HIGHER EDUCATION

Experts Cited a Range 

of Requirements as 

Burdensome

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2013

GAO-13-371

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-371, a report to 

congressional requesters

April 2013 

HIGHER EDUCATION 

Experts Cited a Range of Requirements as 

Burdensome

Why GAO Did This Study

Postsecondary schools must comply 

with a variety of federal requirements 

to participate in student financial aid 

programs authorized under Title IV. 

While these requirements offer 

potential benefits to schools, students, 

and taxpayers, questions have been 

raised as to whether they may also 

distract schools from their primary 

mission of educating students. GAO 

examined (1) which requirements, if 

any, experts say create burden, (2) the 

types of burdens and benefits schools 

say requirements create, and (3) how 

Education solicits feedback from 

stakeholders on regulatory burden. 

GAO reviewed relevant federal 

regulatory and statutory requirements, 

and past and ongoing efforts 

examining postsecondary regulatory 

burden; interviewed Education officials 

and 18 experts, including officials from 

associations that represent 

postsecondary schools; and conducted 

eight discussion groups at two national 

conferences with a nongeneralizable 

sample of 51 school officials from 

public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors. 

GAO also reviewed documentation 

associated with Education’s requests 

for public comment on burden for 

proposed postsecondary information 

collections and its retrospective 

analysis of regulations. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes no recommendations in 

this report. In its comments, Education 

sought clarification regarding types of 

federal requirements and additional 

information on its efforts to balance 

burden and benefits. We provided 

clarifications and additional 

information, as appropriate.

What GAO Found

Experts GAO interviewed offered varied opinions on which student financial aid 

requirements under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,

are the most burdensome. While no single requirement was cited as burdensome 

by a majority of the 18 experts, 11 cited various consumer disclosure

requirements—such as those pertaining to campus safety—primarily due to the 

time and difficulty needed to gather the information. Beyond consumer 

disclosures, 4 experts cited “Return of Title IV Funds”—which requires schools to 

calculate and return unearned financial aid to the federal government when a 

recipient withdraws from school—as burdensome because schools find it difficult 

to calculate the precise amount of funds that should be returned. More broadly, 6 

experts said that the cumulative burden of multiple requirements is a substantial

challenge. Experts also noted some benefits. For example, an expert said

required loan disclosures help students understand their repayment 

responsibilities. 

School officials who participated in each of the eight discussion groups GAO 

conducted expressed similar views about the types of burdens and benefits 

associated with Title IV requirements. Participants in all groups said

requirements for consumer disclosures and Return of Title IV Funds are costly 

and complicated. Regarding consumer disclosures, participants questioned the 

value of disclosing data that cannot be readily compared across schools, like 

data on graduates’ employment, which may be calculated using different 

methodologies. Participants in four groups found Return of Title IV Funds 

requirements difficult to complete within the required time frame. Participants 

also cited some benefits, such as how consumer disclosures can help applicants 

choose the right school and unearned Title IV funds can be redirected to other 

students.

Education seeks feedback from schools on regulatory burden mainly through 

formal channels, such as announcements posted in the Federal Register, on its 

website, and on a department listserv. However, Education officials said they 

have received a limited number of comments about burden in response to these 

announcements. GAO reviewed Education’s notices soliciting public comments 

on burden estimates for its postsecondary information collections—which require

the public, including schools, to submit or publish specified data—and found that 

65 of 353 notices (18 percent) received comments, of which 25 received 

comments related to burden. For example, 2 notices received input on the 

difficulties of providing data requested by the department. 

Number of Postsecondary Education Information Collection Notices that Received Comment, 

August 2006-October 2012

View GAO-13-371. For more information, 

contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-

0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Letter 1 

Background 3

Experts Cited a Range of Requirements as Burdensome 7

Schools Shared Similar Views on Types of Burdens and Named a 

Few Benefits 9

Education Seeks Feedback Mainly through Formal Channels but 

Schools Do Not Always Respond to These Opportunities 11

Concluding Observations 14

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 14

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 16

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Education 19

Appendix III Selected Federal Requirements Described as Burdensome in 

Discussion Group Comments 21

Appendix IV Selected Examples of Other Federal Requirements That May 

Apply to Postsecondary Schools 24

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 27

Tables

Table 1: Past and Ongoing Initiatives to Examine Federal 

Regulatory Burden Faced by Postsecondary Schools 6

Table 2: Title IV Requirements Mentioned by Two or More Experts 

as “Most Burdensome” 8

Table 3. Discussion Group Participants’ Description of Burdens for 

Two Requirements 10

Table 4: Mediums through Which Education Publishes Notices 

Seeking Feedback on Burden 12

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Figure

Figure 1: Number of Postsecondary Education Information 

Collection Notices That Received Comment (August 2006-

October 2012) 13

Abbreviations

Education U.S. Department of Education

HEA Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended

ICR Information Collection Request

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

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

United States. The published product 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 1 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

April 10, 2013

The Honorable John Kline

Chairman

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Virginia Foxx

Chairwoman

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training

House of Representatives

The Honorable Richard Hanna

House of Representatives

In fiscal year 2012, the Department of Education (Education) provided 

about $142 billion to help students and their families pay for 

postsecondary education through federal student aid programs 

authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as 

amended.1

 

1

Pub. L. No. 89-329, 79 Stat. 1219. Title IV of the HEA, relating to student assistance, is 

codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1070-1099d. For clarity, we may refer specifically to 

“Title IV” in this report, as appropriate. To be eligible to participate in Title IV programs, a 

school must be an “institution of higher education” as defined by the HEA, 20 U.S.C. §§ 

1001-1002. However, for purposes of this report we use the broader term “schools.” Not 

all schools may be eligible to participate in Title IV programs, and different schools may be 

subject to different Title IV requirements.

Schools participating in Title IV programs must comply with a 

variety of requirements established by statute and Education’s 

regulations. For example, some of these requirements are designed to 

maintain the integrity of the federal programs, while others require the 

disclosure of information that can help consumers make more informed 

decisions about postsecondary attendance. While these requirements 

offer potential benefits to schools, students, and taxpayers, questions 

have been raised as to whether efforts to comply with federal 

requirements can involve substantial staff time, increase costs, and 

distract schools from their primary mission of educating students. Over 

the past two decades, Congress has conducted hearings and Education 

has undertaken regulatory reviews to identify and alleviate burdens faced 

by schools.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

This report examines (1) which requirements, if any, experts say create 

burden, (2) the types of burdens and benefits schools say requirements 

create, and (3) how Education solicits feedback from stakeholders on 

regulatory burden.2

We defined a “burdensome federal requirement” as any requirement 

established by Congress or a federal agency that is viewed as being too 

costly, vague, complicated, paperwork-heavy, unnecessary, or duplicative 

by experts or school officials we spoke with.3

We conducted this performance audit from April 2012 to April 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

To understand which, if any, 

federal requirements experts say are burdensome, we conducted 

interviews with representatives of nine higher education associations as 

well as nine individuals with postsecondary expertise, including 

researchers and financial aid professionals from individual schools. We 

chose these experts based on several factors such as the relevance of 

their published work to our topic. To determine the types of burdens and 

benefits that schools say requirements create, we conducted eight 

discussion groups at two national conferences comprised of a 

nongeneralizable sample of 51 representatives from public, private 

nonprofit, and private for-profit schools. To determine how Education 

solicits feedback from stakeholders on regulatory burden, we interviewed 

Education officials and reviewed documents related to the department’s 

retrospective analysis of regulations, as well as its negotiated rulemaking 

process. We also examined public comments on burden provided in 

response to Education’s notices about its plans to collect information by 

reviewing a database from reginfo.gov. We tested the reliability of the 

database and found it to be reliable for our purposes. Finally, we asked 

discussion group participants about how, if at all, they communicate 

feedback on burden to Education. A more detailed description of our 

scope and methodology can be found in Appendix I.

 

2

In this report, we focused on requirements related to the receipt of Title IV funds, which 

may include requirements under Title IV of the HEA, as well as requirements found 

elsewhere that apply to schools that receive funding under Title IV programs. 

3

This definition is based on our prior work on burdensome requirements. See GAO, K-12 

Education: Selected States and School Districts Cited Numerous Federal Requirements 

As Burdensome, While Recognizing Some Benefits, GAO-12-672 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 27, 2012); and Regulatory Burden: Measurement Challenges and Concerns Raised 

by Selected Companies, GAO/GGD-97-2 (Washington, D.C.: November 1996). 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

In order for students attending a school to receive Title IV funds, a school 

must be:

1. licensed or otherwise legally authorized to provide higher education in 

the state in which it is located,

2. accredited by an agency recognized for that purpose by the Secretary 

of Education, and

3. deemed eligible and certified to participate in federal student aid 

programs by Education.

Under the Higher Education Act, Education does not determine the 

quality of higher education institutions or their programs; rather, it relies 

on recognized accrediting agencies to do so. As part of its role in the 

administration of federal student aid programs, Education determines 

which institutions of higher education are eligible to participate in Title IV 

programs. Education is responsible for overseeing school compliance 

with Title IV laws and regulations and ensuring that only eligible students 

receive federal student aid. As part of its compliance monitoring, 

Education relies on department employees and independent auditors of 

schools to conduct program reviews and audits of schools. Institutions 

that participate in Title IV programs must comply with a range of 

requirements, including consumer disclosure requirements, which include 

information schools must make available to third parties, as well as 

reporting requirements, which include information schools must provide to 

Education.

Congress and the President enact the statutes that create federal 

programs; these statutes may also authorize or direct a federal agency to 

develop and issue regulations to implement them. Both the authorizing 

statute and the implementing regulations may contain requirements that 

recipients must comply with in order to receive federal funds. The statute 

Background

Eligibility Criteria for 

School Participation in the 

Title IV Program

Sources of Federal 

Requirements 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

itself may impose specific requirements; alternatively, it may set general 

parameters and the implementing agency may then issue regulations 

further clarifying the requirements. Federal agencies may evaluate and 

modify their regulatory requirements, but they lack the authority to modify 

requirements imposed by statute. 

In addition, when issuing rules related to programs authorized under Title 

IV, Education is generally required by the HEA to use negotiated 

rulemaking, a process that directly involves stakeholders in drafting 

proposed regulations.4 Once the department determines that a 

rulemaking is necessary, it publishes a notice in the Federal Register, 

announcing its intent to form a negotiated rulemaking committee, and

holds public hearings to seek input on the issues to be negotiated. 

Stakeholders, who are nominated by the public and selected by 

Education to serve as negotiators, may include schools and their 

professional associations, as well as student representatives and other 

interested parties. A representative from Education and stakeholders 

work together on a committee that attempts to reach consensus, which 

Education defines as unanimous agreement on the entire proposed 

regulatory language. If consensus is reached, Education will generally 

publish the agreed-upon language as its proposed rule.5 If consensus is 

not reached, Education is not bound by the results of the negotiating 

committee when drafting the proposed rule. According to proponents, the 

negotiated rulemaking process increases the flow of information between 

the department and those who must implement requirements. Once a 

proposed rule is published, Education continues the rulemaking process 

by providing the public an opportunity to comment before issuing the final 

rule.

 

4

20 U.S.C § 1098a. The Secretary of Education may opt not to use negotiated rulemaking 

for a Title IV regulation if he or she determines that doing so would be impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. For other rules, Education and other 

agencies generally may choose to use negotiated rulemaking using similar procedures 

described in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, as amended. 5 U.S.C. §§ 561-570a. 

5

The language of any proposed Title IV regulation published by Education must conform 

to agreements resulting from negotiated rulemaking, unless Education re-opens the 

process or explains to the participants in writing the reasons for the departure from the 

agreements.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to assess 

and seek public comment on certain kinds of burden, in accordance with 

its purpose of minimizing the paperwork burden and maximizing the utility 

of information collected by the federal government. Under the PRA, 

agencies are generally required to seek public comment and obtain Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) approval before collecting information 

from the public, including schools.6 Agencies seek OMB approval by 

submitting information collection requests (ICR), which include among 

other things, a description of the planned collection efforts, as well as 

estimates of burden in terms of time, effort, or financial resources that 

respondents will expend to gather and submit the information.7 Agencies 

are also required to solicit public comment on proposed information 

collections by publishing notices in the Federal Register.

8 If a proposed 

information collection is part of a proposed rulemaking, the agency may 

include the PRA notice for the information collection in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking for that rule. The PRA authorizes OMB to approve 

information collections for up to 3 years. Agencies seeking an extension 

of OMB approval must re-submit an ICR using similar procedures, 

including soliciting public comment on the continued need for and burden 

imposed by the information collection.

 

6

The PRA provides that agencies may not conduct or sponsor the collection of information 

from 10 or more non-federal persons without first taking certain required steps, including 

allowing an opportunity for public comment and obtaining OMB approval. 44 U.S.C. §§ 

3502, 3506-07. OMB regulations define “information” for purposes of the PRA. 5 C.F.R. § 

1320.3(h). According to OMB guidance, this definition includes requests for information to 

be sent to agencies, recordkeeping requirements, and third-party or public disclosures. 

7

Agencies are also required to certify that each proposed information collection, among 

other things, reduces burden on respondents, to the extent practicable and appropriate, 

including the use of techniques to reduce burden on small entities. 

8

In general, agencies are required to seek public comment twice for each new information 

collection, substantive revisions, and extensions. First, the agency publishes a notice 

soliciting comments on the proposed information collection for 60 days. After the agency 

considers any comments received, the agency submits the proposed information 

collection to OMB for review and publishes a second notice soliciting additional 

comments. OMB is generally required to allow 30 days for public comment prior to making 

a decision. GAO reported on Education’s burden estimates for one information collection 

effort in GAO, Higher Education: Institutions’ Reported Data Collection Burden Is Higher 

Than Estimated but Can Be Reduced through Increased Coordination, GAO-10-871 

(Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2010). 

Information Collections 

and the Paperwork 

Reduction Act
 

Page 6 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Over the last two decades, there have been several efforts to examine 

the federal regulatory burden faced by schools (see table 1). While 

intending to make regulations more efficient and less burdensome, 

several of these efforts also acknowledge that regulation provides 

benefits to government and the public at large. The specific results of 

initiatives varied, as described below. For example, Executive Order 

13563, which was issued in 2011, requires agencies to, among other 

things, develop plans to periodically review their existing significant 

regulations and determine whether these regulations should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make the agencies’ regulatory 

programs more effective or less burdensome. Consistent with the order’s 

emphasis on public participation in the rulemaking process, OMB 

guidance encourages agencies to obtain public input on their plans. The 

specific results of initiatives varied, as described below.

Table 1: Past and Ongoing Initiatives to Examine Federal Regulatory Burden Faced by Postsecondary Schools 

Initiative and Completion Date Description

Regulatory Reform Initiative, 1995 In response to a memorandum from President Clinton, Education conducted a page-bypage review of all its existing regulations to identify those it deemed out of date or in need 

of reform. As a result, Education reported that it could eliminate 842 pages from the Code 

of Federal Regulations and identified a further 1,142 pages containing material that could 

be streamlined or revised, across all its programs, including higher education. 

Student Financial Assistance Regulatory 

Review, 2000

In response to a requirement in the 1998 amendments to the HEA, Education conducted a 

review to determine whether any regulations under Title IV were duplicative or no longer 

necessary. According to the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance—an 

independent, bipartisan advisory group—Education promulgated regulations that modified 

about 40 sections of Title IV regulations.

Upping the Effectiveness of Our Federal 

Student Aid Programs, 2002

Following proposed but un-enacted legislation developed by the House Committee on 

Education and the Workforce that sought to reduce regulatory burden, Education initiated 

a negotiated rulemaking to address regulations identified as burdensome through the 

committee’s work. Education promulgated regulations that modified over 50 sections of 

Title IV regulations, according to the Advisory Committee on Student Financial 

Assistance. 

Higher Education Regulations Study, 

2011 

In accordance with the Higher Education Opportunity Act, enacted in 2008, the Advisory 

Committee on Student Financial Assistance issued a report that discussed 15 regulations 

identified by members of the higher education community as burdensome, and provided 

suggestions for ameliorating burden. 

Retrospective analysis of existing 

regulations (retrospective analysis plan), 

ongoing

In response to Executive Order 13563, in 2011, Education developed and published for 

public comment a plan to review its existing significant regulations. As required by 

Executive Order 13610, in 2012 and 2013, Education provided updates on the status of its 

effort to OMB and the public. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education, Federal Register, and Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance documents.

Past and Ongoing 

Initiatives to Examine 

Schools’ Federal 

Regulatory Burden
 

Page 7 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Although the 18 experts we interviewed offered varied opinions on which 

Title IV requirements are the most burdensome, 16 said that federal 

requirements impose burden on postsecondary schools. While no single 

requirement was cited as most burdensome by a majority of experts, 11

cited various consumer disclosures schools must provide or make 

available to the public, students, and staff (see table 2).9 Among other 

things, these disclosure requirements include providing certain 

information about schools, such as student enrollment, graduation rates, 

and cost of attendance.10 The most frequently mentioned consumer 

disclosure requirement—cited by 5 experts as burdensome—was the 

“Clery Act” campus security and crime statistics disclosure requirement.11

Two experts noted the burden associated with reporting security data, 

some of which may overlap with federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies. Beyond consumer disclosures, 4 experts stated that schools 

are burdened by requirements related to the return of unearned Title IV 

funds to the federal government when a student receiving financial aid 

withdraws from school.12

 

9

These consumer disclosures encompass multiple requirements in statute and 

regulations, see, e.g., 20 U.S.C. § 1092, 34 C.F.R. § 668.41. We use the term “consumer 

disclosures” to mean information schools make available to third parties, and “reporting 

requirements” to mean information schools must provide to Education. These 

requirements may overlap. 

According to 2 experts, schools find it 

particularly difficult both to calculate the precise amount of funds that 

should be returned and to determine the date on which a student 

withdrew. Finally, 6 experts we interviewed stated that, in their view, it is 

the accumulation of burden imposed by multiple requirements—rather 

than burden derived from a single requirement—that accounts for the 

burden felt by postsecondary schools. Three stated that requirements are 

incrementally added, resulting in increased burden over time.

10For a discussion of required disclosures and other reporting requirements under Title IV, 

see David. P. Smole, Congressional Research Service, Reporting and Disclosure 

Requirements for Institutions of Higher Education to Participate in Federal Student Aid 

Programs Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, R40789 (August 31, 2009). 

11This requirement is part of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and 

Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(18). See also 34 C.F.R. §§ 668.41(e), 

668.46. 

12See generally 20 U.S.C. § 1091b, 34 C.F.R. § 668.22. Although the requirements for 

both consumer disclosures and returning Title IV funds are each a set of requirements, we 

refer to them as “consumer disclosures” and “Return of Title IV Funds” for ease of 

reporting. 

Experts Cited a Range 

of Requirements as 

Burdensome
 

Page 8 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Table 2: Title IV Requirements Mentioned by Two or More Experts as “Most Burdensome”

Requirement(s) 

Number of Interviews in which 

Requirement was Mentioned

Consumer Disclosures. Schools that participate in Title IV programs are subject to a range of 

requirements to disclose information, including providing loan entrance counseling and disclosing 

preferred lender lists; student outcomes, such as graduation rates; and campus crime statistics. 

The audience for these disclosures, and the method of delivery, varies depending on the specific 

disclosure requirement. See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. § 1092, 34 C.F.R. § 668.41.

11

Safety / Clery Act / Campus Crime. A subset of consumer disclosures, schools are required 

to disclose information on specific crimes, as well as the schools’ security policies and 

procedures. 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f), 34 C.F.R. §§ 668.41(e), 668.46.

5 

Return of Title IV Funds. If a student who has received aid under Title IV withdraws from school 

before completing 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment, the school must 

calculate the amount of funds the student has earned, using a specific formula based on the 

portion of the period completed. The school, and the student, as applicable, are required to return 

any unearned funds to Education. 20 U.S.C. § 1091b, 34 C.F.R. § 668.22.

4 

Gainful Employment. To be eligible to participate in Title IV programs, certain schools, including 

private for-profit and vocational schools, must provide “an eligible program of training to prepare 

students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation.” 20 U.S.C. § 1002(b)-(c).a

3 

State Authorization. To be eligible to participate in Title IV programs, a school must be legally 

authorized by the state to provide a program of postsecondary education. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 

1002.b

 

3 

Non-Title IV Revenue (90-10). No more than 90 percent of private for-profit schools’ revenues can 

come from Title IV student aid; at least 10 percent must come from other sources, such as cash 

payments from students, private student loans, funds from certain other federal programs, and 

state educational grants. 20 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(24), (d), 34 C.F.R. § 668.28 and 34 C.F.R. pt. 668, 

subpart B, app. C.

2 

Verification of Student Aid Applications. Schools must verify certain information submitted by 

some applicants for student aid. 34 C.F.R. §§ 668.51-668.61. 

2 

Source: GAO analysis of expert interviews and review of relevant federal laws and regulations.

Note: Experts cited the following additional issues as burdensome for postsecondary schools one 

time each: credit hour; accreditation; definition of accreditation across federal agencies; funding 

formula for tribal colleges; Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006, 

section 117; the Community College Initiative; IRS Form 990; satisfactory academic progress; 

incentive compensation; conflict of interest; animal research; elimination of ability-to-benefit 

requirements; financial responsibility standards; federal agencies’ varying requirements for disbursing 

funds to students. The concerns in this note are presented as they were described to us by the 

experts we interviewed and include requirements not related to Title IV. We did not independently 

verify the accuracy of this information. 

a

Education issued gainful employment regulations in 2010 and 2011, which were vacated, in part, by 

a federal district court in June 2012. Ass’n of Private Colleges and Universities v. Duncan, 870 

F.Supp.2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012). Education has provided guidance to schools that only a portion of the 

regulations remain in effect, and announced that the department is considering its legal and policy 

options. 

b

Education issued state authorization regulations in 2010, which were vacated, in part, by a federal 

appeals court in June 2012. Ass’n of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 

427 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Education has announced that it will not enforce that portion of the regulations, 

although the remaining portion remains in effect. 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Experts also described some of the benefits associated with Title IV 

requirements. For example, one expert stated that requiring schools to 

disclose information to students to help them understand that they have a 

responsibility to repay their loans could be beneficial. Another expert 

noted that consumer disclosures allow students to identify programs 

relevant to their interests and that they can afford.

School officials who participated in our discussion groups told us that Title 

IV requirements impose burden in a number of ways, as shown in table 

3.13 Participants in all eight groups discussed various requirements that 

they believe create burden for schools because they are, among other 

things, too costly and complicated.14

Participants in six of eight discussion groups said that consumer 

disclosures were complicated,

For example, participants in four 

groups said the requirement that schools receiving Title IV funds post a 

net price calculator on their websites—an application that provides 

consumers with estimates of the costs of attending a school—has proven 

costly or complicated, noting challenges such as those associated with 

the web application, obtaining the necessary data, or providing 

information that may not fit the schools’ circumstances. School officials 

from six discussion groups also noted that complying with requirements 

related to the Return of Title IV Funds can be costly because of the time 

required to calculate how much money should be returned to the federal 

government (see Appendix III for information on selected comments on 

specific federal requirements school officials described as burdensome).

15

 

13We reserved time in each discussion group to focus on the two most-often mentioned 

requirements mentioned by experts—consumer disclosures and Return of Title IV Funds. 

Other requirements were discussed as well. 

and participants in seven groups said 

that Return of Title IV Funds requirements were complicated. For 

example, participants in one discussion group stated that consumer 

disclosures are complicated because reporting periods can vary for 

14Results from the discussion groups are reported by group, rather than by participant. 

Discussion groups are designed to generate ideas among participants and to report 

findings from the discussion as a whole, rather than to elicit and report ideas from specific 

individuals.

15We used the term “consumer disclosures” in our discussions, but school officials did not 

always make a clear distinction between consumer disclosures and reporting 

requirements, some of which overlap. 

Schools Shared 

Similar Views on 

Types of Burdens and 

Named a Few 

Benefits
 

Page 10 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

different types of information. Another explained that the complexity of 

consumer disclosures is a burden to staff because the information can be 

difficult to explain to current or prospective students. Also, participants in 

two groups stated that the complexity of consumer disclosures makes it 

difficult for schools to ensure compliance with the requirements. Likewise, 

participants noted that calculating the amount of Title IV funds that should 

be returned can be complicated because of the difficulty of determining 

the number of days a student attended class as well as the correct 

number of days in the payment period or period of enrollment for courses 

that do not span the entire period. Participants in three discussion groups 

found the complexity of Return of Title IV requirements made it difficult to 

complete returns within the required time frame. In addition, participants 

from four groups noted the complexity increases the risk of audit findings, 

which puts pressure on staff.

Discussion group participants identified other types of concerns that apply 

primarily to consumer disclosures. For example, participants in two 

groups said that it is burdensome for schools to make public some 

disclosures, such as graduates’ job placement data, because they cannot 

easily be compared across schools, thereby defeating the purpose of the 

information.16

Table 3. Discussion Group Participants’ Description of Burdens for Two Requirements 

Requirement Complicated Unnecessary Paperwork intensive Resource intensive Duplicative Vague

Consumer disclosures ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Return of Title IV Funds ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Source: GAO analysis of discussion groups with postsecondary school officials.

Like six of the experts we interviewed, participants in six discussion 

groups noted that burden results from the accumulation of many 

requirements rather than a few difficult requirements. Two participants 

said that when new requirements are added, generally, none are taken 

away. Similarly, two other participants commented that the amount of 

information schools are required to report grows over time. Another 

commented that it is difficult to get multiple departments within a school to 

 

16Some schools are required to disclose information on the placement in employment of, 

and types of employment obtained by, their graduates, but generally are permitted to use 

different methods of calculating or illustrating those data. 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

coordinate in order to comply with the range of requirements to which 

schools are subject under Title IV. Other federal requirements, in addition 

to those related to Title IV, may also apply to postsecondary schools (see 

Appendix IV for selected examples).

School officials also described some benefits of Title IV requirements. 

Participants in three discussion groups pointed out that some consumer 

information can be used to help applicants choose the right school. Other 

participants commented that consumer disclosures encourage 

transparency. For example, participants in two groups said the 

information schools are required to disclose regarding textbooks helps 

students compare prices and consider the total cost of books.17

Regarding Return of Title IV Funds, participants in three discussion 

groups stated that the process helps restore funds to the federal 

government that can be redirected to other students.

Education seeks feedback on burden through formal channels such as 

publishing notices seeking comments on its burden estimates for 

proposed information collections, its retrospective analysis plan, and 

negotiated rulemaking. As shown in table 4, the department publishes 

notices in the Federal Register, on its website, and through a listserv to 

make the public aware of opportunities to provide feedback on burden.18

Department officials also said they receive some feedback from school 

officials through informal channels such as training sessions and open 

forums at conferences. 

 

17Postsecondary schools that receive federal financial assistance are required, to the 

maximum extent practicable, to provide certain information on textbooks on their internet 

course schedules and to affiliated college bookstores. Specifically, schools must provide 

the retail price and International Standard Book Number or other identifying information, 

including author, title, publisher, and copyright date for all required and recommended 

course materials. If disclosing the required information is not practicable, schools are to 

list “to be determined.”

18In addition, Education officials reported they often require data collection and analysis 

contractors to assemble review panels and technical working groups, which may solicit 

input from the public, providing another opportunity to consider institutional burden. 

Education Seeks 

Feedback Mainly 

through Formal 

Channels but Schools 

Do Not Always 

Respond to These 

Opportunities
 

Page 12 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Table 4: Mediums through Which Education Publishes Notices Seeking Feedback 

on Burden

Opportunity for Public 

Comment

Federal 

Register

Education’s 

website

Education’s Information for 

Financial Aid Professionals 

(IFAP) e-mail listserv

Information collections Yesa Yesa Yesb

Retrospective analysis plan Yes Yes No

Negotiated rulemaking Yes Yes Yesb

Source: GAO analysis of Education documents.

a

If the information collection is part of a proposed rule, a notice seeking comment on the information 

collection may be included in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for that rule, which is published in 

the Federal Register and on the agency’s website. 

b

According to Education officials, Federal Register notices of interest to the student aid community 

are usually posted on the IFAP listserv. 

Although Education has published notices seeking feedback on burden, 

officials said the department has received few comments in response to 

its solicitations. For example, Education said it received no comments in 

response to its request for public comment on burden estimates included 

in its 2010 “Program Integrity” Notices of Proposed Rulemaking,19

Our review of Education’s postsecondary-related information collection 

requests (ICRs) submitted to OMB from August 2006 to October 2012

which 

proposed multiple regulatory changes with increased burden estimates. In 

addition, Education officials said some of the comments they receive 

about burden estimates are too general to make modifications in 

response to them.

20

 

19The online database that contains public comments received in response to proposed 

regulations, regulations.gov, does not contain a search field that would allow us to 

distinguish comments regarding burden estimates from comments submitted regarding 

other topics. Given that in recent years, Education has received thousands of comments 

in response to proposed rules, we did not evaluate the department’s assertion that few 

comments were received regarding burden. 

20We focused on ICRs submitted by two Education offices that manage postsecondary 

issues: the Office of Federal Student Aid and the Office of Postsecondary Education. We 

selected the time period because it coincides with the 2006 launch of the OMB and 

General Services Administration web portal used by agencies to electronically post 

comments and other documents related to information collections to reginfo.gov; includes 

the enactment of the Higher Education Opportunity Act in 2008, which resulted in 

regulatory changes; and includes ICRs recently submitted. See Appendix I for additional 

information on the types of ICRs included in our review. 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

shows that fewer than one-fourth (65 of 353) received public comments, 

of which 25 included comments that addressed burden faced by schools 

(see fig 1).21

Figure 1: Number of Postsecondary Education Information Collection Notices that 

Received Comment (August 2006-October 2012)

For example, 2 ICRs received input on the difficulties of 

providing data requested by the department. We identified 40 ICRs that 

did not receive comments on burden faced by schools; several ICRs, for 

example, received input on simplifying the language of student loan–

related forms. Further, in a review of the 30 comments received by the 

department in response to its proposed retrospective analysis plan, we 

identified 11 comments related to higher education, of which 9 mentioned 

regulatory burden. For example, one commenter described difficulties that 

smaller schools may have meeting reporting requirements.

Negotiated rulemaking presents another opportunity for schools and 

others to provide feedback on burden. Six experts and participants in six 

discussion groups thought aspects of negotiated rulemaking are 

beneficial overall. However, some experts and discussion group 

participants said certain aspects of the process may limit the impact of 

feedback on burden. Specifically, four experts and participants in six of 

our discussion groups expressed concern that when the negotiated 

rulemaking process does not achieve consensus, the department may

draft regulations unencumbered by negotiators’ input, which may have 

addressed burden. According to those we spoke with, consensus may not 

be achieved, for example, if Education includes controversial topics over 

which there is likely to be disagreement or declines to agree with other 

 

21We did not categorize the specific type of input provided in each comment (e.g., whether 

the comment discussed burden generally or provided targeted feedback on the 

department’s burden estimates). 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

negotiators. Education officials responded that their goal during 

negotiated rulemakings is to draft the best language for the regulation. 

Further, department officials said that negotiators can collectively agree to 

make changes to the agenda, unanimous consensus provides negotiators 

with an incentive to work together, and that the department cannot avoid 

negotiated rulemaking on controversial topics. Education officials said 

that when consensus is not achieved, the department rarely deviates from 

any language agreed upon by negotiators.

Notwithstanding the benefits of Title IV requirements, school officials 

believe that the burden created by federal requirements diverts time and 

resources from their primary mission of educating students. Our 

findings—as well as those of previous studies—indicate that the burden 

reported by school officials and experts not only stems from a single or a 

few requirements, but also from the accumulation of many requirements. 

While Education has solicited feedback on the burdens associated with 

federal requirements, our findings show that stakeholders do not always 

provide this feedback. As a result, stakeholders may be missing an 

opportunity to help reduce the burden of federal requirements on schools.

We provided a draft of this report to Education for comment. Education’s 

written comments are reproduced in Appendix II. Education sought a 

clearer distinction in the report between statutory and regulatory 

requirements as well as Education’s authority to address statutory 

requirements. We have added information accordingly. Education also 

recommended the report distinguish between reporting and disclosure 

requirements, and we have provided definitions in the background in 

response. Education expressed concern that the report did not sufficiently 

consider the benefits of federal requirements. We agree that federal 

requirements generally have a purpose and associated benefits—such as 

benefits associated with program oversight and consumer awareness—

which we acknowledge in our report. Analyzing the costs and benefits 

associated with individual requirements was beyond the scope of this 

report, as our primary objective was to obtain stakeholder views on 

burdens. Education also suggested we report more on its efforts to 

balance burden and benefits when designing information collections. We 

acknowledged these efforts in our report and incorporated additional 

information that Education subsequently provided. Education also 

provided technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate.

Concluding 

Observations

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 15 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and other 

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

the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and the Secretary of Education. In addition, the report is 

available at no charge on GAO’s web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in Appendix V.

Melissa Emrey-Arras 

Director

Education, Workforce,

 and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 16 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

To identify which, if any, federal requirements experts say create burden 

for postsecondary schools, we interviewed a range of experts. We chose 

these experts based on factors such as: familiarity or experience with 

Title IV requirements, recognition in the professional community, 

relevance of their published work to our topic, and recommendations from 

others. We conducted interviews with representatives of nine higher 

education associations that represent public, private nonprofit, private forprofit schools, including associations representing research universities, 

community colleges, and minority-serving institutions. We also conducted 

interviews with nine other postsecondary experts, including researchers 

and officials from individual schools with knowledge of Title IV 

requirements. Because our review focused on the burden and benefits 

experts say requirements create, we did not evaluate consumers’ 

perspectives on information schools provide.

To determine the types of burdens and benefits that schools say federal 

requirements create, we conducted eight discussion groups at two 

national conferences with a nongeneralizable sample of officials from 51 

schools.1

 

1

We conducted discussion groups at the 2012 annual conferences for the National 

Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (four groups comprised of 25 officials 

from public and private nonprofit schools) and the Association of Private Sector Colleges 

and Universities (four groups comprised of 26 officials from private for-profit schools). 

Participants were recruited through announcements made by the associations sponsoring 

each conference or direct emails to conference attendees, and volunteers were sorted into 

groups. 

Discussions were guided by a moderator who used a 

standardized list of questions to encourage participants to share their 

thoughts and experiences. To optimize time during each session, we 

focused part of the discussion on the perceived benefits and burdens 

associated with one of the two sets of requirements most often cited as 

burdensome during the interviews we conducted with experts: consumer 

disclosures and Return of Title IV Funds. Specifically, four groups 

primarily focused on the burdens and benefits associated with consumer 

disclosures and four groups focused primarily on Return of Title IV Funds. 

In addition, each group was provided the opportunity to discuss other 

requirements that officials found to be burdensome, as well as how, if at 

all, officials communicate feedback on burden to Education. Discussion 

groups are not an appropriate means to gather generalizable information 

about school officials’ awareness of feedback opportunities because 

participants were self-selected and may be more aware of federal 

requirements and feedback opportunities than others in the population.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 17 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Methodologically, group discussions are not designed to (1) demonstrate 

the extent of a problem or to generalize results to a larger population, (2) 

develop a consensus to arrive at an agreed-upon plan or make decisions 

about what actions to take, or (3) provide statistically representative 

samples or reliable quantitative estimates. Instead, they are intended to 

generate in-depth information about the reasons for the discussion group 

participants’ attitudes on specific topics and to offer insights into their 

concerns about and support for an issue. In addition, the discussion 

groups may be limited because participants represented only those 

schools that had representatives at the specific conferences we attended 

and because participants are comprised of self-selected volunteers.

To determine how Education solicits feedback from stakeholders on 

burden, we conducted interviews with Education officials and reviewed 

documentation, such as agency web pages and listserv postings used by 

Education to inform schools and other interested parties about negotiated 

rulemaking and information collections. We also solicited the views of 

experts during interviews, and asked school officials in discussion groups 

about how, if at all, they communicate feedback on burden to Education. 

Because participants were self-selected, they are more likely to be aware 

of federal requirements and feedback opportunities than the general 

population.

We reviewed Education’s ICRs related to postsecondary education 

submitted to OMB from August 1, 2006, to October 31, 2012, to 

determine how many received public comments. We also reviewed the 

ICRs that received comments to determine how many received 

comments related to burden. To do so, we used OMB’s reginfo.gov 

website, and took steps to verify the reliability of the database. We 

interviewed agency officials, tested the reliability of a data field, and 

reviewed documentation. We found the database to be reliable for our 

purposes. In our review of ICRs, we included new information collections 

along with revisions, reinstatements, and extensions of existing 

information collections without changes. We excluded ICRs that agencies 

are not required to obtain public comment on, such as those seeking 

approval of nonsubstantive changes. We also excluded ICRs for which 

the associated documents did not allow us to interpret the comments.

To determine how many ICRs received comments that discussed burden 

faced by schools, one analyst reviewed comments for each ICR and 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 18 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

classified them as being related or not related to the burden faced by 

schools. Another analyst verified these categorizations and counts.2

We also reviewed the number and nature of comments on Education’s 

preliminary plan for retrospective analysis by downloading comments 

from regulations.gov. We verified with Education the total number of 

comments received. To determine whether comments discussed burdens 

faced by schools, one analyst reviewed each comment and classified it as 

being related or not related to higher education regulations and whether it 

referenced burden faced by schools. Another analyst verified these 

categorizations and counts.

We did not review comments submitted to Education in response to 

proposed rules. Education has received thousands of comments in 

response to proposed regulations in recent years, and the site does not 

contain a search feature that would have allowed us to distinguish 

comments regarding burden estimates from other topics.

For all objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2012 to April 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

2

We defined a “burdensome federal requirement” as any mandatory requirement 

established by Congress or a federal agency that is viewed as being too costly, vague, 

complicated, paperwork-heavy, unnecessary, or duplicative. This definition is based on 

our prior work on burdensome requirements. See, GAO-12-672 and GAO/GGD-97-2. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 19 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 20 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements
Appendix III: Selected Federal Requirements 

Described as Burdensome in Discussion 

Group Comments

Page 21 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

The table below lists some of the specific concerns expressed by school 

officials we spoke to in discussion groups in response to questions about 

burdensome federal requirements. GAO identified statutory or regulatory 

provisions that relate to the burdens described by school officials and 

compiled these summaries to better illustrate the underlying requirements 

about which we received comments. These are only examples, not a list 

of every requirement specifically reported to us as burdensome. The 

summaries provided below are not intended to be complete descriptions 

of each requirement, and additional statutory or regulatory provisions 

related to these comments may also apply. In some cases a provision 

may have multiple sources, such as where statutory requirements are 

further interpreted in a regulation or guidance document.

Discussion Group Participant 

Concern Summary of Related Federal Provisions Source 

Consumer Disclosures: This category encompasses a number of different federal requirements to collect information on various 

topics and make that information available to specified groups or entities. Students, prospective students, and others can use this 

information to be better informed. The information can help people make decisions such as whether or not to attend or seek 

employment at a school.

Safety and security report. Reporting 

crime information is less necessary for 

smaller “trade schools” than larger 

schools with big campuses.

Seeking crime information from the 

police department can be difficult.

The statute and regulations require eligible institutions to collect certain 

information on campus crime statistics and security policies and prepare, 

publish, and distribute an annual security report to all current students and 

employees (and to any prospective student or employee upon request). 

The report must contain, among other information, statistics on certain 

crimes reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies. 20 

U.S.C. § 1092(f)(1)(F), 34 C.F.R. §§ 668.41(e), 668.46.

Statute and 

Regulation 

The regulations require that an institution “make a reasonable, good faith 

effort to obtain the required statistics” and may rely on information 

supplied by a local or state police agency. “If the institution makes such a 

reasonable, good faith effort, it is not responsible for the failure of the local 

or State police agency to supply the required statistics.” 34 C.F.R. § 

668.46(c)(9).

Regulation

Appendix III: Selected Federal Requirements 

Described as Burdensome in Discussion 

Group Comments
Appendix III: Selected Federal Requirements 

Described as Burdensome in Discussion 

Group Comments

Page 22 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Discussion Group Participant 

Concern Summary of Related Federal Provisions Source 

Placement rates. Placement rate 

calculations are different for different 

schools or within schools and confusing 

to students, requiring school staff to give 

additional explanation to some data.

The statute requires that institutions produce and make readily available 

upon request—through appropriate publications, mailings, and electronic 

media—to an enrolled student and to any prospective student the 

placement in employment of, and types of employment obtained by, 

graduates of the institution’s degree or certificate programs, gathered from 

such sources as alumni surveys, student satisfaction surveys, the National 

Survey of Student Engagement, the Community College Survey of 

Student Engagement, State data systems, or other relevant sources. 20 

U.S.C. § 1092(a)(1)(R).

Statute

According to the regulations, information concerning the placement of, and 

types of employment obtained by, graduates of the institution’s degree or 

certificate programs may be gathered from:

(1) the institution’s placement rate for any program, if it calculates such a 

rate;

(2) state data systems;

(3) alumni or student satisfaction surveys; or

(4) other relevant sources.

The institution must identify the source of the information provided, as well 

as any time frames and methodology associated with it. In addition, the 

institution must disclose any placement rates it calculates. 34 C.F.R. § 

668.41(d)(5).

Regulation 

Return of Title IV Funds: In general, if a recipient of Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution, the statute and 

regulations establish a procedure for calculating and returning unearned funds. Returning these funds can protect the interests of the 

federal government and the borrower.

Determining withdrawal date. Fourteen 

days is a short time frame to determine 

whether a student has withdrawn.

The statute provides that, for institutions required to take attendance, the 

day of withdrawal is determined by the institution from such attendance 

records. 20 U.S.C. § 1091b(c)(1)(B).

Statute

The regulations prescribe in further detail which institutions are required to 

take attendance and how to determine the withdrawal date:

For a student who ceases attendance at an institution that is required to 

take attendance, including a student who does not return from an 

approved leave of absence, or a student who takes a leave of absence 

that does not meet the regulatory requirements, the student’s withdrawal 

date is the last date of academic attendance as determined by the 

institution from its attendance records. 34 C.F.R. § 668.22(b).

Regulation

“Institutions that are required to take attendance are expected to have a 

procedure in place for routinely monitoring attendance records to 

determine in a timely manner when a student withdraws. Except in 

unusual instances, the date of the institution’s determination that the 

student withdrew should be no later than 14 days (less if the school has a 

policy requiring determination in fewer than 14 days) after the student’s 

last date of attendance as determined by the institution from its 

attendance records.” Federal Student Aid Handbook, June 2012, and 

Education “Dear Colleague Letters” GEN-04-03 Revised, Nov. 2004, and 

DCL GEN-11-14, July 20, 2011.

Education 

guidancea
Appendix III: Selected Federal Requirements 

Described as Burdensome in Discussion 

Group Comments

Page 23 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Discussion Group Participant 

Concern Summary of Related Federal Provisions Source 

Completing the calculation. It is difficult 

to complete the Return of Title IV 

calculation within 45 days. 

An institution is required to return any unearned Title IV funds it is 

responsible for returning within 45 days of the date the school determined 

the student withdrew. 20 U.S.C. § 1091b(b)(1), 34 C.F.R. §§ 668.22(j)(1), 

668.173(b).

Statute and 

Regulation

“Unofficial” withdrawals. If a student 

receives grades of all “F’s,” under some 

circumstances financial aid 

professionals must verify that the 

student is or is not an “unofficial 

withdrawal.” The school has 30 days 

from the last day of the semester to 

make a determination, which can be 

problematic because it takes time to 

post grades and confirm information 

with professors.

For a student who withdraws from a school that is not required to take 

attendance without providing notification, the school must determine the 

withdrawal date no later than 30 days after the end of the earlier of (1) the 

payment period or the period of enrollment (as applicable), (2) the 

academic year, or (3) the student’s educational program. 34 C.F.R. § 

668.22(j)(2).

Regulation

“If a student who began attendance and has not officially withdrawn fails to 

earn a passing grade in at least one course over an entire period, the 

institution must assume, for Title IV purposes, that the student has 

unofficially withdrawn, unless the institution can document that the student 

completed the period.

“In some cases, a school may use its policy for awarding or reporting final 

grades to determine whether a student who failed to earn a passing grade 

in any of his or her classes completed the period. For example, a school 

might have an official grading policy that provides instructors with the

ability to differentiate between those students who complete the course 

but failed to achieve the course objectives and those students who did not 

complete the course. If so, the institution may use its academic policy for 

awarding final grades to determine that a student who did not receive at 

least one passing grade nevertheless completed the period. Another 

school might require instructors to report, for all students awarded a nonpassing grade, the student’s last day of attendance (LDA). The school 

may use this information to determine whether a student who received all 

“F” grades withdrew. If one instructor reports that the student attended 

through the end of the period, then the student is not a withdrawal. In the 

absence of evidence of a last day of attendance at an academically 

related activity, a school must consider a student who failed to earn a 

passing grade in all classes to be an unofficial withdrawal.” Federal 

Student Aid Handbook, June 2012, and Education “Dear Colleague Letter” 

GEN-04-03 Revised, Nov. 2004.

Education 

Guidancea

Source: GAO analysis of discussion group responses and review of relevant federal laws, regulations, and agency guidance 

documents.

a

Although guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable requirements, we have included 

them here if they are relevant to the comments described. 

Notes: 

All references to “statute” or “regulations” are references to the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), 

as amended, and Education’s implementing regulations. 

All references to “eligible institutions” refer to eligible institutions participating in Title IV programs, as 

defined by the HEA, as amended. 
Appendix IV: Selected Examples of Other 

Federal Requirements That May Apply to 

Postsecondary Schools

Page 24 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Postsecondary schools may be subject to numerous federal requirements 

in addition to those related to Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 

as amended, which may be established by various other statutes or 

regulations promulgated by different agencies. The specific requirements 

to which an individual school is subject may depend on a variety of 

factors, such as whether it conducts certain kinds of research or is taxexempt (see the following examples). This is not intended to be a 

comprehensive list; rather the examples were selected to represent the 

variety of types of requirements to which schools may be subject.

• Nuclear Research: Schools licensed to conduct medical research 

using nuclear byproduct material must follow Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission requirements on safety and security, or compatible 

requirements issued by a state that has entered into an agreement 

with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.1 Schools that house nuclear 

reactors for research purposes are also subject to additional 

regulations, including those on emergency management.2

• Research Misconduct: To receive federal funding under the Public 

Health Service Act for biomedical or behavioral research, institutions 

(including colleges and universities) must have written policies and 

procedures for addressing research misconduct and must submit an 

annual compliance report to the federal government. The Public 

Health Service has issued regulations detailing institutions’ 

responsibilities in complying with these requirements.3

• Research on animals: Applicants for funding for biomedical or 

behavioral research under the Public Health Service Act must provide 

an assurance to the National Institutes of Health that the research 

entity complies with the Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health 

Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and 

that it has appointed an appropriate oversight committee (an 

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee). The oversight 

committee must review the care and treatment of animals in all animal 

 

1

See, e.g.,10 C.F.R. pt. 35. See generally the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. § 2011 et seq. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is authorized to enter into 

agreements with states giving states regulatory authority over certain nuclear materials. 

42 U.S.C. § 2021.

2

See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. § 50.47. 

3

42 U.S.C. § 289b, 42 C.F.R. pt. 93. 

Appendix IV: Selected Examples of Other 

Federal Requirements That May Apply to 

Postsecondary Schools

Examples of Requirements 

Related to Research 

Activities
Appendix IV: Selected Examples of Other 

Federal Requirements That May Apply to 

Postsecondary Schools

Page 25 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

study areas and facilities of the research entity at least semi-annually 

to ensure compliance with the Policy.4

• Employment Discrimination: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

as amended, prohibits employment practices that discriminate based 

on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. These requirements 

apply to schools that qualify as employers as defined by Title VII, 

generally including private and state or local employers that employ 

15 or more employees.5

• Disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities in several areas, 

including employment, state and local government activities, and 

public accommodations.6 In addition, section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits discrimination on the basis of 

disability under any program or activity that receives federal financial 

assistance.7

• Sex Discrimination. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 

prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded 

education program or activity. Title IX applies, with a few specific 

exceptions, to all aspects of education programs or activities that 

receive federal financial assistance, including athletics.

Colleges, universities, other postsecondary institutions, 

and public institutions of higher education are subject to these 

requirements.

8

• Byrd Amendment: Educational institutions that receive federal funds 

must hold an annual educational program on the U.S. Constitution.9

 

4

42 U.S.C. § 289d. See also Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of 

Laboratory Animals (2002). 

5

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e -2000e-4. See also Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

regulations, e.g., 29 C.F.R. pts. 1604, 1605, 1606. 

6

42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213. Different agencies administer different aspects of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

and the Department of Justice.

7

29 U.S.C. § 794. Education’s regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act are located 

at 34 C.F.R. pt. 104.

8

20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. See also Education’s regulations, 34 C.F.R. pt. 106.

9

36 U.S.C. § 106 note. See also Notice of Implementation of Constitution Day and 

Citizenship Day, 70 Fed. Reg. 29,727 (May 24, 2005). 

Examples of Requirements 

Related to Discrimination

Examples of Other 

Requirements
Appendix IV: Selected Examples of Other 

Federal Requirements That May Apply to 

Postsecondary Schools

Page 26 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

• Internal Revenue Service Form 990: Schools that have tax-exempt 

status generally must annually file IRS Form 990. The form requires a 

range of information on the organization’s exempt and other activities, 

finances, governance, compliance with certain federal tax 

requirements, and compensation paid to certain persons.10

 

1026 U.S.C. § 6033, 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.6033-1 to 1.6033-6. 
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 27 GAO-13-371 Higher Education Requirements

Melissa Emrey-Arras, (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Bryon Gordon (Assistant 

Director), Debra Prescott (Assistant Director), Anna Bonelli, Joy Myers, 

and Daren Sweeney made key contributions to this report. Additionally, 

Deborah Bland, Kate Blumenreich, Tim Bober, Sarah Cornetto, Holly 

Dye, Kathleen van Gelder, and Elizabeth Wood aided in this assignment.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(131169)
The Government Accountability 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 GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.