Higher Education: Approaches to Attract and Fund International Students in the United States and Abroad
Published: 2009-04-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Following September 11, 2001, the number of international students coming to the United States dropped for the first time in over 30 years. While enrollments have rebounded, the U.S. image has declined in the Muslim world and elsewhere. To improve global attitudes toward America, the U.S. government funds higher education for international students to facilitate exchanges, promote understanding among peoples in different countries, and build capacity in developing nations. To provide insight on how higher education is used to advance public diplomacy and development assistance goals, we examined (1) the objectives the United States and selected peer governments seek to advance through higher education for international students and the approaches they employ to attract international students, and (2) the characteristics of major U.S. and peer government programs that fund higher education for international students to support public diplomacy and development goals. GAO collected information from the United States, Australia, China, the European Commission, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The United States and peer governments we reviewed use higher education for international students to advance diplomatic, development assistance, economic, and other objectives, often concurrently. For example, German officials said that international students studying in science and technology help advance German research and innovation goals while also advancing public diplomacy goals by returning to their home countries as unofficial ambassadors for Germany. Germany as well as other governments we reviewed use a number of approaches to reach and attract overseas students, including marketing their higher education to the international community much as a business would promote a product. For example, many countries promote their higher education systems through national branding, using logos and slogans, such as Australia's "Study in Australia" and the United Kingdom's "Education UK" marketing campaigns. Several countries have also taken steps to improve the quality of the study abroad experience. China, for example, has invested significant resources to modernize its schools and added additional academic programs that are aligned with workforce needs. The scholarship programs we reviewed that support public diplomacy and development assistance goals typically select recipients using merit-based criteria, offer graduate-level study, and cover the cost of tuition and other expenses, such as travel and living expenses. However, programs vary widely in the countries and regions they target, funding levels, and number of scholarships awarded. For example, scholarships for public diplomacy programs tended to be dispersed to a wider area to maximize their geographic reach. In contrast, development assistance programs tend to be more targeted to particular developing countries and regions. In administering and implementing these programs, government officials cited several strategies they believe facilitate program implementation and contribute to successful program outcomes. For example, some told us that offering preparatory courses or program orientation to all scholarship recipients enhances the students' chance of success at the host university, and is particularly useful for students who require additional language, cultural, or academic skills. For development assistance programs, some countries align the course of study paid for by their programs with the human resource and capacity-building needs of the sending country. For example, in Australia, officials work with sending governments to identify the most acute development needs and consider these with the applicant's proposed field of study when awarding scholarships.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: After decades of growth in international student enrollment in higher  education, the total number of international students studying in the  United States leveled off and even dropped slightly between 2002 and  2006, the first decline in over 30 years. In the wake of the September 11,  2001, terrorist attacks, the United States tightened its immigration policy,  making it difficult for international students to come to the United States.  Although international enrollment has rebounded, and the United States  continues to be the leading destination for international students, the U.S.  image has declined in both the Muslim world and among many of  America’s oldest allies, affecting foreign relations and national interests.  President Barack Obama recently stated that improving relationships with  other countries is important to promoting American interests and ideals.  GAO also recently reported that improving the U.S. image abroad is an  urgent issue needing presidential and congressional attention.
The U.S. government seeks to improve global attitudes toward America  through a variety of means, including funding higher education in the  United States for international students. By funding higher education, the  United States seeks to improve global attitudes by facilitating student  exchanges that help promote mutual understanding among people in  different countries (referred to as public diplomacy) and by providing  assistance to developing nations to build their economic, social, and  technological capacities (development assistance). To address your  interest in how higher education is being used to advance public  diplomacy and development assistance goals in the United States and peer  nations and to provide Congress with relevant information as it considers  ways that higher education can be used to advance these goals, this report  examines (1) the objectives the United States and selected peer  governments seek to advance through higher education for international  students and the approaches they employ to attract international students,  and (2) the characteristics of major United States and peer government  programs that fund higher education for international students to support  public diplomacy and development goals.
To conduct our study, we selected two U.S. agencies—the Department of  State (State) and the U.S. Agency for International Development  (USAID)—and five peer governments (Australia, China, the European  Commission, Germany, and the United Kingdom) for review. Though many  U.S. agencies are involved in promoting U.S. higher education to  international students, we limited our scope to State and USAID because  they are primarily responsible for funding programs aimed at public  diplomacy and development assistance. We selected peer governments  based on the following criteria: (1) strong market share of international  enrollment, (2) growth in market share of international enrollment, (3)  diversity of populations and countries targeted for higher education, and  (4) geographic diversity. We also conferred with embassy and government  officials and industry experts to obtain their recommendations on which  countries to review based on their knowledge of their programs. We  selected major scholarship programs of the United States and peer  countries for review based on program funding and participation levels, as  well as agency and peer government officials’ recommendations. We  broadly defined public diplomacy programs as those that help to promote  mutual understanding among people from different countries, and  development programs as those that provide assistance to developing  nations to build their economic, social, and technological capacities.  During our exploratory work, we found that peer countries’ programs  often are designed to achieve multiple goals and that these multiple goals  are not always clearly delineated. Thus, we selected programs that had  either a public diplomacy or development focus, but may also advance  other goals for the country, such as recruiting students who, after  completing their studies, will participate in the country’s labor market.  Though many of the governments we reviewed may fund a number of  smaller scholarship programs, we limited our study to scholarship  programs that receive at least $8 million annually, or the equivalent in  local currency, and award at least 50 scholarship awards annually based  on the information we received. While our focus was on programs that  offer education and training in the host country, some of the countries we  reviewed, including the United States, also offer education and training to  international students within their home nation or a third country.
In conducting our study, we relied on program information we gathered  from our interviews of U.S. and cognizant officials from selected peer  governments we reviewed. Because of the nature of this study, we were  not able to independently verify or assess the reliability of the data  provided by the foreign countries we reviewed. Moreover, direct  comparisons of the United States and other nations’ international  education systems and programs are difficult because these nations’  higher education financing structure and costs, immigration policies, and  security concerns differ.
We conducted our work from March 2008 to April 2009 in accordance with  all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to  our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the  engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our  stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe  that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted,  provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Following the events of September 11, the total number of international  students studying in the United States leveled off and even dropped  slightly after 2002, though enrollment numbers have recently rebounded.  (See fig. 1.) According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), the  decline in the number of international students attending U.S. higher  education institutions between 2003 and 2006 was the first drop in over 30  years. While the United States continues to be the leading destination for  international students, the U.S. share of international students worldwide  dropped—from 26 to 20 percent—between 2000 and 2008. (See fig. 2.)  According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, since 2002 the United  States’ image has declined in both the Muslim world and among many of  America’s oldest allies. In the wake of September 11, the United States  also tightened its immigration policy and made it more difficult for foreign  nationals, including international students, to apply for a visa. As we  previously reported, these changes, made to help protect our nation’s  security interests, may have contributed to our declining share of  international students and the perception that the United States was an  unwelcoming place for international students.
The U.S. government seeks to improve global attitudes toward America  through diplomatic and development assistance efforts, which include  funding higher education for international students in the United States.  Many of the programs that support these efforts are administered through  the Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs,  which funds programs aimed at advancing public diplomacy goals, and the  United States Agency for International Development, which is primarily  concerned with providing assistance to developing nations. These efforts  typically create face-to-face exchange opportunities with foreign students,  researchers, professionals, and educators to provide a better  understanding of a nation’s views, values, and culture. The United States  also funds higher education for international students to help developing  nations alleviate poverty and promote peace and security, public health,  economic growth, education, and democratization. These programs target  the economic, social, or technological needs of developing nations by  equipping students and professionals for future leadership roles in their  communities, businesses, and governments and to fill critical labor and  skill gaps.
While the federal government funds education for international students to  achieve public diplomacy and development objectives, the vast majority of  students who come to the United States to study do not receive funding  from the U.S. government. According to the Institute of International  Education’s Open Doors 2008 report, 623,805 students came to the United  States to study during the 2007-2008 academic year and nearly 9 out of 10  international students reported their primary source of funding for  education as coming from either personal and family sources or from their  host college or university in the United States. Although the primary  source of funds for the vast majority of students that enter the United  States is not provided by the federal government, promoting study in the  United States can support a range of U.S. objectives in addition to the  public diplomacy and development goals supported by State and USAID  efforts. For example, the United States has relied on undergraduate and  graduate students from other countries as important sources of innovation  and productivity in our increasingly knowledge-based economy. Such  students who remain in the country after completing their studies have  brought needed research and workforce skills and strengthened our labor  force. For example, international students have earned about one-third or  more of the degrees at both the master’s and doctoral levels in  engineering, math and computer science, and the physical sciences.
section_title: Governments We Reviewed Use Higher Education to Advance Diplomatic, Economic, and Other Objectives and Employ Multiple Approaches to Attract International Students
subsections: section_title: Governments We Reviewed Use International Education to Advance Diplomatic, Economic, and Other Objectives, Often Simultaneously
paragraphs: All of the governments we reviewed fund higher education for  international students to advance diplomatic, development, economic, and  other objectives, often simultaneously. For example, Australian officials  said that international higher education helps Australia achieve economic  goals. Education was Australia’s third largest export and contributed $15.5  billion in Australian dollars (about $13 billion in U.S. dollars) to its  economy in 2008. According to Australian officials, international students  also help Australia meet its foreign relations and diplomatic goals. To  illustrate the diplomatic linkages that education can create, Australian  officials said that at one time nearly half of the Malaysian cabinet had been  educated in Australia. Australian officials reported that student exchange  is Australia’s primary way of providing a contemporary understanding of  the country, building linkages between Australia and foreign nations,  forming the basis of business and cultural relationships, demonstrating the  quality of Australia’s educational opportunities, and helping to dispel the  myth that Australia is a “far away land.” The Australian government also  provides development assistance to Asian countries and Pacific Islands to  increase their access to high-quality education and training, which  supports growth in the region. These development assistance efforts also  build enduring links at the individual, institutional, and country levels,  according to Australian officials.
Chinese officials told us that by promoting international student study in  China, they are able to advance goals aimed at promoting peaceful and  common development of all countries. According to these officials,  providing international educational opportunities to foreign students is  part of their strategy for promoting cultural, scientific, and technological  exchanges between the East and the West. China develops exchanges with  other countries in the fields of education, science, and technology to  strengthen friendship and understanding between the Chinese people and  people around the world and to promote modernization in China. China  reported that its collaboration with foreign universities and educational  institutions helps to develop an exchange network that allows it to send  “the best students to study in the best universities under the supervision of  the best advisers,” mutually benefiting institutions and countries.
According to officials from Germany’s national agency that supports  international education, international students help Germany advance  several goals, including increasing the international appeal of German  universities and promoting the academic, economic, and democratic  development of developing countries. German officials said that their  ability to advance several goals simultaneously is an important strength of  international education. For example, international students studying in  science and technology help advance German research and innovation  goals while also advancing public diplomacy goals by returning to their  home countries as unofficial ambassadors for Germany.
Officials in the United Kingdom (UK) reported that international education  contributes to building a high-skilled workforce, helps build relationships  with people from around the world, enhances understanding about each  others’ cultures, and opens doors to trade, investment, and political  influence. The European Union (EU) also seeks to advance several  international education goals, including promoting intercultural  understanding through cooperation with non-European countries as well  as ensuring that education and training are accessible to the global  community.
In the United States, the federal government similarly seeks to advance  multiple goals simultaneously through international higher education. For  example, the United States is able to advance both diplomatic and country  development goals through higher education by reaching out to students  in developing countries and equipping them with the skills and knowledge  needed to support efforts in their own countries. In addition, the United  States has historically relied on international students to fill critical skill  gaps in the economy and, in particular, has relied heavily on international  students to fill critical skill gaps in science, math, engineering, and  technology fields. Finally, international education also contributed $15.5  billion to U.S. economy in 2007-2008, according to data from the  Department of Commerce.
section_title: Governments Employ a Number of Approaches to Attract International Students, Such as Marketing Their Higher Education Internationally
paragraphs: To advance public diplomacy, development, and other national goals, the  governments we reviewed use a number of approaches to introduce  international students to their higher education systems. To promote their  higher education systems internationally, countries like the United  Kingdom, Germany, and Australia have developed broad marketing  strategies with a focus on outreach to international students. These  marketing strategies include developing a national brand through the use  of logos and slogans to promote higher education systems among  international communities, much as a corporation would promote a  commercial brand, as shown in figure 3.
For example, many of the higher education institutions in the United  Kingdom use the national brand “Education UK–Innovative.Individual.  Inspirational.” to distinguish United Kingdom higher educational  institutions from others. This United Kingdom national brand and its  associated logo are used for products, activities, events, and marketing  campaigns aimed at promoting United Kingdom education. Similarly,  Germany’s higher education national brand “Study in Germany–Land of  Ideas” appears in various promotion efforts, including advertisements, and  at educational fairs. Australia promotes its international study  opportunities through the “Study in Australia” campaign with the  “Live.Learn.Grow.” slogan. According to Australian officials, the “Study in  Australia” campaign is used to highlight the quality of Australia’s  education system, the country’s unique lifestyle, and the personal growth  that comes from an international education experience in Australia. The  national brand is used in various promotion channels, including the Study  in Australia Web site, education exhibitions, student forums in target  markets, and traditional advertising media such as print, radio, and  television. See figure 4 for samples of promotion brochures from selected  countries.
In addition, all of the governments we reviewed have developed Web sites  to inform potential students about their academic options, application  procedures, student support services, and lifestyles within that country;  and in the case of the European Commission, the Web site provides similar  information on 32 European countries. These Web sites are typically  provided in several languages and offer a range of information on issues  such as academic programs, visa requirements, higher education financing  options, and predeparture advice. For example, prospective students  accessing Australia’s Study in Australia Web site can find a range of  information including language and academic requirements, study costs  and available scholarships, and listings of accredited Australian  institutions and available courses. The Web site also describes life and  culture in Australia as well as the benefits of study in Australia, such as the  types of student support services and the cultural diversity of the country.  In addition, the Web site provides students points of contact for further  inquiry, including country-specific alumni networks and Australian  education advisers stationed in-country. Web site information is available  in multiple languages, many of which are languages spoken in the region,  such as Indonesian, Japanese, Thai, and Vietnamese. See figure 5 for  examples of Web sites.
The United States provides an online guide for international students on  higher education called EducationUSA. The Web site provides guidance  on a number of areas, including how to select a school, find English  language training programs, apply for a visa, and obtain financial  assistance. It also provides information on the benefits of a U.S. education,  such as the accreditation system that helps ensure higher education  institutions maintain quality standards for their faculty, curriculum,  administration, and student services. Practical information on  predeparture preparations, such as travel and housing arrangements, and  everyday living in the United States, are also included on the Web site.  Potential students are directed to advising centers stationed around the  world for additional information and assistance. The Web site provides  information and resources to potential students in six languages, including  Arabic, Chinese, and French.
Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States also  conduct outreach to international students through their overseas  information centers. These centers are designed to facilitate in-country  outreach and provide information and guidance to prospective  international students. They also help to develop strategic partnerships  with foreign governments and educational institutions. According to  officials, Australia has a network of 25 international offices that are staffed  with over 100 individuals, 15 of whom have been accredited by the  Australian government to be education advisers, who work with the  international education community to promote Australian education  worldwide. In addition to conducting outreach activities, the network also  collects and provides information on the international education market,  including business opportunities in established and emerging markets, to  higher education subscribers in Australia. According to United Kingdom  officials, the United Kingdom relies on a network of international offices  located in over 100 nations around the world to facilitate education and  cultural linkages among the United Kingdom and potential students,  foreign education institutions, and governments. Similarly, Germany  relies on a global network of 48 information centers to promote Germany’s  higher education system. The United States has a network of more than  450 advising centers around the world, called EducationUSA Advising  Centers. Centers are staffed by professional advisers, many of whom  studied in the United States themselves and have received State  Department-approved training about U.S. higher education and the  advising process. While the reported levels of services and capabilities  offered by the overseas information centers vary from country to country,  government officials stressed that their network of offices is valuable  because its staff possess expertise in international education, understand  the education systems of the regions in which they operate, and have  essential contacts, including contacts at education ministries and local  higher education institutions.
All governments we reviewed reported that ensuring that international  students receive a quality education and experience abroad is another key  component of their approach to outreach to international students. In the  face of growing domestic and international demand for higher education,  China has invested significant resources to enhance the institutional and  human resource capacities of its higher education institutions in the last  10 years. The steps taken to increase institutional capacity include  encouraging private funding for China’s higher education and  modernization of schools’ facilities and equipment. In addition, officials  said that China has consolidated specialized schools, such as engineering  and art schools, and added additional academic programs to create  institutions with more of a comprehensive breadth of curricula, making  them more adaptable to employment needs and improving the schools’  resources through economies of scale. Further, education officials said  that China provides leadership training to its senior management staff  through international exchange programs with various Western countries  to enhance the human capacity of China’s higher education institutions.
European countries are also taking these steps to help ensure that their  higher education and research systems continuously adapt to changing  needs, society’s demands, and advances in scientific knowledge, as well as  to gain a “worldwide degree of attractiveness.” For example, under the  Bologna Declaration of June 1999, European countries established a series  of reforms to make European higher education more compatible and  comparable across member states, including the adoption of comparable  undergraduate and graduate degrees and a system of credits. Currently, 46  European countries participate in the Bologna process. To increase the  quality and effectiveness of education and training programs in the  European Union, the European Commission has also established working  groups in 12 areas, including the education and training of teachers and  trainers.
To ensure overseas students have a positive educational experience, the  UK Council for International Student Affairs, an education charity, acts as  the UK’s national advisory body serving the interests of overseas students  and those who work with them, according to officials from the United  Kingdom. This advisory body encourages best practices, professional  development, and institutional support for international students. For  example, the UK Council for International Student Affairs provides  guidance to students and higher education partners in a number of areas,  such as immigration policies, financial planning, and cross-cultural issues.
Further, the Australian government, through enacted legislation and  regulations, provides “consumer protections” of overseas students. These  protections include alternative course placement for students whose  education provider cannot offer a particular course, and making refunds to  students when no such placement is possible. Australia also established an  international arm within its government to provide leadership across all  levels of government and industry, ensure that overseas students have a  quality study abroad experience, and support the country’s international  education industry.
section_title: Public Diplomacy and Development Assistance Programs We Studied Share Key Characteristics
subsections: section_title: The Programs We Reviewed Generally Offer Merit-Based Scholarships Targeted to Graduate Students
paragraphs: The major scholarship programs we reviewed that support public  diplomacy and development assistance goals typically select recipients  using merit-based criteria, offer graduate-level study, and cover the cost of  tuition and some other expenses. For example, the Australian  Development Scholarships program selects high-achieving students,  mostly for graduate-level study, through a competitive selection process  that is coordinated between Australian officials and partner  governments. Selection criteria are usually established bilaterally  between the Australian government and the applicant’s home government,  and students who are nominated must also be accepted by the receiving  higher education institution in Australia. The program awards 90 percent  of its scholarships for graduate-level study, making a small percentage  available to those wishing to pursue undergraduate or vocational study.  Australian Development Scholarship awards include tuition, travel, health  insurance, and allowances to cover study materials, living expenses, and  other participation-related costs. In addition, these awards may also cover  English-language training, tutorial assistance, and a mandatory 4- to 6- week course designed to prepare students for life and study in Australia.  According to program officials, approximately $45,000 in Australian  dollars (about $38,000 U.S. in dollars) is awarded to selected students in  tuition and other expenses per year.
Although the European Union’s Erasmus Mundus program has differing  objectives, it also awards scholarships on the basis of academic merit to  graduate students. In the past, the program offered scholarships only for  master’s-level study for 1- to 2-year periods, but will also begin offering  scholarships for doctoral study for up to 3 years starting in 2010. Under  this program, individual courses of study are developed by consortia of  universities within the European Union and these consortia are given  considerable latitude in selecting applicants. The program’s administering  agency recommends that each consortium assess the quality of eligible  applicants based on criteria such as academic record, exam results, and  letters of recommendation. Unlike other scholarship programs we  reviewed, the Erasmus Mundus program awards a fixed amount to  recipients annually, which was 21,000 euros in 2008 (about $31,000 in U.S.  dollars). While tuition and fees vary widely among European universities,  in most instances, the award amount is greater than the cost of  attendance, allowing recipients to use the balance of the award t other participation-related expenses, according to program officials.
The U.S. Fulbright Foreign Student Program, which supports public  diplomacy goals, follows a similar approach in awarding merit-based  scholarships to graduate students. The program selects scholarship  recipients through a competitive process that considers input from a scholarship board, U.S. embassies, and other organizations. Applicatio are generally restricted to students who meet certain citizenship  requirements and who will have received the equivalent of a bach degree prior to the start of the grant period. In selecting scholarship  recipients, the program considers the applicant’s academic record and research project proposal, among other factors. Once award recipients ar selected, the Fulbright Foreign Student Program allows them to  h.D.  matriculate in either degree-granting or nondegree master’s and P programs, some of which may be renewed for up to 5 years; however,  most awards are for 1 or 2 years of study. Similar to other scholarship  programs we reviewed, the scholarships awarded by the program cove range of participation-related costs, including tuition, educational  st  materials, travel, housing, living allowances (which vary by U.S. ho location), orientation, and health coverage. According to program offi these scholarships are awarded in amounts up to $60,000 per recipient  annually, but on average total about $32,000 per year.
Similarly, other scholarship programs we reviewed, such as the Chinese  Government Scholarships Program, the United Kingdom’s Chevening  Programme, the U.S. Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Fellowship Program,  and German Study Scholarships and Research Grants all award merit- based scholarships, primarily to graduate students. Though award  amounts vary, the scholarships generally cover similar costs related to  participation, including tuition, living, and other expenses.
section_title: Programs Differ in Some Characteristics, Including Geographic Reach and Funding Levels
paragraphs: Although the programs we studied share key characteristics, they also vary  widely in their geographic reach, annual funding levels, and their annual  participation levels. Many of the large public diplomacy programs we studied  tend to make scholarships available to students from a wide range of  countries, typically 40 or more, in order to maximize their diplomatic reach.
For example, the European Union’s Erasmus Mundus program, a public  diplomacy program, awarded scholarships to students from 113 countries in  2008, with no single region receiving more than 27 percent of the scholarships  awarded. The agency administering the Erasmus Mundus strives to achieve a  wide geographic balance, in part by ensuring that no more than a quarter of  scholarships awarded by a particular consortium go to students from one  country. Scholarships offered by the U.S. Fulbright Foreign Student Program,  another public diplomacy program, also have a wide geographic reach,  awarding scholarships to recipients from 143 countries in 2008. However,  some public diplomacy programs have a more targeted reach. For example,  the Australia Endeavour Awards has a regional focus, with over 80 percent of  scholarships widely dispersed to students from Asian and Pacific countries.  Additionally, the U.S. Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Program targets its  scholarships exclusively to applicants from the countries that formerly  constituted the Soviet Union.
In contrast, the development assistance programs we studied tend to have  a more targeted focus in order to better concentrate resources in  particular developing countries. For example, Australia’s two largest  development assistance programs—the Australian Development  Scholarships and the Australian Leadership Awards—focus primarily on  the Asia and Pacific regions, though the Australian Development  Scholarships also awards approximately 9 percent of its scholarships to  applicants from Africa. Likewise, the U.S. Collaborative Research Support  Program also has some regional concentration, awarding nearly two-thirds  of its scholarships to students from Africa and Latin America. In 2007,  according to data provided by education officials, we estimate that China  awarded roughly 20 percent of its scholarships to students from Africa.  Some of the other development assistance programs we studied have an  even more targeted focus. The U.S. Cooperative Association of States for  Scholarships Program and its successor program, for example, have  awarded scholarships exclusively to students from seven countries in  Central America and the Caribbean during the past 5 years. A component  of the European Union’s Erasmus Mundus program also targets its  scholarships to particular regions based on the political and development  assistance priorities of the European Union and of partner countries. See  appendix II for the percentage of scholarship recipients from each region  by scholarship program. Figure 6 provides an illustration of the differences  in geographic reach typically found between the public diplomacy and  development aid scholarship programs we reviewed.
In addition to these differences, annual funding and participation levels  vary widely among the programs we studied and change from year to year,  though the largest programs we studied tend to have public diplomacy  goals, as shown in table 2. For example, the European Union’s Erasmus  Mundus program and the U.S. Fulbright Foreign Student Program, both  public diplomacy programs, receive over $90 million in funding. One  exception was the Australian Development Scholarships Program, the  most well-funded development assistance program we reviewed, which  received over $101 million in Australian dollars in 2008 ($84 million in U.S.  dollars). However, most of the public diplomacy and development  assistance programs we reviewed received less than $50 million in U.S.  dollars in annual funding last year. Participation levels in 2008 also varied  widely among the programs we studied, with programs awarding  scholarships to as few as 67 recipients in the case of the U.S. Collaborative  Research Support Program to as many as 3,747 recipients in the case of  the Chinese Government Scholarships Program.
According to foreign officials, some governments have revised scholarship  program funding and participation levels in recent years to reflect  changing national objectives, such as placing a greater emphasis on  making their higher education systems more visible. For example, over the  past 5 years, the European Union has increased funding levels for the  Erasmus Mundus program by more than tenfold to 93 million euros ($136  million in U.S. dollars) annually, and plans to spend 950 million euros  ($1.39 billion in U.S. dollars) on the program over the next 5 years.  Moreover, some program officials from Australia told us that they  anticipate funding and participation levels for the Endeavour Awards  scholarship programs to continue to increase in the coming years.  However, funding and participation for at least one major scholarship  program have been reduced in recent years. Specifically, the number of  scholarships offered by the United Kingdom’s Chevening Programme core  scholarship scheme has declined from over 1,500 in 2004 to around 1,000  in more recent years.
section_title: Officials Highlighted Strategies They Say Are Key to the Successful Implementation of Scholarship Programs
paragraphs: Officials that administer both public diplomacy and development  assistance programs cite several strategies that they say facilitate program  implementation and contribute to successful program outcomes. Some  told us that offering preparatory courses or program orientation to all  scholarship recipients enhances the students’ chance of success at the  host university, and is particularly useful for students who require  additional language, cultural, or academic skills. For example, the  Australian Development Scholarships and Australian Leaderships Awards,  both managed by the Australia’s Agency for International Development,  requires scholars to complete a 4- to 6-week introductory academic  program that covers information on life and study in Australia prior to the  commencement of formal academic studies. In addition to this program,  the Australian Development Scholarships also provides precourse English  classes. Further, the Chinese Government Scholarships Program requires  recipients who do not meet minimum language proficiency standards to  take up to a year of intensive Chinese-language training upon arrival in  China. Depending on the needs of the student, this language training may  continue once their academic program begins. Similarly, to aid students in  their transition to the United States, USAID requires all Cooperative  Association of States for Scholarships recipients to participate in  predeparture orientation training. During this training, participants also  receive program-required health exams, and they complete the steps  necessary to obtain their student visas.
Some development assistance officials also highlighted the importance of  aligning the courses of study offered by their programs with the human  resource and capacity building needs of the sending country. For example,  USAID officials said that fields of study offered by the U.S. Cooperative  Association of States for Scholarships program are determined based on a  review of the development needs and employment trends of the country.  According to officials, this, along with the support of the sending  countries’ governments and private business sectors, helps students to  obtain a job once they return to their country. In Australia, officials work  with sending governments to identify the most acute development needs  and consider these with the applicant’s proposed field of study when  awarding scholarships.
In keeping with their goal of advancing human resource capacity in  sending countries, development assistance programs typically seek to  return participants to their home country upon completing their program  of study. For example, recipients of all Australian Agency for International  Development scholarships are expected to return to their country of  citizenship for at least 2 years after completing their scholarship program.  To enforce this obligation, Australia requires development scholarship  recipients to sign a contract agreeing to return to their home country for 2  years. If they return to Australia before the 2-year period is up, they incur a  debt to the Australian government equal to the full value of the  scholarship. This operates as a strong disincentive for students to stay in  Australia after completing their study program, and it results in a student  return rate of 95 percent or better, according to Australian officials.  However, this does not guarantee that students will stay in their home  countries for 2 years. One official noted that many alumni choose to move  to another country shortly after returning home. All USAID exchange  visitors are required to sign a form in which they agree, among other  things, to return home immediately upon completion of their program.  Recipients of some USAID programs are also required to sign a contract  agreeing to return home within 3 days of completing their program.  According to USAID officials, this is effective in ensuring students return  home and fulfill program objectives. Officials said that 86 percent of  participants in its Collaborative Research Support Programs return to a  developing country after graduation.
Finally, officials noted the importance of developing active alumni  networks. Officials told us that having strong alumni networks better  enables them to reach future applicants, track alumni, and assess their  careers and accomplishments as well as perceptions of their international  study experience. These networks also provide a means through which  alumni can receive support from their former host country and help  facilitate enduring relationships between students and the host country  once their tour of study has ended. For these reasons, State encourages  alumni of its exchange programs to connect through a central Web site  that allows members to find fellow alumni, search for job opportunities,  and participate in online discussion forums, among other activities.  Officials at the Australian Agency for International Development stated  that they are in the process of developing in-country alumni networks for  their programs. Australian officials also noted that maintaining  relationships with influential alumni may advance diplomatic and  development assistance objectives. Other scholarship programs, such as  the Erasmus Mundus program, have also created Web-based networks to  facilitate contact with scholarship program alumni.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of State and USAID  for review and comment. They both provided technical comments that we  incorporated into this report where appropriate. In addition, cognizant  officials from peer governments we reviewed were also provided sections  of our draft report relevant to their programs and provided technical  comments that were incorporated where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of State and USAID,  relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report will be made available at no charge on the GAO Web  site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-7215 or Scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
subsections: section_title: Overview
paragraphs: This appendix discusses in more detail our scope and methodology for this  study. The goals of this study were to determine (1) the objectives the  United States and selected peer governments seek to advance through  higher education for international students and the approaches they  employ to attract international students, and (2) the characteristics of  major United States and peer government programs that fund higher  education for international students in support of public diplomacy and  development goals.
To carry out these objectives, we interviewed government officials and  industry experts in the United States and in selected peer governments,  analyzed public diplomacy and development assistance scholarship  programs, and reviewed studies and evaluations related to the United  States and peer governments’ efforts to support international higher  education. In addition, we provided the U.S. agencies and peer  governments the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report  sections that are applicable to them and incorporated their comments  where appropriate.
We conducted our work from March 2008 to April 2009 in accordance with  all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to  our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the  engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our  stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe  that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted,  provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions.
section_title: U.S. Agency and Peer Government Selection
paragraphs: We selected two U.S. agencies and five peer governments for review.  Though many U.S. agencies are involved in promoting U.S. higher  education to international students, we limited our scope to the  Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development  because they are primarily responsible for funding programs aimed at  public diplomacy and development assistance, a principal interest of our  congressional requestor. We applied a range of criteria to select a  judgmental sample of four countries for review: Australia, China,  Germany, and the United Kingdom. First, we identified countries that had  the largest global share of international student enrollments using 2008  data from the Institute for International Education. To capture recent  trends in student mobility, we also considered each country’s growth in  international enrollments, comparing the 2008 data to 2000 base year data  from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development  (OECD). Further, to ensure a more global perspective of the international  education landscape, we reviewed a geographically diverse set of  governments that, collectively, attract students from a wide range of  countries. We also conferred with embassy and government officials as  well as industry experts to obtain their recommendations on which  countries to visit and review based on their knowledge of international  education. We ensured that our selection included both English and non- English-speaking countries. In addition to selecting individual countries,  we also reviewed the European Union (EU) based on its international  education efforts on behalf of EU member countries, many of which are  top destinations for international students. While our selection of  countries included some of the nations that are most active in recruiting  international students, it is not representative of all nations that have these  types of programs.
section_title: Program Selection
paragraphs: We selected 13 programs—9 public diplomacy and 4 development  programs—for review. Though many of the governments we reviewed may  fund a number of smaller scholarship programs, we limited our study to  scholarship programs that receive at least $8 million annually, or the  equivalent in local currency, and award at least 50 scholarship awards  annually based on the information we received. In addition to the funding  and participation level consideration, these programs were also identified  by officials in the United States and peer governments as being most  important to the success of their country’s international education efforts.  However, there may be other scholarship programs offered by peer  governments that met our established criteria, but were not included in  the report due to our inability to acquire sufficient information about these  programs.
Finally, it should be noted that in many cases the programs we reviewed  address multiple objectives, including public diplomacy and development  objectives, and for the purposes of this report, these programs were  categorized as either public diplomacy or development assistance  programs, depending on their primary focus. We studied programs that  offer scholarships to students for vocational, undergraduate, or graduate- level study for any length of time. We did not include scholarships for  outbound students funded by sending governments. While our focus is on  programs that receive host government funding, some of these programs  are funded or administered jointly with other governments or  nongovernmental organizations.
section_title: Site Visits and Interviews
paragraphs: A major part of our study involved interviewing officials from the United  States and selected governments, as shown in table 3. Officials included  government executives, program administrators, and industry  stakeholders. During these site visits, we also collected relevant  documents, including those dealing with funding, scholarship amounts and  number of scholarships, program evaluations, and program goals. In some  cases, officials were not able to provide us the information in the detail  requested, and in these instance, we noted that in the report. Moreover,  because of the nature of this study, we were not able to independently  verify or assess the reliability of the data provided by the foreign countries  we reviewed. We also did not independently verify the foreign laws and  declarations discussed, but instead relied on our discussions with foreign  officials and the documents we collected.
section_title: Literature Review and Program Data
paragraphs: To provide some context for understanding government efforts to support  public diplomacy, development assistance, or other objectives through  higher education, we also reviewed a number of studies dealing with the  global landscape for international higher education. Our review included  research from organizations such as the Institute for International  Education (IIE), NAFSA: the Association of International Educators, as  well as government agencies of the selected peer governments. We also  reviewed relevant program documents, including agency strategic plans  and evaluations of scholarship programs, when available.
section_title: Appendix II: Percentage of Scholarship Recipients from Each Region by Scholarship Program
paragraphs: Characteristics represent the UK Chevening Programme’s core scholarship scheme.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Sherri Doughty, Assistant  Director; Tranchau Nguyen, Analyst-in-Charge; Christopher Lyons; Daniel  Novillo; Eve Weisburg; Susannah Compton; Alexander Galuten; Martin De  Alteriis; Jess Ford; and Helen Hsing made key contributions to this report.