National Security Education Program: Background and Issues
Released: 2005-01-21T00:00:00

Introduction

The National Security Education Program (NSEP), authorized by the David L. BorenNational Security Education Act (NSEA), (1) provides aid for international education and foreign languagestudies by American undergraduate and graduate students, plus grants to institutions of highereducation (IHEs). The statement of purpose for the NSEA emphasizes the needs of federalgovernment agencies, as well as the Nation's postsecondary education institutions, for an increasedsupply of individuals knowledgeable about the languages and cultures of foreign nations, especiallythose which are of national security concern and have not traditionally been the focus of Americaninterest and study. Specifically, the NSEA declares the purposes of this program to be: providingthe "necessary resources, accountability, and flexibility" to meet the national security needs of theUnited States; increasing the "quantity, diversity, and quality" of teaching and learning of foreignlanguage and area studies critical to the Nation's interest; expanding the pool of applicants foremployment in U.S. government agencies with national security responsibilities; expanding theforeign language and area studies knowledge base upon which U.S. citizens and governmentemployees can rely; and permitting the federal government to "advocate the cause of internationaleducation" (50 USC 1901).

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been increased congressionalinterest in the NSEP and other federal programs of aid for "critical" foreign language and areastudies. Several bills passed in the 107th and 108th Congressional sessions that would have alteredthe NSEP's funding and administration. In addition, the intelligence reform bill ( P.L. 108-458 )signed by the President on December 17, 2004, amends Title X of the National Security Act to createa new Intelligence Community Scholarship Program (ICSP) that is quite similar to the NSEP(Â§1042). This report provides background information on the NSEP and an analysis of related issuesincluding the ICSP. It will be updated in response to major legislative developments.

Background: Program Activities and Administration

The National Security Education Program (NSEP) (2) is intended to complement, and not duplicate, other federalprograms of aid for foreign language and area studies education, such as those authorized under TitleVI of the Higher Education Act, the Fulbright-Hays Act, and other legislation. (3) Distinctive elements of theNSEP, compared to most other federal programs of aid to international education or exchange,include its service requirement for aid recipients, administration by the Department of Defense(DOD), rather than the Departments of Education (ED) or State, and its support for internationaltravel by American undergraduate students. The recent establishment of the NSEP pilot program,the National Flagship Language Initiative, distinguishes it even further from Title VI programs.

Forms of Aid

Three types of assistance are authorized and currently provided by the NSEA:

1. David L. Boren Scholarships for undergraduate(including community college) students to study abroad in a "critical" foreigncountry;

2. grants to institutions of higher education toestablish or operate programs in "critical" foreign language and area studies areas, often combinedwith study of other disciplines related to national security; and

3. David L. Boren Fellowships to graduate studentsfor education abroad or in the U.S. in "critical" foreign language, disciplines, and areastudies.

The NSEA establishes a goal of awarding one-third of each year's grants for each of thesethree forms of aid, although specific allocations of available funds are determined by the NationalSecurity Education Board (NSEB), which also establishes specific criteria for awards in eachcategory. (The NSEB is discussed further below, under "Program Administration.")

Individual Grants. Only United States citizensare eligible for the scholarships and fellowships, which are to be awarded on the basis of merit,taking into consideration the geographic distribution and the "cultural, racial, and ethnic diversity"of grant recipients. The NSEA provides that the language skills of aid recipients are to be assessedbefore and after the period of instruction for which they receive assistance. A recent amendment tothe NSEA (contained in P.L. 107-306 ) also allows recipients of NSEP scholarships and fellowshipsto attend the DOD's Defense Language Institute.

While financial need is not taken into account in the selection of scholarship or fellowshiprecipients, it is considered in determining the level of individual grants. Undergraduate students mayreceive up to two scholarships, one during their first two years of study, and a second during theirremaining years. Graduate students may receive grants for up to six semesters, but may receive nomore in total than $20,000 for study abroad, $12,000 for domestic study, or $28,000 for a combineddomestic-abroad study program. The current dollar ranges for individual grants are outlined in Table 1 .

The number of students receiving undergraduate scholarships increased from 143 in 2001to 194 in 2002 and has since remained at 194. Similarly, the number of graduate fellowshiprecipients increased from 70 in 2001 to 90 in 2002 and has since remained at 90. Both scholarshipand fellowship recipients have traveled to a wide variety of Asian, African, East European, and LatinAmerican nations. NESP has supported study in more than 100 countries. The most frequentdestinations have been Russia, China, Japan, Egypt, and Brazil for undergraduate scholarshiprecipients, and those nations plus Vietnam and Thailand for graduate fellowship recipients. NESPdoes not fund study in Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

The individual award recipients under the NSEP have studied numerous languages. Whilethe most common languages have been Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin), Russian, Japanese, Portuguese,plus Spanish at an advanced level, smaller numbers of aid recipients are studying languages such asZulu, Xhosa, Tibetan, Mongolian, Latvian, Persian, Uzbek, and several other East European,African, and Asian languages which are very infrequently taught in United States IHEs.

Table 1. Funding Ranges for Individual Grants Under theNational Security Education Program

Source: http://www.worldstudy.gov/overview2.html .

Institutional Grants. Through 2002, mostinstitutional grants had been focused on supporting the establishment of instructional andexchange programs involving less commonly taught languages and nations or regions at awide variety of IHEs in the United States; increasing the number of disadvantaged and/orminority students participating in international education and exchange programs; andintegrating foreign language and international studies with professional education in a varietyof fields. Beginning in 2003, NSEP no longer sponsored an annual competition for programsgenerally oriented to establish and/or improve programs in international education. Instead,grants to IHEs will occur under the National Flagship Language Initiative.

National Flagship Language Initiative

This shift in the strategy and focus for NSEP institutional grants began on a pilotbasis with a share of the grant funds in 2002. (4) Adopted and authorized by the 107th Congress as part ofthe Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 ( P.L. 107-306 ), the National FlagshipLanguage Initiative provides multi-year grants to IHEs to develop curricular and instructionalmodels for advanced study of the foreign languages considered most critical for nationalsecurity. (5) Thegoal of the program is "demonstrating program design and administrative structures on ournation's campuses that are capable of dramatically increasing the number of U.S. studentsadvancing to professional levels of language competency." (6) Special considerationis to be given to federal employees in the admission of students to such programs. NewFlagship grant competitions were not conducted for FY2003 or announced for FY2004.

The National Flagship Language Initiative responds not only to federal governmentneeds but also perceived weaknesses in the former program of institutional grants. According to a statement on the NSEP's website, past institutional grants have beenshort-term and often insufficiently coordinated with individual awards. They have often beenfocused on improving the general capacity of American IHEs to provide foreign languageand area studies (FLAS) instruction, which duplicates the role of other federal programs,especially Title VI of the HEA. (7)

Program Administration

The NSEP is administered by the Department of Defense's National DefenseUniversity, under the guidance of a 12-member National Security Education Board (NSEB). The NSEB consists of the Secretaries of Defense (who chairs the Board), Education,Commerce, and State, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Chairperson of the NationalEndowment for the Humanities, plus six persons appointed by the President who haveexpertise in the areas of international, language, area, and nonproliferation studies education. The Board's functions include developing criteria and qualifications for making awards;providing for wide dissemination of information about program activities; reviewingprogram administration; and making recommendations on countries, disciplines, and areaswhere there are knowledge deficiencies which make them "critical" for support under theprogram. In making the latter determination, the Board is to take into account federalgovernment needs as well as the supply of individuals knowledgeable in various languagesand areas of the world. To carry out this responsibility, the Board conducts an annual surveyand analysis of federal agency requirements regarding foreign language proficiency, as wellas national security-related regions/nations and fields of study. (8)

As with many of the federal government's programs supporting internationaleducation and exchange, and as specifically authorized by the NSEA, the NSEP is largelyadministered through non-governmental organizations that process applications and overseethe award competition. The Institute of International Education (IIE, http://www.iie.org )performs this role with respect to undergraduate scholarships, the Academy for EducationalDevelopment (AED, http://nsep.aed.org ) does so for the graduate fellowship competition,and the National Foreign Language Center at the University of Maryland( http://www.nflc.org ) has acted as an administrative agent for the NSEP in the awardingof some institutional grants, particularly those under the new National Flagship LanguageInitiative Program.

Service Requirement

Individuals who receive NSEP fellowships and scholarships are obligated for alimited period of time to seek federal employment in a national security position. (9) If grant recipients candemonstrate that no national security positions are available, they may fulfill the requirementthrough work in any federal government position or in the field of higher education in an areaof study for which the scholarship or fellowship was awarded. If individuals fail to meet theservice requirement, they must repay the amount of their grant plus interest.

According to the NSEA, the service period is to be up to the length of time for whichaid was received for scholarship recipients, and 1-3 times of the length of time for which aidwas received for fellowship recipients. Within these limits, the specific length of the servicerequirement is determined by the NSEB. In general, it is approximately equal to the lengthof the educational program for which a person receives aid.

Under the original NSEA, as enacted in 1991, the service obligation was somewhatmore flexible -- it could have been met through employment in any Federal agency orposition (i.e., not just positions involved in national security), or as an educator (at any levelof education) in the area of study for which the scholarship or fellowship was awarded. Thecurrent service requirement provision was adopted under P.L. 104-201 , the National DefenseAuthorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 , and amended by P.L. 107-296 , the HomelandSecurity Act of 2002. (10)

Since adoption of the current service requirement, approximately 73% of scholarshipand fellowship recipients (combined) have met the service requirement through federalemployment, and 27% through employment in higher education. (11) However, thepattern of service is distinctly different for undergraduate scholarship recipients versusgraduate fellowship recipients -- 93% of scholarship recipients have met the requirementthrough federal employment versus 50% of the fellowship recipients.

Funding

Funding for this program is provided from a National Security Education Trust Fund(NSETF) in the U.S. Treasury. Money may be taken from the Fund for grants andadministrative costs, but only to the extent specified in authorization and appropriationslegislation. Money in the Fund may be invested only in interest-bearing obligations of theUnited States or guaranteed by the United States. Reimbursements for failure to meet servicerequirements are to be paid into the Fund.

An initial amount of $150 million was appropriated to the Fund for FY1992. Earlyin the 104th Congress, FY1995 rescissions legislation was passed by the House which wouldhave eliminated the program completely and returned all of its $150 million trust fund to theTreasury. (The initial amount was still available because the NSEP did not begin makinggrants until academic year 1994-1995.) Under the final version of this legislation ( P.L.104-6 ), one-half of the funds originally appropriated for the NSEP trust fund ($75 million)was rescinded.

Each year since FY1992, the NSETF has grown through interest income, and eachyear since FY1995, it has declined through appropriations for grants and programadministration. Particularly in recent years, NSETF expenditures have exceeded income, sothe balance remaining in the Fund has steadily declined. The Department of DefenseAppropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003 ( P.L. 107-248 ) provided for $8 million to beappropriated from the National Security Education Trust Fund for FY2003, the same as theFY2002 amount as well as the President's FY2004 request. Table 2 shows the annualappropriations from the NSETF each year since FY1995 and the projected Fund balance atthe end of FY2002, 2003 and 2004.

Table 2. Annual Appropriations from the NationalSecurity Education Trust Fund, FY1995-2004, and Projected Fund Balance,FY2002-2004

P.L. 107-306 requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to selected congressionalcommittees (12) a report on the effectiveness of the NSEP and the advisability of conversion from a trust fundmechanism to annual appropriations. The authorization of $10 million per year for aNational Flagship Language Initiative is contingent upon submission of this report with afinding that "the programs carried out under the David L. Boren National Security EducationAct of 1991 are being carried out in a fiscally and programmatically sound manner."

P.L. 107-306 further authorizes $300,000 for the Secretary of Defense, "actingthrough the Director of the National Security Education Program," to prepare a report on thefeasibility of establishing a "Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps," to be composed of U.S.citizens with advanced foreign language skills. Those preparing the report are encouragedto consider the reserve components of the armed forces as a possible model for this Corps.

Issues

Selected issues that have arisen with respect to the NSEP are discussed in theremainder of this report.

Funding Mechanism

As noted earlier, the original intention was that the NSEP would be funded via theearnings of a trust fund. An initial appropriation of $150 million was provided to the trustfund, with the possibility of additional appropriations being provided to the fund afterward. The apparent intention of using this funding mechanism was to help insulate the programfrom the uncertainties of the annual budget and appropriations processes, although funds tobe used for annual grants and administration must still be appropriated from the Fund.

However, the reduction of the NSETF by one-half in subsequent rescissionslegislation ( P.L. 104-6 ), combined with a decline in interest rates mean that annual NSETFearnings have been only $2-3 million in recent years, much lower than the annualappropriations and program level of approximately $8 million per year. Thus, as noted in Table 2 , the Fund's balance is steadily declining; if current trends continue, the Fund will bedepleted by FY2006. If NSEP activities are to be maintained at their current (or higher)levels, the size of the Fund must be increased significantly. Alternatively, the NSEP'sfunding structure might be shifted totally to an annual appropriations basis, as is the case forthe majority of federal grant programs. P.L. 107-306 , discussed above, requires theSecretary of Defense to study the feasibility of such a shift.

Targeting of Critical Languages, Regions, and Disciplines

An issue which arises with respect to any federal program intended to supportinstruction in "critical" foreign languages, regions, and disciplines is whether aid awards areappropriately targeted on such languages, regions, and disciplines. According to the NSEA,"critical" foreign languages, regions, and disciplines are those in which there is a majornational security interest, the knowledge and skills of U.S. students and federal employeesare deficient, and they are infrequently taught in the nation's colleges and universities andinfrequently represented in other international educational exchange programs.

The NSEB conducts an annual survey of federal agencies to identify foreignlanguages, regions, and disciplines which the agencies deem to be critical to their operations. A wide variety of languages that are both frequently (e.g., Spanish) and infrequently (e.g.,Farsi) taught are identified through this process. However, the NSEB identifies a subset ofthese languages, along with associated world regions/nations, plus disciplines to be the focusof scholarship and fellowship awards for the succeeding year. In addition, the NationalFlagship Language Initiative, as planned by the NSEB and as authorized by P.L. 107-306 ,will attempt to identify the most critical languages to be the focus of all institutional grantsbeginning in 2003.

While any process to identify critical foreign languages, world regions and disciplineswill be imperfect and subject to regular revision, and past institutional grants may not alwayshave been clearly focused on such critical subjects, it appears that substantial effort isdevoted toward focusing NSEP grants on languages, regions and disciplines which areinfrequently taught in American IHEs, and are of national security interest, particularly incomparison to most other federal foreign language and area studies programs.

Coordination with Other Federal Programs Supporting Foreign Language and International Studies

The NSEP's emphasis on helping to meet national security needs, and its servicerequirement for individual aid recipients, distinguish it from other federal programs ofsupport for foreign language and area studies. Nevertheless, the NSEP shares with severalother federal programs the goals of increasing understanding of, and the availability ofadvanced instruction in, world languages and regions which are infrequently taught in UnitedStates IHEs. Therefore, efficiency in the use of federal aid funds is likely to be enhancedthrough coordination of the NSEP and such programs as ED's Title VI of the HigherEducation Act and the Fulbright-Hays Act programs administered by the Departments ofState and Education. Currently, such coordination occurs through representation on theNational Security Education Board of designees of the Secretaries of Education and State,among others. However, there is no statutory provision for analogous representation ofNSEP officials on decision-making bodies for related programs administered by other federalagencies.

One aspect of the NSEP -- institutional grants, including those under the NationalFlagship Language Initiative -- is especially similar to activities supported under anotherfederal program, Title VI of the Higher Education Act (HEA). (13) Both the NSEPinstitutional grants and two programs under HEA Title VI -- National Resource Centers andLanguage Resource Centers -- provide grants to United States IHEs to increase their capacityto provide instruction in foreign languages and regions, with special emphasis on thosewhich are infrequently taught in this nation. The major difference may be the degree of focuson "most critical" foreign languages and regions, especially in view of the plannedrestructuring of the NSEP institutional grants under the National Flagship LanguageInitiative.

The NSEP has attempted to address this concern about possible program overlap byrequiring IHEs to propose activities which complement, but do not duplicate, those supportedunder other federal programs when applying for NSEP institutional grants. Nevertheless,especially given recent efforts through the annual appropriations process to increase the focusof HEA Title VI on the most critical languages and regions, plus the inefficiencies andadministrative costs associated with conducting multiple federal grant competitions for IHEs,as well as the concerns expressed about NSEP institutional grants by some members of theacademic community (discussed later in this report), the possibility of consolidating theNSEP institutional grant program with the HEA Title VI national and language resourcecenter programs might be considered.

In addition, coordination with other programs may be altered by proposals to movethe administrative responsibility for NSEP from the Secretary of Defense to the Director ofCentral Intelligence ( H.R. 1588 as passed by the Senate) or to the Secretary ofEducation (as the President's Budget recommends). Placing responsibility for both the NSEPand the HEA, Title VI programs under the Secretary of Education would presumably increasethe degree of coordination and decrease the amount of overlap among these programs. Onthe other hand, it is not clear how shifting responsibility for the NSEP to the Director ofCentral Intelligence would impact program coordination.

Support for Undergraduate Travel Abroad

Some have questioned whether support of foreign travel grants by a limited numberof undergraduate students should be a priority for expenditure of federal funds under theNSEA. In the 107th Congress the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4628 wouldhave eliminated the NSEP's undergraduate scholarship program, shifting available funds tograduate fellowships and institutional grants. Although the enacted version of this legislationdoes not eliminate authority for undergraduate scholarships, debate over this issue maycontinue.

According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report (on S. 2506 , 107th Congress):

The Committee views the graduate program asthe most effective way of achieving the stated goal of the program for several reasons. First,the graduate program reaches students after they have already selected a career path. Also,NSEP officials have told the Committee that graduate students are enthusiastic about servingas federal employees, and generally seek employment in national security positions. TheCommittee notes that the undergraduate program, while providing unique learningopportunities, is an inadequate mechanism for ensuring that students will obtain employmentwith the federal government, and thereby fails to meet the stated goal of producing anincreased pool of applicants to serve in the federal government. Because the NSEP isessentially taking a 'risk' on students by providing them with a substantial amount offinancial assistance, the Committee believes that it is in the best interest of the program tofocus on those students most likely to seek and attain employment in the field of nationalsecurity. ( S.Rept. 107-149 )

In addition to the above arguments, the level of foreign language proficiency attainedby graduate students is likely to be substantially higher than for undergraduates.

In contrast, supporters of the current NSEP undergraduate scholarship program haveargued that it provides a relatively rare opportunity for federally-funded foreign travel at apoint in their educational careers at which most students are deciding upon the path they willfollow for their graduate study and future careers. Only one other, relatively small, federalprogram -- the Gilman International Scholarship Program (14) -- supports foreigntravel opportunities for U.S. undergraduate students, and it is not focused on critical foreignlanguages or world regions. (15)

In addition, the argument that graduate students are more likely to pursue a career ina national security position with the federal government would not seem to be supported bydata on the ways in which scholarship and fellowship recipients have met their servicerequirements thus far. According to cumulative data for 1996-2002 provided by NSEP staff,the percentage of undergraduate scholarship recipients who have taken federal positions(93%) is much higher than the percentage of graduate fellowship recipients who have mettheir service requirement by taking federal positions (50%). Thus far, it appears thatgraduate fellowship recipients are much more likely to meet their service requirement bytaking positions in higher education. This is most likely to occur with respect to students indoctoral (as opposed to master's) degree programs.

Service Requirement and Linkages to National Security Agencies

Throughout the life of the NSEP, and especially after the adoption of amendmentsto the NSEA service requirements in 1996 (by P.L. 104-201 , the National DefenseAuthorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997), some members of the U.S. academic communityhave expressed concern about the linkages between this program and the DOD, CentralIntelligence Agency (CIA), and other federal national security agencies. This concern arisesnot only from the NSEP's service requirement -- the obligation to seek employment in anational security position (although not necessarily in a national security agency) -- but alsoother linkages between the program and national security agencies -- e.g., administration ofthe program by the DOD, under the auspices of the National Defense University; andrepresentation of national security agencies on the NSEB.

The NSEA explicitly prohibits scholarship and fellowship recipients from beingrequired to "undertake any activity" on behalf of any federal agency, as a condition for receiptof their assistance, while engaged in their subsidized education program. In addition, asnoted earlier, the service requirement has been interpreted relatively broadly in practice toinclude positions in a wide range of federal agencies (see footnote 9). Further, the length ofthe service requirement -- generally equal to the period of time for which aid was received-- is shorter than for some other scholarship or loan forgiveness programs, requiring servicefor only a few months to two years in general.

Further, cumulative (1996-2002) data provided by NSEP staff on federal employmentof scholarship and fellowship recipients indicate that a majority have met their servicerequirement by taking positions outside the DOD, CIA, and similar national securityagencies. First, 50% of graduate fellowship recipients, and 7% of undergraduate scholarshiprecipients, have met their service requirement by taking positions in higher educationinstitutions, not the federal government. Second, among those taking federal positions tomeet their service requirement, more than one-half have taken positions in agencies otherthan the DOD, CIA, and similar national security agencies. (16)

Nevertheless, critics of these linkages have expressed concern that participatingstudents would be treated with suspicion and might even be in danger abroad if they areidentifiable as possible future employees of U.S. intelligence and defense agencies. Concernhas been expressed about the safety of participants as well as the cooperation of foreigneducational institutions if the NSEA is perceived as being related to the U.S. nationalsecurity agencies.

While critics of this aspect of the NSEP have expressed concerns about all of theprogram's grant programs, such criticism has most recently been focused primarily on thecurrent and prospective institutional grant programs, including the National FlagshipLanguage Initiative. Critics have argued that the linkages between the NSEP and nationalsecurity agencies affect only individual students under the scholarship and fellowshipprograms, while involving, at least indirectly, entire IHEs which accept institutional grants. According to a statement by the Board of Directors of the Middle East Studies Association(MESA),

[W]e have (1992, 1995) noted our strongreservations concerning the decision to locate the NSEP administration in the Departmentof Defense and the involvement of the CIA on the Board that oversees the NSEP. Webelieve it is essential to maintain the administrative independence of such programs fromgovernment agencies involved in national security .... [W]e are apprehensive that theproposed establishment of university programs will link all participating students byassociation with Defense Department language study funding through the institutional grantsthat NFLI-P [National Flagship Language Initiative-Pilot program] has announced .... Agovernment-funded program that emphasizes cooperation between the U.S. academy andgovernment agencies responsible for intelligence and defense will increase the difficultiesand dangers of such academic activities, and may foster the already widespread impressionthat academic researchers from the United States are directly involved in governmentactivities. This may discourage foreign colleagues from collaboration with Americans inscholarly projects. Ultimately, such a program may actually undermine the research andteaching of languages, histories and culture that area studies programs in U.S. universitiesstrive to advance .... We urge that funding for second-language acquisition, like othereducational programs, be administered through the Department of Education .... Werecommend that MESA members and institutions not seek or accept funding for the NFLI-Pas presently defined, constituted, and administered. (17)

In contrast, supporters of the service requirement and other NSEP linkages withnational security agencies argue that they are consistent with what they view as being theprimary purposes of the program, and help to assure that the federal government receives anappropriate return for its investment in persons aided by the program. While other federalprograms supporting foreign language and area studies are administered by the Departmentsof Education and State, they argue, those other programs have broader purposes than theNSEP. The statement of purpose in the NSEA focuses primarily on helping to meet thenational security needs of the United States and expanding the pool of applicants foremployment in U.S. government agencies with national security responsibilities, while alsomentioning the somewhat broader goals of increasing the "quantity, diversity, and quality"of teaching and learning of foreign language and area studies critical to the Nation's interest,expanding the foreign language and area studies knowledge base upon which both U.S.citizens and government employees can rely, and permitting the federal government to"advocate the cause of international education" (50 U.S.C. Â§ 1901). Supporters of theprogram's current provisions and structure argue that this mixture of purposes is consistentwith the NSEP's linkages to national security agencies, combined with flexibility in otherrespects (e.g., alternative of service in higher education, opportunity to meet the servicerequirement in a relatively wide variety of federal agencies, and relatively short term ofrequired service). In fact, if the primary, distinctive purpose of the NSEP is to increase thenumber of individuals with specialized language skills in national security positions, theservice requirement might even be tightened -- for example, by lengthening the requiredperiod of service, narrowing the variety of federal agencies at which the service requirementmay be met, or eliminating the alternative of meeting the service requirement throughemployment in higher education.