Higher Education: Experts Cited a Range of Requirements as Burdensome
Published: 2013-04-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Eligibility Criteria for School Participation in the Title IV Program
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Sources of Federal Requirements
paragraphs: 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  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. 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. 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.
section_title: Information Collections and the Paperwork Reduction Act
paragraphs: 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. 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. Agencies  are also required to solicit public comment on proposed information  collections by publishing notices in the Federal Register. 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.
section_title: Past and Ongoing Initiatives to Examine Schools’ Federal Regulatory Burden
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Experts Cited a Range of Requirements as Burdensome
paragraphs: 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). Among other  things, these disclosure requirements include providing certain  information about schools, such as student enrollment, graduation rates,  and cost of attendance. The most frequently mentioned consumer  disclosure requirement—cited by 5 experts as burdensome—was the  “Clery Act” campus security and crime statistics disclosure requirement.  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. 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.
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.
section_title: Schools Shared Similar Views on Types of Burdens and Named a Few Benefits
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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).
Participants in six of eight discussion groups said that consumer  disclosures were complicated, 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  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.
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  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.  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.
section_title: Education Seeks Feedback Mainly through Formal Channels but Schools Do Not Always Respond to These Opportunities
paragraphs: 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.Department officials also said they receive some feedback from school  officials through informal channels such as training sessions and open  forums at conferences.
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, 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.
We 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. 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). 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  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.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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 for- profit 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. 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.
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  classified them as being related or not related to the burden faced by  schools. Another analyst verified these categorizations and counts.
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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix III: Selected Federal Requirements Described as Burdensome in Discussion Group Comments
paragraphs: 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  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.
Summary of Related Federal Provisions  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.
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).
Discussion Group Participant  Concern  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.
Summary of Related Federal Provisions  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).
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).
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.
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).
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).  “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.
Summary of Related Federal Provisions  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).
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).  “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 non- passing 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Selected Examples of Other Federal Requirements That May Apply to Postsecondary Schools
paragraphs: 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 tax- exempt (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.
subsections: section_title: Examples of Requirements Related to Research Activities
paragraphs: 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. Schools that house nuclear  reactors for research purposes are also subject to additional  regulations, including those on emergency management.
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.
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  study areas and facilities of the research entity at least semi-annually  to ensure compliance with the Policy.
section_title: Examples of Requirements Related to Discrimination
paragraphs: 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.
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. Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits discrimination on the basis of  disability under any program or activity that receives federal financial  assistance. Colleges, universities, other postsecondary institutions,  and public institutions of higher education are subject to these  requirements.
In addition, section 504 of the Rehabilitation
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.
section_title: Examples of Other Requirements
paragraphs: Byrd Amendment: Educational institutions that receive federal funds  must hold an annual educational program on the U.S. Constitution.
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.
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.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.