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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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.