D.C. Tuition Assistance Grants: Program May Increase College Choices, but a Few Program Procedures May Hinder Grant Receipt for Some Residents
Published: 2001-12-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Twenty-one percent of grant-eligible applicants who did not use the District of Columbia's tuition assistance grant (TAG) funding to attend a participating college or university may have encountered such barriers as college entrance requirements and the absence of minority outreach programs. Whether enrollment caps at colleges posed a barrier for applicants is unclear. In the program's first year, 516 of the nearly 2,500 eligible applicants did not use the grants. About 21 percent of the institutions in which applicants expressed interest restrict the number of out-of-state students that they will accept, although the extent to which this played a role in limiting access to these institutions is unclear. Enrollment at the University of the District of Columbia (UDC) changed little during the TAG program's first year. The TAG program and UDC appeared to serve different freshmen populations, which may account for the TAG program's minimal impact on UDC enrollment. Although concerns about TAG program administration were largely resolved with the revision of program regulations in December 2000, other administrative issues may hinder program operations, including the determination of applicant eligibility and the distribution of information on institutions participating in the program.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: With the enactment of the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999  (P.L. 106-98), the Congress created a grant program with the purpose of  expanding higher education choices for college-bound District of  Columbia (D.C.) residents in an effort to stabilize the city’s population and  tax base. This program, the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant (TAG) Program,  addressed a concern that D.C. students were at a disadvantage in their  postsecondary school choices because D.C. lacks a state university  system. The TAG Program allows undergraduate students to attend  eligible public universities and colleges nationwide at in-state tuition rates  and provides smaller grants for students to attend private institutions in  the D.C. metropolitan area and private Historically Black Colleges and  Universities (HBCUs) in Maryland and Virginia. In the TAG Program’s first  year, 3,500 individuals applied for the grants and nearly 2,500 were found  eligible for the grants.
The College Access Act (the act) mandates that we monitor the effects of  the grant program on eligible students and assess the impact of the  program on enrollment at the University of the District of Columbia  (UDC), which is ineligible to participate in the TAG Program because  in-state tuition rates are already available to D.C. residents. In addition,  because some institutions voiced concerns regarding some of the  administrative requirements that the initial program regulations placed on  participating institutions,Senator Voinovich requested that we expand  our study to include a review of program administration. We focused our  work on answering the following questions:
To what extent did eligible applicants who did not use the grant  potentially experience barriers to college access at the eligible public and  private institutions due to factors such as enrollment caps, entrance  requirements, and the absence of minority outreach programs?
How did enrollment at UDC change during the initial year of the grant  program, and do UDC and the TAG Program serve similar freshmen  populations?
What program administration issues, if any, could potentially hinder  program operations?
In conducting this work, we examined applicant data from the TAG  Program for academic year 2000-01, the first year of the grant program,  and surveyed parents of those applicants who did not use the grant. We  had a response rate of 42 percent for our parent survey. This response rate  is too low to permit us to consider the survey results to be representative  of the situations of all eligible applicants who did not use the grant.  Nevertheless, the information that the parents provided regarding the  applicants gives an indication of why at least some applicants did not use  the grant. We examined data from eligible institutions, D.C. public schools,  UDC, and college guide books. We also surveyed institutions that  participated in the TAG Program in academic year 2000-01. In addition, we  interviewed various federal, university, and D.C. government officials and  reviewed program office files. Appendix I further describes our scope and  methodology. We conducted our review between January and August 2001  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In 1999, the Congress enacted the D.C. College Access Act for the purpose  of expanding higher education opportunities for college-bound D.C.  residents in an effort to stabilize D.C.’s population and tax base. The act  created the D.C. TAG Program, a residency-based tuition subsidy program,  which allows D.C. residents to attend participating public universities and  colleges nationwide at in-state tuition rates. UDC is not eligible to  participate in the TAG Program because in-state tuition rates are already  available for D.C. residents. The TAG Program also provides smaller  grants for students to attend private institutions in the D.C. metropolitan  area and private HBCUs in Maryland and Virginia. An eligible institution  may participate in the grant program only if the institution has formally  signed a Program Participation Agreement with the mayor of the District  of Columbia.  Students attending a participating public institution can  receive a tuition subsidy of up to $10,000 per year (calculated as the  difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition rates), with a total cap  of $50,000 per student. D.C. residents attending private institutions in the  D.C. metropolitan area and private HBCUs in Maryland and Virginia may  receive an annual grant award of up to $2,500 per year, with a total cap of  $12,500 per student. The grant funding can be applied only to a student’s  tuition and fee costs and must not supplant other grant funding that the  student is eligible to receive. As a result, the tuition assistance grant must  be considered as the final or “last dollar” that is added to a student’s  financial aid package. Since the grant can be applied only to tuition and  fees, other costs associated with college attendance, such as room and  board fees and transportation costs, must be paid by other means.
The D.C. government received $17 million in each of fiscal years 2000 and  2001 to implement the grant program and to provide grants to qualified  applicants. As of August 2001, the TAG Program disbursed approximately  $11 million for grants and administration. Consequently, the D.C.  government maintains a grant balance of approximately $23 million. The  act (P.L. 106-98) states that the funding shall remain available until  expended.
The TAG Program office engaged in a variety of publicity and outreach  efforts to both D.C. residents and eligible institutions to promote the TAG  Program in its first year of operation. Efforts to inform potential applicants  about the TAG Program included staff visits to public and private high  schools in D.C., information about the program mailed to every D.C. public  high school senior, radio advertisements, and marketing posters at subway  and bus stations around the city. TAG Program staff also worked with staff  at the D.C. College Access Program (D.C. CAP) to provide information to  D.C. public schools about the grant. The D.C. CAP is a nonprofit  organization, funded by a consortium of 17 private sector companies and  foundations, whose intent is to complement the TAG Program by  encouraging D.C. public high school students to enter and graduate from  college. D.C. CAP provides D.C. public school students with support  services both before and during college, including placing college advisors  in each public high school beginning in academic year 2000-01, assisting  students with college and financial aid applications, and providing both  information resources at D.C. public high schools and educational  planning workshops for students and parents.  TAG Program staff  provided training and information about the grant to D.C. CAP college  advisors. In order to inform eligible institutions about the grant program,  staff mailed information to the president and financial aid officer of each  public institution and eligible private institution. In addition, the Secretary  of Education sent a letter to each chief executive officer of public higher  education undergraduate institutions nationwide in July 2000, providing  information about the grant program and urging institutions to sign a  Program Participation Agreement with the mayor of the District of  Columbia. Currently, if a grant-eligible applicant decides to attend an  eligible but nonparticipating institution, the TAG Program staff contact the  institution and provide information on the program as well as on the  participation agreement. However, according to the TAG Program  director, the applicant and his or her family often play a vital role in  persuading the institution to sign an agreement with the program.
In order to be eligible for the grant, an applicant must meet certain  criteria, including graduation from any high school or attainment of a  secondary school equivalency diploma after January 1998 and enrollment  or acceptance for enrollment in an undergraduate program at an eligible  institution. Applicants must also be domiciled in D.C. for 12 consecutive  months prior to the start of their freshman year of college and must  continue to maintain their primary residence in D.C. throughout the grant  period. In academic year 2000-01, approximately 3,500 individuals applied  for the grant and 70 percent, or approximately 2,500 individuals, met the  eligibility criteria. Twenty-two percent of the applicants, on the other  hand, were found ineligible for the grant, and about 8 percent of the  applications were pending or inactive at the time of our review. The  reasons for which applicants were found ineligible include not meeting the  statutory requirements pertaining to graduation and domicile.
All of the wards in D.C. were represented in the applicant pool. Although  D.C. comprises 8 wards, most of the applicants resided in wards 4, 5, and  7, which are located primarily in the northeast and southeast quadrants of  D.C. The greatest percentage of college-age residents applying for the  grant came from these three wards. Figure 1 shows the percentage of  college-age residents in each D.C. ward that applied for the grant.
About 1,900 eligible applicants used the grant to attend 152 participating  public and private institutions in academic year 2000-01. Almost half of the  applicants came directly from high school, with nearly 70 percent of the  applicants who recently graduated from high school coming from a D.C.  public high school. The remaining applicants were already enrolled in  college. Approximately 97 percent of the grant recipients for whom data  was available enrolled in college full-time. Eighty-six percent of TAG  recipients attended a 4-year institution, and 14 percent attended a 2-year  college. Seventy-six percent of the eligible applicants who used the grant  attended a public institution, with an average grant per fall and spring  semester of nearly $2,900, whereas the remaining 24 percent attended a  private institution with an average grant per fall and spring semester of  approximately $1,200. Overall, 18 percent of the applicants attended an  open-admission institution, and almost 40 percent enrolled at a public or  private HBCU. Figure 2 provides more detailed information on the number  of TAG recipients who attended college in each state in academic year  2000-01.
Initially, the act included only public institutions and private HBCUs in  Maryland and Virginia, as well as private institutions in the D.C.  metropolitan area, as eligible to participate in the TAG Program. In May  2000, the program was expanded to include all public colleges and  universities nationwide. Not all of these colleges and universities  participate in the program, however, though they are eligible to do so.  Currently, 514 public and private institutions have formally agreed to  participate. Participating institutions are located in every state, D.C., and  Puerto Rico. Sixty-two participating institutions are located in D.C.,  Maryland, and Virginia. Appendix II provides a list of the institutions that  had signed a participation agreement with the D.C. government as of  December 10, 2001.
Before the program’s nationwide expansion, the TAG Program office  promulgated the initial regulations for administration of the program. In  the fall of 2000, four large public institutions—the University of California,  the University of Florida, the University of Michigan, and the State  University of New York—refused to sign the Program Participation  Agreement, claiming that the regulations were overly burdensome.  Subsequently, in December 2000, the TAG Program office revised the  regulations, and all four institutions signed the agreement.
Current proposed legislation, H.R. 1499, would make changes to the TAG  Program, including modifying some of the student eligibility requirements.  The bill would expand eligibility for the grant to include D.C. residents  who both begin their college education more than 3 years after they  graduated from high school and who graduated from high school prior to  January 1, 1998, provided that they are currently enrolled in an eligible  institution. Eligible applicants would be required to meet the citizenship  and immigration requirements currently specified in the Higher Education  Act of 1965. The bill would expand the list of eligible institutions to  include private HBCUs nationwide. In addition, the bill would require the  D.C. Government to establish a dedicated account for TAG Program  funding and would clarify the use of administrative funding by the  program office. The bill passed the House of Representatives in July 2001,  and was amended by and passed the Senate in December 2001; the  amended bill is currently pending before the House.
The Department of Education’s Inspector General (IG) completed an audit  of the TAG Program finances in August 2001. The IG’s audit provided  findings in the areas of administrative funding and interest income and  made recommendations to address each of these issues.
section_title: Some Applicants May Have Experienced Barriers to College Access
paragraphs: Of the nearly 2,500 applicants who were eligible for the tuition assistance  grant, 21 percent—or 516 applicants—did not use the grant in academic  year 2000-01 and some of these applicants may have faced barriers due to  college entrance requirements and the absence of minority outreach  programs. Whether college enrollment caps had any impact on college  access for these applicants is unclear. According to the parents who  responded to our parent survey, eligible applicants did not use the grant  for a variety of reasons, including decisions to postpone college  attendance or enroll in an ineligible school and rejection for admission at  schools participating in the TAG Program.
College entrance requirements may have been a barrier to college access  for some eligible applicants who did not use the grant in academic year  2000-01. Entrance requirements vary at postsecondary institutions—from  only requiring a high school diploma or equivalent to reviewing a  combination of high school GPA, SAT or other college entrance  examination scores, and essays. Since data on college entrance  requirements were not readily available, we used average freshmen high  school GPA and SAT scores as a proxy for college entrance requirements.  We requested GPA and SAT scores for 290 of the 516 eligible applicants  who did not use the grant—those who had recently graduated from a D.C.  public high school—from D.C. public school officials and compared these  data to high school GPA and SAT scores for entering freshmen at the 62  institutions that the applicants were interested in attending. Although the  average high school GPA for entering freshmen at a majority of the 62  institutions was 3.0 or higher, the average GPA for 183 of the applicants  for whom data were available was 2.36. Furthermore, whereas the  median combined SAT score for 150 of the applicants for whom data were  available was 735, entering freshmen at a majority of these institutions had  median combined SAT scores higher than 735. For example, these  institutions reported median combined SAT scores between 800 and 1400.
The absence of minority outreach programs at these institutions may have  also been a barrier to college access for some of the D.C. public school  students who were eligible for, but did not use, the grant. Approximately  97 percent of D.C. public school students are considered members of a  racial minority, but outreach programs specifically geared toward  minority students existed at only 24 of the institutions, excluding those  that are considered an HBCU, that these applicants expressed interest in  attending, and for which data were available. For example, the University  of Arizona’s minority outreach efforts include favorable consideration of  minority status in financial aid decisions. At Catholic University of  America, outreach efforts include allowing a limited number of talented  minority high school seniors to take college courses free of charge. Our  survey of all participating institutions, beyond the institutions that D.C.  public school students were interested in attending, showed that other  minority outreach efforts include recruiting visits to high schools with  large minority student populations and waiving of out-of-state enrollment  cap restrictions for minority applicants.
Whether caps on the number of out-of-state residents who can enroll at an  institution served as a barrier to college access for these eligible TAG  applicants is unclear. Some public postsecondary institutions have policies  that limit the percentage of undergraduates who may enroll from outside  the state or who may be admitted as freshmen to the institution. For  example, the University of Virginia allows 35 percent of undergraduate  students to enroll from outside Virginia, while the University of North  Carolina at Chapel Hill caps out-of-state enrollment for undergraduates at  18 percent. Such policies exist at about 21 percent of the 62 institutions for  which data were available.
The parents of some eligible applicants provided a variety of reasons why  the applicants did not use the TAG funding during academic year 2000-01.  Of the 213 parents who provided information on eligible applicants, 31  percent indicated that their son or daughter applied to but did not enroll in  a college or university, 15 percent indicated that their child decided not to  apply to college, and 54 percent indicated that their son or daughter  attended a college or university in academic year 2000-01. Most of the  grant-eligible applicants who did not use the grant attended institutions  that were not eligible to participate in the TAG Program, and their  parents indicated that the institution chosen best met their child’s  educational or financial needs. Examples of ineligible colleges these  applicants attended included UDC and private HBCUs outside D.C.,  Maryland, or Virginia. Most parents of grant-eligible applicants who  applied to but did not enroll in a college indicated that their child either  wanted to postpone college or did not enroll due to personal reasons. For  example, one parent told us that her daughter delayed college because of  the birth of a child, while another parent told us that her son wanted to  wait to improve his SAT scores. Fifty-one students were not accepted to  an eligible TAG college or university, and of these students, 10 of those  were not accepted by any college or university. Due to a low response rate  of 42 percent, however, our results cannot be considered generalizable to  all of the parents in our survey.
section_title: Minimal Change Occurred in UDC Enrollment and Characteristics Differ Between TAG and UDC Freshmen
paragraphs: The change in enrollment at UDC during the first year of the TAG Program  was minimal, and UDC appears to be serving a different freshman  population than the population served by the TAG Program. Fall semester  enrollment has remained stable since 1998, and in academic year 2000-01,  18 students left UDC and used the grant funding to attend a TAG- participating college or university. The UDC officials we spoke with  believed that the TAG Program would likely have little impact on UDC’s  enrollment level, in part because of the diverse student population that  UDC serves.
subsections: section_title: UDC Enrollment Changed Little During the First Year of the TAG Program, and Only a Few Students Left to Use the Tuition Assistance Grant
paragraphs: UDC enrollment has changed little since the TAG Program began offering  grants to D.C. residents. Between the 1999-00 and 2000-01 academic years,  total undergraduate enrollment at UDC increased by about 1 percent. As  shown in figure 3, UDC enrollment for fall 2000, the first semester that  tuition assistance grants were awarded, was 5,008, close to the enrollment  for the previous two fall semesters. In addition, entering freshmen  enrollment has remained fairly stable over the past 3 years. Freshmen  enrollment increased 0.4 percent—from 1,859 to 1,867—between the 1999- 00 and 2000-01 academic years. UDC officials we interviewed believed that  because the TAG Program was in only its first year, it had not affected  enrollment at UDC. They expressed concern, however, that students  cannot use the grant to attend UDC and noted that a grant could prove  beneficial, because many UDC students rely on financial aid to pay for  tuition costs, even though tuition rates are low.
In the first year of the TAG Program, fewer than 20 students left UDC to  use the tuition assistance grant. Overall, 136 TAG applicants were enrolled  at UDC when they applied for the grant. Of that number, only 18 students  determined to be eligible for the grant used the funding to attend a school  other than UDC in academic year 2000-01.
section_title: UDC and TAG Appear to Be Serving Different Freshmen Populations
paragraphs: During academic year 2000-01, the average freshman entering UDC  differed markedly from the average TAG recipient entering college as a  freshman. For example, the average age of freshmen entering UDC was 29  years, compared with an average age of almost 20 years for TAG  recipients entering college as freshmen. In addition, whereas most UDC  freshmen were enrolled as part-time students, almost all freshmen that  received the tuition assistance grant were enrolled as full-time students.  Finally, a higher percentage of TAG freshmen recipients graduated from a  high school in D.C., Maryland, or Virginia, compared with UDC freshmen.  These differences in the two populations suggest that UDC and the TAG  Program draw on different student populations. In fact, the UDC officials  we spoke with felt that the impact of the TAG Program would not be large  because of the differing groups of college students that UDC and the TAG  Program serve. Table 1 shows the profiles of UDC and TAG college  freshmen for academic year 2000-01.
section_title: Although Most Initial Concerns Have Been Resolved, Some Administrative Issues May Hinder Program Operations
paragraphs: Although most concerns about administration of the TAG Program that  were initially raised by four large institutions were largely resolved by the  revision of the regulations in December 2000, some administrative issues  exist that may hinder program operations. Our review of the TAG Program  identified issues with the procedure that TAG staff use to determine  eligibility for the grant when applicants list on their grant applications only  ineligible institutions as schools they are interested in attending. We also  found that unclear and potentially misleading information about  participating institutions is being disseminated by the TAG Program office  in both an informational pamphlet to TAG applicants and in letters sent to  eligible applicants.
subsections: section_title: Initial Concerns Raised by Some Institutions Were Generally Resolved, and Participating Institutions Report Few Problems
paragraphs: Some concerns about the initial TAG Program voiced by four participating  institutions have been resolved. Some officials at these four institutions  initially expressed apprehension regarding the institutional requirements  contained in the original program regulations. For example, the officials  whom we spoke with at the four institutions felt that program  requirements—including the requirements that institutions conduct an  annual compliance audit, maintain records that duplicate those held by the  TAG Program office, and confirm student eligibility—would be  burdensome for their institutions. University officials whom we spoke  with at these institutions indicated that most of their initial concerns were  resolved when program regulations were revised in December 2000. In  fact, all four institutions have now signed a Program Participation  Agreement with the mayor of the District of Columbia, formally agreeing  to participate in the grant program.
In general, the few remaining administrative concerns mentioned by the  university officials we spoke with did not appear to be problematic at the  majority of the institutions that enrolled tuition assistance grant recipients  in academic year 2000-01. For example, although officials from two of the  four universities stated that administering the grant required the time- consuming task of creating a separate financial aid process, officials from  74 percent of the participating institutions that we surveyed indicated that  they did not have to create a new process for TAG students. Furthermore,  officials from more than half of the participating institutions reported that  the administration of the grant did not require additional university staff  time. Among those who said that it took longer to administer the grants  than to determine financial aid for students not receiving the grants, the  majority indicated that the administration process took less than 10  minutes longer.
Some of the university officials that we interviewed indicated that the  program regulation requiring that their institutions wait to bill the TAG  Program office until the end of the drop/add period—sometimes as long as  30 days after the start of classes—resulted in late payment for schools.  According to the officials, waiting for grant payments contravenes the  practice at many institutions—some of which are bound by state law—to  collect tuition and fees before the first day of class. At the University of  California, for example, officials told us that this regulation required that  the institution provide a loan to the student to cover tuition costs for the  period between the first day of classes and the university’s receipt of the  grant funding from the TAG Program office. However, whereas  approximately 57 percent of the participating institutions have such a  statutory or institutional requirement, nearly 70 percent of the institutions  we surveyed stated that similar delays in tuition payments affect students  in other grant programs. TAG Program officials said that they will review  the possibility of changing the drop/add requirement for academic year  2002-03. In addition, while three of the schools we interviewed initially felt  that the record-keeping requirements for the TAG Program were more  burdensome than was necessary for a relatively small program, more than  two-thirds of the participating institutions indicated that the record  keeping was not significantly different from that for other financial aid  programs they administer.
section_title: Administrative Issues Exist That May Hinder Program Operations
paragraphs: In the first year of the grant program, some applicants who were found  ineligible for the grant did not receive a full and consistent review of their  eligibility factors by TAG staff. Nearly half of all applicants who were  deemed ineligible were so assessed because they listed on their grant  applications only ineligible institutions as schools they were likely to  attend. TAG staff told us that because of the volume of grant applications  received in the first year, the staff did not verify all eligibility factors for  applicants listing only ineligible institutions on their applications. TAG  staff stated that these applicants were sent a letter of ineligibility solely on  the basis of the applicants’ listing of ineligible schools on their  applications. According to TAG staff, they informed the applicants by  telephone that because the institutions they listed were ineligible for the  grant program, the applicants would receive a letter of ineligibility for the  grant. From the applicants who were deemed ineligible because they listed  ineligible institutions, we randomly selected 75 files to review in depth.  Our review indicated that the TAG staff might not have checked the  domicile criterion for 55 percent of applicants or the graduation criterion  for 11 percent of applicants. Furthermore, our review showed that for  nearly 40 percent of applicants, no record existed of their being contacted  by telephone. For the current year of the grant program—academic year  2001-02—TAG staff members have indicated that they will discontinue  their attempts to contact by telephone those applicants who list only  ineligible institutions. Instead, these applicants will automatically receive  ineligibility letters.
In addition, the TAG Program office is disseminating unclear and  misleading information to potential applicants regarding which  postsecondary institutions have agreed to participate in the grant program.  The TAG Program office provides potential applicants with a pamphlet  that is meant to inform the applicant as to which colleges and universities  he or she can attend with the grant. However, this pamphlet lists  approximately 2,000 postsecondary institutions as “participating,” even  though just 514 of these institutions have formally agreed to participate in  the grant program by signing a Program Participation Agreement with the  mayor of the District of Columbia. According to the TAG Program  director, this pamphlet lists all of the institutions that are eligible to  participate in the TAG Program—rather than just those that have agreed to  participate—to provide applicants with information on the full range of  institutions they could theoretically attend with the grant. The director felt  that listing only the participating institutions might discourage individuals  from applying for the grant.
Misleading information is also provided to grant-eligible TAG applicants in  the award letter. This letter is to be either sent or taken as proof of grant  eligibility to the college or university the eligible applicant decides to  attend. However, the letter states that the TAG Program office will pay  tuition “at any U.S. public college or university that you attend,” without  informing the applicant that not all of these institutions have agreed to  participate in the TAG Program. Therefore, an applicant choosing to  attend an institution that is eligible but not currently participating may  experience difficulty or delay with receiving the grant because of the time  it could take to convince the institution to participate in the program—  possibly occurring after the applicant has enrolled at the institution. In  addition, eligible applicants who, for example, list one eligible institution  and one ineligible institution on their grant application receive a standard  letter of eligibility, which does not inform the applicant that one of the  institutions may not be eligible for the grant. Therefore, this applicant may  not be aware that he or she will not receive the grant if he or she chooses  to attend the ineligible institution listed on his or her grant application.  The TAG Program director believes that the letter sent to applicants is  clear in that it states that the grant can only be used at eligible institutions.  TAG Program officials said that they are currently reviewing TAG Program  operations and procedures.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Since the establishment of the TAG Program, D.C. residents have more  resources available to attend college if they choose an eligible institution  that agrees to participate in the grant program. However, although the  TAG Program’s purpose is to expand higher education opportunities for  D.C. residents, a few of the program’s procedures may inadvertently  discourage and hinder some D.C. residents from receiving grant money.  The practice of determining that applicants are ineligible when they list  only ineligible institutions on their grant applications could deny  applicants who meet the student eligibility requirements the resources that  they need for college solely because of the institutions they expressed an  interest in attending. This practice is also troublesome given that at the  time applicants submit their grant applications to the TAG office, they are  not required to have enrolled at or even submitted a college application to  the postsecondary institutions they list on their applications. In addition,  the award letter and pamphlet that do not clearly notify applicants that an  institution in which they are interested is ineligible or not participating in  the TAG Program, may confuse applicants who then choose to attend  ineligible or nonparticipating institutions. These factors could lead to  frustration among applicants and may cause some D.C. residents to  discontinue their efforts to obtain grant assistance to attend a  postsecondary institution.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: We recommend that the mayor of the District of Columbia direct the TAG  Program office to  Change the current applicant eligibility determination process to ensure  that (1) all applicants receive a full review to determine their eligibility to  receive the grant, (2) eligible applicants who indicate interest only in  ineligible institutions are made aware in their award letters that the  institutions listed on their applications are ineligible and that an eligible  school must be selected for the applicants to receive the tuition assistance  grant, and (3) all letters sent to eligible applicants indicate which  institutions have already formally agreed to participate in the grant  program.
Indicate clearly in the pamphlet promoting the TAG Program which  eligible postsecondary institutions have already formally agreed to  participate in the grant program.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We obtained comments on a draft of this report from the U.S. Department  of Education, the mayor of the District of Columbia, and UDC.  The  comments from the mayor and UDC are reproduced in appendixes III and  IV, respectively.  Education only provided technical clarifications, which  we incorporated when appropriate.  UDC also provided technical  clarifications that we incorporated when appropriate.
The mayor of the District of Columbia generally agreed with the findings  of our report and concurred with our recommendation that the TAG  Program office conduct a full review of all applicants to determine their  eligibility to receive the grant.  However, as to our recommendation that  the TAG Program office clearly indicate to applicants which eligible  postsecondary institutions have signed a Program Participation  Agreement, the mayor disagreed, stating that advertising only those  institutions that have formally agreed to participate would decrease the  accessibility of the program.  The mayor stated that students would  become discouraged if they saw that the institutions they were interested  in attending were not listed in TAG Program literature.  Our  recommendation, however, does not preclude the TAG Program office  from providing applicants a list of all institutions that are potentially  eligible to participate in the program, but rather recommends that the TAG  Program office separately identify those institutions that have formally  agreed to participate.  By providing this additional information, we believe  that potential applicants will be better informed about the status of the  postsecondary institutions they are interested in attending.  We do not  believe that this additional information would discourage D.C. residents  from applying for the grant program and may avoid confusion for those  eligible applicants who choose to apply to currently nonparticipating  institutions.  Finally, the mayor disagreed with the title of the report,  commenting that the title is not borne out by the contents of the report.  We changed the title to address his concerns.
Many of the comments made by UDC were related to the potential impact  of the TAG Program on UDC and the funding levels of the TAG Program.  UDC stated that although enrollment levels have not significantly changed  as a result of the implementation of the TAG Program, UDC officials  believe the TAG Program may have impacted the quality of the entering  freshmen at UDC and that the institution is losing some of the better- prepared college-bound students in D.C. to institutions that are  participating in the TAG Program.  While we recognize the importance of  analyzing student quality, such an analysis was outside the scope of the  mandate and the request.  UDC further believes that the reporting of the  average age and enrollment status of UDC freshmen does not tell the  complete story of the type of student that is served by the institution.  They stated that UDC students range in age from 17 years to 55 years and  that most students must work full-time to meet personal and family  responsibilities.  We focused our comparison of UDC and TAG Program  freshmen on average student age, enrollment status, and location of high  school the student graduated from because these were among the only  data available from both UDC and the TAG Program that allowed a direct  comparison of the types of students that each were serving.  UDC officials  also provided updated data on the location of high schools attended by  UDC entering freshmen, which we incorporated.  Regarding the funding of  the TAG Program, UDC believed that an examination of the funding levels  for the TAG Program were needed and suggested that any unused funding  for the TAG Program could be reallocated to UDC to enhance education  programs and scholarships for UDC students.  In addition, UDC  commented that further examination of various aspects of the TAG  Program were necessary, including an analysis of graduation outcomes for  TAG Program participants, the impact of the TAG Program on the quality  of UDC students and UDC’s program and services, as well as the financial  impact of the TAG Program on D.C. residents.  While we recognize that  these issues are important, they were not within the scope of the mandate  or the request.
We are sending copies of this report to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and other interested committees; the Secretary of Education; and other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-8403 or Diana Pietrowiak, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6239 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: A variety of data sources allowed us to examine different aspects of the  D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant (TAG) Program. We wanted to explore  several issues, such as the extent to which TAG-eligible applicants who  did not use the tuition assistance grant faced barriers to college access,  how student enrollment at the University of the District of Columbia  (UDC) has changed since the TAG Program began, whether UDC and TAG  serve similar freshmen populations, and whether there are program  administration issues that could potentially hinder the TAG Program  operations. We selected data sources that would allow us to examine these  issues.
To review and summarize general information on TAG applicants, we  obtained a database from the TAG Program office listing applicant data,  such as name of high school attended, year of college enrollment, and date  of birth. These data, which we did not verify, represent the only  information available on TAG applicants. To determine whether eligible  applicants who did not use the tuition assistance grant may have faced  barriers to college access, we obtained data from the TAG Program office  on applicants who applied and were found eligible for the grant, but did  not use the grant in academic year 2000-01. We then analyzed the  academic qualifications of some of these eligible applicants and compared  these data with similar data on average freshmen at the postsecondary  institutions they listed on their TAG applications as colleges they would  most likely attend. To do this, we requested the grade point average (GPA)  and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores for 290 of the eligible  applicants—those who had recently graduated from a D.C. public high  school—from D.C. public school officials and obtained data for some of  these graduates. We compared the available data on the D.C. public school  students to GPA and SAT data we obtained for average freshmen at the 62  institutions these applicants were interested in attending from Barron’s  Profiles of American Colleges, 2001; Peterson’s 4 Year Colleges, 2001;  and Peterson’s 2 Year Colleges, 2001. To determine whether access  barriers may have existed at the 62 institutions, we obtained data on the  presence of minority outreach programs and the use of out-of-state  enrollment caps from a college survey that we developed as part of our  review.
To further identify barriers to college access, we sought to determine why  the eligible applicants did not use the grant. To do this, we developed and  administered a survey for the parents of all 516 eligible applicants who did  not participate in the TAG Program. We chose to survey parents rather  than the eligible applicants, because current contact information for the  parents was readily available. We received responses from 42 percent of  the parents surveyed, and from these responses we obtained general  information on the reasons these applicants did not use the tuition  assistance grant.
To obtain information on how student enrollment at UDC changed during  the initial year of the TAG Program and what types of students UDC and  TAG serve, we obtained student data from UDC, including enrollment  numbers, age, enrollment status, and information on high schools from  which UDC students graduated. To compare the average UDC student  with the average TAG recipient, we analyzed data for TAG recipients,  including age, enrollment status, and high schools attended, who entered  their freshmen year of college in academic year 2000-01.
To determine whether program administration issues exist that could  potentially hinder program operations, we interviewed the four financial  aid directors from the institutions that initially voiced concerns regarding  the administration of the TAG Program—the University of California, the  University of Florida, the University of Michigan, and the State University  of New York. We also conducted a survey of 140 institutions that  administered the grant in academic year 2000-01. We received responses  from 84 percent of the institutions in our survey. In addition, to develop an  understanding of the program operations and procedures, we interviewed  managers and staff of the TAG Program office as well as officials in the  office of the D.C. Chief Financial Officer. We also interviewed U.S.  Department of Education officials to obtain their views on the TAG  Program. Furthermore, we reviewed 75 randomly selected files of  ineligible applicants to determine whether TAG officials had conducted a  full eligibility review of applicants who had listed ineligible colleges or  universities on their applications.
section_title: Appendix II: Colleges and Universities That As of December 10, 2001, Had Agreed to Participate in the TAG Program
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, the following individuals made  important contributions to this report: Cathy Hurley, Ben Jordan, James  Rebbe, Jay Smale, and James P. Wright.