United States General Accounting Office 

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters 

September 2003 DISTANCE 

EDUCATION 

More Data Could 

Improve Education’s 

Ability to Track 

Technology at 

Minority Serving 

Institutions 

GAO-03-900 

Contents 


Letter 


Results in Brief 


Background


There Are Some Variations in the Use of Distance Education at 


Minority Serving Institutions Compared to Other Schools 


Teaching Preference and Resources Available for Distance 


Education Affect the Extent to Which Minority Serving 


Institutions Offer Distance Education 


Education Can Further Refine Its Programs for Monitoring 

Technology Usage at Minority Serving Institutions 


Conclusions 


Recommendations 


Agency Comments 


1 

4 

6 

15 

24 

30 

34 

34 

35 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 

Appendix II Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

Appendix III Hispanic Serving Institutions 

Appendix IV Tribal Colleges 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Education 

Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 56 


Contacts 56


Staff Acknowledgments 56


Tables 

Table 1: Selected Characteristics of Minority Serving Institutions 7


Page i GAO-03-900 Distance Education 

36 

39 

44 

48 

53 
Table 2: Characteristics of Grants for Minority Serving Institutions 

under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended 14 

Table 3: Differences in the Types of Activities Monitored by 

Education in Minority Serving Institution Annual Reports 32 

Figures 

Figure 1: Distribution of Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, by State 8 

Figure 2: Distribution of Hispanic Serving Institutions, by State 10 

Figure 3: Distribution of Tribal Colleges, by State 12 

Figure 4: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Offer 

Distance Education Is about the Same as the Percentage 

for Other Schools 17 

Figure 5: Higher Percentage of Larger Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions Offer 

Distance Education 19 

Figure 6: Higher Percentage of Public Minority Serving Institutions 

Offer Distance Education 20 

Figure 7: Percent of Minority Serving Institutions Offering Degree 

Programs Is about the Same or Less Than Other Schools 22 

Figure 8: Distance Education Generally Ranks Lower in Relation to 

Other Technology Goals 27 

Figure 9: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Have 

Strategic and Financial Plans for Expanding Their 

Technology Infrastructure 29 

Abbreviations 

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

NPSAS National Postsecondary Education Data System 

PEQIS Postsecondary Education Quick Information System 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

September 12, 2003 


The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 


Ranking Minority Member 


Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 


United States Senate 


The Honorable George Miller 


Ranking Minority Member 


Committee on Education and the Workforce 


House of Representatives 


The Honorable Rubén Hinojosa 


House of Representatives 


The Honorable Major Owens 


House of Representatives 


For over 100 years, the Congress has recognized that some postsecondary 


institutions have roles to play in providing minority students with help in 


attaining their educational goals and developing skills necessary to move 


into all facets of the American economy. In the 2000-01 school year, 


465 schools, or about 7 percent of postsecondary institutions in the 


United States,

1

 served about 35 percent of all Black, American Indian, and


Hispanic students. These schools have special designation under federal 


law as Minority Serving Institutions.2


Like other postsecondary institutions, over the last decade, Minority 


Serving Institutions have faced the challenge of trying to keep pace with 


rapidly changing technology usage in education. Part of keeping pace with 


technology involves using it in traditional classroom education, but one 


growing area—distance education—has commanded particular attention.


As defined in federal law, distance education is, “an educational process 


1

These include institutions in territories of the United States, such as Puerto Rico and 

Guam, that are authorized to distribute federal student financial aid. 

2

The three main types of Minority Serving Institutions are Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, Tribal Colleges, and Hispanic Serving Institutions. Other types of Minority 

Serving Institutions include Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian serving institutions. 

Page 1 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
that is characterized by the separation, in time or place, between 

instructor and student.”3

 Some examples of course delivery methods 

include the Internet, videoconferencing, and videocassettes. Distance 

education offers opportunities for students to take classes without 

considering where they live or when classes may be available. In the 

1999-2000 school year, about one in every 13 postsecondary students 

enrolled in at least 1 distance education course, and the Department of 

Education (Education) estimates that the number of students involved in 

distance education has tripled in just 4 years. For the most part, students 

taking distance education courses can qualify for student financial aid in 

the same way as students taking traditional courses. As the largest 

provider of student financial aid to postsecondary students (an estimated 

$60 billion in fiscal year 2003), the federal government has a substantial 

interest in distance education. Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965, as amended, the federal government provides grants, loans, and 

work-study wages for millions of students each year. 

The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, provides specific federal 

support for Minority Serving Institutions through Titles III and V. In 

2002, grants funded under these two titles provided over $300 million for 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, 

and Tribal Colleges to improve their academic quality, institutional 

management, and fiscal stability. Technology is one of the many purposes 

to which these grants can be applied. As the Congress prepares to 

reauthorize the act, you asked us to examine several issues related to 

Minority Serving Institutions and technology—and particularly to distance 

education. We focused our work on determining (1) whether the use of 

distance education varies between Minority Serving Institutions and nonMinority Serving Institutions; (2) what factors Minority Serving 

Institutions consider when deciding whether to offer distance education; 

and (3) what steps Education could take, if any, to improve its monitoring 

of technological progress, including distance education, at Minority 

Serving Institutions under Titles III and V. In September 2002, we testified 

on some of these issues before the Senate Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions.4

 Additionally, you asked us to look at the 

quality of distance education and examine any statutory and regulatory 

3

20 U.S.C. 1093(h). 

4

U.S. General Accounting Office, Distance Education: Growth in Distance Education 

Programs and Implications for Federal Education Policy, GAO-02-1125T (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 26, 2002). 

Page 2 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
issues related to distance education. We plan to issue a report on those 

topics later this year. 

Our findings are based on questionnaires that were developed and sent to 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, 

and Tribal Colleges. Seventy-eight percent, 75 percent, and 82 percent of 

the schools responded, respectively. We compared the results of our 

survey with Education’s July 2003 report entitled Distance Education at 

Degree-Granting Postsecondary Education Institutions: 2000-2001. This 

survey was sent to over 1,600 2-year and 4-year degree granting institutions 

that were eligible for federal student aid programs and provided 

information on distance education offerings by these schools. However, 

the data from our survey and the survey conducted by Education are not 

completely comparable because they cover two different time periods. We 

also analyzed two databases produced by Education’s National Center for 

Education Statistics. We analyzed data from the National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS)5

 to examine the characteristics of 

postsecondary students, including those who attended Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, involved in 

distance education programs. We analyzed data from the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)6

 to examine the 

characteristics of postsecondary institutions. Additionally, we conducted 

site visits to selected schools drawn from these three types of Minority 

Serving Institutions. We interviewed Education officials involved in 

programs aimed at improving the quality of education at Minority Serving 

Institutions. Finally, we interviewed numerous experts on distance 

education. A more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology is 

included in appendix I. We performed our work between October 2002 and 

September 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. 

5

NPSAS is a nationwide survey conducted every 3 to 4 years that collects demographic 

information on postsecondary students, as well as information on how postsecondary 

students fund their education. NPSAS randomly samples about 19 million students 

attending over 6,000 institutions eligible for the federal student aid programs. The most 

recent NPSAS covers the 1999-2000 school year. 

6

IPEDS is a system of surveys designed to collect data from all primary providers of 

postsecondary education. These surveys collect institution-level data in such areas as 

enrollments, program completions, faculty, staff, and finances. Data are collected annually 

from approximately 9,600 postsecondary institutions, including over 6,000 institutions 

eligible for the federal student aid programs. 

Page 3 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Results in Brief There are some variations in the use of distance education at Minority 

Serving Institutions compared to other schools. It is difficult to generalize 

across the Minority Serving Institutions, but available data indicate that 

while Minority Serving Institutions tend to offer at least one distance 

education course at the same rate as other schools, they differ in how 

many courses are offered and which students take the courses. Overall, 

the percentage of schools offering at least one distance education course 

in the 2002-03 school year was 56 percent for Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities, 63 percent for Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 

63 percent for Tribal Colleges, based on data from our questionnaire. 

Similarly, 56 percent of 2- and 4-year schools across the country offered at 

least one distance education course in the 2000-01 school year, according 

to a separate survey conducted by Education. Minority Serving Institutions 

also tended to mirror other schools in that larger schools were more likely 

to offer distance education than smaller schools, and public schools were 

more likely to offer distance education than private schools. Tribal 

Colleges were an exception; all of them were small, but the percentage of 

schools offering distance education courses was relatively high compared 

to other smaller schools. The greater use of distance education among 

Tribal Colleges may reflect their need to serve students who often live in 

remote areas. In two respects, however, the use of distance education at 

Minority Serving Institutions differed from other schools. First, of those 

institutions offering at least one distance education course, Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges generally offered 

fewer distance education courses—a characteristic that may reflect the 

smaller size of these two types of institutions compared to other schools. 

Second, to the extent that data are available, they indicate that minority 

students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic 

Serving Institutions participate in distance education to a somewhat lower 

degree than other students. For example, in the 1999-2000 school year, 

fewer undergraduates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities took 

distance education courses than students at non-Minority Serving 

Institutions—6 percent v. 8.4 percent of undergraduates—a condition that 

may reflect the fact that these schools offer fewer distance education 

courses. Also, at Hispanic Serving Institutions, Hispanic students had 

lower rates of participation in distance education than non-Hispanic 

students attending these schools. These differences were statistically 

significant. 

Minority Serving Institutions take into account two key factors in deciding 

whether to offer distance education, according to our questionnaire 

responses. One is their preferred teaching method. About half of 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities that currently do not offer 

Page 4 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
distance education to undergraduates indicated that a primary reason for 

not offering distance education was that they prefer teaching in the 

classroom. For example, even though Howard University, a Historically 

Black University in Washington, D.C., has substantial technology such as 

multimedia rooms and sophisticated network capabilities, the school does 

not offer distance education courses for undergraduates and has no plans 

to do so because it prefers teaching undergraduates in the classroom. The 

second factor reported by schools as a reason for not providing distance 

education was limited resources for technology. Some Minority Serving 

Institutions said they wanted to offer more distance education but had 

limited technology to do so. For example, officials from the 10 Tribal 

Colleges that do not offer any distance education indicated that 

improvements in technology would be helpful. Officials at one Tribal 

College told us that some residents of reservations tend to be place-bound 

because of tribal and familial responsibilities; distance education would be 

one of the few realistic postsecondary options for this population, if 

technology were available. Technological limitations for Tribal Colleges 

involve a lack of resources to purchase needed technologies and 

difficulties in accessing technology, such as high-speed Internet, due to the 

rural and remote location of many reservations. All three types of schools 

identified the lack of resources—for investment in technology and for 

technology support staff—as particular limitations. In addition, from a 

broader context, Minority Serving Institutions reported that they view 

distance education as just one of many goals for technology—with varying 

degrees of priority depending on the college. In response to our survey, 

officials from Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic 

Serving Institutions more frequently indicated, for example, that relative to 

goals such as increasing the use of technology in the classroom, distance 

education ranks lower. At these schools, training faculty in the use of 

technology and improving the use of information technology in the 

classroom are higher priorities than distance education. By contrast, 

officials at Tribal Colleges more frequently placed distance education as a 

higher priority, reflecting their struggle to provide educational 

opportunities to populations across large geographic areas. However, they 

too identified other goals related to technology as important. 

Education could improve its monitoring of technological progress— 

including distance education—at Minority Serving Institutions under Titles 

III and V by collecting more data on technology, including baseline data, at 

these institutions. Education is taking steps to monitor the extent to which 

its grant programs are improving the use of technology by Minority 

Serving Institutions, but it has opportunities to track the expanding use of 

technology—including distance education—by capturing information in a 

Page 5 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
more complete fashion across the three major types of Minority Serving 

Institutions. While Education’s tracking system appears to include 

sufficient information on technology at Hispanic Serving Institutions, it 

contains less information on the usage of grant funds for technology 

improvements for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal 

Colleges. Additionally, although Education has set a goal of improving 

technology capacity at Minority Serving Institutions, it has not established 

a baseline against which progress can be measured. If Education is to be 

successful in measuring progress in this area, it may need to take a more 

proactive role in modifying existing research efforts to include information 

on the extent to which technology, including such basic information as 

student access to computers, is available at all schools. Having such 

information would provide policymakers and program managers an 

improved basis for making budget and program decisions. 

In this report, we are making recommendations to the Secretary of 

Education to (1) direct managers of the Title III and V programs to 

broaden their tracking systems so that they are applied in a more complete 

manner to the different types of Minority Serving Institutions and (2) study 

the feasibility of adding questions on distance education and information 

technology to existing research efforts carried out by Education. 

We provided Education with a draft of this report for its review and 

comment. In commenting on our draft report, Education generally agreed 

with our findings and recommendations. Education’s written comments 

are in appendix V. 

Background 	 In general, Minority Serving Institutions vary in size and scope and serve a 

high percentage of minority students, many of whom are financially 

disadvantaged. In size, for example, they range from Texas College, a 

Historically Black College with about 100 students, to Miami-Dade 

Community College, a Hispanic Serving Institution with more than 

46,000 students. In scope, they range from schools with certificate or 

2-year degree programs to universities with an extensive array of graduate 

and professional degree programs. Table 1 briefly compares the three 

types of Minority Serving Institutions in terms of their number, type, and 

size. Appendixes II to IV provide additional information about the three 

types of institutions. 

Page 6 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Table 1: Selected Characteristics of Minority Serving Institutions 

Type of Institution 

Characteristics 

Historically Black 

Colleges and 

Universities 

Hispanic Serving 

Institutions Tribal Colleges 

Number of schoolsa 102 334 

Percent of each type of 

institution 

Public 50 45 

Private nonprofit 50 23 

Private for-profit 0 32 

Average number of students 

per institution 2,685 5,141 

Number of students served in 

2000-01 274,000 1.7 million 13,500 

Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities 

Source: Department of Education and GAO analysis of IPEDS for the 2000-01 school year. 

a

This figure represents the number of schools eligible for the federal student aid programs in the 

2000-01 school year based on our analysis of IPEDS. 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities are the oldest of the Minority 

Serving Institutions. While the first Historically Black University, Cheyney 

University of Pennsylvania, was founded in 1837, most of the colleges and 

universities were founded between 1865 and 1890. In the 2000-01 school 

year, there were 102 Historically Black Colleges and Universities that were 

eligible for federal student aid programs, including Xavier University in 

New Orleans, Louisiana; Howard University in Washington, D.C.; and 

Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia. Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS, 

shows that while Historically Black Colleges and Universities represented 

2 percent of all public and nonprofit postsecondary institutions, they 

enrolled about 14 percent (223,359) of Black non-Hispanic students in the 

United States. In all, the schools were in 20 states, the District of 

Columbia, and the Virgin Islands (see fig. 1). About 85 percent of the 

students enrolled at these institutions were black Americans. Their 

students and parents have lower incomes, on average, than students and 

parents at non-Minority Serving Institutions. 

Page 7 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 

29 

100 

0 

0 

467 
Page 8 GAO-03-900 Distance Education

Figure 1: Distribution of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, by State 

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data.

Historically Black Colleges

and Universities

Alabama -14

Arkansa - 3

District of 

 Columbia - 3

Delaware -1

Florida - 4

Georgia - 10

Kentucky - 1

Louisiana -6

Maryland - 4

Michigan -1

Missouri - 2

Mississippi - 7

North Carolina -11

6

3

9

1

7 14

5

2 1

2

1

2

2

5

3

11

10

8

4

1

1 4

Ohio - 2

Oklahoma -1

Pennsylvania - 2

South Carolina -8

Tennessee - 5

Texas - 9

Virginia - 5

Virgin Islands - 1

West Virginia - 2
Hispanic Serving Institutions Hispanic Serving Institutions were recognized as such under the 

1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act7

 and some of the schools 

first received funding through the Higher Education Act in 1995. Under the 

definition established by the Congress, a Hispanic Serving Institution must 

have a student body that is at least 25 percent Hispanic, and at least half of 

the Hispanic students must be low-income. In the 2000-01 school year, 

there were 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions, including Long Beach City 

College in California; the University of Miami in Florida; and the University 

of New Mexico. Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while 

Hispanic Serving Institutions represented only 5 percent of all 

postsecondary institutions, they enrolled 48 percent (798,489) of all 

Hispanic students. These schools were located in 14 states and Puerto 

Rico (see fig. 2). About 51 percent of the students enrolled at these 

institutions are Hispanic. Compared to the two other major categories of 

Minority Serving Institutions, Hispanic Serving Institutions are generally 

larger and have more racial diversity in their student body. They are also 

the only type to include private for-profit schools, such as ITT Technical 

Colleges. Their students and parents have lower incomes, on average, than 

students and parents at non-Minority Serving Institutions. 

7

Pub. L. No. 102-325, § 302(d) (1992). 

Page 9 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Figure 2: Distribution of Hispanic Serving Institutions, by State 

Hispanic Serving Institution 

Arizona-17 

California-102 

Colorado-6 

Connecticut-1 

Florida-25 

Illinois-13 

Massachusetts-1 

New Jersey-6 

New Mexico-23 

New York-22 

Oklahoma-1 

Oregon-1 

Puerto Rico-63 

Texas-52 

Washington-1 

25 

1 

6 

17 

102 

1 

1 

23 

52 

13 

22 

1 

6 

1 

63 

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data. 

Page 10 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Tribal Colleges Most Tribal Colleges were founded in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1998, the 

Higher Education Act8

 was amended to create a grant program for Tribal 

Colleges to improve educational quality offered to their students, and 

some of the schools first received funds in 1998. In the 2000-01 school 

year, there were 29 Tribal Colleges located in 12 states (see fig. 3). They 

included Diné College in Tsaile, Arizona; Salish Kootenai College in Pablo, 

Montana; and Oglala Lakota College in Kyle, South Dakota. Our analysis of 

the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Tribal Colleges were less than 1 

percent of all public and private nonprofit postsecondary institutions, they 

enrolled 8 percent (11,262) of all American Indian/Alaska Native students 

in the United States. Tribal Colleges are the smallest of the three major 

types of Minority Serving Institutions, averaging less than 500 students, 

and nearly all are 2-year schools. About 85 percent of the students 

attending Tribal Colleges in the fall of 2000 were American Indian/Alaska 

Native. The percentage of students at Tribal Colleges who receive Pell 

Grants—a type of financial aid made available to the neediest students— 

was more than double that of students at non-Minority Serving Institutions 

(60 percent v. 24 percent).9 

8

Pub. L. No. 105-244, § 303(e) (1998). 

9

Although NPSAS contained data allowing us to develop information on the economic 

status of students and families at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic 

Serving Institutions, this database contained data on students at only one Tribal College. 

The Pell Grant information is the only other information we were able to develop from 

Education’s databases. 

Page 11 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Figure 3: Distribution of Tribal Colleges, by State 

Tribal Colleges 

Arizona - 1 

California - 1 

Kansas - 1 

Michigan - 1 

Minnesota - 2 

Montana - 7 

North Dakota - 5 

Nebraska - 2 

New Mexico - 3 

South Dakota - 3 

Washington - 1 

Wisconsin - 2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

7 

5 

3 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

Source: GAO analysis of IPEDS data. 

Federal Aid to Minority Through certain provisions in the Higher Education Act, the Congress has 

Serving Institutions 	 recognized the role that Minority Serving Institutions play in serving the 

needs of students, many of whom are from disadvantaged backgrounds. 

These provisions authorize grants for augmenting the limited resources 

that many Minority Serving Institutions have for funding their academic 

programs. Historically Black Colleges and Universities are eligible for 

grants funded through Title III, part B; Hispanic Serving Institutions 

Page 12 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
through Title V, part A; and Tribal Colleges through Title III, part A10 of the 

Higher Education Act. These grants seek to improve the academic quality, 

institutional management, and fiscal stability of eligible institutions. More 

specifically, according to Title III, part B, Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities receive grants, in part, to remedy discriminatory action of the 

states and the federal government against Black colleges and universities. 

Hispanic Serving Institutions receive funds to expand educational 

opportunities for and improve the academic attainment of Hispanic 

students. Finally, the grants for Tribal Colleges seek to improve and 

expand the colleges’ capacity to serve American Indian students. The 

Congress has identified as many as 14 areas in which institutions may use 

funds for improving their academic programs. Authorized uses include 

purchase or rental of telecommunications equipment or services, support 

of faculty development, and purchase of library books, periodicals, and 

other educational materials. Table 2 provides more information on each 

type of grant.

11 

10All Tribal Colleges also receive a majority of their operating funds from various federal 

sources, such as the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978, 

Pub. L. No. 95-471 (1978). Whether they receive state funding, however, varies from state 

to state. 

11Federal aid also flows to these institutions in a number of other forms. For example, 

students at these colleges or universities are eligible for the federal student aid programs, 

including Pell Grants and other funding for low-income students, such as student loans and 

work-study funds. In addition, other federal entities, such as the National Science 

Foundation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense have programs 

that Minority Serving Institutions could use to improve information technology on their 

campuses. 

Page 13 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Table 2: Characteristics of Grants for Minority Serving Institutions under the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as Amended 

Type of grant 

Title III, part B Title V, part A 

Historically Black Hispanic Title III, part A 

Colleges and Serving Tribal 

Characteristics Universities Institutionsa Colleges 

Amount of funding in 1999 $136 million $28 million $3 million 

Number of schools funded in 

1999 98 39 

Amount of funding in 2002 $206 million $86 million $17.5 million 

Number of schools funded in 

2002 99 172b 

Type of grant Formulaic/non- Competitivec Competitivec 

c

competitive 

Duration of individual grants 5 yearsd 5 years d 5 yearsd 

Wait-out period (minimum 

number of years between 

grants) None 2 years None 

Source: The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended and the Department of Education. 

a

Hispanic Serving Institutions are the only Minority Serving Institutions that include private for-profit 

schools. Private for-profit schools are not eligible for funding under Title V, part A. 

b

In 2002, 172 Hispanic Serving Institutions received 191 grants. Nineteen of the 172 institutions 

received 2 grants—an individual grant and a cooperative development grant. 

c

Tribal Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions receive grants based on a ranking of applications 

from a competitive peer review evaluation. Historically Black Colleges and Universities receive grants 

based on a formula that considers, in part, the number of Pell Grant recipients, the number of 

graduates, and the number of students that enroll in graduate school within 5 years after earning an 

undergraduate degree. 

d

Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges are 

required to prepare and submit a 5-year comprehensive development plan when they participate in 

Title III, part A, Title V, part A, or Title III, part B programs. 

One area to which such funds can be directed is technology, both inside 

the classroom and, in the form of distance education, outside the 

classroom. Both inside and outside the classroom, technology is changing 

how institutions educate their students, and Minority Serving Institutions, 

like other schools, are grappling with how best to adapt. Through such 

methods as E-mail, chat rooms, and direct instructional delivery via the 

Internet, technology can enhance students’ ability to learn any time, any 

place, rather than be bound by time in the classroom or in the library. For 

Minority Serving Institutions, the importance of technology takes on an 

additional dimension in that available research indicates their students 

may arrive with less prior access to technology, such as computers and the 

Page 14 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 

8 

27 
Distance Education 

Internet, than their counterparts in other schools.12 These students may 

need considerable exposure to technology to be fully equipped with jobrelated skills. 

Distance education is one major application of this new technology. 

Although distance education is not a new concept, it has assumed 

markedly newer forms and greater prominence over the past decade. 

Distance education can trace its history to the 1870s when correspondence 

courses—a home study course generally completed by mail—were first 

offered. Now, distance education is increasingly delivered in electronic 

forms, such as videoconferencing and the Internet. Through these 

approaches, distance education provides postsecondary education access 

to students who may live in remote locations or whose schedules require 

greater flexibility. For example, schools such as the University of Phoenix 

Online and the University of Maryland University College target entire 

distance learning degree programs to working adults who take their 

classes largely at home. Distance education’s effect on helping students 

complete their courses of study is still largely unknown. Although there is 

some anecdotal evidence that distance education can help students 

complete their programs or graduate from college, school officials that we 

spoke to did not identify any studies that evaluated the extent to which 

distance education has improved completion or graduation rates. 

There Are Some 

Variations in the Use 

of Distance Education 

at Minority Serving 

Institutions Compared 

to Other Schools 

It is difficult to generalize across the Minority Serving Institutions, but 

available data indicate that while Minority Serving Institutions tend to 

offer at least one distance education course at about the same rate as 

other schools, they differ in how many courses are offered and which 

students take the distance education courses. Minority Serving Institutions 

tend to be similar to non-Minority Serving Institutions in the percentage of 

schools that offer distance education, and to a considerable degree, they 

also mirror other schools in that distance education is more prominent at 

larger schools and at public schools. However, there are also differences 

between Minority Serving Institutions and other schools, and between the 

three categories of Minority Serving Institutions we reviewed. We found 

that Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges 

offered fewer distance education courses than other schools, which may 

be a reflection of their generally smaller size. The limited data available 

12The Web-Based Education Commission, The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving 

from Promise to Practice. (Washington D.C.: December 2000). 

Page 15 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
about student participation in distance education indicates that minority 

students may be somewhat less involved in distance education than other 

students. In the 1999-2000 school year, for example, 6 percent of students 

at Historically Black Colleges and Universities were involved with distance 

education, compared with 8.4 percent at non-Minority Serving 

institutions—perhaps reflecting the fewer number of distance education 

courses that Historically Black Colleges and Universities offer. This result 

is statistically significant. 

Percentage of Minority 

Serving Institutions 

Offering at Least One 

Distance Education 

Course Is about the Same 

as the Percentage for 

Other Schools 

The percentage of Minority Serving Institutions that offered at least one 

distance education course is about the same as the percentage for all 

degree granting postsecondary institutions eligible for the federal student 

aid programs. Education’s July 2003 report indicates that about 56 percent 

of 2-year and 4-year institutions whose students were eligible for federal 

student aid programs offered distance education courses during the 

2000-01 school year.13 The results from our questionnaire showed that 

about 56 percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 

63 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 63 percent of Tribal 

Colleges offered at least one distance education course (see fig. 4). 

However, the data from our survey and the survey conducted by 

Education are not completely comparable because they cover two 

different time periods. Education’s survey covered the 2000-01 school 

year while our survey covered the 2002-03 school year.14 

13Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, Distance Education 

at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001. (Washington D.C.: July 2003). 

14Our survey and Education’s survey are also different in the way that information was 

summarized. For example, Education’s survey aggregates all private nonprofit schools and 

private for-profit schools as private schools. Our survey breaks out these types of schools 

into separate categories. 

Page 16 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Figure 4: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Offer Distance Education 

Is about the Same as the Percentage for Other Schools 

Percentage 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

All 

k

hools sc

Historically Blac

Colleges and

Universities 

Institutions

Hispanic Serving 

ibal rT

Colleges 

Minority Serving Institutions 

Source: Department of Education and GAO’s Minority Serving Institution survey. 

According to our survey, Minority Serving Institutions offered distance 

education courses15 for two main reasons: (1) it improves access to 

courses for some students who live away from campus and (2) it provides 

convenience to older, working, or married students. The following 

examples illustrate these conditions. 

• 	 Northwest Indian College, a Tribal College in Bellingham, Washington, has 

over 10 percent of its 600 students involved in distance education. It offers 

distance education by videoconference equipment or correspondence. The 

College offers over 20 distance education courses, such as mathematics 

and English to students at seven remote locations in Washington and 

Idaho. According to College officials, distance education technology is 

15The two most common modes of delivering distance education for Minority Serving 

Institutions were (1) on-line courses using a computer and (2) live courses transmitted via 

videoconference. 

Page 17 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
essential because it provides access to educational opportunities to 

students who live away from campus. For example, some students taking 

distance education courses live hundreds of miles from the College in 

locations such as the Nez Perce Reservation in Idaho and the Makah 

Reservation in Neah Bay, Washington. According to school officials, 

students involved in distance education tend to be older with dependents, 

and therefore, find it difficult to take courses outside of their community. 

Also, one official noted that staying within the tribal community is valued 

and distance education allows members of tribes to stay close to their 

community and still obtain skills or a degree. 

• 	 The University of the Incarnate Word is a private nonprofit Hispanic 

Serving Institution with an enrollment of about 6,900 students. The school, 

located in San Antonio, Texas, offers on-line degree and certificate 

programs, including degrees in business, nursing, and information 

technology. About 2,400 students are enrolled in the school’s distance 

education program. The school’s on-line programs are directed at 

nontraditional students (students who are 24 years old or older), many of 

whom are Hispanic. In general, the ideal candidates for the on-line 

program are older students, working adults, or adult learners who have 

been out of high school for 5 or more years, according to the Provost and 

the Director of Instructional Technology. 

Distance Education at 

Most Minority Serving 

Institutions Follows 

National Trends with 

Regard to Size and Type of 

School Offering at Least 

One Distance Education 

Course 

For the most part, those Minority Serving Institutions that offered at least 

one distance education course tended to be similar to other schools 

offering at least one distance education course with regard to size and type 

of school. Our survey results showed that Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions with 3,001 to 9,999 students 

were more than twice as likely to offer distance education courses as 

schools with 2,000 or fewer students (see fig. 5). Similarly, in July 2003, 

Education reported that a higher percentage of larger schools eligible for 

federal student aid programs offered distance education compared with 

smaller schools. Education reported its results using somewhat different 

size categories than the ones we used in our questionnaire, so the results 

cannot be presented side by side for comparative purposes. However, 

according to Education’s report, the distribution was much the same: 

41 percent of the schools with an enrollment of less than 3,000 offered 

distance education courses, compared with 88 percent of the schools with 

an enrollment of 3,000 to 9,999 and 95 percent of the schools with an 

enrollment of greater than 10,000. 

Page 18 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Figure 5: Higher Percentage of Larger Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

and Hispanic Serving Institutions Offer Distance Education 

Percentage offering distance education 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

0-2,000 2,001-3,000 3,001-9,999 

Enrollment at Minority Serving Institutions 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

Hispanic Serving Institutions 

Source: GAO’s Minority Serving Institution survey. 

Our survey disclosed that Tribal Colleges, even though all have fewer than 

2,000 students, were noticeably different from Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions in the extent to which 

they were involved with distance education. Among Tribal Colleges, 

65 percent offered at least one distance education course, compared with 

34 percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 33 percent 

of Hispanic Serving Institutions with 2,000 or fewer students. Our site 

visits to these schools raised several possible explanations. Potential 

students of many Tribal Colleges live in communities dispersed over large 

geographic areas—in some cases, potential students might live over a 

hundred miles from the nearest Tribal College or satellite campus— 

making it difficult or impossible for some students to commute to these 

schools. In these cases, distance education is an appealing way to deliver 

courses to remote locations. Also, officials at one Tribal College told us 

that some residents of reservations may be place-bound due to tribal and 

familial responsibilities, making distance education one of the few realistic 

postsecondary education options. Also important, according to some 

Page 19 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
officials, is that tribal residents have expressed an interest in enrolling in 

distance education courses. 

With regard to type of school, Minority Serving Institutions mirrored the 

national trend in that the percentage of Minority Serving Institutions 

offering distance education was higher among public than private 

institutions (see fig. 6). Among public Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, about 80 percent or more 

offered distance education; these percentages dropped by 20 percent or 

more for private nonprofit schools and was even lower for private forprofit schools. Similarly, Education’s survey showed that about 90 percent 

of 4-year public institutions offered distance education, compared with 

40 percent of private institutions. 

Figure 6: Higher Percentage of Public Minority Serving Institutions Offer Distance 

Education 

Page 20 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities and Tribal 

Colleges Tend to Offer 

Fewer Distance Education 

Courses 

While roughly the same percentage of Minority Serving Institutions offered 

at least one distance education course as non-Minority Serving 

Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal 

Colleges tended to offer fewer courses. For example, of the schools that 

offered at least one distance education course, 52 percent of the 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 61 percent of Tribal 

Colleges offered 10 or fewer undergraduate distance education courses. 

By contrast, only 27 percent of 2-year and 4-year institutions that offered 

at least one distance education course and that were eligible for the 

federal student aid programs offered 10 or fewer distance education 

courses, according to Education’s survey. Similarly, about 25 percent of 

Hispanic Serving Institutions that offered at least one distance education 

course also offered 10 or fewer courses. To some extent, these differences 

may reflect the fact that Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 

Tribal Colleges, as a group, are smaller than other institutions. The 

relationship discussed earlier about an institution’s enrollment and the 

size of its distance education program may help explain why the number 

of courses offered via distance education are generally smaller at these 

two types of Minority Serving Institutions. 

While the overall size of the distance education programs was smaller, the 

percentage of Minority Serving Institutions offering degree programs 

through distance education was close to that of other schools. Education 

reported that about 19 percent of 2-year and 4-year institutions eligible for 

the federal student aid programs offered degree or certificate programs 

that could be earned entirely through distance education. Similarly, about 

19 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions and about 17 percent of 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities offered degree or certificate 

programs through distance education (see fig. 7). The percentage was 

lower for Tribal Colleges (11 percent). 

Page 21 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Figure 7: Percent of Minority Serving Institutions Offering Degree Programs Is 

about the Same or Less Than Other Schools 

Percentage 

25 

20 

By analyzing Education’s NPSAS database, we were also able to make 

some comparisons of the number of students taking distance education 

courses at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 

Institutions, and non-Minority Serving Institutions. We were unable to 

develop data on the extent that Tribal College students use distance 

education because NPSAS included data from only one Tribal College. 

There appears to be a difference between minority students and other 

students in the extent to which they are involved with distance education 

courses. More specifically: 

• 	 Students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities tend to use 

distance education to a lesser extent than students at other schools. In 

school year 1999-2000, about 6 percent of undergraduate students at 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities enrolled in at least one 

distance education course and about 1.1 percent took their entire program 

through distance education. By comparison, 8.4 percent of undergraduates 

at other schools enrolled in at least one distance education course, and 

15 

10 

5 

0 

All 

k

hools sc

Historically Blac

Colleges and

Universities 

Institutions

Hispanic Serving 

ibal rT

Colleges 

Minority Serving Institutions 

Source: Department of Education and GAO Minority Serving Institution survey. 

Fewer Minority Students 

Take Distance Education 

Courses 

Page 22 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
2.5 percent took their entire program through distance education. These 

differences may reflect the fact that Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities generally offer fewer distance education courses than nonMinority Serving Institutions. 

• 	 Hispanic students attending Hispanic Serving Institutions use distance 

education at a lower rate than other students at the same schools. About 

51 percent of the undergraduates at Hispanic Serving Institutions are 

Hispanic, but they comprise only about 40 percent of the undergraduate 

students enrolled in distance education classes. This difference is 

statistically significant. Similarly, our analysis also shows that the greater 

the percentage of Hispanic students at the institution, the lower the overall 

rate of distance education use at that school. 

We analyzed student characteristics, such as their age and income, to 

determine if these characteristics could explain why these students were 

less involved in distance education, but our analysis did not establish such 

a link. The analysis showed that distance education students are more 

likely to be older, married, independent, a part-time student, and have a 

higher income than the average postsecondary student. Conversely, the 

average student at Historically Black Colleges and Universities is more 

likely to be younger, single, dependent, a full-time student, and have a 

lower income than the average postsecondary student, and to a somewhat 

lesser degree, the characteristics of students at Hispanic Serving 

Institutions tend to follow the same pattern. When we conducted a logistic 

regression analysis16 to analyze these differences more carefully, we did 

not find that these characteristics tended to explain the extent to which a 

student is involved in distance education. Among the characteristics that 

we describe above, only a single student characteristic—marital status— 

was associated with whether a student enrolls in distance education, and 

this relationship was limited. This suggests that there may be other 

reasons, such as fewer courses being offered, that help explain why a 

smaller percentage of students at Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic 

students at Hispanic Serving Institutions enroll in distance education 

courses. 

16Logistic regression procedures are often used to estimate the size and significance of the 

associations of different factors, such as marital status, age, and family income with a 

discrete or categorical outcome, such as whether a student did (or did not) take a distance 

education course in the past year. 

Page 23 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Teaching Preference 

and Resources 

Available for Distance 

Education Affect the 

Extent to Which 

Minority Serving 

Institutions Offer 

Distance Education 

According to officials of Minority Serving Institutions, there are two 

factors that explain why some Minority Serving Institutions do not offer 

distance education. First, nearly half of Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions did not offer any distance 

education because they preferred to teach their students in the classroom 

rather than through distance education. Limited resources is the second 

factor reported by schools for not providing distance education. In 

addition, when placed within a broader context of technology 

improvements, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic 

Serving Institutions viewed distance education as a relatively low priority 

when compared to other purposes, such as increasing the use of 

information technology in the classroom. Most Tribal Colleges also viewed 

expanding technology usage on campus as a high priority, but they more 

frequently considered distance education a higher priority than 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving 

Institutions. 

By Design, Some Minority 

Serving Institutions Prefer 

Not to Offer Distance 

Education 

To a great degree or very great degree, nearly half of Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions indicated that 

they do not offer distance education because classroom education best 

meets the needs of their students.17 Conversely, only 10 percent of Tribal 

Colleges that are not involved in distance education indicated that 

classroom education best meets the needs of their students. Here are 

examples from two schools that prefer teaching their students in the 

classroom rather than by the use of distance education. 

• 	 Howard University, an Historically Black University in Washington, D.C., 

with about 10,000 students, has substantial information technology; 

however, it prefers to use the technology in teaching undergraduates on 

campus rather than through developing and offering distance education. 

The University has state-of-the-art hardware and software, such as 

wireless access to the school’s network; a digital auditorium; and a 

24-hour-a-day Technology Center, which support and enhance the 

academic achievement for its students. Despite its technological 

capabilities, the University does not offer distance education courses to 

undergraduates and has no plans to do so. According to the Dean of 

Scholarships and Financial Aid, the University prefers teaching 

undergraduates in the classroom because more self-discipline is needed 

17Forty-four percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 37 percent of Hispanic 

Serving Institutions, and 39 percent of Tribal Colleges do not offer any distance education. 

Page 24 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
when taking distance education courses. Also, many undergraduates 

benefit from the support provided by students and faculty in a classroom 

setting. 

• 	 Robert Morris College is a private nonprofit Hispanic Serving Institution 

located in Chicago, Illinois, that offers bachelor degrees in business, 

computer technology, and health sciences. About 25 percent of its 

6,200 undergraduates are Hispanic. Although the College has one 

computer for every four students, it does not offer distance education 

courses and has no plans to do so. School officials believe that classroom 

education best meets the needs of its students because of the personal 

interaction that occurs in a classroom setting. 

Some Schools Would Like 

to Offer More Distance 

Education, but Have 

Limited Resources to Do 

So 

Among Minority Serving Institutions that do not offer distance education, 

over 50 percent would like to offer distance education in the future, but 

indicated that they have limited resources with which to do so. About half 

of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving 

Institutions that do not offer distance education indicated that they do not 

have the necessary technology—including students with access to 

computers or the Internet at their residences—for distance education. A 

higher percentage of Tribal Colleges (67 percent) cited limitations in 

technology as a reason why they do not offer distance education. 

Technological limitations are twofold for Tribal Colleges. The first, and 

more obvious limitation is a lack of resources to purchase and develop 

needed technologies. The second is that due to the remote location of 

some campuses, schools do not have access to needed technology—that 

is, schools may be limited to the technology of the surrounding 

communities. For example, a school cannot purchase certain technologies 

that are not provided in those communities. All 10 Tribal Colleges that did 

not offer distance education indicated that improvements in technology, 

such as videoconference equipment and network infrastructure with 

greater speed, would be helpful. Here are some examples of how resource 

limitations impact development of distance education programs at 

Minority Serving Institutions. 

• 	 Little Priest Tribal College, located on the Winnebago Indian Reservation 

in northeastern Nebraska, does not offer any distance education courses, 

but would like to do so in the future. The college serves about 160 

undergraduates and the Academic Dean indicated that two-way 

videoconference equipment and support personnel would be needed in 

order to offer distance education courses. She said that the school would 

like to offer courses in the native language (called Ho Chunk) of the 

Winnebago Tribe. Currently, a native speaker capable of teaching the 

Page 25 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
language resides in Wisconsin–hundreds of miles from the Winnebago 

reservation. Having such equipment would allow the instructor to teach 

the native language to students who attend classes on campus, according 

to the Academic Dean. 

• 	 Fisk University, an Historically Black University in Nashville, Tennessee, 

serves about 800 undergraduates and about 30 graduate students. The 

school does not offer distance education courses, but hopes to do so in the 

future. The Director, Academic Computing, indicated that distance 

education would help supplement the curriculum that the school currently 

offers to students. The school would also like to offer on-line courses in 

African-American History, however, it currently does not have the 

information technology equipment for distance education. 

For Many Institutions, 

Expanding Technology on 

Campus is More Important 

Than Applying It to 

Distance Education 

Minority Serving Institutions generally indicated that offering more 

distance education was a lower priority than using technology to educate 

their classroom students. All of the institutions reported that their highest 

priority was providing more training for faculty in the use of information 

technology as a teaching method. Other priorities included improving 

network infrastructure, increasing the use of technology in classrooms, 

and guaranteeing that all students have access to a computer. (See fig. 8 

for a comparison of how distance education compares to other selected 

technology goals.) 

Page 26 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Figure 8: Distance Education Generally Ranks Lower in Relation to Other Technology Goals 

Priorities 

Providing more training for faculty in the 

use of information technology as a 

teaching method 

Increasing the use of information 

technology in the classroom 

Improving network infrastructure 

Guaranteeing that all students have 

access to a computer 

Increasing the number of students who 

have access to the Internet 

Providing more training to faculty in the 

use of distance education as a teaching 

method 

Providing more training for 

students in the use of computers 

Increasing the number of distance 

education programs 

0 20 40 60 80 

Percentage 

Source: GAO’s Minority Serving Institution survey. 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

Hispanic Serving Institutions 

Tribal Colleges 

Minority Serving Institutions indicated that they expect to have difficulties 

in meeting their goals related to technology. Eighty-seven percent of Tribal 

Colleges, 83 percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and 

82 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions cited limitations in funding as a 

primary reason for why they may not achieve their technology-related 

goals. For example, the Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, serves about 670 students and it uses distance 

education to provide courses for an associates degree in early childhood 

development to about 100 students. The school uses two-way satellite 

Page 27 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 

100 
communication and transmits the courses to 11 remote locations. 

According to a technology specialist at the school, this form of distance 

education is expensive compared to other methods. As an alternative, the 

Institute would like to establish two-way teleconferencing capability and 

Internet access at the off-site locations as a means of expanding 

educational opportunities. School officials noted, however, that many of 

the locations have no telephone or Internet service because they are in 

such remote areas of the state. 

About half of the schools also noted that they might experience difficulty 

in meeting their goals because they did not have enough staff to operate 

and maintain information technology and to help faculty apply technology. 

For example, officials at Diné College, a Tribal College on the Navajo 

Reservation, told us they have not been able to fill a systems analyst 

position for the last 3 years. School officials cited their remote location 

and the fact that they are offering relatively low pay as problems in 

attracting employees that have skills in operating and maintaining 

technology equipment. 

Having a systematic approach to expanding technology on campuses is an 

important step toward modernizing and evaluating technology at 

postsecondary schools. About 75 percent of Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities, 70 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, and only 

48 percent of Tribal Colleges had completed a strategic plan for expanding 

their technology infrastructure. Fewer schools had completed a financial 

plan for funding technology improvements. About half of Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 

19 percent of Tribal Colleges have a financial plan for expanding their 

information technology (see fig. 9). 

Page 28 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Figure 9: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Have Strategic and 

Financial Plans for Expanding Their Technology Infrastructure 

Studies by other organizations describe challenges faced by Minority 

Serving Institutions in expanding their technology infrastructure. For 

example, an October 2000 study by Booz, Allen, and Hamilton determined 

that historically or predominantly Black colleges identified challenges in 

funding, strategic planning, and keeping equipment up to date. An October 

2000 report by the Department of Commerce found that most Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities have access to computing resources, such 

as high-speed Internet capabilities but individual student access to campus 

networks is seriously deficient due to, among other things, lack of student 

ownership of computers or lack of access from campus dormitories. An 

April 2003 Senate Report noted that only one Tribal College has funding 

for high-speed Internet. 

Page 29 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Education Can 

Further Refine Its 

Programs for 

Monitoring 

Technology Usage at 

Minority Serving 

Institutions 

Education is taking steps to monitor the extent to which its grants are 

improving the use of technology by Minority Serving Institutions; however, 

its efforts could be improved in two ways. First, as Education creates a 

new system for measuring the outcomes of its grants, it has opportunities 

to more completely capture technology-related information, including 

distance education, across the three major types of Minority Serving 

Institutions. Second, although Education has set a goal of improving 

technology capacity at Minority Serving Institutions, it has not yet 

developed a baseline against which progress can be measured. If 

Education is to be successful in developing such baseline data, it may need 

to examine the potential use of its existing research efforts, such as 

IPEDS. IPEDS is currently used to capture information on the different 

characteristics of institutions involved in the federal student aid programs. 

Education has studied the possibility of including technology-related 

information in IPEDS, but so far, has yet to make a decision on this matter. 

Education Has Made 

Progress in Tracking 

Outcomes of Title III and 

Title V Programs, but 

Additional Improvements 

May Be Needed to Ensure 

More Complete Coverage 

Across the Major Types of 

Minority Serving 

Institutions 

Increasing the technological capacity of Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges is one goal 

Education has identified in its 2002-03 annual performance plan. 

Education’s efforts are part of a larger effort by the administration to 

emphasize the outcomes of federal programs. According to the Office of 

Management and Budget, improving programs by focusing on results is an 

integral component of the administration’s budget preparation process. In 

this regard, Education has made progress in tracking outcomes of its Title 

III and Title V programs, but additional improvements may be needed to 

make its efforts more complete across the three major types of Minority 

Serving Institutions. 

In spring 2000, Title III and Title V program staff began an effort to 

improve the program monitoring system. As part of these efforts, 

Education wanted to develop a system that can capture information to 

demonstrate how grants improve the education of students that Minority 

Serving Institutions serve. Among the activities that Education and 

grantees discussed were how grants are being used to improve 

information technology on campuses and how best to collect information 

on how such efforts improve the education of students. For example, 

program staff held a series of four meetings with about 200 schools and 

conducted telephone conferences with another 90 institutions to obtain 

feedback on the format and effectiveness of the draft annual performance 

report. The Office of Management and Budget reviewed and approved the 

annual performance report and commended Education for “substantial 

revisions” made to its performance reporting system and “meaningful 

Page 30 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
interaction with stakeholders.” In March 2003, Education received the first 

set of data from its grantees for its annual performance report. According 

to staff responsible for the annual performance report, the new monitoring 

effort is a “work in progress” and continued improvements and revisions 

will likely occur later this year. 

In this regard, the progress Education has made in developing an annual 

performance report that focuses on results is a major step toward 

improving program performance, however, additional improvements may 

be needed. More specifically, we found that the way Education tracks the 

usage of grant funds for technology improvements among Minority Serving 

Institutions may not completely reflect how Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities and Tribal Colleges use their grants. The tracking of 

technology-related information appears to be adequate for Hispanic 

Serving Institutions. (See table 3.) For example, Education’s tracking 

effort for Hispanic Serving Institutions includes the extent to which 

program funds (1) improve student and faculty access to the Internet, 

(2) increase the number of computers available to students outside of 

classrooms, and (3) expand the number of new distance education courses 

and students. Similar information is not collected for Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges even though a substantial 

number of these schools use grant funds to expand distance education 

offerings or to improve technology on campus. Eight of the 11 Tribal 

Colleges that received new Title III grants in 2001 stated that funds would 

be used to develop or expand technology usage, including distance 

education. Similarly, between 1999-2001, about 23 percent of Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities that responded to our survey indicated 

that they used Title III funds on distance education. 

Page 31 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Table 3: Differences in the Types of Activities Monitored by Education in Minority 

Serving Institution Annual Reports 

Minority Serving Institution reports 

Activities monitored by Hispanic 

Education in annual Historically Black Serving Tribal 

performance reports for Colleges and Institutions Colleges 

Title III (part B), Title V (part A), Universities (Title (Title V (Title III 

and Title III (part A) III (part B)) (part A)) (part A)) 

Increase in the number of “wired” Yesa Yes Yes 

classrooms 

Offer training to faculty in the use Yes Yes Yes 

of technology 

Increase student access to the Noa Yes No 

Internet 

Increase the number of computers No Yes No 

available to students outside of 

the classroom 

Increase the number of courses No Yes No 

using technology 

Increase the number of students No Yes No 

taking courses using technology 

Increase the number of students No Yes No 

using distance learning 

Source: Department of Education and GAO analysis of Education’s Annual Performance Reports for Title III, part A, Title III, part B, and 

Title V, part A of the Higher Education Act, as amended. 

a

A “yes” response indicates that the information was collected in the report. A “no” response indicates 

that the information was not collected in the report. 

According to managers of the Titles III and V programs, the differences in 

the types of information on activities and outcomes that are captured for 

each report stems from differences in the titles themselves. Title V, part A, 

under which funds are provided to Hispanic Serving Institutions, explicitly 

allows program funds to be used for “creating or improving facilities for 

Internet or other distance learning academic instruction capabilities, 

including purchase or rental of telecommunications technology equipment 

or services.” The program for Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

(Title III, part B) and Tribal Colleges (Title III, part A) does not specifically 

address the use of funds in this manner, however, using grant funds for 

expanding distance education offerings or technology usage are 

authorized activities, according to Education staff. Inasmuch as Minority 

Serving Institutions indicated in their questionnaire responses that they 

have an interest in expanding both the use of technology in the classroom 

and distance education, it may be appropriate to make the annual 

performance reports as inclusive as possible. 

Page 32 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Education Does Not Have 

Baseline Data to Measure 

Technological Capacity at 

Minority Serving 

Institutions 

One difficulty that Education will encounter in attempting to judge the 

extent to which Minority Serving Institutions are increasing their 

technological capacity is that it has no baseline to measure against. 

Education may have opportunities to fill this void by expanding its existing 

research efforts to include data on technology usage and capabilities at all 

schools, including Minority Serving Institutions.18 One vehicle for 

accomplishing this could be through IPEDS, a product of one of 

Education’s research efforts that is conducted annually and that contains 

data on the characteristics of institutions and their students’ eligibility for 

federal student aid programs. 

Although Education has researched the usage of distance education19 at 

postsecondary institutions, it does not collect data from postsecondary 

institutions on the capacity of or improvements in their technology 

infrastructure. The growing use of technology by postsecondary 

institutions has surfaced as an important area of research in recent years 

and Education has held meetings on how to measure technology capacity 

at postsecondary institutions. Staff from the Title III and Title V programs 

indicated that having such data for Minority Serving Institutions and other 

institutions would provide a national perspective on technology 

infrastructure at these schools. However, according to other Education 

officials, two issues need to be addressed before such a change can be 

made. First, there are different views on how to accurately measure 

technology infrastructure at postsecondary institutions. For example, in 

determining how many computers are available to students at a school, 

there is no agreement on whether personal computers, computers in the 

library, and computers for faculty should be included in total or in part. 

Second, before Education expands any of its data collection efforts, Office 

18Education recognizes the importance of its research to policymakers and other users. 

Education stated in its 2002-03 annual plan that it will focus Education’s research activities 

on topics of greatest relevance. In this regard, the Congress has expressed interest in 

information technology at Minority Institutions. In April 2003, the Senate passed S. 196, 

Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003 to 

strengthen technology infrastructure at Minority Serving Institutions. If enacted, this 

statute would create a new grant program at the National Science Foundation for funding 

technology improvements at institutions that serve a high percentage of minority students. 

19The Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics has produced 

several reports on distance education, including Distance Education at Degree-Granting 

Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001 (Washington D.C.: July 2003) and Distance 

Education Instruction by Postsecondary Faculty and Staff: Fall 1998 (Washington D.C.: 

February 2002). While the reports provide aggregate data on distance education, they do 

not provide data on distance education at Minority Serving Institutions. 

Page 33 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Conclusions 

Recommendations 

of Management and Budget regulations20 that implement the Paperwork 

Reduction Act require agencies to evaluate, among other things, the need 

for collecting data and the costs to respondents of generating, maintaining, 

or providing the data. Education would need to determine how best to 

resolve these issues before moving forward with any changes. 

Minority Serving Institutions view the use of technology as a critical tool 

in educating their students. Technology allows greater access to the latest 

research and to a broader array of information. Ultimately, Minority 

Serving Institutions, like other schools, face stiff challenges in keeping 

pace with the rapid changes and opportunities presented by information 

technology. 

In creating the Title III and Title V programs, the Congress acknowledged 

that Minority Serving Institutions have historically had limited resources 

to invest in educating their students when compared to other institutions. 

More complete data on how Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

and Tribal Colleges use Title III funds for improving technology on 

campus, and thus, the education of students, would help inform program 

managers and policymakers about progress that has been made and 

opportunities for improvement. Additionally, as Education examines the 

many research efforts it has, it may find it beneficial to collect information 

on distance education and technology capacity at postsecondary 

institutions. Doing so would provide baseline data on Minority Serving 

Institutions and the progress they make in improving their technology 

capacity. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Education (1) direct managers of the 

Title III and Title V programs to further improve their annual performance 

report for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges 

by including areas such as student access to computers and the number of 

distance education courses that were offered and (2) study the feasibility 

of adding questions on distance education and information technology to 

an existing study at Education, such as IPEDS, to develop baseline data on 

technology capacity at Minority Serving Institutions and to judge the 

extent to which progress is being made. 

205 C.F.R., part 1320. 

Page 34 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, Education generally agreed with 

our findings and recommendations. Specifically, Education agreed to 

broaden its monitoring of Title III and Title V programs to ensure that 

appropriate information about the needs of institutions in the area of 

distance learning and technology for course delivery are considered. 

Education generally agreed with our second recommendation to study the 

feasibility of adding questions on distance education and information 

technology to existing research efforts that it carries out. Education stated 

that it would explore expanding the sample of the Postsecondary 

Education Quick Information System (PEQIS) to include more Minority 

Serving Institutions. According to Education, PEQIS is used to collect 

information on topics of national importance from postsecondary 

institutions. Education used PEQIS to collect data for three distance 

education studies, including the most recent, Distance Education at 

Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001, data from 

which we used in this report. Also, Education stated that it would consider 

our specific suggestion related to what data could be collected from 

institutions under IPEDS. In addition to commenting on our 

recommendations, Education offered some technical comments on the 

report and we revised the draft report when appropriate. Education’s 

written comments are reprinted in appendix V. 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 


earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 24 days from its 


issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to appropriate 


congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and other 


interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on


GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 


If you or members of your staffs have any questions regarding this report, 


please call me on (202) 512-8403. Other contacts and acknowledgments 


are listed in appendix VI.


Cornelia M. Ashby 


Director, Education, Workforce, 


and Income Security 


Page 35 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 


To determine whether the use of distance education varies between 

Minority Serving Institutions and non-Minority Serving Institutions, we 

developed and sent questionnaires to a fall 2000 list of 108 Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities,1

 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 

32 Tribal Colleges2

 that we received from Education. Each type of school 

received a distinct questionnaire. The questionnaires had questions on 

whether the institution offered distance education, and if so, how many 

courses and degree programs were offered. The response rate to each 

questionnaire was 78 percent for Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, 75 percent for Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 82 percent 

for Tribal Colleges. We compared the results of the survey with a July 

2003 report from Education’s National Center for Education Statistics 

entitled Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary 

Education Institutions: 2000-2001. This survey was sent to over 

1,600 2-year and 4-year degree granting institutions that were eligible for 

the federal student aid programs and provided information on distance 

education offerings by these schools. We also analyzed the National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS) to determine the extent that 

students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic 

Serving Institutions enrolled in distance education courses. NPSAS 

contains information on characteristics of students who attended 

postsecondary institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions in the 1999-2000 school year. 

NPSAS contained information on students at only one Tribal College, so 

we were unable to develop similar information for students attending 

Tribal Colleges. Finally, we analyzed IPEDS to develop data on the 

institutional characteristics of Minority Serving Institutions. 

1

When we analyzed the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), we 

limited our work to the 102 Historically Black Colleges and Universities that were eligible 

for the federal student aid programs. For our survey instrument, we received a list of 

108 Historically Black Colleges and Universities from Education. Five of the schools were 

not eligible for federal student aid programs in 2000-01 (Carver State Technical College; 

Selma University; Shorter College; Natchez College, and Knoxville College). A sixth school, 

Hinds Community College-Utica Campus had reported itself as part of the main campus by 

the time we conducted our analysis of IPEDS. 

2

When we analyzed IPEDS, we limited our work to the 29 Tribal Colleges eligible for the 

federal student aid programs. For our survey instrument, we received a list of 32 Tribal 

Colleges from Education. Three of the schools were not eligible for the federal student aid 

program in 2000-01 (Si Tanka College; White Earth Tribal and Community College, and 

Medicine Creek Tribal College). 

Page 36 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To determine what factors account for any differences in usage of distance 

education between Minority Serving Institutions and non-Minority Serving 

Institutions, we developed statistics from NPSAS on the characteristics of 

students enrolled in distance education and those that were not. We 

conducted logistic regression—a type of analysis that is designed to show 

the influence of one or several variables on another variable to see 

whether student characteristics, such as age and income influenced their 

involvement in distance education at Minority Serving Institutions. We 

also used the results from our survey to see if different characteristics of 

Minority Serving Institutions, such as their size, location in rural or urban 

areas, and type of funding sources, such as whether the school was public 

or private nonprofit, had any bearing on whether the school offered 

distance education. Additionally, we used the results of our survey to see 

whether institutional strategies for teaching students may have had any 

effect on whether schools offered distance education. 

To determine what factors Minority Serving Institutions consider when 

deciding whether to offer distance education, we used the results from our 

survey. To determine what steps Education could take, if any, to improve 

its monitoring of the results of their Title III (part A) and (part B) and Title 

V (part A) programs as it relates to improvements in technology, including 

distance education, we also used the results from our survey. Additionally, 

we reviewed the statutes that created programs for Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal 

Colleges. We interviewed managers of these programs and obtained and 

reviewed documents related to Education’s performance measures and 

goals. 

To develop our survey instruments, we interviewed officials at 

organizations that represent Minority Serving Institutions, including the 

United Negro College Fund, the National Association for Equal 

Opportunity in Higher Education, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and 

Universities, and the American Indian Higher Education Consortium. We 

developed and pretested our questionnaire during visits to 6 Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities—Morgan State University in Baltimore, 

Maryland; Howard University in the District of Columbia; Johnson C. 

Smith University in Charlotte, North Carolina; Xavier University in New 

Orleans, Louisiana; Wiley College in Marshall, Texas; and Texas College in 

Tyler, Texas. Also, we developed and pretested our survey at 5 Hispanic 

Serving Institutions—San Antonio Community College in San Antonio, 

Texas; University of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio, Texas; Rio Hondo 

College in Whittier, California; East Los Angeles College in Monterrey 

Park, California; and National Hispanic University in San Jose, California. 

Page 37 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

We also developed and pretested our survey at 4 Tribal Colleges— 

Northwest Indian College in Bellingham, Washington; Diné College in 

Tsaile, Arizona; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in Albuquerque, 

New Mexico; and D-Q University in Davis, California. In addition, to obtain 

additional information based on the results provided by Minority Serving 

Institutions, we visited and interviewed officials at Delaware State 

University in Dover, Delaware; Gavilan College in Gilroy, California; and 

Salish-Kootenai College in Pablo, Montana. To obtain additional 

information on how non-Minority Serving Institutions fund their distance 

education programs, we visited Cabrillo College in Aptos, California; 

Montana Tech in Butte, Montana; and the University of Delaware in 

Newark, Delaware. 

Finally, we reviewed studies on the history and use of technology at 

Minority Serving Institutions. The studies included Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities (An Assessment of Networking and 

Connectivity), Department of Commerce, October 2000; Historically 

Black Public Colleges and Universities: An Assessment of Current 

Information Technology Usage, Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, 

October 2000; Latinos and Information Technology—The Promise and 

the Challenge, The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, February 2002; Tribal 

Colleges: An Introduction, American Indian Higher Education 

Consortium, February 1999; and The Power of the Internet for Learning: 

Moving From Promise to Practice, Report of the Web-Based Education 

Commission to the President and the Congress of the United States, 

December 2000. 

We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards between October 2002 and September 

2003. 

Page 38 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities 

In most ways, Historically Black Colleges and Universities provide the 

same educational opportunities found at other schools. The Department of 

Education reported that there were 102 Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities in 20 states as well as the District of Columbia, and one in the 

Virgin Islands that were participating in federal student aid programs in 

the 2000-01 school year. Historically Black Colleges and Universities offer 

a variety of degrees—from associates to doctoral. They are comprised of 

technical colleges, community colleges, public colleges, private colleges, 

and both religious and nonsectarian schools. They range in size from large 

(12,000 students at Florida A&M) to small (under 100 students at Clinton 

Junior College and Texas College). In other ways, there are distinctions to 

be made between Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other 

schools. The clearest distinctions are in the students they serve, and in the 

histories and missions of the institutions. 

History The 102 institutions recognized as Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities were established at various times in the nation’s history in 

response to historical circumstances that limited educational 

opportunities for Black students. The earliest of the Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities precede the Civil War when abolitionists from 

the North founded formal institutions of higher learning for Black 

Americans. This first wave of establishing Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities began in 1837, when Richard Humphreys, a Quaker 

philanthropist, founded Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, with the 

purpose of educating free Blacks and emancipated slaves. Other pre-Civil 

War Historically Black Colleges and Universities that were founded to 

educate freed slaves include Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, founded 

in 1854; Wilberforce University in Ohio, founded in 1856; and Harris-Stowe 

State College in Missouri, founded in 1857. 

The second wave of creating Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

began after the Civil War. More than four million slaves and free Blacks 

were illiterate at the time of emancipation in 1865. Between 1870 and 

1890, 13 public colleges were established, including Virginia State 

University in Virginia and Claflin College in South Carolina. The founding 

of private schools, however, represented the largest portion of the second 

wave of school creation. Between 1865 and 1890, 37 privately supported 

Black colleges were created. Schools such as these were founded and 

funded by missionary philanthropists who supported education for Black 

Americans as a way to bring about racial equality. Included in this group 

are schools such as Morehouse College in Georgia and Stillman College in 

Alabama. 

Page 39 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities 

Federal support for Black institutions of higher education grew in the late 

1800s. This support resulted, in part, from the passage of the Morrill Act of 

1890—which prompted the third wave of creating Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities in this country. Under the Morrill Act of 

1890,

1

 the Congress made available land grants for the establishment of 

institutions of higher education under the condition that land-grant 

schools could not discriminate in their admissions policies based on race. 

States that did not want to create integrated institutions could use the 

grants to create racially segregated schools, provided that the funding was 

divided equitably between the institutions. Land-grant colleges and 

universities were required to teach practical industrial subjects, such as 

agriculture and mechanical arts. The Morrill Act of 1890 helped to fund 

20 of today’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities, including Alcorn 

State University in Mississippi, Florida A&M University, and Tuskegee 

University in Alabama. 

The Higher Education Act was originally passed in 1965. Title III of this act 

provides financial assistance to institutions of higher education with low 

per-student expenditures, large numbers of financially disadvantaged 

students, or a large proportion of minority students. Title III, part B of the 

act provides grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities that are 

determined by the Secretary of Education to meet the statutory definition 

of such institutions.2

 The purpose of Title III, part B is to provide financial 

assistance to establish or strengthen the physical plants, financial 

management, academic resources, and endowments of Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities. Total funding under Title III, part B for 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities has increased from 

$136 million, funding 98 institutions in fiscal year 1999, to $206 million, 

funding 99 institutions in fiscal year 2002, or an increase of about 

51 percent. Additionally, funding for graduate program opportunities at 

1

During the Civil War, in 1862, the Congress passed the First Morrill Act, which provided 

funding in the form of land grants to states for founding institutions of higher education. 

Land-grant colleges were intended to educate students in agriculture and the mechanical 

arts. 

2

The definition of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, found at 20 U.S.C. 1061(2) 

is threefold. First, Historically Black Colleges and Universities had to be established before 

1964. Second, the institution’s principal mission had to be then, as now, the education of 

Black Americans. Third, the institution must be accredited by a nationally recognized 

accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary of Education to be a reliable 

authority as to the quality of training offered, or is, according to such an agency or 

association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation. 

Page 40 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities has increased 50 percent from 

$30 million in fiscal year 1999 to $49 million in fiscal year 2002. 

Characteristics of 

Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities 

In the 2000-01 school year, there were 102 Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities eligible for the federal student aid programs. These schools 

were located in 20 states—primarily in the Southern and Eastern portion 

of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. Our 

analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities were only 2 percent of all public and nonprofit 

postsecondary institutions, in the fall of 2000 they enrolled 14 percent 

(223,359) of Black non-Hispanic students in the United States.3

 The 

percent of Black non-Hispanic students at a Historically Black College or 

University in the fall of 2000 ranged from 100 percent at 5 institutions 

(Clinton Junior College and Morris College in South Carolina, Johnson C. 

Smith University in North Carolina, Tougaloo in Mississippi, and Miles 

College in Alabama) to 10 percent at Bluefield State College in West 

Virginia, with an average of 85 percent. In comparison, non-Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities averaged around 10 percent Black 

students in the fall of 2000. 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities offer a range of degrees from 

different types of institutions. Degrees offered in 2000-01 included 

associate, bachelor, master, first professional, and doctoral. Eighty-seven 

percent offered a bachelor’s degree or higher. Of the 102 Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities, about half were private nonprofit institutions, 

and about half were public institutions. There are no private for-profit 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Additionally, there are single 

gender schools, such as Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia—a women’s 

college—and one Catholic Historically Black University—Xavier 

University in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities are generally smaller in size, 

have lower tuitions, and smaller endowments than postsecondary 

institutions overall.4

 The average postsecondary institution is 1.4 times 

3

The calculations in this section are based on data for the 2000-01 school year. This was the 

most current complete dataset available. This section excludes institutions not eligible for 

the federal student aid programs and for-profit institutions. The for-profit institutions are 

excluded because there are no for-profit Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 

4

Postsecondary institutions refer to all public and private nonprofit schools eligible for the 

federal student aid programs. 

Page 41 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities 

larger than the average Historically Black College or University. While 

83 percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities had 

5,000 students or fewer, the same is true of only 78 percent of other 

institutions. The largest Historically Black University in the fall of 

2000 was Florida A&M with 12,126 students, compared to the largest nonHistorically Black University, which was the University of Texas at Austin 

with 50,000 students. 

Two important sources of revenue for postsecondary institutions—tuition 

and endowments—were both lower at Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities than at other institutions. The average in-state, undergraduate 

tuition at public Historically Black Colleges and Universities was $1,993 in 

the 2000-01 school year. For private Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, the average undergraduate tuition was $7,009. These same 

statistics for other institutions were $2,067, and $11,480, respectively. The 

average market value of institutional endowments for public schools at the 

end of the 2000-01 school year was about $5 million for Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities, but over $51 million for other public 

institutions. Endowment data on private nonprofit schools are not 

available in IPEDS. 

Characteristics of Students 

at Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities 

Demographic characteristics of students at Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities vary somewhat from national averages for postsecondary 

students. According to data from the Department of Education’s 

1999-2000 NPSAS, the average undergraduate student at a Historically 

Black College or University was younger than the national average of 

undergraduate students (24.8 years old versus 26.4 years old). 

Undergraduates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities were also 

more likely to be single, dependent, and full-time students when compared 

to the national average. Eleven percent of students at Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities were married compared to 23 percent of 

students overall, and 42 percent of students at Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities were independent, compared to 49 percent of students 

overall. Seventy-five percent of students at Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities were full-time students compared to 52 percent overall. 

Economic Characteristics 	 Although tuition is generally lower at Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities, students who attend these schools are generally able to 

contribute less to the cost of their education than are students at nonMinority Serving Institutions. Median household family incomes are 

considerably lower for Black Americans than they are for households 

Page 42 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities 

overall. This is reflected in one measure of a family’s ability to pay for 

college—the Expected Family Contribution.5

 The Expected Family 

Contribution was lower in 2000-01 for families of students at Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities than it was for families of students 

attending other, non-Minority Serving Institutions. In the 2000-01 school 

year, the average Expected Family Contribution for students attending 

public non-Minority Serving Institutions was $659, while it was only 

$480 for families of students at Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities. Additionally, the percentage of students receiving Pell 

Grants—financial aid that is available to the neediest students in the 

nation—at Historically Black Colleges and Universities was 51 percent, 

compared to 24 percent of students at non-Minority Serving Institutions. 

Both students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and their 

parents have lower income levels than students and parents at other 

institutions. In 1998, the average yearly income of independent students at 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities was $24,508, while it was 

$35,643 for independent students at non-Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities. Also in 1998, the average yearly income of parents of 

dependent, undergraduate students was 1.3 times higher for nonHistorically Black College and University parents—$48,311 for Historically 

Black College and University parents, and $65,037 for non-Historically 

Black College and University parents. 

5

Expected Family Contribution is a formula that considers family income; accumulated 

savings; the amount of taxes paid; family size; the number of children simultaneously 

enrolled in college; the age of the older parent and how close they may be to retirement; 

and the student’s own financial resources. See 20 U.S.C. § 1087nn. 

Page 43 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix III: Hispanic Serving Institutions 


As part of the 1992 Amendments to the Higher Education Act, the 

Congress stipulated that Hispanic Serving Institutions were deserving of 

grant funds to address educational needs of Hispanic students. Education 

reported that in the 2000-01 school year, there were 334 institutions 

eligible for federal student aid programs that were located in 14 states and 

Puerto Rico that qualified as Hispanic Serving Institutions, including the 

University of Miami and the University of New Mexico. Degrees offered 

from Hispanic Serving Institutions include associate, bachelor, master, 

professional, and doctoral. In the fall of 2000, the largest Hispanic Serving 

Institution had 46,834 students and the smallest had 58 students. 

History The creation of Hispanic Serving Institutions has resulted from a growing 

Hispanic population, and attempts to move this population more fully into 

the U.S. educational system.1

 Recent immigration to the United States has 

grown since the mid-1940s, with an increasing percentage of these 

immigrants coming from Latin America. The combination of high rates of 

immigration with high fertility rates among the Hispanic population has 

resulted in its being the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population and 

the largest minority group. At the same time, however, Hispanics have the 

highest high school drop out rate of any group in the country, and lower 

college enrollment and completion rates than both blacks and whites. 

In 1992, the Congress added a new section to the Higher Education Act of 

1965 authorizing a grant program for Hispanic Serving Institutions.2 An 

institution is considered a Hispanic Serving Institution if its enrolled 

undergraduate full-time equivalent student population is at least 

25 percent Hispanic and not less than 50 percent of the institution’s 

Hispanic students are low-income individuals. The purpose of the grants 

is to expand educational opportunities for, and improve the academic 

attainment of, Hispanic students; and expand and enhance the academic 

offerings, program quality, and instructional stability of colleges and 

universities that are educating the majority of Hispanic college students 

and helping large numbers of Hispanic students and other low-income 

1

People of Hispanic origin were those who indicated that their origin was Mexican, Puerto 

Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or some other Hispanic origin. Hispanics may be 

of any race. 

2

Pub. L. No. 102-325 § 302(d) (1992). 

Page 44 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix III: Hispanic Serving Institutions 

individuals complete postsecondary degrees. In 1995, the first grantees3— 

37 schools for a 5-year period—were funded after $12 million was 

appropriated for the program. In 1998, the Congress moved the provisions 

authorizing grants to Hispanic Serving Institutions to Title V of the Higher 

Education Act. In fiscal year 1999 the appropriation was raised to 

$28 million. By 2002, 172 of the 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions received 

$86.1 million in grant funds under Title V. 

Characteristics of Hispanic 

Serving Institutions 

In the 2000-01 school year, there were 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions 

that were eligible for federal student aid programs located in 14 states and 

Puerto Rico.4

 Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Hispanic 

Serving Institutions were only 5 percent of all postsecondary institutions 

in the fall of 2000, they enrolled 48 percent (798,489) of all Hispanic 

students.5

 The percent of Hispanic students at a Hispanic Serving 

Institution varied from 25 percent at ITT Technical Institute in California 

to 100 percent at 60 institutions in Puerto Rico. 

Hispanic Serving Institutions offer a range of degrees—associate, 

bachelor, master, professional, and doctoral—from different types of 

institutions. For 60 percent of the institutions, an associate’s degree is the 

highest degree offered, and the other 40 percent offered a bachelor’s 

degree or higher. Of the 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions, 45 percent were 

public, 23 percent were private nonprofit, and 32 percent were private forprofit institutions. Hispanic Serving Institutions are generally larger in size 

than postsecondary institutions overall.6

 The average Hispanic Serving 

Institution in the fall of 2000 was more than two times larger than the 

average postsecondary institution overall. The largest Hispanic Serving 

Institution at that time was Miami Dade Community College in Florida, 

3

Funds are awarded as 5-year grants, with a mandatory 2-year wait out period before an 

institution can reapply. 

4

These 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions include branch campuses. For example, there are 

16 campuses of ITT Technical Institute that are counted as separate Hispanic Serving 

Institutions. 

5

The calculations in this section are based on data for the 2000-01 school year. This was the 

most current complete dataset available. The calculations exclude institutions that were 

not eligible for federal student aid programs. 

6

Postsecondary institutions overall refers to all institutions that were eligible for federal 

student aid programs, including those that offer less than an associate degree. All Hispanic 

Serving Institutions offer at least an associate degree. 

Page 45 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix III: Hispanic Serving Institutions 

with 46,834 students, while the largest non-Hispanic Serving Institution 

was the University of Texas at Austin, with 50,000 students. In the fall of 

2000 there were 9 Hispanic Serving Institutions with more than 25,000 

students. 

Two important sources of revenue for postsecondary institutions—tuition 

and endowments—were lower at public and private nonprofit Hispanic 

Serving Institutions than at non-Hispanic Serving Institutions. The average 

in-state undergraduate tuition at public Hispanic Serving Institutions was 

$1,083 in the 2000-01 school year. For private nonprofit Hispanic Serving 

Institutions, the average undergraduate tuition was $7,202, and for private 

for-profit Hispanic Serving Institutions it was $8,830. These same statistics 

for non-Hispanic Serving Institutions were $2,151, $11,542, and $8,745, 

respectively. The average market value of institutional endowments for 

public postsecondary institutions at the end of the 2000-01 school year was 

about $15.3 million for Hispanic Serving Institutions, compared to 

$52.1 million for non-Hispanic Serving Institutions. Endowment data on 

private nonprofit schools are not available in IPEDS. 

Characteristics of Hispanic 

Students at Hispanic 

Serving Institutions 

Demographic characteristics of Hispanic students at Hispanic Serving 

Institutions vary somewhat from national averages for all postsecondary 

students.7

 According to data from the 1999-2000 Department of 

Education’s National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, the average 

Hispanic undergraduate student at a Hispanic Serving Institution was 

slightly younger than the national average of undergraduate students 

(25.5 years versus 26.4 years). Similar to the national average for 

undergraduates, about half of Hispanic undergraduates at Hispanic 

Serving Institutions were independent and about half were full-time 

students. Hispanic undergraduate students at Hispanic Serving 

Institutions were more likely to work full-time when compared to 

undergraduate students overall—44 percent of Hispanic undergraduates at 

Hispanic Serving Institutions worked full-time compared to 39.3 percent of 

students overall. 

Economic Characteristics 	 Although tuition is generally lower at Hispanic Serving Institutions, 

students who attend Hispanic Serving Institutions are generally able to 

7

Students at Hispanic Serving Institutions refers to both Hispanic and non-Hispanic 

students, unless otherwise noted. 

Page 46 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix III: Hispanic Serving Institutions 

contribute less to the cost of their education than are students from nonMinority Serving Institutions; Median household family incomes are 

considerably lower for families of Hispanic origin than they are for white, 

non-Hispanics. This is reflected in one measure of a family’s ability to pay 

for college—the Expected Family Contribution.8

 On average, the Expected 

Family Contribution was lower in 2000-01 for families of students at 

Hispanic Serving Institutions than it was for families of students attending 

other, non-Minority Serving Institutions—$449 compared to $659. 

Additionally, the percentage of students receiving Pell Grants—financial 

aid that is available to the neediest students in the nation—at Hispanic 

Serving Institutions was 31 percent, compared to 24 percent of students at 

non-Minority Serving Institutions. 

Both students at Hispanic Serving Institutions and their parents have 

lower income levels than other institutions. The average yearly income of 

independent students at Hispanic Serving Institutions in 1998 was 

$28,921, while it was $35,501 for independent students overall. For 

Hispanic students attending Hispanic Serving Institutions, the average 

income is even lower, at $26,193. The average yearly income of the parents 

of dependent, undergraduate students in 1998 was 1.5 times higher for 

non-Hispanic Serving Institution parents—$43,675 for Hispanic Serving 

Institution parents, and $67,034 for non-Hispanic Serving Institution 

parents. 

8

Expected Family Contribution is a formula that considers family income; accumulated 

savings; the amount of taxes paid; family size; the number of children simultaneously 

enrolled in college; the age of the older parent and how close they may be to retirement; 

and the student’s own financial resources. See 20 U.S.C. § 1087nn. 

Page 47 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges 


Tribal Colleges were founded to educate students both in Western models 

of learning, as well as in traditional American Indian cultures and 

languages. This dual mission of Tribal Colleges distinguishes them from 

other colleges and universities. The Department of Education reported 

that there were 29 Tribal Colleges in 12 states participating in federal 

student aid programs in the 2000-01 school year.1

 All of these colleges 

offered associate degrees, 2 offered bachelor’s degrees, and 2 offered 

master’s degrees. In the fall of 2000, the largest Tribal College had less 

than 2,000 students. 

History The history of Tribal Colleges is rooted in the desire of tribes to have 

greater control in the education of their members—called selfdetermination—and in the desire to improve access to postsecondary 

educational opportunities for American Indians. The Navajo tribe founded 

the first Tribal College, Diné College (formerly Navajo Community 

College), in 1968. By 1980, 20 Tribal Colleges, such as Blackfeet 

Community College in Montana, Northwest Indian College in Washington, 

and Sinte Gleska University in South Dakota, had been founded by various 

tribes. Tribal Colleges were often modeled after community colleges and 

shared community college philosophies of open admissions, job training, 

and community development along with local control and dedication to 

local needs. 

For hundreds of years, the education system in the United States almost 

always sought to assimilate American Indians into a cultural and 

educational backdrop that was largely European. For example, in the 

nineteenth century, boarding schools were created with the intent of 

separating American Indian youth from their heritage and culture. 

However, beginning about 1968, the federal government moved toward a 

policy of tribal self-determination that included a greater set of tools and 

resources so that tribes could better control their own educational 

activities. For example, the Indian Self Determination and Education 

Assistance Act2

 was passed in 1975, and in part, called for “assuring 

maximum Indian participation in the direction of educational as well as 

other federal services to Indian communities.” 

1

The Department of Education listed 3 other Tribal Colleges where students were not 

eligible for the federal student financial aid programs. 

2

Pub. L. No. 93-638 (1975). 

Page 48 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges 

Concurrent to the self-determination movement, as the result of the GI 

Bill3

 of 1944 and the Higher Education Act of 1965, a college education 

became more accessible to all Americans, including American Indians. 

Tribes, including the Blackfeet, the Chippewa, and the Standing Rock 

Sioux created colleges in response to the growing interest on the part of 

American Indians in obtaining a college education. 

While many Tribal Colleges offer degrees in areas of study frequently 

found at other postsecondary institutions, such as accounting, education, 

computer science, and nursing, they also offer courses and degrees unique 

to their tribes or to Tribal Colleges. For example: 

• 	 DQ University in Davis, California, offers associate of arts degrees in 

Native American fine arts, as well as in indigenous studies. They also offer 

certificates in gaming administration and in Indian dispute resolution. 

• 	 Diné College in Arizona offers associate degrees in Navajo culture, history, 

and language, and Navajo bilingual/bicultural education. 

• 	 Oglala Lakota Community College in South Dakota has an associate of arts 

degree in tribal management, as well as a bachelor of arts in Lakota 

studies. 

One source of federal support for Tribal Colleges is through the Higher 

Education Act of 1965.4

 Title III of the act provides financial assistance to 

institutions of higher education with low per-student expenditures, large 

numbers of financially disadvantaged students, or a large proportion of 

minority students. Title III, part A provides grants to American Indian 

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, as defined by federal 

statute.5

 The purpose of Title III, part A is to assist eligible institutions to 

become self-sufficient by providing funds to improve and strengthen their 

academic quality, institutional management, and fiscal stability. In fiscal 

3

Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, ch. 268, 58 Stat. 284. 

4

Other sources of federal aid for Tribal Colleges include the Tribally Controlled College or 

University Assistance Act of 1978, Land Grant Funding, and the Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

5

25 U.S.C. 1801(a)(4). The definition of a tribally controlled college or university is an 

institution of higher education, which is formally controlled, or has been formally 

sanctioned, or chartered, by the governing body of an Indian tribe or tribes, except that no 

more than one such institution shall be recognized with respect to any such tribe. 

Page 49 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges 

year 1999, 8 Tribal Colleges received a total of $3 million under Title III, 

part A. By fiscal year 2002, 27 Tribal Colleges received $17.5 million. 

Characteristics of Tribal 

Colleges 

In the 2000-01 school year, there were 29 Tribal Colleges6

 located in 

12 states that were eligible for federal student aid programs. Our analysis 

of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Tribal Colleges were less than 1 

percent of all public and not-for-profit postsecondary institutions, they 

enrolled 8 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students in the 

United States, serving 11,262 students.7

 The percentage of American 

Indian/Alaska Native students in the student body at Tribal Colleges 

averaged 85 percent in fall 2000 and ranged from 100 percent (at 

Crownpoint Institute of Technology in New Mexico, Southwestern Indian 

Polytechnic Institute in New Mexico, Institute of American Indian Arts in 

New Mexico, Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas, and Stone Child 

College in Montana) to 21 percent (at Fond du Lac Tribal and Community 

College in Minnesota). In comparison, other U.S. colleges and universities8 

averaged around 1 percent American Indian students in fall 2000. 

Tribal Colleges are typically community colleges, and therefore, offered 

less variety in the types of degrees offered, as well as the type of 

institution compared to other U.S. colleges and universities. In addition, 

they were much smaller on average than other U.S. colleges and 

universities. While there were 2 Tribal Colleges whose highest degree 

offered was a master’s degree in 2000-01 (Oglala Lakota College and Sinte 

Gleska College) and 2 whose highest degree offered was a bachelor’s 

degree (Haskell Indian Nations University and Salish Kootenai College), 

25, or 86 percent, reported an associate degree as their highest degree 

offered. All 29 of the Tribal Colleges received funding from the federal 

government. There were no private for-profit Tribal Colleges. The average 

U.S. college or university was eight times larger than the average Tribal 

College. The largest Tribal College, Diné College in Arizona, enrolled 

1,712 students in the fall of 2000. In comparison, the University of Texas at 

6

In 2002, the number increased by 3 to 32. 

7

The calculations in this section are based on data for the 2000-01 school year. This was the 

most current complete dataset available. These calculations exclude institutions that were 

not eligible for federal student aid programs and for-profit institutions. The for-profit 

institutions are excluded because there are no for-profit Tribal Colleges. 

8

References to “other U.S. colleges and universities” includes institutions located in U.S. 

territories, both public and private nonprofit. 

Page 50 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges 

Austin was the largest university in the nation, with an enrollment of 

almost 50,000 students. 

Two important revenue sources for postsecondary institutions—tuition 

and endowments—were both lower at Tribal Colleges than at other U.S. 

colleges and universities. The average in-state, undergraduate tuition at 

Tribal Colleges was $2,017 in the 2000-01 school year.9

 The average instate, undergraduate tuition at non-Tribal public colleges was $2,132 for 

the same year. The average market value of institutional endowments for 

public schools at the end of their 1999-2000 fiscal year was over 

$57 million for those non-Tribal Colleges that reported having 

endowments, but under $1.8 million for the 15 Tribal Colleges that 

reported having endowments. Endowment data on private nonprofit 

schools are not available in IPEDS. 

Characteristics of Students 

Attending Tribal Colleges 

The database used to generate characteristics of students at Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities and at Hispanic Serving Institutions— 

NPSAS—only contained information on 1 Tribal College. As a result, we 

were unable to compile data on characteristics of students attending 

Tribal Colleges. A report issued by the American Indian Higher Education 

Consortium, however, provides such information. According to the 

1999 report, the typical Tribal College student was a single mother in her 

early 30s. According to the same report, in the fall of 1996, 64 percent of 

Tribal College undergraduates were women, as compared to 56 percent of 

undergraduates at all public institutions. The report cites the average age 

of Tribal College students in 1997 as 31.5 years old, while NPSAS data 

from 2000 shows the average age of undergraduate students overall to be 

26.4 years old. The consortium also stated that half of all Tribal College 

students attended school on a part-time basis, which is a similar rate to 

undergraduate students overall. 

Economic Characteristics 	 Although tuition is lower, students who attend Tribal Colleges are 

generally able to contribute less to the cost of their education than are 

students at non-Minority Serving Institutions. Median household family 

incomes are considerably lower on Indian reservations than they are in the 

rest of the country. This is reflected in one measure of a family’s ability to 

9

This figure is based on 22 Tribal Colleges who reported tuition charges. 

Page 51 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges 

pay for college—the Expected Family Contribution.10 The Expected Family 

Contribution was lower in 2000-01 for families of Tribal College students 

than it was for families of students attending other, non-Minority Serving 

Institutions. In the 2000-01 school year, the average Expected Family 

Contribution for students attending public non-Minority Serving 

Institutions was $659, while it was only $259 for Tribal College students. 

Additionally, the percentage of students receiving Pell Grants—financial 

aid made available to the neediest students in the nation—at Tribal 

Colleges was 60 percent, compared to 24 percent of students at nonMinority Serving Institutions. Again, because NPSAS data are not available 

for Tribal Colleges, we were unable to compile further information on the 

economic status of students and their parents. 

10Expected Family Contribution is a formula that considers family income; accumulated 

savings; the amount of taxes paid; family size; the number of children simultaneously 

enrolled in college; the age of the older parent and how close they may be to retirement; 

and the student’s own financial resources. It is defined in the Higher Education Act of 

1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1087nn. 

Page 52 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 53 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 54 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 55 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(130202) 

Kelsey Bright, Assistant Director (202) 512-9037 

Neil Asaba, Analyst-in-Charge (206) 287-4774 

In addition to those named above, Jerry Aiken, Susan Baker, Jessica 

Botsford, Julian Fogle, Chris Hatscher, Joel Grossman, Cathy Hurley, John 

Mingus, Jill Peterson, Doug Sloane, Stan Stenersen, and Susan Zimmerman 

made important contributions to this report. 

Page 56 GAO-03-900 Distance Education 
GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone 	 The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: 	 Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

To Report Fraud,	

Contact: 

W Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm aste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs 	 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548