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  postsecondary institutions that serve low-income students. Grantees Reported a Wide Range of Uses and Benefits for Title III and Title V Grants but Cited Some Implementation Challenges

In their grant performance reports, grantees most commonly reported  using Title III and Title V grant funds to strengthen academic quality and  reported a wide range of benefits. Specifically, we estimate that 87 percent  of the grantees reported using their grant funds to improve academic  quality, and an estimated 77 percent reported using their funds to improve  student services (e.g., tutoring) and student outcomes (e.g., course pass  rates). We estimate that over half of the grantees reported using their  funds for initiatives that focused on improving institutional management  and fiscal stability. Increase in student  retention was the most commonly reported benefit in the area of student  outcomes. Education Has Developed Objectives and Strategies to Strengthen Institutions and Is Developing Corresponding Performance Information

Education has developed objectives and strategies designed to strengthen  Title III and Title V institutions by improving financial sustainability,  technological capacity, academic quality, student services and outcomes,  and institutional management. Education has developed five measures to  assess its progress in achieving its objectives and is still in the process of  developing data for one of these measures. Education Has Not Fully Implemented Its Initiatives to Improve Monitoring and Assistance, Resulting in Limited Monitoring and Assistance

Education has taken steps to enhance its monitoring of and assistance to  Title III and Title V grantees by developing monitoring plans; creating  electronic monitoring (e-monitoring) tools, such as the performance  reports submitted by grantees to document performance; and providing  additional training to department staff to develop their monitoring skills. For example, we found that Education has yet to make  full use of its risk-based plan to select grantees for its monitoring visits  and technical assistance. We also found that only one-quarter of department  staff completed two site visits in fiscal year 2003, as required. Finally, because the department has not yet implemented its new training  curriculum, its staff were not aware of updated department guidance and  as a result did not always follow department guidelines for monitoring  grantees. On the basis of this review,  Education concluded that there were questions surrounding the eligibility  of more than three-quarters of the 220 grantees that have received funds  through the program. Other contacts and  acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We reviewed Title III and Title V grant programs to determine (1) how  Title III and Title V institutions are using the grants and the benefits they  have derived, (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 Title  III and Title V institutions.
Why GAO Did This Study

Congress has expanded the number of low-income and minority serving institutions eligible for grants under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act and nearly doubled funding for these grants in the last 5 years to about $432 million in fiscal year 2004. Institutions eligible for funding under Titles III and V include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Alaska Native Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and other postsecondary institutions that serve low-income students. Given the recent expansion, we 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 Title III and Title V institutions.

What GAO Found

Grantees most commonly reported using Title III and Title V grant funds to strengthen academics, and they reported a wide range of benefits. Most grantees reported using their grants to fund efforts designed to strengthen academics, and we estimate that over three-quarters of the grantees reported initiatives that focused on improving student services (e.g., tutoring) and outcomes for students (e.g., course pass rates). The most commonly reported benefits were related to improvements in academic quality and student services and outcomes. While grantees reported a wide range of benefits, most also reported challenges in implementing their projects that sometimes resulted in the need for additional time at the end of the grant to complete their efforts. Education has developed objectives and strategies designed to strengthen Title III and Title V institutions by improving financial sustainability, technological capacity, academic quality, student services and outcomes, and institutional management. While Education has developed data to determine its progress in four of these areas, it is still in the process of developing data for measuring increased technological capacity. Education has developed plans and tools to enhance its monitoring of and assistance to Title III and Title V grantees, but it has made limited progress in implementing these initiatives. Specifically, Education has not fully implemented its monitoring plan or completed its new electronic monitoring tools, and a new training curriculum to enhance the monitoring skills of staff. We found that only one-quarter of staff conducted two required site visits, and most visits that were conducted were not selected based on the requisite risk criteria. Also, staff were not aware of updated department guidance and, as a result, did not always properly monitor grantees. We also found that Education's ability to provide technical assistance was limited. For example, Education has acknowledged that its failure to provide information on eligibility criteria has resulted in uncertainty about the eligibility of over three-quarters of Title V grantees.