Institutions eligible for funding under Titles III and V include Historically  Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges, Hispanic  Serving Institutions (HSIs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian  Institutions, and other undergraduate institutions of higher education that  serve low-income students. Grantees Reported a Range of Uses and Benefits for Title III and Title V Grants but Cited Some Implementation Challenges

In their grant performance reports, the six grantees we recently reviewed  most commonly reported using Title III and Title V grant funds to  strengthen academic quality; improve support for students and student  success; and improve institutional management and reported a range of  benefits. However, our review of grant files found that  institutions experienced challenges, such as staffing problems, which  sometimes resulted in implementation delays. Sinte  Gleska, a tribal college in South Dakota, used part of its Title III grant  to fund the school’s distance learning department. In addition, the school is able to offer its students access to  academic and research resources otherwise not available in its rural  isolated location. For  example, one grantee reported delays in implementing its management  information system due to the turn-over of experienced staff. As a result of these implementation challenges, grantees  sometimes need additional time to complete planned activities. Education Has Developed New Objectives, Strategies, and Performance Measures that Focus on Program Outcomes, but Challenges Remain

Education has established a series of new objectives, strategies, and  performance measures that are focused on key student outcomes for Title  III and Title V programs. When we reported on Education’s  strategic planning efforts in our 2004 report, it measured its progress in  achieving objectives by measuring outputs, such as the percentage of  institutional goals that grantees had related to academic quality that were  met or exceeded. Specifically,  Education needs to better link its strategies for improving administrative  and fiscal stability with its objectives to increase or maintain enrollment,  persistence, and graduation rates because it is unclear how these  strategies impact Education’s chosen outcome measures. In fact, GAO and other federal agencies have previously found Education  faces challenges in measuring institutional progress in areas such as  administrative and fiscal stability. To address part of this problem,  Education is conducting a study of the financial health of low-income and  minority serving institutions supported by Title III and Title V funds to  determine, among other things, the major factors influencing financial  health and whether the data Education collects on institutions can be used  to measure fiscal stability. Education Has Made Some Changes Designed to Better Target Monitoring and Assistance, but Its Efforts Remain Limited

Education made changes designed to better target monitoring and  assistance in response to recommendations we made in our 2004 report;  however, additional work is needed to ensure the effectiveness of these  efforts. Education also plans to automate and integrate the risk-based  plan with their electronic monitoring system. Because efforts  are ongoing, Education has limited ability to systematically track grantee  performance and fiscal information. While Education provides technical assistance through program  conferences, workshops, and routine interaction between program  officers and grantees, Education’s ability to target assistance remains  limited, in that its feedback mechanisms may not encourage open  communication. Education officials told us that they primarily rely on  grantee feedback transmitted in annual performance reports and  communication between program officers and grantees.
Why GAO Did This Study

Institutions that may receive funding under Titles III and V include Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Alaska Native Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and other postsecondary institutions that serve low-income students. In fiscal year 2006, these programs provided $448 million in funding for over 500 grantees, nearly double fiscal year 1999 funding of $230 million. GAO examined these programs to determine (1) how institutions used their Title III and Title V grants and the benefits they received from using these grant funds, (2) what objectives and strategies the Department of Education (Education) has developed for Title III and Title V programs, and (3) to what extent Education monitors and provides assistance to these institutions. This testimony updates a September 2004 report on these programs (GAO-04-961). To update our work, GAO reviewed Education policy and planning documents, and program materials and grantee performance reports; interviewed Education officials; and analyzed Education data on grantee characteristics.

What GAO Found

In their performance reports, the six grantees we reviewed most commonly reported using Title III and Title V grant funds to strengthen academic quality; improve support for students and student success; and improve institutional management and reported a wide range of benefits. For example, Sinte Gleska, a tribal college in South Dakota, used part of its Title III grant to fund the school's distance learning department, to provide students access to academic and research resources otherwise not available in its rural isolated location. Our review of grant files found that institutions experienced challenges, such as staffing problems, which sometimes resulted in implementation delays. For example, one grantee reported delays in implementing its management information system due to the turn over of experienced staff. As a result of these implementation challenges, grantees sometimes need additional time to complete planned activities. Although Education has established outcome based objectives and performance measures, it needs to take steps to align some strategies and objectives, and develop additional performance measures. Education has established an overall strategy to improve the academic, administrative, and fiscal stability of grantees, along with objectives and performance measures focused on student outcomes, such as graduation rates. In 2004, we reported that Education's strategic planning efforts in were focused on program outputs that did not assess programmatic impacts, such as the percentage of goals that grantees met or exceeded, rather than outcomes. While Education has made progress in developing outcome based measures, we found insufficient links between its strategies for improving administrative and fiscal stability with its student outcome objective. To address challenges in measuring institutional progress in areas such as administrative and fiscal stability, Education is conducting a study of the financial health of low income and minority serving institutions supported by Title III and Title V. Education has made changes to better target monitoring and assistance in response to recommendations GAO made in 2004, however, additional study is needed to determine the effectiveness of these efforts. For example, Education uses risk indicators designed to better target grantees that may require site visits. While Education implemented an electronic monitoring system, it lacks the ability to systematically track grantee performance as designed. While Education provides technical assistance through various methods, its ability to target assistance remains limited in that its feedback mechanisms may not encourage open communication. Specifically, Education relies on grantee performance reports that are tied to funding decisions to solicit feedback.