMART Grants in computer science by type of institution:
 

Exhibit 23.—2006–07 through 2009–10
 

Percent
 

100
 

80
 

43 40 38 37 

24 22 22 20 

For-profit four-year 60 

33 38 40 43 

Private nonprofit four-year 

40 Public four-year 

20
 

0
 

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Exhibit reads: Among SMART Grant recipients majoring in computer science in 2006–07, 43 percent attended a public
 

four-year institution, 24 percent attended a private nonprofit four-year institution, and 33 percent attended a for-profit 

four-year institution.
 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607
 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

— 51 — 
CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

For-profit four-year institutions also awarded about 20 percent of the grants in technology fields 

each year through 2008–09 (U.S. Department of Education 2009, 2010, 2011b), with that 

proportion increasing to 23 percent in 2009–10 (Appendix Table E-13). Awards to students in 

computer science and technology together accounted for 93 percent of the National SMART 

Grants awarded at for-profit four-year institutions in 2009–10. 

National SMART Grant participation rates varied widely by state, with no discernable 

patterns. 

In 2009–10, the percentage of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients at participating 

institutions who received a National SMART Grant ranged from a high of 16 percent in Utah to 

a low of 2 percent in Delaware (Exhibit 24). While one might expect the mix of offerings at 

institutions in a state to affect a state’s National SMART Grant participation rate, a state-by-state 

comparison for the first year of the program showed no apparent relationship between the 

percentage of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients awarded a National SMART Grant in a 

state and the percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded in eligible fields in that state (U.S. 

Department of Education 2009). State differences could reflect varying levels of diligence in 

administering the program or differing proportions of students meeting the other eligibility 

requirements. They could also reflect the quality of science education at the elementary and 

secondary school levels. 

— 52 — 
CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 24.—	 Number of third- and fourth-year students at SMART Grant–participating institutions with Pell 

Exhibit 24.—Grants, number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with SMART Grants, and change in 

Exhibit 24.—percentage, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07 through 2009–10 

Percent of third- and fourth-year 

Pell Grant recipients with SMART Grantsa 

State 

Number of 

third- and 

fourth-year 

students with 

Pell Grants 

2009–10 

Number of 

Pell Grant 

recipients 

with SMART 

Grants 

2009–10 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Change 

2006–07 to 

2009–10 

Total 1,636,992 115,168 5.2 5.1 4.8 7.0 1.8 

Utah 30,798 4,873 14.1 13.2 10.6 15.8 1.7 

Idaho 14,231 1,591 9.2 3.5 9.0 11.2 2.0 

Washington 22,961 2,483 8.4 8.1 7.8 10.8 2.4 

Vermont 3,460 360 5.3 4.4 6.8 10.4 5.1 

California 159,872 15,501 5.4 5.6 5.9 9.7 4.3 

Massachusetts 25,558 2,419 7.1 5.5 7.5 9.5 2.4 

Oregon 20,299 1,853 7.4 7.4 6.4 9.1 1.7 

Puerto Rico 52207 4730 5.7 5.2 5.5 9.1 3.4 

Florida 77,643 6,818 5.0 5.2 4.4 8.8 3.8 

Minnesota 26,904 2,252 6.0 5.9 5.3 8.4 2.4 

Colorado 25,422 2,050 6.7 7.4 6.0 8.1 1.4 

Illinois 64,755 5,199 5.3 9.6 5.5 8.0 2.7 

South Dakota 6,557 523 6.1 7.0 6.4 8.0 1.9 

New Jersey 30,458 2,390 3.9 5.2 5.6 7.8 3.9 

Maine 6,652 516 4.1 7.4 4.3 7.8 3.7 

New Hampshire 4,604 356 7.3 4.4 5.5 7.7 0.4 

Montana 5,831 442 7.0 7.3 5.3 7.6 0.6 

Indiana 44,341 3,347 4.7 5.7 5.9 7.5 2.8 

Nevada 5,719 430 5.0 4.9 5.1 7.5 2.5 

Michigan 58,148 4,360 4.9 5.0 5.0 7.5 2.6 

North Dakota 4,586 339 7.1 5.0 3.9 7.4 0.3 

Pennsylvania 59,171 4,314 6.0 6.2 5.9 7.3 1.3 

Maryland 18,763 1,330 4.4 4.3 4.6 7.1 2.7 

New York 106,502 7,437 4.7 3.8 4.7 7.0 2.3 

Alaska 1,878 129 3.7 3.4 5.0 6.9 3.2 

Wisconsin 26,614 1,732 5.8 4.1 4.7 6.5 0.7 

Rhode Island 6,656 425 3.6 3.2 3.9 6.4 2.8 

Georgia 51,918 3,299 4.5 4.4 4.3 6.4 1.9 

District of Columbia 11,129 694 1.9 3.2 1.9 6.2 4.3 

South Carolina 20,474 1,239 4.4 4.5 4.0 6.1 1.7 

Virginia 33,332 1,972 4.5 7.7 4.0 5.9 1.4 

Ohio 55,273 3,260 4.3 3.9 3.8 5.9 1.6 

Connecticut 10,321 608 4.8 4.2 4.3 5.9 1.1 

Oklahoma 20,503 1,197 4.9 5.1 4.2 5.8 0.9 

Hawaii 4,906 278 4.6 5.3 3.6 5.7 1.1 

Wyoming 1,550 87 5.3 4.7 3.5 5.6 0.3 

Missouri 34,490 1,871 4.5 3.1 3.9 5.4 0.9 

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of exhibit. 

— 53 — 
—

Exhibit 24.—

Exhibit 24.—

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 24.	 Number of third- and fourth-year students at SMART Grant–participating institutions with Pell 

Grants, number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with SMART Grants, and change in 

percentage, by state of student’s residence: 2006–07 through 2009–10—Continued 

Percent of third- and fourth-year 

Pell Grant recipients with SMART Grantsa 

State 

Number of 

third- and 

fourth-year 

students with 

Pell Grants 

2009–10 

Number of 

Pell Grant 

recipients 

with SMART 

Grants 

2009–10 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

Change 

2006–07 to 

2009–10 

Iowa 39,371 2,128 4.3 6.2 3.8 5.4 1.1 

Kansas 16,603 894 4.9 5.3 4.2 5.4 0.5 

Arizona 88,687 4,579 5.3 3.0 4.1 5.2 -0.1 

Nebraska 9,642 494 4.4 3.8 4.5 5.1 0.7 

Kentucky 22,432 1,067 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.8 0.4 

North Carolina 44,370 2,102 4.1 5.5 3.7 4.7 0.6 

Tennessee 31,700 1,468 4.3 4.1 3.6 4.6 0.3 

Texas 111,546 5,132 3.6 3.5 3.4 4.6 1.0 

Louisiana 21,350 931 4.2 3.6 3.3 4.4 0.2 

New Mexico 13,140 564 4.6 3.9 3.2 4.3 -0.3 

Alabama 29,518 1,231 4.4 5.4 3.4 4.2 -0.2 

West Virginia 12,818 483 4.8 5.6 4.1 3.8 -1.0 

Arkansas 16,851 609 3.5 4.3 2.7 3.6 0.1 

Mississippi 20,300 692 3.0 4.4 3.1 3.4 0.4 

Delaware 3,112 68 2.9 2.1 2.7 2.2 -0.7 

All othersb 1,066 22 0.6 4.7 2.2 2.1 1.5 

Exhibit reads: Among third- and fourth-year students at SMART–Grant participating institutions in 2008–09, a total 

of 1,636,992 had a Pell Grant, and 115,168 (or 7.0 percent) had a SMART Grant.
 a

 Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants).
 b

 Including all other U.S. jurisdictions except Puerto Rico (i.e., American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia,
 

Guam, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Marianas, Palau, and the Virgin Islands). Also included are ACG-eligible
 

students with unknown state of residence.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607
 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

National SMART Grant Renewals 

More than one-half of third-year students who received a National SMART Grant received 

another one the following year. 

To receive a National SMART Grant in their fourth year, third-year recipients have to re-qualify 

for a Pell Grant; enroll in an eligible major full-time (or part-time starting in 2009–10) and take 

courses meeting requirements for that major each term in which the grant is received; and 

maintain a cumulative 3.0 GPA in course work required for their major. Fifty-seven percent of 

third-year students who received a National SMART Grant in 2006–07 had their grants renewed 

the following year (Exhibit 25). Among the next two cohorts of third-year students, 54 and 58 

percent, respectively, had their grants renewed. 

— 54 — 
—

Exhibit 25.—

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 25.	 Percentage distribution of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 third-year SMART Grant recipients 

by SMART and Pell Grant receipt status the following year 

Percent 

57 54 58 

22 22 

26 

22 24 16 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 

No Pell Grant or not enrolled 

Pell Grant, no SMART Grant 

SMART and Pell Grants 

Fourth-year grant status 

Exhibit reads: Among third-year SMART Grant recipients in 2006–07, 57 percent received another SMART and Pell
 

Grant in 2007–08; 22 percent received another Pell Grant but not a SMART Grant; and 22 percent received no Pell Grant
 

or were not enrolled.
 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607
 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

The National SMART Grant renewal rates were substantially higher than the ACG renewal rates, 

which have ranged from 24 to 27 percent (Exhibit 13). However, it is not surprising that students 

who have successfully reached their third year with a 3.0 GPA would meet the renewal 

requirements more easily than first-year ACG students. 

Some third-year National SMART Grant students (22 percent for the first two cohorts and 26 

percent for the third) did not qualify for a National SMART Grant renewal in their fourth year, 

but they did receive a Pell Grant (Exhibit 25). This means that they did not meet the GPA 

requirement; were not enrolled full-time (except in 2009–10, when part-time students were 

eligible); changed their major to an ineligible one; or were not taking at least one course to meet 

the requirements of their major. The remaining students were either not enrolled or no longer 

qualified for a Pell Grant. The decline of this percentage in 2009–10 (16 percent compared with 

22 percent for the first cohort and 24 percent for the second) reflects, in part, the greater 

proportion of students eligible for Pell Grants (Exhibit 4). 

— 55 — 
 

—

Exhibit 26.—

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Private nonprofit institutions had the highest renewal rates for National SMART Grants until 

most recently. 

Among the first two cohorts (third-year students receiving National SMART Grants in 2006–07 

and in 2007–08), grant recipients at private nonprofit institutions had the highest renewal rates: 

60 and 59 percent versus 57 and 55 percent for public institutions, and 43 and 41 percent for forprofit institutions (Exhibit 26). However, among third-year recipients in 2008–09, renewals at 

public and private nonprofit institutions were about the same (59 and 58 percent, respectively). 

Exhibit 26.	 Percentage of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 third-year SMART Grant recipients who received 

a SMART Grant the following year, by type of institution 

100 

Percent 

Public Private For- Public Private For- Public Private Fornonprofit profit nonprofit profit nonprofit profit 

SMART Grant in 2007–08 SMART Grant in 2008–09 SMART Grant in 2009–10 

57 60 

43 

55 59 

41 

59 58 

47 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

Exhibit reads: Among third-year SMART Grant recipients at public institutions in 2006–07, 57 percent received another
 

SMART Grant in 2007–08.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607
 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

National SMART Grant renewal rates were relatively stable across fields of study. 

National SMART Grant renewal rates fluctuated in most fields, sometimes increasing and 

sometimes decreasing. They ranged between 50 and 60 percent in most fields (Exhibit 27). They 

declined slightly each year for students majoring in life sciences (from 59 to 52 percent) and in 

foreign languages (from 66 to 60 percent). The expansion of eligibility to include all foreign 

languages rather than “critical” ones did not occur until 2009–10 and therefore had no impact on 

this pattern. In computer science and technology, renewal rates were once below 50 percent, but 

in the most recent year, they were 54 and 59 percent, respectively. As noted earlier, an increasing 

proportion of the awards in these fields are going to students from for-profit institutions. 

— 56 — 
—

Exhibit 27.—

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 27.	 Percentage of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 third-year SMART Grant recipients who received 

a SMART Grant the following year, by field of study 

Critical foreign language 

Engineering 

Life sciences 

Physical sciences 

Mathematics 

Technology 

Multidisciplinary studies 

Computer science 

54 

57 

59 

57 

59 

52 

62 

60 

47 

54 

49 

54 

56 

57 

56 

63 

48 

51 

52 

58 

59 

59 

59 

66 

2006–07 

2007–08 

2008–09 

Third year in: 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent with SMART Grant renewal 

Exhibit reads: Among SMART Grant recipients majoring in a critical foreign language in 2006–07, 66 percent received 

another SMART Grant in 2007–08.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607
 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

— 57 — 
 

 

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Pell Grant Renewals for National SMART Grant Versus Pell Grant–Only 

Recipients 

As was done in Chapter 3 for ACG recipients, the Pell Grant renewal rates of National SMART 

Grant recipients were compared with those of Pell Grant–only recipients to get a rough measure 

of persistence. As noted earlier, these rates are underestimates of true persistence because they 

do not capture students who left because they graduated or enrolled the following year but lost 

Pell Grant eligibility and therefore did not appear in the Pell Grant award file. 

Based on Pell Grant renewal rates, third-year National SMART Grant recipients persisted at a 

higher rate than their peers with only a Pell Grant. 

Each year, the Pell Grant renewal rates for third-year students who had also qualified for a 

National SMART Grant were higher than those of their counterparts who had received a Pell 

Grant only (Exhibit 28). For example, among the most recent cohort of third-year Pell Grant 

recipients (2008–09), 75 percent of those who had received Pell Grants only received another 

Pell Grant in the next year. In comparison, 83 percent of their counterparts who had also 

qualified for a National SMART Grant received another Pell Grant the next year. These renewal 

rates were higher than for the two previous cohorts, reflecting the growth in the number of Pell 

Grant recipients in 2009–10 (Exhibit 4). Because more students were receiving Pell Grants, more 

were found in the file the following year. 

The additional financial support provided by the National SMART Grants may contribute to the 

observed higher persistence rates for the recipients of these grants. However, other factors may 

be equally or even more important. Particularly, National SMART Grant recipients are among 

the most academically qualified Pell Grant recipients and therefore would be expected to persist 

at higher rates than students who did not meet the academic qualifications for the grant. 

— 58 — 
—

Exhibit 28.—

CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

Exhibit 28.	 Percentage of 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 Pell Grant–only and SMART Grant recipients 

who received a Pell Grant the following year 

Percent 

100 

83

78 77 75 80 69 68
 

60
 

40
 

20 

0 

Third-year Third-year Third-year 

in 2006–07 in 2007–08 in 2008–09 

Pell Grant only SMART and Pell Grants 

Exhibit reads: Among third-year students in 2006–07 who received a Pell Grant only, 69 percent received another 

Pell Grant in 2007–08, and among those who received a SMART Grant in 2006–07, 78 percent received another Pell 

Grant in 2007–08 (whether or not they received another SMART Grant). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0607 

(Sept. 21, 2007), AY0708 (Nov. 25, 2008), AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010), and AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011). 

— 59 — 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 

CHAPTER 5 

Lessons Learned 

Implementation 

Both the ACG and the National SMART Grant programs were relatively small programs that 

required simultaneous confirmation of academic eligibility and of financial eligibility for a Pell 

Grant. The appropriate award of both grants required student aid offices to have information 

about grades and curricula for each student. Many postsecondary institutions, particularly openaccess colleges, did not have a method in place for verifying these nonfinancial eligibility 

requirements when the programs started. High school counselors and college academic advisors 

did not initially have information about either program that would allow them to help potential 

applicants anticipate how to apply for the awards. Longer lead times for federal programs that 

require new processes would allow institutions and states to clarify requirements, establish 

processes that complement the regulations, disseminate information to the appropriate offices 

and agencies, and request clarification from the U.S. Department of Education. Programs such as 

these, which operate differently than most Title IV programs, take more time to launch than do 

those programs that represent variations on existing processes. 

Participation 

Although the number of ACG and National SMART Grants increased over time, the percentages 

of Pell Grant recipients who qualified for an ACG or National SMART Grant remained 

relatively low (between 10 and 12 percent for the ACG and between 5 and 7 percent for the 

National SMART Grant). As a result, institutions had to implement and administer two new 

grant programs for relatively small numbers of students. Many students lost their awards the 

following year because of their inability to meet the academic requirements for renewal. While 

all recipients were from low-income families, both ACGs and National SMART Grants were 

more likely to be received by students from families at the higher end of the Pell Grant–eligible 

group. 

Analysis of both the national and state data showed that ACG and National SMART Grant 

recipients were more likely to persist into their second academic year than were Pell Grant–only 

recipients. Given that these programs largely served students who were already academically 

focused or interested in National SMART Grant–approved majors, it may be that these higher 

persistence rates were a function of academic preparedness rather than, or as well as, ACG or 

National SMART Grant receipt. 

— 61 —
 
CHAPTER 5. LESSONS LEARNED 

Given that high school students graduating in spring 2007 and spring 2008 did not have time to 

anticipate the receipt of an ACG at the time of the study, it is not plausible that the grant had a 

direct influence on their selection of high school courses or their efforts to achieve a 3.0 grade 

point average (GPA). The small number of National SMART Grant recipients and the limited 

data available restrict the generalizations that can be made about the influence of the grant on 

selection of major. 

— 62 — 
 

References 

Adelman, Clifford. 1999. Answers in the Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and 

Bachelor’s Degree Attainment. PLLI-1999-8021. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 

———. 2006. The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through 

College. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences. 

Childress, David. 2009. Solutions to Expand College Access: A Comprehensive Research Study 

With Insights From 610 College-Advising Professionals. White Paper. 

www.studentaid.com/resources/downloads/SolutionsToExpandCollegeAccess.pdf 

(accessed Nov. 29, 2011). 

Heller, Donald E., and Marin, Patricia. (eds.). 2004. State Merit Scholarship Programs and 

Racial Inequality. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. 

Horn, Laura, Emily F. Cataldi, and Anna Sikora. 2005. Waiting to Attend College: 

Undergraduates Who Delay Their Postsecondary Enrollment. NCES 2005-152. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Kantrowitz, Mark. 2009. Analysis of Why Some Students Do Not Apply for Financial Aid. 

http://www.finaid.org/educators/20090427CharacteristicsOfNonApplicants.pdf. 

King, Jacqueline. 2006. Missed Opportunities Revisited: New Information on Students Who Do 

Not Apply for Financial Aid. American Council on Education Issue Brief. Washington, 

D.C.: American Council on Education. 

Lee, John, and Lindsay Albert. 2010. Successful Practices that Address the Underutilization of 

Financial Aid in Community Colleges. The College Board. 

http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/10b_1790_FAFSA_Exec_Report_WE 

B_100517.pdf (accessed June 3, 2010). 

National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs. 2010. 40th Annual Survey Report 

on State-Sponsored Student Financial Aid: 2008–09 Academic Year. 

http://www.nassgap.org/viewrepository.aspx?categoryID=3. 

Staklis, S. 2010. Web Tables—Profile of Undergraduate Students: 2007–08. NCES 2010-205. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

— 63 —
 
REFERENCES 

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics. 2011a. America’s High School Graduates: Results of the 2009 NAEP High 

School Transcript Study. NCES 2011-462. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Inspector General. 2008. Audit of the Department’s 

Process for Disbursing Academic Competitiveness Grants and National Science and 

Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grants. Control Number ED-OIG/A19H0011. 

Washington, D.C.: Author. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/fy2008/a19h0011.pdf (accessed 

Aug. 15, 2008). 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy 

and Program Studies Service. 2009. Academic Competitiveness and National SMART 

Grant Programs: First-Year Lessons Learned. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#higher (accessed April 28, 

2010). 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy 

and Program Studies Service. 2010. Academic Competitiveness and National SMART 

Grant Programs: 2006–07 and 2007–08. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#higher (accessed Nov. 29, 

2011). 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy 

and Program Studies Service. 2011b. Academic Competitiveness and National SMART 

Grant Programs: 2006–07 Through 2008–09. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#higher (accessed Nov. 29, 

2011). 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. 2011c. 2009–10 Academic 

Competitiveness Grant and National SMART Grant Programs End-of-Year Report. 

Washington, D.C.: Author. 

http://www.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/data/ope.html (accessed May 10, 2011). 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2009. Federal Student Aid: Recent Changes to 

Eligibility Requirements and Additional Efforts to Promote Awareness Could Increase 

Academic Competitiveness and SMART Grant Participation. GAO-09-343. Washington, 

D.C.: Author. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-343 (accessed March 25, 2009). 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2011. Federal Student Loans: Patterns in Tuition, 

Enrollment, and Federal Stafford Loan Borrowing up the the 2007–08 Loan Limit 

Increase. GAO-11-470R. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-470R (accessed May 27, 2011). 

Waits, Tiffany, J. Carl Setzer, and Laurie Lewis. 2005. Dual Credit and Exam–Based Courses in 

U.S. Public High Schools: 2002–03. NCES 2005-009. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

— 64 — 
 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A 

Recognized Rigorous High School Programs 

To be eligible for an Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG), a student must have completed a 

rigorous high school program of study after Jan. 1, 2006, if enrolled as a first-year student and 

after Jan. 1, 2005, if enrolled as a second-year student. The secretary of education provided three 

options (described below) and also accepted all existing state-established advanced and honors 

diploma programs as “rigorous.” States could request recognition of other programs, and for the 

first year of the ACG program, the secretary approved at least one advanced, honors, or other 

program in 40 states, and more than one program in 22 states. 

Effective July 1, 2009, the secretary no longer recognizes new rigorous secondary school 

programs of study. Starting with the 2009–10 award year, designated state officials report to the 

secretary the rigorous secondary school programs of study that prepare students for college in 

their state, including such programs of study in home schools and private schools.26 

In every state, students potentially had at least two ways to meet the rigorous high school 

curriculum: completing the course work specified by the U.S. Department of Education or 

passing two Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) courses with 

sufficiently high scores (assuming their schools offered all the required courses and that they had 

access to AP or IB courses). Students in states participating in the State Scholars Initiative (SSI) 

had a third option, and those in states with approved state programs had at least one additional 

option and sometimes several. 

1. Participating in the State Scholars Initiative (SSI). The SSI was a national initiative funded 

by the Department’s Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) and administered by the 

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), ending in September 2009. The 

SSI was designed to motivate high school students to complete a rigorous course of study that 

prepared them for success in postsecondary education or training and in their future careers.27 It 

was offered in selected districts in 22 states in 2006–07 and in 24 states in 2007–08 and 2008– 

09. Since then, State Scholars programs continue to operate independently in 14 states. To 

achieve recognition, students in participating states must complete all state-mandated high school 

graduation requirements and also the following course work: four years of English; three years of 

mathematics (including algebra I, algebra II, and geometry); three years of laboratory science 

26 A description of the recognized programs in each state is available at: http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/about/
 

ac-smart/state-programs.html.
 27 More information on this initiative is available at: http://www.wiche.edu/statescholars/.
 

— 65 —
 
 

 

 

APPENDIX A. RECOGNIZED RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

(biology, chemistry, and physics); three and a half years of social studies (chosen from U.S. and 

world history, world geography, economics, and government); and two years of a language other 

than English. 

2. Completing a curriculum similar to the State Scholars Initiative (SSI). This option is 

available to high school students in all states and within each state to students attending high 

schools that offer the courses. The requirements are slightly less demanding than those of the 

SSI, with more flexibility in meeting the mathematics, science, and social studies requirements 

and a reduced language requirement. To qualify under this option, students must earn passing 

grades in the following: four years of English; three years of mathematics (including algebra I 

and a higher-level course such as algebra II, geometry, or data analysis and statistics); three years 

of science (including at least two courses chosen from biology, chemistry, or physics); three 

years of social studies; and one year of a language other than English. 

3. Completing at least two Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) 

courses. Students are required to pass these two courses with a score of 3.0 or higher (out of 5.0) 

on the AP exams or 4.0 or higher (out of 7.0) on the IB exams. This option is available to 

students in all states but not necessarily in all schools. In 2002–03, 67 percent of public high 

schools offered AP courses, and 2 percent offered IB courses (Waits, Setzer, and Lewis 2005). 

However, students can take AP courses through independent study (or online in some states).28 

4. Completing an existing advanced, honors, or other approved program. In most cases, the 

approved programs were unique to a state. Some of the state programs were based solely on 

completing specific courses, while others had additional or different requirements.29 

Seven states were approved to use the High Schools That Work (HSTW) Award of Educational 

Achievement. To earn this award, students must complete the curriculum recommended by High 

Schools That Work (HSTW) initiative in at least two of the three subject areas (English, 

mathematics, and science); complete a concentration in a career and technical field, mathematics 

and science, or the humanities; and meet all three of the performance goals on the HSTW 

assessment. 

The recommended curriculum consists of the following: 

English: four credits in college-preparatory level courses. 

28 Available at: http://www.collegeboard.com.
 29 These included, for example, passing a state or local assessment test, achieving a minimum GPA or score on a 

PSAT, SAT, or ACT test, completing AP or IB courses or exams or dual-enrollment courses, or completing a 

senior project.
 

— 66 —
 
 

 

 

APPENDIX A. RECOGNIZED RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS 

Mathematics: four credits in college-preparatory level courses, including algebra I, 

geometry, algebra II, and a higher-level mathematics course such as trigonometry, 

statistics, pre-calculus, calculus, or AP mathematics. 

Science: three or more credits in science, including at least two credits in collegepreparatory biology, chemistry, anatomy and physiology, or physics and applied physics. 

The concentrations consist of the following: 

Career and Technical: four or more credits in a coherent sequence in a career and 

technical field or major. 

Mathematics and Science: four college-preparatory courses each in mathematics and 

science. At least one higher-level course in either mathematics or science must be at the 

AP level. 

Humanities: four college-preparatory courses each in English or language arts and social 

studies and four courses in an area of the humanities, such as foreign language, fine arts, 

or additional English and social studies courses. At least one course in either English or 

social studies must be at the AP level. 

Performance Goals: 

The performance goals on the HSTW assessment are a score of 279 in reading, a score of 

297 in mathematics, and a score of 299 in science on a scale of 0–500. 

— 67 —
 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B 

National SMART Grant–Eligible Majors 

Prior to the implementation of the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grant 

program, the secretary of education designated the eligible fields of study. This list was expanded for 2007–08 to
 

include additional fields of study in Agriculture, Natural Resources and Conservation, Psychology, and
 

Multidisciplinary Studies. Fields added for 2007–08 are shown below in bolded italics. There were no changes for 

2008–09. For the 2009–10 award year, the list of eligible foreign languages was expanded from a limited number to
 

all foreign languages.
 

Computer Science: The branch of knowledge or study of computers, including such fields of knowledge or study as
 

computer hardware, computer software, computer engineering, information systems, and robotics.
 

Associated NCES CIP CODES: 11.xxxx
 

Engineering: The science by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to 

humanity in structures, machines, and products, as in the construction of engines, bridges, buildings, mines, and
 

chemical plants, including such fields of knowledge or study as aeronautical engineering, chemical engineering,
 

civil engineering, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, materials engineering, manufacturing engineering,
 

and mechanical engineering.
 

Associated NCES CIP CODES: 14.xxxx
 

Foreign Language: Instructional programs that focus on foreign languages and literatures, the humanistic and
 

scientific study of linguistics, and the provision of professional interpretation and translation services. 

Associated NCES CIP CODES: 16.xxxx
 

Life Sciences: The branch of knowledge or study of living things, including such fields of knowledge or study as
 

biology, biochemistry, biophysics, microbiology, genetics, physiology, botany, zoology, ecology, and behavioral
 

biology, except that the term does not encompass the health professions. This category also includes agriculture, 

agricultural operations, and related sciences.
 

Associated NCES CIP CODES: 26.xxxx; 01.xxxx 

Natural Resources and Conservation: Instructional programs that focus on the various natural resources and
 

conservation fields and prepare individuals for related occupations. 

Associated NCES CIP CODES: 03.xxxx
 

Psychology: Instructional programs that focus on the scientific study of the behavior of individuals, 

independently or collectively, and the physical and environmental bases of mental, emotional, and neurological
 

activity. 

Associated NCES CIP CODES: 42.xxxx
 

Mathematics: The branch of knowledge or study of numbers and the systematic treatment of magnitude, 

relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically, including such
 

fields of knowledge or study as statistics, applied mathematics, and operations research. 

Associated NCES CIP CODES: 27.xxxx
 

Physical Sciences: The branch of knowledge or study of the material universe, including such fields of knowledge or 

study as astronomy, atmospheric sciences, chemistry, earth sciences, ocean sciences, physics, and planetary sciences. 

Associated NCES CIP CODES: 40.xxxx
 

— 69 —
 
APPENDIX B. NATIONAL SMART GRANT – ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

Technology: The application of mechanical or scientific knowledge, for example, applied science. 

Related NCES CIP CODES: 41.xxxx; 29.xxxx; 15.xxxx 

Several Multidisciplinary Studies are also considered eligible for National SMART Grants. 

Associated NCES CIP CODES: 30.xxxx 

Computer Science 

11.01 Computer and Information Sciences, General 

11.0101 Computer and Information Sciences, 

General 

11.0102 Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
 

11.0103 Information Technology 

11.0199 Computer and Information Sciences, Other 

11.02 Computer Programming 

11.0201 Computer Programming/Programmer, 

General 

11.0202 Computer Programming, Specific
 

Applications
 

11.0203 Computer Programming, Vendor/Product 

Certification 

11.0299 Computer Programming, Other 

11.03 Data Processing 

11.0301 Data Processing and Data Processing 

Technology/Technician 

11.04 Information Science/Studies 

11.0401 Information Science/Studies 

11.05 Computer Systems Analysis 

11.0501 Computer Systems Analysis/Analyst 

11.07 Computer Science 

11.0701 Computer Science 

11.08 Computer Software and Media Applications 

11.0801 Web Page, Digital/Multimedia and 

Information Resources Design 

11.0802 Data Modeling/Warehousing and Database 

Administration 

11.0803 Computer Graphics 

11.0899 Computer Software and Media Applications, 

Other 

11.09 Computer Systems Networking and Telecommunications 

11.0901 Computer Systems Networking and 

Telecommunications 

11.10 Computer/Information Technology Administration and 

Management 

11.1001 System Administration/Administrator 

11.1002 System, Networking, and LAN/WAN 

Management/Manager 

11.1003 Computer and Information Systems Security 

11.1004 Web/Multimedia Management and Webmaster 

11.1099 Computer/Information Technology Services 

Administration and Management, Other 

11.99 Computer and Information Sciences and Support 

Services, Other 

11.9999 Computer and Information Sciences and 

Support Services, Other 

Engineering 

14.01 Engineering, General 

14.0101 Engineering, General 

14.02 Aerospace, Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering 

14.0201 Aerospace, Aeronautical and Astronautical 

Engineering 

14.03 Agricultural/Biological Engineering and Bioengineering 

14.0301 Agricultural/Biological Engineering and 

Bioengineering 

14.04 Architectural Engineering 

14.0401 Architectural Engineering 

14.05 Biomedical/Medical Engineering 

14.0501 Biomedical/Medical Engineering 

14.06 Ceramic Sciences and Engineering 

14.0601 Ceramic Sciences and Engineering 

14.07 Chemical Engineering 

14.0701 Chemical Engineering 

14.08 Civil Engineering 

14.0801 Civil Engineering, General 

14.0802 Geotechnical Engineering 

14.0803 Structural Engineering 

14.0804 Transportation and Highway Engineering 

14.0805 Water Resources Engineering 

14.0899 Civil Engineering, Other 

14.09 Computer Engineering, General 

14.0901 Computer Engineering, General 

14.0902 Computer Hardware Engineering 

14.0903 Computer Software Engineering 

14.0999 Computer Engineering, Other 

14.10 Electrical, Electronics and Communications 

Engineering 

14.1001 Electrical, Electronics and Communications 

Engineering 

14.11 Engineering Mechanics 

14.1101 Engineering Mechanics 

— 70 —
 
 

 

APPENDIX B. NATIONAL SMART GRANT – ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

14.12 Engineering Physics 

14.1201 Engineering Physics 

14.13 Engineering Science 

14.1301 Engineering Science 

14.14 Environmental/Environmental Health Engineering 

14.1401 Environmental/Environmental Health 

Engineering 

14.18 Materials Engineering 

14.1801 Materials Engineering 

14.19 Mechanical Engineering 

14.1901 Mechanical Engineering 

14.20 Metallurgical Engineering 

14.2001 Metallurgical Engineering 

14.21 Mining and Mineral Engineering 

14.2101 Mining and Mineral Engineering 

14.22 Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 

14.2201 Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering 

14.23 Nuclear Engineering 

14.2301 Nuclear Engineering 

14.24 Ocean Engineering 

14.2401 Ocean Engineering 

14.25 Petroleum Engineering 

14.2501 Petroleum Engineering 

14.27 Systems Engineering 

14.2701 Systems Engineering 

14.28 Textile Sciences and Engineering 

14.2801 Textile Sciences and Engineering 

14.31 Materials Science 

14.3101 Materials Science 

14.32 Polymer/Plastics Engineering 

14.3201 Polymer/Plastics Engineering 

14.33 Construction Engineering 

14.3301 Construction Engineering 

14.34 Forest Engineering 

14.3401 Forest Engineering 

14.35 Industrial Engineering 

14.3501 Industrial Engineering 

14.36 Manufacturing Engineering 

14.3601 Manufacturing Engineering 

14.37 Operations Research 

14.3701 Operations Research 

14.38 Surveying Engineering 

14.3801 Surveying Engineering 

14.39 Geological/Geophysical Engineering 

14.3901 Geological/Geophysical Engineering 

14.99 Engineering, Other 

14.9999 Engineering, Other 

Critical Foreign Language 

Below is the original list. It was expanded for 2009–10 to include all 16.xx codes except American Sign 

Language (16.16xx) and Linguistic, Comparative, and Related Language Studies and Services (16.01xx) 

16.0201 African Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics 

16.0301 Chinese Language and Literature 

16.0302 Japanese Language and Literature 

16.0303 Korean Language and Literature 

16.0402 Russian Language and Literature 

16.0701 Hindi Language and Literature 

16.0704 Bengali Language and Literature 

16.0705 Punjabi Language and Literature 

16.0707 Urdu Language and Literature 

16.0801 Iranian/Persian Languages, Literatures, and 

Linguistics 

16.0904 Portuguese Language and Literature 

16.1101 Arabic Language and Literature 

16.1102 Hebrew Language and Literature 

16.1402 Bahasa Indonesian/Bahasa Malay 

Languages and Literatures 

16.1404 Filipino/Tagalog Language and Literature 

16.1501 Turkish Language and Literature 

16.1599 Turkic, Ural-Altaic, Caucasian, and Central 

Asian Languages, Literatures, and 

Linguistics, Other 

Life Sciences 

26. BIOLOGICAL AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES 

26.01 Biology, General 

26.0101 Biology/Biological Sciences, General 

26.0102 Biomedical Sciences, General 

26.02 Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology 

26.0202 Biochemistry 

26.0203 Biophysics 

26.0204 Molecular Biology 

26.0205 Molecular Biochemistry 

26.0206 Molecular Biophysics

26.0207 Structural Biology 

26.0208 Photobiology 

26.0209 Radiation Biology/Radiobiology 

— 71 —
 
APPENDIX B. NATIONAL SMART GRANT – ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

26.0210 Biochemistry/Biophysics and Molecular 

Biology 

26.0299 Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular 

Biology, Other 

26.03 Botany/Plant Biology 

26.0301 Botany/Plant Biology 

26.0305 Plant Pathology/Phytopathology 

26.0307 Plant Physiology 

26.0308 Plant Molecular Biology 

26.0399 Botany/Plant Biology, Other 

26.04 Cell/Cellular Biology and Anatomical Sciences 

26.0404 Developmental Biology and Embryology 

26.0401 Cell/Cellular Biology and Histology 

26.0403 Anatomy 

26.0405 Neuroanatomy 

26.0406 Cell/Cellular and Molecular Biology 

26.0407 Cell Biology and Anatomy 

26.0499 Cell/Cellular Biology and Anatomical 

Sciences, Other 

26.05 Microbiological Sciences and Immunology 

26.0502 Microbiology, General 

26.0503 Medical Microbiology and Bacteriology 

26.0504 Virology 

26.0505 Parasitology 

26.0506 Mycology 

26.0507 Immunology 

26.0599 Microbiological Sciences and Immunology, 

Other 

26.07 Zoology/Animal Biology 

26.0701 Zoology/Animal Biology 

26.0702 Entomology 

26.0707 Animal Physiology 

26.0709 Wildlife Biology 

26.0799 Zoology/Animal Biology, Other 

26.0801 Genetics, General 

26.0802 Molecular Genetics 

26.0803 Microbial and Eukaryotic Genetics 

26.0804 Animal Genetics 

26.0806 Human/Medical Genetics 

26.0899 Genetics, Other 

26.0901 Physiology, General 

26.0902 Molecular Physiology 

26.0903 Cell Physiology 

26.0904 Endocrinology 

26.0905 Reproductive Biology 

26.0906 Neurobiology and Neurophysiology 

26.0907 Cardiovascular Science 

26.0909 Vision Science/Physiological Optics 

26.0910 Pathology/Experimental Pathology 

26.0805 Plant Genetics 

26.09 Physiology, Pathology and Related Sciences 

26.0908 Exercise Physiology 

26.0911 Oncology and Cancer Biology 

26.0708 Animal Behavior and Ethology 

26.08 Genetics 

26.0999 Physiology, Pathology, and Related 

Sciences, Other 

26.10 Pharmacology and Toxicology 
 

26.1001 Pharmacology 

26.1002 Molecular Pharmacology 

26.1003 Neuropharmacology 

26.1004 Toxicology 

26.1005 Molecular Toxicology 

26.1006 Environmental Toxicology 
 

26.1007 Pharmacology and Toxicology 
 

26.1099 Pharmacology and Toxicology, Other 

26.11 Biomathematics and Bioinformatics 

26.1101 Biometry/Biometrics 

26.1102 Biostatistics 

26.1103 Bioinformatics 

26.1199 Biomathematics and Bioinformatics, Other 

26.1201 Biotechnology 

26.13 Ecology, Evolution, Systematics and Population Biology 

26.1301 Ecology 

26.1302 Marine Biology and Biological Oceanography 

26.1303 Evolutionary Biology 

26.1304 Aquatic Biology/Limnology 

26.1305 Environmental Biology 

26.1306 Population Biology 

26.1307 Conservation Biology 

26.1308 Systematic Biology/Biological Systematics 

26.1309 Epidemiology 

26.1399 Ecology, Evolution, Systematics and 

Population Biology, Other 

26.99 Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Other 

26.9999 Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Other 

01. AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS, AND 

RELATED SCIENCES 

01.09 Animal Sciences 

01.0901 Animal Sciences, General
 

01.0902 Agricultural Animal Breeding
 

01.0903 Animal Health
 

01.0904 Animal Nutrition
 

01.0906 Livestock Management
 

01.0907 Poultry Science
 

01.0999 Animal Sciences, Other
 

01.1001 Food Science

01.11 Plant Sciences
 

01.1101 Plant Sciences, General
 

Agronomy and Crop Science
 

01.0905 Dairy Science
 

01.10 Food Science and Technology (2007–08) 


 

01.1002 Food Technology and Processing 

01.1102 

01.1103 Horticultural Science
 

01.1104 Agricultural and Horticultural Plant Breeding
 

01.1105 Plant Protection and Integrated Pest 

Management 

26.12 Biotechnology 

— 72 —
 
 

APPENDIX B. NATIONAL SMART GRANT – ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

01.1199 Plant Sciences, Other	 

01.1106 Range Science and Management 

01.12 Soil Sciences
 

01.1201 Soil Science and Agronomy, General
 

01.1202 Soil Chemistry and Physics
 

01.1203 Soil Microbiology
 

01.1299 Soil Sciences, Other
 

Natural Resources and Conservation (2007–08) 

03. NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION 

03.01 Natural Resources and Conservation Research 

 03.0104 Environmental Science 

03.03 Fishing and Fisheries Sciences and Management
 

03.0301 Fishing and Fisheries Science and 

Management 

03.05 Forestry
 

03.0502 Forest Sciences and Biology
 

03.0509 Wood Science and Wood Products/Pulp 

and Paper Technology
 

 03.0601 Wildlife and Wildlands Science and 

Management 

03.06 Wildlife and Wildlands Science and Management

Psychology (2007–08) 

42. PSYCHOLOGY 

42.11 Physiological Psychology/Psychobiology
 

42.1101 Physiological Psychology/Psychobiology
 

Mathematics 

27.01 Mathematics 

27.0101 Mathematics, General 

27.0102 Algebra and Number Theory 

27.0103 Analysis and Functional Analysis 

27.0104 Geometry/Geometric Analysis 

27.0105 Topology and Foundations 

27.0199 Mathematics, Other 

27.03 Applied Mathematics 

27.0301 Applied Mathematics 

27.05 Statistics
 

27.0303 Computational Mathematics 

27.0399 Applied Mathematics, Other 

27.0501 Statistics, General 

27.0502 Mathematical Statistics and Probability 

27.0599 Statistics, Other 

27.99 Mathematics and Statistics, Other
 

27.9999 Mathematics and Statistics, Other
 

Physical Sciences 

40.01 Physical Sciences 

40.0101 Physical Sciences 

40.02 Astronomy and Astrophysics 

40.0201 Astronomy 

40.0202 Astrophysics 

40.0203 Planetary Astronomy and Science 

40.0299 Astronomy and Astrophysics, Other 

40.04 Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology 

40.0401 Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology, 

General 

40.0402 Atmospheric Chemistry and Climatology 

40.0403 Atmospheric Physics and Dynamics 

40.0404 Meteorology 

40.0499 Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology, Other 

40.05 Chemistry 

40.0501 Chemistry, General 

40.0502 Analytical Chemistry 

40.0503 Inorganic Chemistry 

40.0504 Organic Chemistry 

40.0506 Physical and Theoretical Chemistry 

40.0507 Polymer Chemistry 

40.0508 Chemical Physics 

— 73 —
 
 

APPENDIX B. NATIONAL SMART GRANT – ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

40.06 Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences 

40.0599 Chemistry, Other 

40.0601 Geology/Earth Science, General 

40.0602 Geochemistry 

40.0603 Geophysics and Seismology 

40.0604 Paleontology 

40.0605 Hydrology and Water Resources Science 

40.0606 Geochemistry and Petrology 

40.0607 Oceanography, Chemical and Physical 

40.0699 Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences, 

Other 

40.08 Physics 

40.0802 Atomic/Molecular Physics
 

40.0804 Elementary Particle Physics 

40.0805 Plasma and High-Temperature Physics 

40.0806 Nuclear Physics 

40.0807 Optics/Optical Sciences 

40.0809 Acoustics 

40.0899 Physics, Other 

40.99 Physical Sciences, Other 

40.9999 Physical Sciences, Other 

40.0808 Solid State and Low-Temperature Physics 

40.0810 Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 

40.0801 Physics, General 

Technology 

15. ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES/TECHNICIANS 

15.00 Engineering Technology, General
 

15.0000 Engineering Technology, General
 

15.01 Architectural Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.0101 Architectural Engineering 

Technology/Technician 

15.02 Civil Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.0201 Civil Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.03 Electrical Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.0303 Electrical, Electronic and Communications 

Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.0305 Telecommunications Technology/Technician 

15.0304 Laser and Optical Technology/Technician 

15.0399 Electrical and Electronic Engineering 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.04 Electromechanical Instrumentation and Maintenance 

Technologies/Technicians 

15.0403 Electromechanical Technology/ 

Electromechanical Engineering Technology 

15.0404 Instrumentation Technology/Technician 

15.0405 Robotics Technology/Technician 

15.0499 Electromechanical and Instrumentation and 

Maintenance Technologies/Technicians, 

Other 

15.0503 Energy Management and Systems 

Technology/Technician 

15.0505 Solar Energy Technology/Technician 

15.0506 Water Quality and Wastewater Treatment 

Management and Recycling 

Technology/Technician 

15.0401 Biomedical Technology/Technician 
 

15.05 Environmental Control Technologies/Technicians 

15.0507 Environmental Engineering Technology/ 

Environmental Technology 

15.0508 Hazardous Materials Management and 

Waste Technology/Technician 

15.06 Industrial Production Technologies/Technicians 

15.0599 Environmental Control 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.0607 Plastics Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.0611 Metallurgical Technology/Technician 

15.0612 Industrial Technology/Technician 

15.0613 Manufacturing Technology/Technician 

15.0699 Industrial Production 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.07 Quality Control and Safety Technologies/Technicians 

15.0701 Occupational Safety and Health 

Technology/Technician 

15.0702 Quality Control Technology/Technician 

15.0703 Industrial Safety Technology/Technician 

15.0704 Hazardous Materials Information Systems 

Technology/Technician 

15.0799 Quality Control and Safety Technologies/ 

Technicians, Other 

15.08 Mechanical Engineering Related 

Technologies/Technicians 

15.0801 Aeronautical/Aerospace Engineering 

Technology/Technician 

15.0803 Automotive Engineering 

Technology/Technician 

15.0805 Mechanical Engineering/Mechanical 

Technology/Technician 

15.0899 Mechanical Engineering Related 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.09 Mining and Petroleum Technologies/Technicians 

15.0901 Mining Technology/Technician 

15.0903 Petroleum Technology/Technician 

15.0999 Mining and Petroleum 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.10 Construction Engineering Technologies 

15.1001 Construction Engineering Technology/ 

Technician 

— 74 —
 
 

 

 

APPENDIX B. NATIONAL SMART GRANT – ELIGIBLE MAJORS 

15.11 Engineering-Related Technologies 
 

15.1102 Surveying Technology/Surveying 

15.1103 Hydraulics and Fluid Power Technology/ 

Technician 

15.1199 Engineering-Related Technologies, Other 

15.1201 Computer Engineering Technology/ 

Technician 

15.1202 Computer Technology/Computer Systems 

Technology 

15.12 Computer Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.1203 Computer Hardware Technology/Technician 

15.1204 Computer Software Technology/Technician 

15.1299 Computer Engineering Technologies/ 

Technicians, Other 

15.13 Drafting/Design Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.1301 Drafting and Design Technology/Technician, 

General 

15.1302 CAD/CADD Drafting and/or Design
 

Technology/Technician 

15.1303 Architectural Drafting and Architectural 

CAD/CADD
 

15.1304 Civil Drafting and Civil Engineering 

CAD/CADD
 

15.1305 Electrical/Electronics Drafting and
 

Electrical/Electronics CAD/CADD
 

15.1306 Mechanical Drafting and Mechanical Drafting 

CAD/CADD
 

15.1399 Drafting/Design Engineering 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.14 Nuclear Engineering Technologies/Technicians 

15.15 Engineering-Related Fields 

15.99 Engineering Technologies/Technicians, Other 

15.1401 Nuclear Engineering Technology/Technician 

15.1501 Engineering/Industrial Management 

15.9999 Engineering Technologies/Technicians, Other 

29. MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES 

29.0101 Military Technologies 

41. SCIENCE TECHNOLOGIES/TECHNICIANS 

41.01 Biology Technician/Biotechnology Laboratory 

Technician 

41.0101 Biology Technician/Biotechnology Laboratory 

Technician 

41.02 Nuclear and Industrial Radiologic 

Technologies/Technicians 

41.0204 Industrial Radiologic Technology/Technician 

41.0205 Nuclear/Nuclear Power
 

Technology/Technician 

41.0299 Nuclear and Industrial Radiologic 

Technologies/Technicians, Other 

41.03 Physical Science Technologies/Technicians 

41.0399 Physical Science Technologies/Technicians, 

Other 

41.99 Science Technologies/Technicians, Other 

41.9999 Science Technologies/Technicians, Other 

29.01 Military Technologies 

41.0301 Chemical Technology/Technician
 

Multidisciplinary Studies 

30. MULTI/INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES 

30.0101 Biological and Physical Sciences 

30.0601 Systems Science and Theory 

30.08 Mathematics and Computer Science 

30.0801 Mathematics and Computer Science 

30.1001 Biopsychology 

30.15 Science, Technology and Society 

30.1501 Science, Technology, and Society 

30.16 Accounting and Computer Science 

30.1601 Accounting and Computer Science 

30.1801 Natural Sciences
 

30.19 Nutrition Sciences (2007–08) 

30.1901 Nutrition Sciences 

30.2401 Neuroscience 

30.01 Biological and Physical Sciences 

30.06 Systems Science and Theory 

30.10 Biopsychology (2007–08)
 

30.18 Natural Sciences
 

30.24 Neuroscience 

30.25 Cognitive Science 

30.2501 Cognitive Science
 

— 75 —
 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 

APPENDIX C 

History of the ACG and National SMART Grant 

Programs 

— 77 —
 
APPENDIX C. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Feb. 1, 2006 

Effective as of July 1, 

2006, for the 2006– 

07 academic year 

Congress passes the Higher Education 

Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA) as part 

of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xp 

d?bill=s109-1932 

An eligible student may receive an 

Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) of 

up to $750 for the first academic year of 

study and up to $1,300 for the second 

academic year of study. To be eligible for 

each academic year, a student must: 

• Be a U.S. citizen; 

• Be a Federal Pell Grant recipient; 

• Be enrolled full-time in a degree 

program; 

• Be enrolled in the first or second 

academic year of his or her program of 

study at a two-year or four-year 

degree-granting institution; 

• Have completed a rigorous secondary 

school program of study established by 

a state or local education agency and 

recognized as such by the secretary 

(after Jan. 1, 2006, if a first-year 

student, and after Jan. 1, 2005, if a 

second-year student); 

• If a first-year student, not have been 

previously enrolled in an 

undergraduate program; and 

• If a second-year student, have at least 

a cumulative 3.0 grade point average 

for the first academic year. 

An eligible student may receive a National 

Science and Mathematics Access to Retain 

Talent (National SMART) Grant of up to 

$4,000 for each of the third and fourth 

academic years of study. To be eligible for 

each academic year, a student must: 

• Be a U.S. citizen; 

• Be a Federal Pell Grant recipient; 

• Be enrolled full-time in a degree 

program; 

• Be enrolled in a four-year degreegranting institution; 

• Major in physical, life or computer 

science, engineering, mathematics, 

technology, or a critical foreign 

language; and 

• Have at least a cumulative 3.0 grade 

point average in course work required 

for the major. 

Sunset provision: The authority to make 

grants under this section shall expire at the 

end of academic year 2010–11. 

Cont’d. next page. 

— 78 — 
APPENDIX C. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 

 

 

Continued from previous page. 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Feb. 8, 2006 President Bush signs Deficit Reduction Act 

of 2005/HERA into law. 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xp 

d?bill=s109-1932 

Improving federal student loan programs 

and increasing benefits to students. The 

Deficit Reduction Act cuts excess 

government subsidies to lenders and 

makes other reforms that will help reduce 

overall student loan costs by about $22 

billion. This will save taxpayers $12 billion 

and increase student aid by $10 billion. 

March 10, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-02) from 

the assistant secretary for postsecondary 

education and the chief operating officer for 

Federal Student Aid explaining changes to 

the Higher Education Act (HEA) Title IV 

loan programs. 

http://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/GEN0602.html 

The Department explains the effects of the 

HEA on the federal loan programs: the 

William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan 

Program, the Federal Perkins Loan 

Program, and the Federal Family Education 

Loan (FFEL) Program. 

March 14, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-03) issued 

as a correction to GEN-06-02. 

http://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/GEN0603.html 

Corrects loan limits on page 7 of the GEN06-02 attachment. 

April 5, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-04) from 

the assistant secretary for postsecondary 

education and the chief operating officer for 

Federal Student Aid on ACG and National 

SMART Grant programs. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/ 

GEN0604.html 

The Department explains the process for 

administering grants to institutions of higher 

education through a letter posted on the 

Department's website. 

April 27, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-05) from 

the assistant secretary for postsecondary 

education and the chief operating officer for 

Federal Student Aid on changes made by 

the HERA. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachme 

nts/GEN0605.pdf 

The Department explains that HERA 

amends the definition of an “academic 

year” to require a minimum of 30 hours of 

instructional time for a program that 

measures its length in credit hours or a 

minimum of 24 weeks of instruction for a 

program that measures its length in clock 

hours, and for an undergraduate program 

at least 24 semester or trimester hours (or 

36 quarter hours) for a course that 

measures time in credit hours, or 900 clock 

hours for a course of study that measures 

its program length in clock hours. 

May 2006 Fact Sheet on student eligibility options. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiv 

eness/ac-smart.html 

May 2, 2006 Press Release—The Department of 

Education Announces Student Eligibility 

Options for New Academic Grants. 

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/200 

6/05/05022006.html 

Cont’d. next page. 

— 79 — 
APPENDIX C. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 

 

Continued from previous page. 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

May 2, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-06) from 

the Office of Postsecondary Education and 

Federal Student Aid providing the list of 

academic majors eligible for the National 

SMART Grants for the 2006–07 award 

year. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/ 

GEN0606.html 

The Department announces guidelines on 

how students will qualify as having 

successfully completed a rigorous 

secondary school program of study. This 

letter provides the list of the instructional 

programs that qualify as eligible majors, 

including critical foreign language majors, 

for the National SMART Grant program. 

These fields of study qualify as eligible 

majors for the National SMART Grant 

program to the extent that a student is 

enrolled in a bachelor's degree or a 

graduate degree program that includes at 

least three academic years of 

undergraduate education. 

May 2, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-08) from 

Secretary Spellings describing plans for 

implementation. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/ 

GEN0608.html 

Secretary Spellings outlines the initial 

eligibility requirements for ACGs and 

National SMART Grants and the 

Department’s options for meeting the 

“rigorous curriculum” requirement in 2006– 

07, including recognizing all existing 

Advanced or Honors diploma programs, the 

State Scholars Initiative (SSI), a set of 

courses similar to the SSI, and an 

Advanced Placement (AP) or International 

Baccalaureate (IB) course and test option. 

May 24, 2006 Guidance on dual enrollment questions. In establishing the ACG program, Congress 

restricted eligibility for students to receive a 

first-year ACG to a student who “has not 

been previously enrolled in a program of 

undergraduate education.” See 

§401A(c)(3)(A)(ii) of the HEA. This 

restriction does not apply when a student 

enrolled in one or more college-level 

undergraduate courses while still in high 

school, as long as the student was not 

admitted into a formal program of study at 

the postsecondary education institution. 

June 1, 2006 Deadline for states to establish and submit 

to the secretary of education an alternate 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study for recognition in the 2006–07 

academic year. 

June 20, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-10) from 

Secretary Spellings on implementation 

guidance related to HERA changes. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/-

attachments/GEN0610.pdf 

As processing of the 2006–07 Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA) began in January 2006, forms, 

systems, and processes at the Department 

and Institutions did not account for 2006– 

07 changes to HERA. Therefore, additional 

guidance is issued (e.g., re: increased 

maximum Adjusted Gross Income for an 

applicant to be eligible for an auto-zero 

Estimated Family Contribution [EFC]). 

Cont’d. next page. 

— 80 — 
APPENDIX C. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 

 

 

Continued from previous page. 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

June 21, 2006 Press Release—Secretary Spellings 

announces July 1 availability of $790 

million in new grants for higher education. 

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/200 

6/06/06212006.html 

June 29, 2006 Department posts information online for 

students reviewing the eligibility 

requirements for the ACG and National 

SMART Grant programs. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/ 

competitiveness/ac-smart2.html 

Late June 2006 States, colleges, and students will receive 

notice of programs that have been 

recognized as rigorous for grant purposes 

by the secretary of education for the 2006– 

07 academic year. 

July 1, 2006 Beginning July 1, 2006, potentially eligible 

students are notified via email and regular 

mail that they should submit additional 

information to the Department to determine 

their ACG eligibility. 

July 3, 2006 

Effective Aug. 2, 

2006, for the 2006– 

07 academic year. 

Interim Final Regulations are posted in the 

Federal Register (Vol. 71, No. 127) and 

comments are requested on or before Aug. 

17, 2006. 

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/ 

proprule/2006-3/070306a.html 

The secretary amends Title 34 to establish 

regulations for the ACG and National 

SMART Grant programs. The ACG and 

National SMART Grant programs specify 

the eligibility requirements for a student to 

apply for and receive an award under these 

programs for the 2006–07 award year. 

These Interim Final Regulations also 

identify the roles of institutions of higher 

education (institutions), state education 

agencies (SEAs), and local education 

agencies (LEAs) in administering the 

programs. [These Interim Final Regulations 

will be effective for the 2006–07 award 

year. The secretary is, however, soliciting 

comments on all aspects of these Interim 

Final Regulations and may, for the 2007– 

08 award year, amend and finalize them as 

appropriate in response to comments 

received. For regulations that would take 

effect for the 2008–09 award year and 

subsequent award years, the secretary 

intends to conduct negotiated rulemaking, 

as required under Section 492 of the HEA.] 

The ACG and National SMART Grant 

program Interim Final Regulations duplicate 

those of the Federal Pell Grant program to 

the extent practicable given the similar 

nature of these programs. Like the Federal 

Pell Grant program, the ACG and National 

SMART Grant programs provide for direct 

grants from the federal government to 

students to assist in paying their college 

Cont’d. next page. 

— 81 — 
APPENDIX C. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 

Continued from previous page. 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

expenses. In addition, a student must be 

receiving a Federal Pell Grant to be eligible 

for an ACG or National SMART Grant. The 

secretary will be administering the ACG 

and National SMART Grant programs using 

the same delivery system that the secretary 

uses for the Federal Pell Grant program. 

The secretary expects that this coordination 

of administrative requirements will assist 

participating institutions in administering 

these programs, reduce the amount of 

additional institutional administrative 

burden and paperwork, and simplify the 

process for students to apply for assistance 

under these programs. 

July 3, 2006–Aug. 

17, 2006 

Comments received from institutions and 

other organizations. 

Aug. 18, 2006 Announcement in Federal Register (Vol. 

71, No. 160) of negotiated rulemaking 

sessions on the changes to the HEA and 

nominations of speakers solicited on or 

before Nov. 9, 2006. Announcement of four 

regional hearings to be held in fall 2006 to 

help determine an agenda for the upcoming 

sessions. 

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/ 

proprule/2006-3/081806a.html 

Aug. 25, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-15) from 

Acting Asst. Secretary Manning, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, on revised list of 

eligible academic majors. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/Gen0615. 

html 

Revised the list of eligible academic majors 

previously provided (GEN-06-06) to include 

certain majors that were inadvertently 

omitted. 

Fall 2006 Institutions of higher education will verify 

student eligibility using records of high 

school performance. Student aid will be 

disbursed. 

Sept. 19, 2006–Nov. 

8, 2006 

Regional hearings on upcoming agenda for 

negotiated rulemaking sessions for revised 

regulations for the 2008–09 award year. 

Cont’d. next page. 

— 82 —
 
APPENDIX C. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 

Continued from previous page. 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Oct. 20, 2006 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-06-18) from 

the acting assistant secretary for 

postsecondary education providing 

guidance to institutions concerning 

implementation of the "academic year" 

definition within the ACG and National 

SMART Grant programs for the 2006–07 

and 2007–08 award years. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/ 

GEN0618.html 

The Department offered two approaches to 

determine “academic year,” assuming that 

there were 30 weeks of instructional time 

for each increment of credit hours that 

makes up the institution’s Title IV academic 

year (e.g., 24 credit hours equals 30 weeks 

of instruction, or 30 credit hours equals 30 

weeks of instruction), OR determine the 

actual number of weeks of instruction by 

reviewing the student’s record to see how 

many weeks it took the student to complete 

the credit hours earned (subtracting credits 

for AP or IB course work, testing out, life 

experience). Also addressed fourth-year 

students who had exceeded four times the 

number of academic credits in an academic 

program that required more than that for 

completion. 

Nov. 1, 2006 Deadline for states to establish and submit 

to the secretary of education additional 

rigorous secondary school programs of 

study for recognition in the 2007–08 

academic year. 

Nov. 1, 2006 

Effective 2007–08 

award year 

Final Regulations published in the Federal 

Register (Vol. 71, No. 211) with responses 

to the 80 comments received between July 

3, 2006 and Aug. 17, 2006. 

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/ 

finrule/2006-4/110106a.html 

Revisions to regulations, developed 

through the analysis of comments received 

on the Interim Final Regulations published 

on July 3, 2006. The secretary invited 

comments on the interim Final Regulations 

and received 80 comments. The ACG 

regulations respond to the growing number 

of states and local education agencies that 

are trying to increase students’ access to 

rigorous classes in high school. The 

package includes a new provision that 

allows state and local education agencies 

to submit rigorous curriculum for approval 

beyond the following year. Other provisions 

clarify how to account for Advanced 

Placement (AP), International 

Baccalaureate (IB) and dual enrollment 

credits, and how to determine GPAs for 

students who attend schools or institutions 

that do not issue numeric or letter grades. 

The National SMART Grant regulations 

include a new provision explaining how an 

institution can submit petitions to have 

additional majors included as National 

SMART Grant–eligible majors. Other 

provisions clarify the existing regulations 

that require National SMART recipients to 

be enrolled in and making progress toward 

a National SMART Grant–eligible major. 

Jan. 2007 States receive notice of rigorous secondary 

school programs of study that have been 

recognized by the secretary of education 

for the 2007–08 academic year. 

Cont’d. next page. 

— 83 — 
APPENDIX C. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 

 

 

 

Continued from previous page. 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Feb. 5–7, 2007 ACG/National SMART Negotiated 

Rulemaking, First Session. 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/ 

hearulemaking/2007/acg.html 

Negotiators discussed: 

• Rigorous secondary school programs; 

• Mandatory institutional participation; 

• Eligibility of certificate programs for 

ACGs; 

• Requirement that Pell Grants and 

ACGs/National SMART Grants be 

dispersed at the same institution when 

awarded within the same term; 

• Grade point average; 

• Transfer students 

• Course work 

• Timing of calculation 

• Eligibility for disbursement 

• Interpretation of previously enrolled 

students for eligibility; 

• College credits earned in high 

school 

• Treatment of AP/IB courses and 

credits 

• Majors; 

• Additional majors and CIP codes 

• Institutional flexibility in 

determining majors 

• Clarifying successful completion of 

rigorous secondary school program of 

study; and 

• Departmental monitoring 

disbursements of awards. 

March 5–7, 2007 ACG/National SMART Negotiated 

Rulemaking, Second Session. 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hear 

ulemaking/2007/acg.html 

Negotiators discussed: 

 Recognition of rigorous secondary 

school programs; 

 Mandatory participation by 

postsecondary institutions; 

 Eligibility of certificate programs for 

ACGs; 

 Requirement that Federal Pell Grants 

and ACGs or National SMART Grants 

be disbursed at the same institution; 

 Grade Point Average (GPA)—transfer 

students; 

 GPA—course work, timing of 

calculation, and eligibility for 

disbursement; 

 Academic year progression; 

Cont’d. next page. 

— 84 — 
APPENDIX C. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 

 

 

Continued from previous page. 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

 Interpreting prior enrollment—dualenrollment and early college programs; 

 Eligible majors and CIP codes 

expansion; 

 Institutional flexibility in determining 

timing of student declaration of eligible 

major; and 

 Completion of a Rigorous Secondary 

School Program of Study. 

April 16–18, 2007 ACG/National SMART Negotiated 

Rulemaking, Third Session. 

Regularly updated Information for students and parents. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/ 

ac-smart-families.html 

Provides overview of the programs, 

outlines eligibility requirements, and lists 

options for meeting the rigorous curriculum 

requirement. 

Aug. 7, 2007 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

for the ACG and National SMART Grant 

programs in the Federal Register (Vol. 72, 

No. 151). 

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/ 

proprule/2007-3/080707a.html 

The secretary proposed to amend the 

regulations for the ACG and National 

SMART Grant programs. The secretary 

amended these regulations to reduce 

administrative burden for program 

participants and to clarify program 

requirements. 

Sept. 6, 2007 Comments on NPRM due to the 

Department. 

Sept. 24, 2007 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-07-06) from 

the assistant secretary for postsecondary 

education, providing a revised list of eligible 

majors for the 2007–08 academic year. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/ 

GEN0706.html 

Additional eligible majors include Food 

Science, Food Technology and Processing, 

Environmental Science, Fishing and 

Fisheries Sciences and Management, 

Forest Sciences and Biology, Wood 

Science and Wood Products/Pulp and 

Paper Technology, Wildlife and Wildlands 

Science and Management, Biopsychology, 

Nutrition Sciences, and Physiological 

Psychology/Psychobiology. 

Oct. 9, 2007 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-07-06) from 

the assistant secretary for postsecondary 

education, on course enrollment 

requirements for payment in the National 

SMART Grant program. 

http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/ 

GEN0707.html 

An otherwise eligible student can receive a 

National SMART Grant for a payment 

period only if the student is enrolled in at 

least one course that meets the specific 

requirements of the student's National 

SMART Grant-eligible major. 

Cont’d. next page. 

— 85 —
 
APPENDIX C. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 

Continued from previous page. 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Oct. 26, 2007 Press release announcing ACG/National 

SMART Grant data results from the 2006– 

07 academic year: 

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/ 

2007/10/10262007.html 

Office of Postsecondary Education, Year 1 

results by state: 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/smart/ 

performance.html 

The secretary announced the first-year 

national data results from the ACGs and 

National SMART Grants. Results show that 

in the first year, $233,038,410 in ACGs 

were awarded to 299,089 students 

nationwide, and $195,544,735 in National 

SMART Grants were awarded to 60,976 

students. Also announced was the goal to 

double the number of students receiving 

ACGs and National SMART Grants by 

2010–11 and to continue to work with 

states, colleges, and high schools to raise 

awareness about ACGs and National 

SMART Grants. 

Oct. 29, 2007 

Effective July 1, 2008 

[Institutions that 

administer the ACG 

and National SMART 

Grant programs may, 

at their discretion, 

choose to implement 

these Final 

Regulations in their 

entirety, or by 

section, on or after 

Nov. 1, 2007.] 

Final Regulations published in Federal 

Register (Vol. 72, No. 208). 

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/ 

finrule/2007-4/102907a.html 

The secretary amends the regulations for 

the ACG and National SMART Grant 

programs to reduce administrative burden 

for program participants and to clarify 

program requirements. 

Feb. 6, 2008 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-08-02) from 

the assistant secretary for postsecondary 

education, on the process for adding 

eligible majors for 2008–09. 

Explains the process by which 

postsecondary institutions can request 

additional majors to be included on the list 

of eligible majors for the National SMART 

Grant program for the 2008–09 award year. 

April 17, 2008 H.R. 5715: Ensuring Continued Access to 

Student Loans Act of 2008 (ECASLA) 

passed by House of Representatives. 

http://thomas.loc.gov 

April 30, 2008 ECASLA passed by Senate. 

http://thomas.loc.gov 

May 7, 2008 

Effective Jan. 1, 2009 

ECASLA signed into law by President 

Bush. 

http://thomas.loc.gov 

• Strikes reference to “academic year” in 

current law that ties first-, second-, 

third-, and fourth-year eligibility for, as 

applicable, ACGs and National 

SMART Grants to the student's 

academic year standing. 

• Removes the stipulation that ACG- and 

National SMART Grant–eligible 

students must be U.S. citizens and 

applies the same citizenship criteria as 

for the Federal Pell Grant program 

(permitting certain eligible noncitizens 

to qualify). 

Cont’d. next page. 

— 86 — 
APPENDIX C. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 

 

 

 

Continued from previous page. 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

• Authorizes ACG and National SMART 

Grant eligibility for students enrolled no 

less than half-time and provides for a 

ratable reduction in the award for a 

student attending less than full-time in 

the same manner as for Pell Grant– 

eligible students who attend on less 

than a full-time basis. 

• Authorizes ACG eligibility for students 

attending a postsecondary certificate 

program that is no less than one year 

in length, or no less than two years in 

length, at a two- or four-year degreegranting institution. 

• Authorizes an additional $4,000 

National SMART Grant award for the 

fifth year of a baccalaureate degree 

program in one of the requisite majors 

that requires students to complete a 

full five years of course work. 

• Directs all surplus funds from the 

programs back into the ACG/National 

SMART Grant programs. 

June 19, 2008 Dear Colleague Letter (GEN-08-09) from 

the principal deputy assistant secretary, 

Office of Postsecondary Education, 

summarizing ECASLA. 

June 20, 2008 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-08-09) from 

the principal deputy assistant secretary, on 

the list of eligible majors for 2008–09. 

The list of eligible academic majors as 

published in Dear Colleague letter GEN-07-

06 carry over unchanged to the 2008–09 

award year. 

Aug. 1, 2008 The Department’s Office of Inspector 

General publishes its Audit of the 

Department’s Process for Disbursing 

Academic Competitiveness Grants and 

National Science and Mathematics Access 

to Retain Talent Grants. 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/ 

auditreports/fy2008/a19h0011.pdf 

Aug. 14, 2008 H.R. 4137: The Higher Education 

Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA) enacted 

and reauthorized the HEA of 1965. 

 Changes the effective date for all 

program-related revisions made in 

H.R. 5715 from Jan. 1, 2009, to July 1, 

2009. 

 States given increased control over 

defining rigorous secondary school 

programs of study. 

Cont’d. next page. 

— 87 —
 
APPENDIX C. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 

 

 

 

Continued from previous page. 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

Jan. 19, 2009 The Department of Education releases the 

Academic Competitiveness and National 

SMART Grant Programs: First-Year 

Lessons Learned report. 

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/ 

acsmartyear1/index.html 

March 25, 2009 The Government Accountability Office 

releases its Recent Changes to Eligibility 

Requirements and Additional Efforts to 

Promote Awareness Could Increase 

Academic Competitiveness and SMART 

Grant Participation report. 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-343 

March 26, 2009 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-09-03) from 

the acting assistant secretary on the 

process of adding eligible majors for 

2009–10 National SMART Grants. 

Explains the process by which 

postsecondary institutions can request 

additional majors or add a liberal arts 

curriculum to the list of eligible majors for 

the National SMART Grant program for 

the 2009–10 award year. 

May 1, 2009 Interim Final Rules are posted in the 

Federal Register. Comments are requested 

by June 1, 2009. 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/ 

E9-10094.pdf 

May 12, 2009 The Department’s Office of Postsecondary 

Education releases its Academic 

Competitiveness Grant and National 

SMART Grant Programs End-of-Year 

Report for the 2007–08 academic year. 

http://www.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/dat 

a/pell-2007-08/ac-smart-eoy-07-08.pdf 

June 1, 2009 Comments on Interim Final Rules due to 

the Department. Two stakeholder 

organizations responded. 

June 30, 2009 Correction to Interim Final Rules published 

in the Federal Register. 

July 7, 2009 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-09-09) from 

the acting assistant secretary on the list of 

eligible majors for 2009–10. 

The list of eligible academic majors and 

two liberal arts curricula newly designated 

for National SMART Grant eligibility in the 

2009–10 award year. 

Nov. 23, 2009 Publication of the Final Regulations in the 

Federal Register (Vol. 74, No. 224). 

Implements H.R. 5715 (see May 7, 2008) 

and H.R. 4137 (see Aug. 14, 2009). 

Cont’d. next page. 

— 88 — 
APPENDIX C. HISTORY OF THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 

 

Continued from previous page. 

Date Passed or 

Issued/Date 

Effective 

Legislation, Regulation, or Guidance Purpose and Key Provisions 

April 2, 2010 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-10-04) from 

the acting assistant secretary on the 

process of adding eligible majors for 2010– 

11 National SMART Grants. 

The process by which institutions can 

request that an additional major be 

included for 2010–11. 

June 18, 2010 Dear Colleague letter (GEN-10-12) from 

the acting assistant secretary on the list of 

eligible majors for 2010–11 National 

SMART Grants. 

The Classification of Instructional 

Programs (CIP) was updated in 2010 and 

includes many new CIP codes within the 

National SMART Grant-eligible fields. The 

secretary has determined that 67 of the 

new CIP 2010 codes meet the 

requirements to be designated as an 

eligible major. The list of eligible majors is 

expanded to add 67 new CIP 2010 codes 

for the 2010–11 award year. 

— 89 —
 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 

APPENDIX D 

Data Sources 

Pell, Academic Competitiveness, and National SMART Grant Award Data 

The Office of Student Financial Aid, U.S. Department of Education, provided the data used in 

this report. The files contain student-level records of all Pell Grant recipients in 2006–07 through 

2009–10 merged with information on Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National 

Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grant awards and information from 

the Free Application for Student Aid (FAFSA). MPR Associates, Inc., merged the files across 

years to determine renewal rates. The files contain data on all Pell Grants awarded at one of the 

institutions eligible to participate in the ACG or National SMART Grant programs—4.9 million 

students in 2006–07, 5.4 million in 2007–08, 6.0 million in 2008–09, and 8.0 million in 2009– 

10. The final analysis file identified those who received an ACG, a National SMART Grant, or 

only a Pell Grant. Only those records that indicated that the award had been disbursed to the 

student were included. There is no comparable federal data source for students who did not 

receive any of these grants. 

Because data on disbursements and cancellations are added to the files on an ongoing basis, other 

published reports based on earlier or later versions of the files may show slightly different 

numbers of grants. The file used for 2006–07 was dated Sept. 21, 2007, the file used for 2007–08 

was dated Nov. 25, 2008, the file used for 2008–09 was dated Feb. 17, 2010, and the file used for 

2009–10 was dated Feb. 10, 2011. By September of each year, most financial aid data for the 

previous academic year have been finalized. Changes after that are typically minor. 

Although ACGs and National SMART Grants are awarded only to students with Pell Grants, a 

small number of ACG or National SMART Grant records could not be matched to a Pell Grant 

record in this file (about 450 each year). For 2009–10, a larger number could not be matched 

(approximately 10 percent). For purpose of analysis, it was assumed that these students were 

ACG or National SMART Grant recipients and that data errors prohibited a match. 

Some of the student-reported fields from the FAFSA were missing. Consequently, the student 

totals on tables using these variables may differ slightly from the totals on other tables. 

Some ACG or National SMART Grant recipients transferred during the academic year and 

received these grants at two different colleges (about 2,000 in 2006–07; about 3,000 in both 

2007–08 and 2008–09; and about 5,000 in 2009–10). The tables that show the number of 

— 91 —
 
APPENDIX D. DATA SOURCES 

students by type of institution or state include these students at both institutions and, therefore, 

have slightly higher totals than the tables based on unduplicated, unique student records. Notes 

on the tables indicate whether the counts are duplicated or unduplicated. 

Finally, some students received an ACG in the first term (as second-year students) and a 

National SMART Grant in the second term (as third-year students). These students are shown in 

both the ACG and the National SMART Grant totals in all tables. 

2003–04 and 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (NPSAS:04 

and NPSAS:08) 

NPSAS data were used in this study to describe science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) participation. The NPSAS is a comprehensive study that examines how 

students and their families pay for postsecondary education. It includes nationally representative 

samples of undergraduates, graduate students, and first-professional students; and students 

attending public and private less-than-two-year institutions, community colleges, four-year 

colleges, and major universities. Students who receive financial aid as well as those who do not 

receive financial aid participate in NPSAS. Comprehensive student interviews and administrative 

records, with exceptional detail concerning student financial aid, are available for academic years 

1986–87, 1989–90, 1992–93, 1995–96, 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08. Additional detail 

about these studies can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas/. 

— 92 —
 
 

APPENDIX E 

Supplemental Tables on ACG and National 

SMART Grant Program Participation by 

Institution Type: 2009–10 

— 93 —
 
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE: 2009 –10 

Table E-1.—	 Number and percentage of eligible institutions participating in the ACG and SMART Grant 

Table E-1.—programs: 2009–10 

ACG SMART Grant 

Type of institution 

Total 

eligible Number Percent Number Percent

 Total* 4,069 3,135 77.0 1,497 36.8 

Two-year 

Total 1,936 1,233 63.7 † † 

Public two-year 1,115 929 83.3 † † 

Private nonprofit two-year 176 63 35.8 † † 

For-profit two-year 645 241 37.4 † † 

Four-year 

Total 2,120 1,889 89.1 1,496 70.6 

Public four-year 617 585 94.8 532 86.2 

Private nonprofit four-year 1,276 1,115 87.4 856 67.1 

For-profit four-year 227 189 83.3 108 47.6 

† Not applicable.
 

* Includes 13 institutions that could not be categorized.
 

NOTE: Participating institutions are those that disbursed at least one ACG or SMART Grant. Institutions with multiple
 

branches are counted separately when the information was reported by the campus. Many community college systems and 

for-profit institutions with multiple campus locations did not provide information at the campus level.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 

(Feb. 10, 2011).
 

— 94 —
 
— 95 —
 

Table E-2. —Number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs or SMART Grants at participating institutions: 2009–1

Pell Grant recipients ACG recipients SMART Grant recipients 

Program participation and type of institution 

Total 

number 

First- and 

secondyear 

students 

Third- and 

fourthyear 

students* 

Total 

number 

As percent 

of firstand 

secondyear Pell 

Grants 

Total 

number 

As percent 

of thirdand 

fourthyear Pell 

Grants* 

Participated in ACG program 7,489,815 5,466,204 1,708,620 636,355 11.6 114,631 6.7 

Participated in ACG program only 

Total 3,700,586 3,309,235 83,295 170,636 5.2 † † 

Public four-year 193,946 165,815 27,753 12,549 7.6 † † 

Private nonprofit four-year 103,169 65,126 37,910 10,881 16.7 † † For-profit four-year 170,139 151,985 17,632 3,763 2.5 † † Public two-year 2,834,620 2,538,042 0 133,832 5.3 † † 

Private nonprofit two-year 22,222 20,761 0 1,744 8.4 † † For-profit two-year 354,368 345,700 0 7,460 2.2 † † 

Participated in SMART Grant 

 program Total 3,813,391 2,169,380 1,636,992 465,719 21.5 115,168 7.0 

Public four-year 2,019,514 942,188 1,075,670 316,676 33.6 77,787 7.2 Private nonprofit four-year 846,406 451,255 394,256 132,352 29.3 26,902 6.8 For-profit four-year 947,213 775,710 167,066 16,551 2.1 10,476 6.3 

† Not applicable.* Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants).NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2009–10 (1 percent of ACG recipientSMART Grant recipients). Participating colleges are those that disbursed at least one ACG or SMART Grant. Class level is institution-reported Grants but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions were excluded from the numbebut included in the totals.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

 

APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 
 

GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE: 2009 –10 
 

Table E-3. —Average number of Pell Grants, ACGs, and SMART Grants at participating institutions: 2009–10 

Pell Grants 

Program participation 

and type of institution Total 

First- and 

second-year 

students 

Third- and 

fourth-year 

students* ACGs 

SMART 

Grants 

Participated in ACG program 2,389 1,744 545 203 37 

Participated in ACG program only 

Total 2,223 1,988 50 102 † 

Public four-year 3,179 2,718 455 206 † 

Private nonprofit four-year 379 239 139 40 † 

For-profit four-year 1,956 1,747 203 43 † 

Public two-year 3,051 2,732 0 144 † 

Private nonprofit two-year 358 335 0 28 † 

For-profit two-year 1,470 1,434 0 31 † 

Participated in SMART Grant program 

Total 2,547 1,449 1,094 311 77 

Public four-year 3,796 1,771 2,022 595 146 

Private nonprofit four-year 989 527 461 155 31 

For-profit four-year 8,770 7,183 1,547 153 97 

† Not applicable.
 

* Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants).
 

NOTE: Participating colleges are those that disbursed at least one ACG or SMART Grant. Class level is institution-reported 

for ACGs and SMART Grants but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at 

two-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level but included in the totals.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 

(Feb. 10, 2011).
 

— 96 —
 
— 97 —
 

Table E-4. —Percentage distribution of institutions participating in the ACG and SMART Grant programs by the number of gran

Number of ACGs 

Type of institution 1–10 11–50 51–100 101–200 201–500 501–1,000 

Mo

ACG-participating 

Total 12.8 23.5 18.1 20.7 14.6 6.5 

Public four-year 2.9 6.8 9.1 15.0 24.4 25.5 Private nonprofit four-year 9.6 22.0 23.0 28.6 14.1 2.0 For-profit four-year 20.1 40.7 12.2 13.8 9.0 3.2 

Public two-year 10.1 27.6 22.1 21.4 14.5 3.0 

Private nonprofit two-year 39.7 44.4 9.5 6.3 0.0 0.0 

For-profit two-year 47.3 36.5 8.3 5.4 2.5 0.0 

Number of SMART Grants 

SMART Grant–participating 

Total 27.2 43.6 11.4 9.6 5.6 1.7 

Public four-year 10.9 30.8 19.4 19.9 13.2 3.9 

Private nonprofit four-year 37.1 51.2 6.4 3.5 1.3 0.4 For-profit four-year 27.8 47.2 12.0 6.5 2.8 1.9 

NOTE: Participating colleges are those that disbursed at least one ACG or SMART Grant. Institutions with multiple branches are counted separainformation was reported by the campus. Many community college systems and for-profit institutions with multiple campus locations did not provcampus level. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
—

Table E-5.—

— 98 —
 

Table E-5. Percentage distribution of institutions participating in the ACG and SMART Grant programs by the percentage of P

recipients who received ACGs or SMART Grants: 2009–10 

Type of institution Less than 2% 2–4.9% 5–9.9% 10–19.9% 20–29.9% 30–39.9% 40% 

Percent of first- and second-year Pell Grant students with ACGs 

ACG-participating 

Total 16.1 16.1 13.1 14.2 8.7 8.2 

Public four-year 2.7 5.1 8.2 15.9 14.7 16.2 

Private nonprofit four-year 3.0 3.9 5.9 14.2 13.6 13.6 

For-profit four-year 41.8 20.1 15.9 15.3 3.7 1.1 

Public two-year 24.5 34.4 25.0 14.1 1.4 0.3 

Private nonprofit two-year 17.5 17.5 14.3 27.0 11.1 4.8 

For-profit two-year 54.4 24.1 10.0 6.2 3.7 0.8 

Percent of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant students with SMART Grants 

SMART Grant–participating 

Total 18.3 31.7 25.9 16.8 3.9 1.5 

Public four-year 16.0 37.6 27.8 14.7 1.9 0.9 

Private nonprofit four-year 19.9 29.2 25.4 17.3 4.8 1.4 

For-profit four-year 17.6 22.2 20.4 23.1 7.4 4.6 

NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2009–10 (1 percent of ACG recipients SMART Grant recipients). Participating colleges are those that disbursed at least one ACG or SMART Grant. Institutions with multiple branches when the information was reported by the campus. Many community college systems and for-profit institutions with multiple campus locations diat the campus level. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants but student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class two-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011). 
 

 

 

APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE: 2009 –10 

Table E-6.—	 Number and percentage distribution of ACG and Pell Grant recipients by class level and 

Table E-6.—percentage of first- and second-year Pell Grant recipients with ACGs: 2009–10 

Type of grant and institution 

First-time, 

 first-year Other first-year Second-year 

Total first-

 and second-year 

Number of recipients 

ACG 297,494 194,555 139,497 631,546 

Public four-year 158,274 92,300 76,379 326,953 

Private nonprofit four-year 61,665 43,046 37,672 142,383 

For-profit four-year 11,068 5,671 3,385 20,124 

Public two-year 61,643 50,433 20,363 132,439 

Private nonprofit two-year 899 603 364 1,866 

For-profit two-year 3,604 2,444 1,331 7,379 

Pell Grant only, no ACG 1,685,032 1,616,924 1,465,401 4,767,357 

Pell Grant (with or without ACG) 2,057,329 1,667,273 1,593,105 5,317,707 

Public four-year 435,684 201,829 442,517 1,080,030 

Private nonprofit four-year 198,625 104,260 200,684 503,569 

For-profit four-year 340,501 354,015 192,067 886,583 

Public two-year 919,929 845,572 707,916 2,473,417 

Private nonprofit two-year 6,958 7,229 6,071 20,258 

For-profit two-year 143,355 146,111 43,269 332,735 

Percentage distribution of recipients 

ACG 47.1 30.8 22.1 100.0 

Public four-year 48.4 28.2 23.4 100.0 

Private nonprofit four-year 43.3 30.2 26.5 100.0 

For-profit four-year 55.0 28.2 16.8 100.0 

Public two-year 46.5 38.1 15.4 100.0 

Private nonprofit two-year 48.2 32.3 19.5 100.0 

For-profit two-year 48.8 33.1 18.0 100.0 

Pell Grant only, no ACG 35.3 33.9 30.7 100.0 

Pell Grant (with or without ACG) 38.7 31.4 30.0 100.0 

Percent of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs 

Total 14.5 11.7 8.8 11.9 

Public four-year 36.3 45.7 17.3 30.3 

Private nonprofit four-year 31.0 41.3 18.8 28.3 

For-profit four-year 3.3 1.6 1.8 2.3 

Public two-year 6.7 6.0 2.9 5.4 

Private nonprofit two-year 12.9 8.3 6.0 9.2 

For-profit two-year 2.5 1.7 3.1 2.2 

NOTE: Includes only participating colleges (those that disbursed at least one ACG). Class level is institution-reported for 

ACG recipients but student-reported for Pell Grant recipients. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year 

institutions were excluded. Detail for percentages may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 

(Feb. 10, 2011). 

— 99 —
 
 

 

 

APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE: 2009 –10 

Table E-7.—	 Number and percentage distribution of SMART Grant and Pell Grant recipients by class level 

Table E-7.—and percentage of third- and fourth-year Pell Grant recipients with SMART Grants: 2009–10 

Type of grant and institution Third-year Fourth-year* 

Total thirdand fourth-year* 

Number of recipients 

SMART Grant 60,734 54,293 115,027 

Public four-year 39,894 37,794 77,688 

Private nonprofit four-year 13,735 13,137 26,872 

For-profit four-year 7,102 3,362 10,464 

Pell Grant only, no SMART Grant	 840,359 768,831 1,609,190 

Pell Grant (with or without SMART Grant) 894,638 808,469 1,703,107 

Public four-year 546,735 548,561 1,095,296 

Private nonprofit four-year 222,944 205,621 428,565 

For-profit four-year 124,959 54,287 179,246 

Percentage distribution of recipients 

SMART Grant 52.8 47.2 100.0 

Public four-year 51.4 48.6 100.0 

Private nonprofit four-year 51.1 48.9 100.0 

For-profit four-year 67.9 32.1 100.0 

Pell Grant only, no SMART Grant 52.2 47.8 100.0 

Pell Grant (with or without SMART Grant) 52.5 47.5 100.0 

Percent of Pell Grant recipients with SMART Grants 

Total 6.8 6.7 6.8 

Public four-year 7.3 6.9 7.1 

Private nonprofit four-year 6.2 6.4 6.3 

For-profit four-year 5.7 6.2 5.8 

* Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants).
 

NOTE: Participating colleges are those that disbursed at least one SMART Grant. Class level is institution-reported for
 

SMART Grant recipients but student-reported for Pell Grant recipients. Detail for percentages may not sum to totals
 

because of rounding.
 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 

(Feb. 10, 2011).
 

— 100 —
 
 

 

APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE: 2009 –10 

Table E-8.—	 Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients by 

Table E-8.—gender, citizenship, and age and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs or SMART 

Table E-8.—Grants: 2009–10 

Gender Citizenship Age 

Class level 

and type of grant Male Female U.S. citizen 

Eligible 

noncitizen 

18 or 

younger 19–23 

24 or 

older 

Number of recipients 

First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 245,055 386,110 606,768 24,774 291,891 338,617 1,026 

Pell Grant–only

 recipients 1,710,138 3,052,202 4,498,078 267,890 449,995 1,813,599 2,503,650 

Total Pell Grant 

 recipients 1,926,807 3,385,562 5,027,146 289,168 703,015 2,104,755 2,509,813 

Third- and fourth-year students* 

SMART Grant 

 recipients 66,846 48,147 106,417 8,598 828 75,859 38,337 

Pell Grant–only

 recipients 615,173 993,282 1,536,038 72,053 1,428 780,794 826,953 

Total Pell Grant 

 recipients 668,175 1,034,168 1,623,307 78,691 1,923 844,811 856,357 

Percentage distribution 

 of recipients 

First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 38.8 61.2 96.1 3.9 46.2 53.6 0.2 

Pell Grant–only

 recipients 35.9 64.1 94.4 5.6 9.4 38.0 52.5 

Total Pell Grant 

 recipients 36.3 63.7 94.6 5.4 13.2 39.6 47.2 

Third- and fourth-year students* 

SMART Grant 

 recipients 58.1 41.9 92.5 7.5 0.7 66.0 33.3 

Pell Grant–only

 recipients 38.2 61.8 95.5 4.5 0.1 48.5 51.4 

Total Pell Grant 

 recipients 39.3 60.7 95.4 4.6 0.1 49.6 50.3 

Percent of Pell Grant recipients 

 with ACGs or SMART Grants 

First- and second-year 

 students with ACGs 12.7 11.4 12.1 8.6 41.5 16.1 0.0 

Third- and fourth-year students*

 with SMART Grants 10.0 4.7 6.6 10.9 43.1 9.0 4.5 

* Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants). 

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants but 

student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions were excluded from 

the numbers presented by class level. Missing values are excluded, so there will be small differences in the totals for 

gender, citizenship, and age. Detail for percentages may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 

(Feb. 10, 2011). 

— 101 —
 
APPENDIX E. SUPPLEME NTAL TABLES ON ACG A ND NATIONAL SMART 
 

GRANT PROGRAM PARTIC IPATION BY INSTITUTI ON TYPE: 2009 – 1 0 
 

—

Table E-9.—

Table E-9.—

 

Table E-9.	 Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients by 

dependency status and income and percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs or SMART 

Grants: 2009–10 

Dependency status Income of dependent students’ parents 

Class level and type of grant 

Independent Dependent Less than 

$15,000 

$15,000– 

30,000 

More than 

$30,000 

Number of recipients 

First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 48,056 583,490 153,647 182,516 247,198 

Pell Grant–only recipients 3,088,365 1,678,992 600,397 546,257 532,204 

Total Pell Grant recipients 3,135,934 2,181,773 731,938 703,803 745,784 

Third- and fourth-year students* 

SMART Grant recipients 45,381 69,646 18,749 20,917 29,967 

Pell Grant–only recipients 939,430 669,760 195,924 209,504 264,202 

Pell Grant recipients 975,174 727,933 211,637 226,998 289,159 

Percentage distribution of recipients 

First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 7.6 92.4 26.3 31.3 42.4 

Pell Grant–only recipients 64.8 35.2 35.8 32.5 31.7 

Total Pell Grant recipients 59.0 41.0 33.6 32.3 34.2 

Third- and fourth-year students* 

SMART Grant recipients 39.5 60.5 26.9 30 43 

Pell Grant–only recipients 58.4 41.6 29.3 31.3 39.5 

Total Pell Grant recipients 57.3 42.7 29.1 31.2 39.7 

Percent of Pell Grant recipients 

 with ACGs or SMART Grants 

First- and second-year students

 with ACGs 1.5 26.7 21.0 25.9 33.1 

Third- and fourth-year students

 with SMART Grants* 4.7 9.6 8.9 9.2 10.4 

* Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants). 

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants but 

student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions were excluded from 

the numbers presented by class level. Missing values are excluded, so there will be small differences in the totals for 

dependency and income. Detail for percentages may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 

(Feb. 10, 2011). 

— 102 —
 
—

Table E-10.—

Table E-10. Number and percentage distribution of ACG, SMART Grant, and Pell Grant recipients by Expected Family Contrib

percentage of Pell Grant recipients with ACGs or SMART Grants: 2009–10 

EFC of dependent students EFC of independen

Class level and type of grant Zero 1–999 

1,000– 

1,999 

2,000– 

2,999

3,000 

 or more Zero 1–999 

1,000

1,99

Number of recipients First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 326,798 68,347 56,771 56,829 74,745 42,012 2,309 1,62

Pell Grant–only recipients 1,063,096 178,990 139,535 131,595 165,776 2,310,931 215,391 212,08

Total Pell Grant recipients 1,318,554 244,850 194,017 186,348 238,004 2,350,513 218,106 214,19

Third- and fourth-year students* 

SMART Grant recipients 33,662 11,248 7,124 7,078 10,534 28,649 4,411 4,19

Pell Grant–only recipients 317,474 108,871 69,619 71,092 102,704 602,616 86,985 85,45

Total Pell Grant recipients 341,871 119,286 76,310 77,795 112,671 624,265 90,772 88,96

Percentage distribution of recipients First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 56.0 11.7 9.7 9.7 12.8 87.4 4.8 3

Pell Grant–only recipients 63.3 10.7 8.3 7.8 9.9 74.8 7.0 6

Total Pell Grant recipients 60.4 11.2 8.9 8.5 10.9 75.0 7.0 6

Third- and fourth-year students* 

SMART Grant recipients 48.3 16.2 10.2 10.2 15.1 63.1 9.7 9

Pell Grant–only recipients 47.4 16.3 10.4 10.6 15.3 64.1 9.3 9

Total Pell Grant recipients 47.0 16.4 10.5 10.7 15.5 64.0 9.3 9

Percent of Pell Grant recipients

 with ACGs or SMART Grants 

First- and second-year students

 with ACGs 24.8 27.9 29.3 30.5 31.4 1.8 1.1 0

Third- and fourth-year students

 with SMART Grants* 9.8 9.4 9.3 9.1 9.3 4.6 4.9 4

— 103 —
 

* Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants).NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants but student-reported for Pelclass levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions were excluded from the numbers presented by class level. The federal Expected Contribution family’s financial strength and indicates how much of a student’s and family’s financial resources (for dependent students) should be available to education. The EFC is an index number used to determine Pell Grant amount. Missing values are excluded, so there will be small differences in 

citizenship, age, dependency, income, and EFC. Detail for percentages may not sum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
 

 

APPENDIX E. SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES ON ACG AND NATIONAL SMART 

GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE: 2009 –10 

Table E-11. —Average amounts of Expected Family Contribution (EFC), income of dependent students’ 

Table E-11.—parents, and average Pell Grant, ACG, and SMART Grant amounts: 2009–10 

Class level and type of grant 

Independent 

students 

Dependent 

students 

Income of 

dependent 

students’ 

parents 

Pell 

Grant 

amount 

ACG/ 

SMART 

Grant 

amount 

Combined 

total 

grant 

amount 

First- and second-year students 

ACG recipients 208 917 $27,525 $4,190 $754 $4,944 

Pell Grant–only recipients 491 729 22,812 3,441 † 3,441 

Third- and fourth-year students* 

SMART Grant recipients 756 1,036 27,897 4,432 3,121 7,553 

Pell Grant–only recipients 737 1,055 26,290 3,942 † 3,942 

† Not applicable. 

* Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants). 

NOTE: This table is based on unduplicated records. Class level is institution-reported for ACGs and SMART Grants but 

student-reported for Pell Grants. Student-reported class levels greater than 2 at two-year institutions were excluded from 

the numbers presented by class level. The federal Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is a measure of a family’s financial 

strength and indicates how much of a student’s and family’s financial resources (for dependent students) should be 

available to help pay for a student’s education. The EFC is an index number used to determine the Pell Grant amount. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 

(Feb. 10, 2011). 

— 104 —
 
—

Table E-12.—

Table E-12. Number of grants, total dollar amounts, and average grant amounts awarded to dependent students with ACGs o

by Expected Family Contribution (EFC) of the students: 2009–10 

ACGs 

EFC 

Number 

of ACGs 

Total 

Pell Grant 

amount 

Total 

ACG 

amount 

Combined 

total Pell 

Grant and 

ACG amount 

Percent 

of total 

Pell 

Grant 

amount 

Percent 

of total 

ACG 

amount 

Percent of 

combined 

total Pell 

Grant 

and ACG 

amount 

Averag

Pe

Gran

amoun

Total dependent students 588,037 $2,184,836,521 $447,569,157 $2,632,405,677 100.0 100.0 100.0 $4,16

Zero 329,251 1,370,944,722 245,720,636 1,616,665,358 56.0 62.7 54.9 5,12

1–999 68,891 330,861,938 54,495,258 385,357,196 11.7 15.1 12.2 4,83

1,000–1,999 57,249 210,756,990 44,369,630 255,126,620 9.7 9.6 9.9 3,71

2,000–2,999 57,308 156,556,519 44,422,991 200,979,511 9.7 7.2 9.9 2,75

3,000 or more 75,338 115,716,352 58,560,642 174,276,993 12.8 5.3 13.1 1,54

SMART Grants 

EFC 

Number 

of SMART 

Grants 

Total 

Pell Grant 

amount 

Total 

SMART 

Grant 

amount 

Combined 

total Pell 

Grant and 

SMART Grant 

amount 

Percent 

of total 

Pell 

Grant 

amount 

Percent 

of total 

SMART 

Grant 

amount 

Percent of 

combined 

total Pell 

Grant and 

SMART 

Grant 

amount 

Averag

Pe

Gran

amoun

Total dependent students 69,734 $267,760,317 $223,751,215 $271,676,334 100.0 100.0 100.0 $4,36

Zero 33,715 143,727,487 107,203,113 145,552,856 48.3 53.7 47.9 5,61

1–999 11,262 58,258,414 36,098,029 58,884,439 16.1 21.8 16.1 5,20

1,000–1,999 7,131 28,145,435 23,069,151 28,573,599 10.2 10.5 10.3 3,992,000–2,999 7,089 20,689,075 23,089,578 21,082,708 10.2 7.7 10.3 2,94

3,000 or more 10,537 16,939,906 34,291,344 17,582,731 15.1 6.3 15.3 1,61

— 105 —
 

NOTE: The federal Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is a measure of a family’s financial strength and indicates how much of a student’s and (for dependent students) should be available to help pay for a student’s education. The EFC is an index number used to determine the Pell Gransum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
— 106 —
 

Table E-13. —Number and percentage distribution of SMART Grant recipients by field of study: 2009–10 

Type of institution Total 

Life 

sciences* Engineering 

Computer 

science 

Physical 

sciences Mathematics Technology 

Number 

Total 115,165 41,381 23,892 19,903 9,541 6,603 5,184 

Public four-year 77,787 30,737 18,822 7,388 7,189 4,876 3,436 Private nonprofit four-year 26,902 10,602 4,692 3,984 2,348 1,727 531 

For-profit four-year 10,476 42 378 8,531 4 0 1,217 

Percentage distribution

 within type of institution Total 100.0 35.9 20.7 17.3 8.3 5.7 4.5 

Public four-year 100.0 39.5 24.2 9.5 9.2 6.3 4.4 

Private nonprofit four-year 100.0 39.4 17.4 14.8 8.7 6.4 2.0 

For-profit four-year 100.0 0.4 3.6 81.4 0.0 0.0 11.6 

Percentage distribution 

 by type of institution Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Public four-year 67.5 74.3 78.8 37.1 75.3 73.8 66.3 

Private nonprofit four-year 23.4 25.6 19.6 20.0 24.6 26.2 10.2 

For-profit four-year 9.1 0.1 1.6 42.9 0.0 0.0 23.5 

* Life sciences includes biological and biomedical sciences, agriculture, natural resources and conservation, and psychology (physiological psycpsychobiology only).NOTE: This table includes duplicate records for students who received grants at more than one college in 2009–10 (less than 1 percent of SMAfor percentages may not sum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient File AY0910 (Feb. 10, 2011).
Table E-14. —Among students who received an ACG in 2008–09, number and percentage who received an ACG, SMART GrantTable E-14.—in 2009–10, by class level and type of institution 

Status in 2009–10 

Received ACG 

Received 

SMART Grant 

Received Pell Grant 

(No ACG or 

SMART Grant) 

Base-year 2008–09 cohorts 

ACG recipients 

in 2008–09 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

First-year students in 2008–09 

Total 339,586 81,174 23.9 4,394 1.3 186,124 54.8 

Public four-year 185,537 43,130 23.2 3,527 1.9 105,411 56.8 Private nonprofit four-year 78,576 21,693 27.6 721 0.9 42,597 54.2 For-profit four-year 8,267 2,083 25.2 74 0.9 3,911 47.3 

Public two-year 63,793 13,174 20.7 71 0.1 32,739 51.3 

Private nonprofit two-year 1,097 247 22.5 0 0.0 543 49.5 For-profit two-year 2,316 847 36.6 1 0.0 923 39.9 

Second-year students in 2008–09 

Total 99,060 3,846 3.9 11,525 11.6 68,814 69.5 

Public four-year 55,330 2,455 4.4 7,830 14.2 37,820 68.4 

Private nonprofit four-year 28,654 383 1.3 3,180 11.1 21,217 74.0 

For-profit four-year 1,903 149 7.8 99 5.2 1,116 58.6 

Public two-year 12,238 826 6.7 405 3.3 8,231 67.3 

Private nonprofit two-year 274 8 2.9 11 4.0 148 54.0 For-profit two-year 661 25 3.8 0 0.0 282 42.7 

* Students who did not receive a Pell Grant in 2009–10 may have lost Pell Grant eligibility, completed a degree, or not been enrolled that year. Ecompletion status are not available. NOTE: Class level is based on credits and may change during the year. A student with an ACG as a freshman may receive another ACG as a fhave enough credits to be a junior eligible for a SMART Grant in the second term. A student with enough credits to become a sophomore in the year can receive a second ACG as a sophomore in the first term of the second year. Less than 1 percent receive both an ACG and SMART Grayear (about 1,500). They have been included in both the ACG and the SMART Grant cohorts in 2008–09 and included in both the ACG and SMA2008–09. Therefore, the 2009–10 percentages add up to a little more than 100 percent. ACG students enrolled at two-year institutions in 2008–Grant in 2009–10 if they transfer to a four-year institution. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010) and 

— 107 —
 
— 108 —
 

Table E-15. —Among students who received a SMART Grant in 2008–09, number and percentage who received a SMART Grant Table E-15.—in 2009–10, by class level and type of institution 

Status in 2009–10 

Received 

SMART Grant 

Received Pell Grant 

(No SMART Grant) 

No Pell Gran

SMART Gra

Base-year 2008–09 cohorts 

SMART 

Grant 

recipients 

in 2008–09 Number Percent Number Percent Number 

Third-year students in 2008–09 

Total 34,971 20,248 57.9 9,103 26.0 5,614 

Public four-year 22,502 13,373 59.4 5,869 26.1 3,255 

Private nonprofit four-year 8,917 5,190 58.2 2,349 26.3 1,378 

For-profit four-year 3,552 1,685 47.4 885 24.9 981 

Fourth-year students in 2008–09b 

Total 29,367 2,875 9.8 9,899 33.7 16,591 Public four-year 19,907 2,104 10.6 7,670 38.5 10,132 Private nonprofit four-year 7,794 586 7.5 1,716 22.0 5,492 For-profit four-year 1,666 185 11.1 513 30.8 967 

a Students who did not receive a Pell Grant in 2008–09 may have graduated, lost Pell Grant eligibility, or not been enrolled that year. Enrollment 

status are not available.

b Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants).

NOTE: Fourth-year students who had received the maximum SMART Grant amount ($8,000 for two years) may still continue to receive Pell Gra

completed all credits required to graduate.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010) and 
Table E-16. —Among students who received a SMART Grant in 2008–09, number and percentage who received a SMART Grant 

Table E-16.—in 2009–10, by class level and field of study in 2008–09 

Status in 2009–10 

Received 

SMART Grant 

Received Pell Grant 

(No SMART Grant) 

No Pell Grant o

SMART Grant

Base-year 2008–09 cohorts 

SMART 

Grant 

recipients 

in 2008–09 Number Percent Number Percent Number P

Third-year students 

Total 34,971 20,248 57.9 9,103 26.0 5,614 

Life sciences 6,487 3,396 52.4 1,642 25.3 1,449 

Engineering 6,753 4,175 61.8 1,611 23.9 966 

Computer science 615 334 54.3 183 29.8 98 

Physical sciences 13,625 7,996 58.7 3,643 26.7 1,984 

Mathematics 2,056 1,162 56.5 615 29.9 278 

Technology 3,094 1,822 58.9 824 26.6 447 

Multidisciplinary studies 1,496 860 57.5 359 24.0 276 

Critical foreign language 845 503 59.5 226 26.7 116 

Fourth-year studentsb 

Total 29,367 2,875 9.8 9,899 33.7 16,591 

Life sciences 4,411 473 10.7 1,472 33.4 2,465 Engineering 6,064 866 14.3 2,157 35.6 3,041 Computer science 409 75 18.3 124 30.3 210 

Physical sciences 11,850 922 7.8 3,813 32.2 7,114 Mathematics 1,826 135 7.4 634 34.7 1,057 Technology 2,700 213 7.9 956 35.4 1,531 Multidisciplinary studies 1,388 141 10.2 524 37.8 723 Critical foreign language 719 50 7.0 219 30.5 450 

a Students who did not receive a Pell Grant in 2009–10 may have graduated, lost Pell Grant eligibility, or not been enrolled that year. Enrollment 

status are not available.

b Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants).

NOTE: Fourth-year students who had received the maximum SMART Grant amount ($8,000 for two years) may still continue to receive Pell Gra

completed all credits required to graduate. Students who did not receive a Pell Grant in 2009–10 may have graduated, lost Pell Grant eligibility, oyear. Enrollment and degree completion status is not available.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010) and 

— 109 —
 
Table E-17. —Among students at ACG- or SMART Grant–participating institutions who received Pell Grants or Pell Grants plus 

Table E-17.—Grant in 2008–09, number and percentage who received a Pell Grant in 2009–10 

Received only Pell Grants Received Pell and ACG o

Base year 2008–09 cohorts 

Pell Grant–only 

recipients in 

2008–09 (no ACG 

or SMART Grant) 

Number of 

Pell Grant 

renewals 

in 2009–10a 

Pell Grant 

renewal 

rate 

Number of 

students with 

ACG or SMART 

Grant in 2008–09 

Number of 

SMART Gr

Pell Grant ren

in 20

 Total 4,727,172 2,921,559 61.8 502,984 39

First-year students 

Total 2,261,973 1,412,993 62.5 339,586 26

Public four-year 322,477 230,355 71.4 185,537 14Private nonprofit four-year 159,276 112,944 70.9 78,576 6

For-profit four-year 493,650 281,308 57.0 8,267 Public two-year 1,137,226 707,282 62.2 63,793 4

Private nonprofit two-year 9,806 6,032 61.5 1,097 

For-profit two-year 139,538 75,072 53.8 2,316 

Second-year students 

Total 1,133,798 772,734 68.2 99,060 8

Public four-year 307,348 237,869 77.4 55,330 4Private nonprofit four-year 137,164 105,923 77.2 28,654 2For-profit four-year 131,072 80,713 61.6 1,903 Public two-year 530,724 337,472 63.6 12,238 Private nonprofit two-year 3,744 2,009 53.7 274 For-profit two-year 23,746 8,748 36.8 661 

Third-year students 

Total 675,792 507,807 75.1 34,971 2Public four-year 418,015 323,489 77.4 22,502 1Private nonprofit four-year 173,570 132,601 76.4 8,917 

For-profit four-year 84,207 51,717 61.4 3,552 

Fourth-year studentsb 

Total 655,609 228,025 34.8 29,367 1

Public four-year 448,787 164,393 36.6 19,907 

Private nonprofit four-year 167,666 50,153 29.9 7,794 

For-profit four-year 39,156 13,479 34.4 1,666 

a Includes about 1 percent who also received ACGs or SMART Grants in 2008–09. See Table E-18.b Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants).

NOTE: Class level for ACGs and SMART Grants is institution-reported and based on credits. Class level for Pell Grant–only recipients is studen

include all 2007–08 Pell Grant recipients who also received a Pell Grant in 2008–09 (including an ACG or SMART Grant). Those who were not rPell Grant eligibility, completed a program, or not been enrolled. Enrollment and degree completion status is not available.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010) and 

— 110 —
 
— 111 —
 

Table E-18. —Number and percentage of students at ACG- or SMART Grant–participating institutions who received Pell Grants 

Table E-18.—their ACG, SMART Grant, or Pell Grant status in 2009–10 

Status in 2009–10 

Received ACG 

Received 

SMART Grant 

Received 

Pell Grant only 

(No ACG or SMART) 

Base-year 2008–09 cohorts 

Pell Grant– 

only 

recipients 

in 2008–09 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

 Total 4,727,172 46,013 1.0 34,030 0.7 2,842,175 60.1 

First-year students (2008–09) 

Total 2,261,973 39,430 1.7 4,756 0.2 1,369,441 60.5 

Public four-year 322,477 17,006 5.3 2,031 0.6 211,865 65.7 

Private nonprofit four-year 159,276 3,665 2.3 557 0.3 108,772 68.3 

For-profit four-year 493,650 2,135 0.4 1,668 0.3 277,519 56.2 

Public two-year 1,137,226 15,898 1.4 485 0.0 690,921 60.8 

Private nonprofit two-year 9,806 96 1.0 3 0.0 5,934 60.5 

For-profit two-year 139,538 630 0.5 12 0.0 74,430 53.3 

Second-year students (2008–09) 

Total 1,133,798 6,583 0.6 14,033 1.2 752,521 66.4 

Public four-year 307,348 2,893 0.9 6,965 2.3 228,343 74.3 

Private nonprofit four-year 137,164 566 0.4 2,544 1.9 102,843 75.0 

For-profit four-year 131,072 249 0.2 1,665 1.3 78,809 60.1 

Public two-year 530,724 2,797 0.5 2,831 0.5 331,874 62.5 

Private nonprofit two-year 3,744 14 0.4 10 0.3 1,986 53.0 

For-profit two-year 23,746 64 0.3 18 0.1 8,666 36.5 

Third-year students (2008–09) 

Total 675,792 † † 11,983 1.8 495,537 73.3 

Public four-year 418,015 † † 8,415 2.0 314,912 75.3 

Private nonprofit four-year 173,570 † † 2,665 1.5 129,856 74.8 

For-profit four-year 84,207 † † 903 1.1 50,769 60.3 

See notes at end of table. 
—

Table E-18.—

— 112 —
 

Table E-18. Number and percentage of students at ACG- or SMART Grant–participating institutions who received Pell Grants 

their ACG, SMART Grant, or Pell Grant status in 2009–10—Continued 

Status in 2009–10 

Received ACG 

Received 

SMART Grant 

Received 

Pell Grant only 

(No ACG or SMART) 

Base-year 2008–09 cohorts 

Pell Grant– 

only 

recipients 

in 2008–09 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Fourth-year students (2008–09) b 

Total 655,609 † † 3,258 0.5 224,676 34.3 

Public four-year 448,787 † † 2,518 0.6 161,821 36.1 

Private nonprofit four-year 167,666 † † 574 0.3 49,553 29.6 

For-profit four-year 39,156 † † 166 0.4 13,302 34.0 

† Not applicable.a Students without Pell Grants in 2009–10 may have lost Pell Grant eligibility, completed a program, or not been enrolled. Enrollment and degre

not available.

b Includes students in their fifth year of an eligible five-year program (1 percent of all SMART Grants).

NOTE: Students in their first or second year in 2008–09 would have been eligible for a SMART Grant in 2009–10 if they had accumulated enoug

third-year status by then. While relatively rare for first-year students to do so, students who almost had enough credits to attain second-year staachieve third-year status in 2009–10, perhaps in the second, if not the first, term. Also note that class level for Pell Grant–only students is studemay not always match the institution’s determination.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, COD-CPS Interface Grant Recipient Files AY0809 (Feb. 17, 2010) and 
APPENDIX F 

STEM Majors in 2003–04 and 2007–08 

— 113 —
 
 

—

Table F-1.—

Table F-1. Total number of undergraduates and the number and percentage of them who were in science, technology, engine

mathematics (STEM) majors, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08 

2003–04 2007–08 Change between 

All STEM majors All STEM majors 

Student and institutional characteristics 

All undergraduates Total 

Percent 

of all 

undergraduates All under- graduates Total 

Percent 

of all 

undergraduates All under- graduates 

 Total 19,044,000 2,588,000 13.6 20,928,000 2,905,000 13.9 1,884,000 

Type of institution 

Public four-year 6,091,000 1,113,000 18.3 6,690,000 1,331,000 19.9 599,000 

Private nonprofit four-year 2,744,000 408,000 14.9 2,949,000 425,000 14.4 205,000 

Public two-year 8,473,000 800,000 9.4 9,112,000 874,000 9.6 639,000 

Private for-profit 1,026,000 216,000 21.0 1,550,000 232,000 15.0 524,000 

Other 710,000 52,000 7.3 628,000 42,000 6.7 -82,000 

Class level 

First-year 7,012,000 800,000 11.4 8,517,000 976,000 11.5 1,505,000 

Second-year 4,940,000 688,000 13.9 5,724,000 778,000 13.6 784,000 

Third-year 2,631,000 436,000 16.6 2,729,000 480,000 17.6 98,000 

Fourth-year 2,483,000 469,000 18.9 2,760,000 534,000 19.3 277,000 

Fifth-year 542,000 115,000 21.2 396,000 86,000 21.7 -146,000 

Unclassified 1,436,000 81,000 5.6 802,000 52,000 6.5 -634,000 

Gender 

Male 8,076,000 1,768,000 21.9 9,013,000 1,949,000 21.6 937,000 

Female 10,969,000 820,000 7.5 11,915,000 955,000 8.0 946,000 

Race/ethnicity 

White 11,977,000 1,610,000 13.4 12,924,000 1,826,000 14.1 947,000 

Black 2,674,000 350,000 13.1 2,925,000 339,000 11.6 251,000 

Hispanic 2,456,000 303,000 12.3 2,960,000 367,000 12.4 504,000 

Asian 1,028,000 199,000 19.4 1,236,000 241,000 19.5 208,000 

Othera 910,000 127,000 14.0 883,000 132,000 14.9 -27,000 

— 114 —
 

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table. 
—

Table F-1.—

Table F-1. Total number of undergraduates and the number and percentage of them who were in science, technology, engine

mathematics (STEM) majors, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08—Continued 

2003–04 2007–08 Change between 

All STEM majors All STEM majors 

Student and 

institutional characteristics 

All undergraduates Total 

Percent 

of all 

undergraduates All under- graduates Total 

Percent 

of all 

undergraduates All under- graduates 

Dependency status 

Dependent 9,622,000 1,504,000 15.6 11,081,000 1,787,000 16.1 1,459,000 

Independent 9,422,000 1,084,000 11.5 9,846,000 1,118,000 11.4 424,000 

Total income level 

Dependent 

Less than $30,000 2,215,000 341,000 15.4 2,183,000 317,000 14.5 -32,000 

$30,000–$59,999 2,698,000 416,000 15.4 2,784,000 415,000 14.9 86,000 

$60,000–$99,999 2,762,000 435,000 15.7 3,044,000 511,000 16.8 282,000 

$100,000 or more 1,947,000 312,000 16.0 3,070,000 544,000 17.7 1,123,000 

Independent 

Less than $10,000 2,155,000 276,000 12.8 2,268,000 301,000 13.3 113,000 $10,000–$29,999 3,214,000 368,000 11.5 3,216,000 344,000 10.7 2,000 

$30,000 or more 4,053,000 440,000 10.9 4,363,000 472,000 10.8 310,000 

Received Pell Grant 

No 13,865,000 1,874,000 13.5 15,208,000 2,155,000 14.2 1,343,000 

Yes 5,180,000 714,000 13.8 5,720,000 750,000 13.1 540,000 

Grade point average (GPA) 

Less than 3.00 8,436,000 1,184,000 14.0 9,387,000 1,308,000 13.9 951,000 

3.00 or more 10,599,000 1,403,000 13.2 11,471,000 1,590,000 13.9 872,000 

— 115 —
 

* Indicates that the change was statistically significant at the .05 level.a “Other” includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, more than one race, and other.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 and 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid S

NPSAS:08). 
—

Table F-2.—

Table F-2. Total number of Pell Grant recipients and the number and percentage of them who were in science, technology, en

mathematics (STEM) majors, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08 

2003–04 2007–08 Change between 

All Pell Grant 

STEM majors 

All Pell Grant 

STEM majors 

Student and institutional characteristics 

All Pell 

Grant 

undergraduates Total 

Percent 

of all Pell 

Grant 

undergraduates 

All Pell 

Grant 

undergraduates Total 

Percent 

of all Pell 

Grant 

undergraduates 

All Pell 

Grant 

undergraduates 

 Total 5,180,000 714,000 13.8 5,720,000 750,000 13.1 540,000 

Type of institution 

Public four-year 1,606,000 283,000 17.6 1,697,000 322,000 18.9 91,000 

Private nonprofit four-year 762,000 110,000 14.5 757,000 104,000 13.7 -5,000 

Public two-year 1,887,000 178,000 9.4 1,932,000 169,000 8.7 45,000 

Private for-profit 575,000 119,000 20.7 968,000 133,000 13.7 393,000 

Other 349,000 24,000 6.9 366,000 23,000 6.3 17,000 

Class level 

First-year 2,321,000 271,000 11.7 2,629,000 287,000 10.9 308,000 

Second-year 1,362,000 181,000 13.3 1,554,000 190,000 12.2 192,000 

Third-year 683,000 111,000 16.3 766,000 128,000 16.7 83,000 Fourth-year 641,000 114,000 17.8 647,000 124,000 19.2 6,000 

Fifth-year 143,000 32,000 22.6 105,000 20,000 18.9 -38,000 

Unclassified 30,000 5,000 15.6 19,000 1,000 3.5 -11,000 

Gender 

Male 1,803,000 450,000 24.9 1,934,000 463,000 24.0 131,000 

Female 3,376,000 264,000 7.8 3,786,000 287,000 7.6 410,000 

Race/ethnicity 

White 2,484,000 332,000 13.4 2,648,000 356,000 13.4 164,000 

Black 1,281,000 168,000 13.1 1,353,000 139,000 10.3 72,000 

Hispanic 922,000 126,000 13.6 1,166,000 156,000 13.4 244,000 

Asian 227,000 48,000 21.1 277,000 63,000 22.6 50,000 

Othera 266,000 40,000 15.2 276,000 37,000 13.4 10,000 

— 116 —
 

Cont’d. next page. See notes at end of table. 
—

Table F-2.—

— 117 —
 

Table F-2. Total number of Pell Grant recipients and the number and percentage of them who were in science, technology, en

mathematics (STEM) majors, by student and institutional characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08—Continued 

2003–04 2007–08 Change between 

All Pell Grant 

STEM majors 

All Pell Grant 

STEM majors 

Student and 

institutional characteristics 

All Pell 

Grant 

undergraduates Total 

Percent 

of all Pell 

Grant 

undergraduates 

All Pell 

Grant 

undergraduates Total 

Percent 

of all Pell 

Grant 

undergraduates 

All Pell 

Grant 

undergraduates 

Dependency status 

Dependent 2,166,000 354,000 16.3 2,410,000 379,000 15.7 244,000 

Independent 3,014,000 360,000 12.0 3,309,000 371,000 11.2 295,000 

Total income level 

Dependent 

Less than $30,000 1,408,000 229,000 16.3 1,458,000 225,000 15.4 50,000 $30,000–$59,999 722,000 117,000 16.3 933,000 152,000 16.3 211,000 

$60,000–$99,999 36,000 7,000 19.1 20,000 2,000 12.4 -16,000 

Independent 

Less than $10,000 1,200,000 160,000 13.4 1,322,000 175,000 13.3 122,000 

$10,000–$29,999 1,389,000 150,000 10.8 1,418,000 142,000 10.0 29,000 $30,000 or more 424,000 50,000 11.8 569,000 54,000 9.5 145,000 

Grade point average 

Less than 3.00 2,550,000 368,000 14.4 2,755,000 359,000 13.0 206,000 

3.00 or more 2,628,000 346,000 13.2 2,944,000 389,000 13.2 316,000 

* Indicates that the change was statistically significant at the .05 level.a “Other” includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, more than one race, and other.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 and 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid S

NPSAS:08).
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

APPENDIX G 

Estimating the Impact of Expanded Eligibility for 

the ACG and National SMART Grant Programs 

Using data from the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:2003/04) and 

the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04) , Tables G-1 and G-2 show how the 

changes in the eligibility requirements mandated by HR 5715 change the estimates of how many 

students would be eligible for ACG and National SMART Grants. The estimates are only 

approximate, because the data do not allow precise matching with ACG and National SMART 

Grant eligibility criteria. 

ACG Eligibility 

Under both the original and expanded eligibility criteria, ACG recipients had to be recent high 

school graduates, Pell Grant recipients, and complete a rigorous high school program. HR 5715 

expanded eligibility to include students who were permanent residents, who enrolled at least half 

time, or who enrolled in certificate programs at degree-granting institutions. 

Expanding the program to include permanent residents increased the proportion of recent high 

school graduates who met the citizenship-related criterion from 96 to 99 percent (Table G-1). 

Including students in certificate programs at 2- or 4-year institutions increased the potentially 

eligible proportion from 88 to 90 percent, and including students enrolled at least half time 

increased the percentage from 82 to 97 percent. Considering all the eligibility criteria together 

produced an estimate of 325,000 under the expanded criteria compared with an estimate of 

282,300 under the original criteria, an increase of 15 percent. Including students who enrolled 

less than full time had the largest impact on the increase. 

National SMART Grant Eligibility 

Under both the original and expanded eligibility criteria, National SMART Grant recipients had 

to be a Pell Grant recipient, enroll in an eligible major, and maintain a 3.0 GPA in course work 

required for their major. Under HR 5715, eligibility for a National SMART Grant was expanded 

to include permanent residents, students who were enrolled at least half time, and students who 

were in their fifth year of a five-year degree program. The NPSAS data do not allow 

determination of how many fifth-year students there were in five-year programs, but just 1 

percent of actual National SMART Grant recipients were in this category. 

— 119 —
 
APPENDIX G. ESTIMATING THE IMPACT OF EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY 
 

FOR THE ACG AND NATIONAL SMART GRANT PROGRAMS 
 

Expanding the program to permanent residents increased the proportion of third-year and above 

undergraduates who would have been potentially eligible for a National SMART Grant from 94 

to 98 percent (Table G-2). Including students enrolled at least half time increased the proportion 

from 69 to 96 percent. The net effect of both changes was to increase the estimate of the number of 

potentially eligible students from 75,800 to 111,900, a 48 percent increase. As in the ACG 

program, including students who enrolled less than full time had the largest impact on the increase. 

— 120 —
 
Table G-1. Beginning postsecondary students who met various ACG requirements: 2003–04 Original requirements established by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (effective July 2006) 2003–04 Total number of beginning postsecondary students 

who were recent high school graduatesa 2,407,300 

Percent who: 

Received Pell Grants 30.6 Were U.S. citizens 95.8 In associate or bachelor’s 

 degree programs 88.5

Enrolled full-time 82.3

Completed the ED course-based high school curriculumb 56.3 

Percent who: 

Received Pell Grants 30.6 And were U.S. citizens 28.8 And were in associate or bachelor’s 

 degree programs 24.3

And attended full-time 21.6And completed the ED course-based curriculum 11.7 

Number of potential first-year ACG recipientsc 282,300 

Requirements as modified by HR 5715 (effective July 2009) Total number of beginning postsecondary stude

a who were recent high school graduates 

Percent who: 

Received Pell Grants Were U.S. citizens or permanent residents 

In associate or bachelor’s degree programs o

 certificate programs at 2- or 4-year institutio

Enrolled at least half-time (including those wit

 enrollment intensity over the course of the y

Completed the ED course-based high school 

Percent who: 

Received Pell Grants And were U.S. citizens or permanent resident 

And were in associate or bachelor’s degree pr

 certificate programs at 2- or 4-year institutio

And at least half-time (including those with 

 “mixed” enrollment intensity) 

And completed the ED course-based curriculu

Number of potential first-year ACG recipientsd 

a Recent high school graduates refer to those who graduated no earlier than January 2003.b Refers to a high school curriculum that includes at least four years of English, three years of mathematics, three years of science, three years 

year of a language other than English. The levels of these courses are unknown. This definition corresponds as closely as possible to the requircourse-based high school program, but because it does not take into account the level of the courses, these percentages will be overestimates.

c Students who were U.S. citizens, received Pell Grants, enrolled full-time, and completed a rigorous high school curriculum.

d HR 5715 (effective July 2009) expanded ACG eligiblity to include: (1) non-citizens who were permanent residents; (2) students enrolled at leas

students in certificate programs in degree-granting institutions.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 and 2003/04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Lo(BPS:2003/04).

— 121 —
 
 — 122 —
 

Table G-2. Third-year and above undergraduates in bachelor’s degree programs who met various SMART requirements: NPS

Original requirements established by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (effective July 2006) 2003–04 

Total number of third-year and above students in 

 bachelor’s degree programs 5,010,381

Percent who: 

Received Pell Grants 26.1 Were U.S. citizens 93.7 Enrolled full time 68.6Had GPA of 3.0 or above 57.0 In SMART Grant–eligible majorsa 18.2 

Percent who: 

Received Pell Grants 26.1 And were U.S. citizens 24.3 And attended full time 17.8And had GPA of 3.0 or above 9.4 And were in SMART Grant–eligible majorsa 1.5 

Number of potential SMART recipientsb 75,800 

Requirements as modified by HR 5715 (effective July 2009) Total number of third-year and above students i

 bachelor’s degree programs 

Percent who: 

Received Pell Grants 

Were U.S. citizens or permanent resident 

Enrolled at least half-time (including those wit

 enrollment intensity over the course of the y

Had GPA of 3.0 or above 

a In SMART Grant–eligible majors 

Percent who: 

Received Pell Grants And were U.S. citizens And at least half-time (including those with “mixe

 enrollment intensity) 

And had GPA of 3.0 or above 

And were in SMART Grant–eligible majorsa 

Number of potential SMART recipientsc 

a SMART Grant–eligible majors are based on 46 aggregated field of study categories; actual CIP Codes were not available.b Third- and fourth-year students who were U.S. citizens, received Pell Grants, enrolled full time, and were enrolled in eligible majors.

c HR 5715 (effective July 2009) expanded SMART Grant eligiblity to: (1) non-citizens who were permanent residents; (2) students enrolled at le

year students in a five-year bachelor’s program.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement
 

and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering 

educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
 

www.ed.gov