This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-900 
entitled 'Distance Education: More Data Could Improve Education's 
Ability to Track Technology at Minority Serving Institutions' which was 
released on October 06, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

September 2003:

Distance Education:

More Data Could Improve Education's Ability to Track Technology at 
Minority Serving Institutions:

GAO-03-900:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-900, a report to congressional requesters

Why GAO Did This Study:

Distance education—offering courses by Internet, video, or other forms 
outside the classroom—is a fast growing part of postsecondary 
education. GAO was asked to review the state of distance education at 
Minority Serving Institutions, which are schools that serve high 
percentages of minority students, including Blacks, Hispanics, and 
American Indians. Under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act, 
these schools are eligible for grants that can be used for expanding 
their technology, including distance education.

GAO’s review focused on (1) the use of distance education at Minority 
Serving Institutions, (2) key factors influencing these schools’ 
decisions about whether or not to offer distance education, and (3) 
steps the Department of Education could take, if any, to improve 
monitoring efforts of technological progress under Titles III and V 
programs.

What GAO Found:

There are some variations in the use of distance education at Minority 
Serving Institutions compared to other schools. For example, while 
Minority Serving Institutions tend to offer at least one distance 
education course at the same rate as other schools, they differ in how 
many courses are offered and which students take the courses. Also, 
like other schools, larger Minority Serving Institutions tend to offer 
more distance education than smaller schools, and public schools tend 
to offer more distance education than private schools. However, 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges 
generally offer fewer courses than other schools, and a smaller 
percentage of minority students take such courses.

Minority Serving Institutions consider two main factors in deciding 
whether to offer distance education. The first is distance education’s 
compatibility with the school’s preferred teaching method. Many 
schools that offered no distance education had a strong preference for 
a classroom-based approach. The second is resources–schools offering 
little or no distance education had limited technology and support 
personnel. Also, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 
Hispanic Serving Institutions viewed distance education as a lower 
priority compared to expanding technology usage in the classroom. By 
contrast, Tribal Colleges gave distance education higher priority, 
reflecting the greater geographic dispersion of their students.

Education could strengthen its monitoring efforts of the Title III and 
V programs by expanding its existing system. Currently, the monitoring 
efforts for tracking the progress of technological improvements are 
more complete for Hispanic Serving Institutions than for the other 
Minority Serving Institutions. Education also lacks good baseline 
information on technology capacity at Minority Serving Institutions. 
Expanding current efforts to include such data would provide a basis 
for measuring the progress being made by Minority Serving 
Institutions.

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends that Education make its system for tracking technology 
improvements more complete for the different types of Minority Serving 
Institutions and consider ways to develop baseline information on 
technology capacity.

In commenting on a draft of this report, Education generally agreed 
with GAO’s findings and recommendations.


www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-900.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click 
on the link above. For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby at 
(202) 512-8403 or ashbyc@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

There Are Some Variations in the Use of Distance Education at Minority 
Serving Institutions Compared to Other Schools:

Teaching Preference and Resources Available for Distance Education 
Affect the Extent to Which Minority Serving Institutions Offer Distance 
Education:

Education Can Further Refine Its Programs for Monitoring Technology 
Usage at Minority Serving Institutions:

Conclusions:

Recommendations:

Agency Comments:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and Universities:

Appendix III: Hispanic Serving Institutions:

Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges:

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

Contacts:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Tables:

Table 1: Selected Characteristics of Minority Serving Institutions:

Table 2: Characteristics of Grants for Minority Serving Institutions 
under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended:

Table 3: Differences in the Types of Activities Monitored by Education 
in Minority Serving Institution Annual Reports:

Figures:

Figure 1: Distribution of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 
by State:

Figure 2: Distribution of Hispanic Serving Institutions, by State:

Figure 3: Distribution of Tribal Colleges, by State:

Figure 4: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Offer 
Distance Education Is about the Same as the Percentage for Other 
Schools:

Figure 5: Higher Percentage of Larger Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions Offer Distance 
Education:

Figure 6: Higher Percentage of Public Minority Serving Institutions 
Offer Distance Education:

Figure 7: Percent of Minority Serving Institutions Offering Degree 
Programs Is about the Same or Less Than Other Schools:

Figure 8: Distance Education Generally Ranks Lower in Relation to Other 
Technology Goals:

Figure 9: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Have 
Strategic and Financial Plans for Expanding Their Technology 
Infrastructure:

Abbreviations:

IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System:

NPSAS: National Postsecondary Education Data System:

PEQIS: Postsecondary Education Quick Information System:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

September 12, 2003:

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 
Ranking Minority Member 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
United States Senate:

The Honorable George Miller 
Ranking Minority Member 
Committee on Education and the Workforce 
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Rubén Hinojosa 
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Major Owens 
House of Representatives:

For over 100 years, the Congress has recognized that some postsecondary 
institutions have roles to play in providing minority students with 
help in attaining their educational goals and developing skills 
necessary to move into all facets of the American economy. In the 2000-
01 school year, 465 schools, or about 7 percent of postsecondary 
institutions in the United States,[Footnote 1] served about 35 percent 
of all Black, American Indian, and Hispanic students. These schools 
have special designation under federal law as Minority Serving 
Institutions.[Footnote 2]

Like other postsecondary institutions, over the last decade, Minority 
Serving Institutions have faced the challenge of trying to keep pace 
with rapidly changing technology usage in education. Part of keeping 
pace with technology involves using it in traditional classroom 
education, but one growing area--distance education--has commanded 
particular attention. As defined in federal law, distance education is, 
"an educational process that is characterized by the separation, in 
time or place, between instructor and student."[Footnote 3] Some 
examples of course delivery methods include the Internet, 
videoconferencing, and videocassettes. Distance education offers 
opportunities for students to take classes without considering where 
they live or when classes may be available. In the 1999-2000 school 
year, about one in every 13 postsecondary students enrolled in at least 
1 distance education course, and the Department of Education 
(Education) estimates that the number of students involved in distance 
education has tripled in just 4 years. For the most part, students 
taking distance education courses can qualify for student financial aid 
in the same way as students taking traditional courses. As the largest 
provider of student financial aid to postsecondary students (an 
estimated $60 billion in fiscal year 2003), the federal government has 
a substantial interest in distance education. Under Title IV of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, the federal government 
provides grants, loans, and work-study wages for millions of students 
each year.

The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, provides specific federal 
support for Minority Serving Institutions through Titles III and V. In 
2002, grants funded under these two titles provided over $300 million 
for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, and Tribal Colleges to improve their academic quality, 
institutional management, and fiscal stability. Technology is one of 
the many purposes to which these grants can be applied. As the Congress 
prepares to reauthorize the act, you asked us to examine several issues 
related to Minority Serving Institutions and technology--and 
particularly to distance education. We focused our work on determining 
(1) whether the use of distance education varies between Minority 
Serving Institutions and non-Minority Serving Institutions; (2) what 
factors Minority Serving Institutions consider when deciding whether to 
offer distance education; and (3) what steps Education could take, if 
any, to improve its monitoring of technological progress, including 
distance education, at Minority Serving Institutions under Titles III 
and V. In September 2002, we testified on some of these issues before 
the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.[Footnote 4] Additionally, you asked us to look at the quality 
of distance education and examine any statutory and regulatory issues 
related to distance education. We plan to issue a report on those 
topics later this year.

Our findings are based on questionnaires that were developed and sent 
to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. Seventy-eight percent, 75 percent, 
and 82 percent of the schools responded, respectively. We compared the 
results of our survey with Education's July 2003 report entitled 
Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Education 
Institutions: 2000-2001. This survey was sent to over 1,600 2-year and 
4-year degree granting institutions that were eligible for federal 
student aid programs and provided information on distance education 
offerings by these schools. However, the data from our survey and the 
survey conducted by Education are not completely comparable because 
they cover two different time periods. We also analyzed two databases 
produced by Education's National Center for Education Statistics. We 
analyzed data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 
(NPSAS)[Footnote 5] to examine the characteristics of postsecondary 
students, including those who attended Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, involved in distance 
education programs. We analyzed data from the Integrated Postsecondary 
Education Data System (IPEDS)[Footnote 6] to examine the 
characteristics of postsecondary institutions. Additionally, we 
conducted site visits to selected schools drawn from these three types 
of Minority Serving Institutions. We interviewed Education officials 
involved in programs aimed at improving the quality of education at 
Minority Serving Institutions. Finally, we interviewed numerous experts 
on distance education. A more detailed discussion of our scope and 
methodology is included in appendix I. We performed our work between 
October 2002 and September 2003 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

There are some variations in the use of distance education at Minority 
Serving Institutions compared to other schools. It is difficult to 
generalize across the Minority Serving Institutions, but available data 
indicate that while Minority Serving Institutions tend to offer at 
least one distance education course at the same rate as other schools, 
they differ in how many courses are offered and which students take the 
courses. Overall, the percentage of schools offering at least one 
distance education course in the 2002-03 school year was 56 percent for 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 63 percent for Hispanic 
Serving Institutions, and 63 percent for Tribal Colleges, based on data 
from our questionnaire. Similarly, 56 percent of 2-and 4-year schools 
across the country offered at least one distance education course in 
the 2000-01 school year, according to a separate survey conducted by 
Education. Minority Serving Institutions also tended to mirror other 
schools in that larger schools were more likely to offer distance 
education than smaller schools, and public schools were more likely to 
offer distance education than private schools. Tribal Colleges were an 
exception; all of them were small, but the percentage of schools 
offering distance education courses was relatively high compared to 
other smaller schools. The greater use of distance education among 
Tribal Colleges may reflect their need to serve students who often live 
in remote areas. In two respects, however, the use of distance 
education at Minority Serving Institutions differed from other schools. 
First, of those institutions offering at least one distance education 
course, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal 
Colleges generally offered fewer distance education courses--a 
characteristic that may reflect the smaller size of these two types of 
institutions compared to other schools. Second, to the extent that data 
are available, they indicate that minority students at Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions 
participate in distance education to a somewhat lower degree than other 
students. For example, in the 1999-2000 school year, fewer 
undergraduates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities took 
distance education courses than students at non-Minority Serving 
Institutions--6 percent v. 8.4 percent of undergraduates--a condition 
that may reflect the fact that these schools offer fewer distance 
education courses. Also, at Hispanic Serving Institutions, Hispanic 
students had lower rates of participation in distance education than 
non-Hispanic students attending these schools. These differences were 
statistically significant.

Minority Serving Institutions take into account two key factors in 
deciding whether to offer distance education, according to our 
questionnaire responses. One is their preferred teaching method. About 
half of Historically Black Colleges and Universities that currently do 
not offer distance education to undergraduates indicated that a primary 
reason for not offering distance education was that they prefer 
teaching in the classroom. For example, even though Howard University, 
a Historically Black University in Washington, D.C., has substantial 
technology such as multimedia rooms and sophisticated network 
capabilities, the school does not offer distance education courses for 
undergraduates and has no plans to do so because it prefers teaching 
undergraduates in the classroom. The second factor reported by schools 
as a reason for not providing distance education was limited resources 
for technology. Some Minority Serving Institutions said they wanted to 
offer more distance education but had limited technology to do so. For 
example, officials from the 10 Tribal Colleges that do not offer any 
distance education indicated that improvements in technology would be 
helpful. Officials at one Tribal College told us that some residents of 
reservations tend to be place-bound because of tribal and familial 
responsibilities; distance education would be one of the few realistic 
postsecondary options for this population, if technology were 
available. Technological limitations for Tribal Colleges involve a lack 
of resources to purchase needed technologies and difficulties in 
accessing technology, such as high-speed Internet, due to the rural and 
remote location of many reservations. All three types of schools 
identified the lack of resources--for investment in technology and for 
technology support staff--as particular limitations. In addition, from 
a broader context, Minority Serving Institutions reported that they 
view distance education as just one of many goals for technology--with 
varying degrees of priority depending on the college. In response to 
our survey, officials from Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
and Hispanic Serving Institutions more frequently indicated, for 
example, that relative to goals such as increasing the use of 
technology in the classroom, distance education ranks lower. At these 
schools, training faculty in the use of technology and improving the 
use of information technology in the classroom are higher priorities 
than distance education. By contrast, officials at Tribal Colleges more 
frequently placed distance education as a higher priority, reflecting 
their struggle to provide educational opportunities to populations 
across large geographic areas. However, they too identified other goals 
related to technology as important.

Education could improve its monitoring of technological progress--
including distance education--at Minority Serving Institutions under 
Titles III and V by collecting more data on technology, including 
baseline data, at these institutions. Education is taking steps to 
monitor the extent to which its grant programs are improving the use of 
technology by Minority Serving Institutions, but it has opportunities 
to track the expanding use of technology--including distance education-
-by capturing information in a more complete fashion across the three 
major types of Minority Serving Institutions. While Education's 
tracking system appears to include sufficient information on technology 
at Hispanic Serving Institutions, it contains less information on the 
usage of grant funds for technology improvements for Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges. Additionally, although 
Education has set a goal of improving technology capacity at Minority 
Serving Institutions, it has not established a baseline against which 
progress can be measured. If Education is to be successful in measuring 
progress in this area, it may need to take a more proactive role in 
modifying existing research efforts to include information on the 
extent to which technology, including such basic information as student 
access to computers, is available at all schools. Having such 
information would provide policymakers and program managers an improved 
basis for making budget and program decisions.

In this report, we are making recommendations to the Secretary of 
Education to (1) direct managers of the Title III and V programs to 
broaden their tracking systems so that they are applied in a more 
complete manner to the different types of Minority Serving Institutions 
and (2) study the feasibility of adding questions on distance education 
and information technology to existing research efforts carried out by 
Education.

We provided Education with a draft of this report for its review and 
comment. In commenting on our draft report, Education generally agreed 
with our findings and recommendations. Education's written comments are 
in appendix V.

Background:

In general, Minority Serving Institutions vary in size and scope and 
serve a high percentage of minority students, many of whom are 
financially disadvantaged. In size, for example, they range from Texas 
College, a Historically Black College with about 100 students, to 
Miami-Dade Community College, a Hispanic Serving Institution with more 
than 46,000 students. In scope, they range from schools with 
certificate or 2-year degree programs to universities with an extensive 
array of graduate and professional degree programs. Table 1 briefly 
compares the three types of Minority Serving Institutions in terms of 
their number, type, and size. Appendixes II to IV provide additional 
information about the three types of institutions.

Table 1: Selected Characteristics of Minority Serving Institutions:

Characteristics: Number of schools[A]; Type of Institution: 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 102; Type of Institution: 
Hispanic Serving Institutions: 334; Type of Institution: Tribal 
Colleges: 29.

Characteristics: Percent of each type of institution: 

Characteristics: Public; Type of Institution: Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities: 50; Type of Institution: Hispanic Serving 
Institutions: 45; Type of Institution: Tribal Colleges: 100.

Characteristics: Private nonprofit; Type of Institution: Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities: 50; Type of Institution: Hispanic 
Serving Institutions: 23; Type of Institution: Tribal Colleges: 0.

Characteristics: Private for-profit; Type of Institution: Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities: 0; Type of Institution: Hispanic 
Serving Institutions: 32; Type of Institution: Tribal Colleges: 0.

Characteristics: Average number of students per institution; Type of 
Institution: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 2,685; Type 
of Institution: Hispanic Serving Institutions: 5,141; Type of 
Institution: Tribal Colleges: 467.

Characteristics: Number of students served in 2000-01; Type of 
Institution: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 274,000; 
Type of Institution: Hispanic Serving Institutions: 1.7 million; Type 
of Institution: Tribal Colleges: 13,500.

Source: Department of Education and GAO analysis of IPEDS for the 2000-
01 school year.

[A] This figure represents the number of schools eligible for the 
federal student aid programs in the 2000-01 school year based on our 
analysis of IPEDS.

[End of table]

Historically Black Colleges and Universities:

Historically Black Colleges and Universities are the oldest of the 
Minority Serving Institutions. While the first Historically Black 
University, Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, was founded in 1837, 
most of the colleges and universities were founded between 1865 and 
1890. In the 2000-01 school year, there were 102 Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities that were eligible for federal student aid 
programs, including Xavier University in New Orleans, Louisiana; Howard 
University in Washington, D.C.; and Spelman College in Atlanta, 
Georgia. Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS, shows that while 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities represented 2 percent of 
all public and nonprofit postsecondary institutions, they enrolled 
about 14 percent (223,359) of Black non-Hispanic students in the United 
States. In all, the schools were in 20 states, the District of 
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands (see fig. 1). About 85 percent of the 
students enrolled at these institutions were black Americans. Their 
students and parents have lower incomes, on average, than students and 
parents at non-Minority Serving Institutions.

Figure 1: Distribution of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 
by State:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Hispanic Serving Institutions:

Hispanic Serving Institutions were recognized as such under the 1992 
amendments to the Higher Education Act[Footnote 7] and some of the 
schools first received funding through the Higher Education Act in 
1995. Under the definition established by the Congress, a Hispanic 
Serving Institution must have a student body that is at least 25 
percent Hispanic, and at least half of the Hispanic students must be 
low-income. In the 2000-01 school year, there were 334 Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, including Long Beach City College in California; the 
University of Miami in Florida; and the University of New Mexico. Our 
analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Hispanic Serving 
Institutions represented only 5 percent of all postsecondary 
institutions, they enrolled 48 percent (798,489) of all Hispanic 
students. These schools were located in 14 states and Puerto Rico (see 
fig. 2). About 51 percent of the students enrolled at these 
institutions are Hispanic. Compared to the two other major categories 
of Minority Serving Institutions, Hispanic Serving Institutions are 
generally larger and have more racial diversity in their student body. 
They are also the only type to include private for-profit schools, such 
as ITT Technical Colleges. Their students and parents have lower 
incomes, on average, than students and parents at non-Minority Serving 
Institutions.

Figure 2: Distribution of Hispanic Serving Institutions, by State:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Tribal Colleges:

Most Tribal Colleges were founded in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1998, the 
Higher Education Act[Footnote 8] was amended to create a grant program 
for Tribal Colleges to improve educational quality offered to their 
students, and some of the schools first received funds in 1998. In the 
2000-01 school year, there were 29 Tribal Colleges located in 12 states 
(see fig. 3). They included Diné College in Tsaile, Arizona; Salish 
Kootenai College in Pablo, Montana; and Oglala Lakota College in Kyle, 
South Dakota. Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Tribal 
Colleges were less than 1 percent of all public and private nonprofit 
postsecondary institutions, they enrolled 8 percent (11,262) of all 
American Indian/Alaska Native students in the United States. Tribal 
Colleges are the smallest of the three major types of Minority Serving 
Institutions, averaging less than 500 students, and nearly all are 2-
year schools. About 85 percent of the students attending Tribal 
Colleges in the fall of 2000 were American Indian/Alaska Native. The 
percentage of students at Tribal Colleges who receive Pell Grants--a 
type of financial aid made available to the neediest students--was more 
than double that of students at non-Minority Serving Institutions (60 
percent v. 24 percent).[Footnote 9]

Figure 3: Distribution of Tribal Colleges, by State:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Federal Aid to Minority Serving Institutions:

Through certain provisions in the Higher Education Act, the Congress 
has recognized the role that Minority Serving Institutions play in 
serving the needs of students, many of whom are from disadvantaged 
backgrounds. These provisions authorize grants for augmenting the 
limited resources that many Minority Serving Institutions have for 
funding their academic programs. Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities are eligible for grants funded through Title III, part B; 
Hispanic Serving Institutions through Title V, part A; and Tribal 
Colleges through Title III, part A[Footnote 10] of the Higher Education 
Act. These grants seek to improve the academic quality, institutional 
management, and fiscal stability of eligible institutions. More 
specifically, according to Title III, part B, Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities receive grants, in part, to remedy 
discriminatory action of the states and the federal government against 
Black colleges and universities. Hispanic Serving Institutions receive 
funds to expand educational opportunities for and improve the academic 
attainment of Hispanic students. Finally, the grants for Tribal 
Colleges seek to improve and expand the colleges' capacity to serve 
American Indian students. The Congress has identified as many as 14 
areas in which institutions may use funds for improving their academic 
programs. Authorized uses include purchase or rental of 
telecommunications equipment or services, support of faculty 
development, and purchase of library books, periodicals, and other 
educational materials. Table 2 provides more information on each type 
of grant.[Footnote 11]

Table 2: Characteristics of Grants for Minority Serving Institutions 
under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended:

Characteristics: Amount of funding in 1999; Type of grant: Title III, 
part B: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: $136 million; 
Type of grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic Serving Institutions[A]: $28 
million; Type of grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: $3 million.

Characteristics: Number of schools funded in 1999; Type of grant: Title 
III, part B: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 98; Type of 
grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic Serving Institutions[A]: 39; Type of 
grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 8.

Characteristics: Amount of funding in 2002; Type of grant: Title III, 
part B: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: $206 million; 
Type of grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic Serving Institutions[A]: $86 
million; Type of grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: $17.5 
million.

Characteristics: Number of schools funded in 2002; Type of grant: Title 
III, part B: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 99; Type of 
grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic Serving Institutions[A]: 172[B]; Type 
of grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 27.

Characteristics: Type of grant; Type of grant: Title III, part B: 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Formulaic/non-
competitive[C]; Type of grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic Serving 
Institutions[A]: Competitive[C]; Type of grant: Title III, part A 
Tribal Colleges: Competitive[C].

Characteristics: Duration of individual grants; Type of grant: Title 
III, part B: Historically Black Colleges and Universities: 5 years[D]; 
Type of grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic Serving Institutions[A]: 5 
years[D]; Type of grant: Title III, part A Tribal Colleges: 5 years[D].

Characteristics: Wait-out period (minimum number of years between 
grants); Type of grant: Title III, part B: Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities: None; Type of grant: Title V, part A: Hispanic 
Serving Institutions[A]: 2 years; Type of grant: Title III, part A 
Tribal Colleges: None.

Source: The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended and the Department 
of Education.

[A] Hispanic Serving Institutions are the only Minority Serving 
Institutions that include private for-profit schools. Private for-
profit schools are not eligible for funding under Title V, part A.

[ B] In 2002, 172 Hispanic Serving Institutions received 191 grants. 
Nineteen of the 172 institutions received 2 grants--an individual grant 
and a cooperative development grant.

[C] Tribal Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions receive grants 
based on a ranking of applications from a competitive peer review 
evaluation. Historically Black Colleges and Universities receive grants 
based on a formula that considers, in part, the number of Pell Grant 
recipients, the number of graduates, and the number of students that 
enroll in graduate school within 5 years after earning an undergraduate 
degree.

[D] Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, and Tribal Colleges are required to prepare and submit a 
5-year comprehensive development plan when they participate in Title 
III, part A, Title V, part A, or Title III, part B programs.

[End of table]

One area to which such funds can be directed is technology, both inside 
the classroom and, in the form of distance education, outside the 
classroom. Both inside and outside the classroom, technology is 
changing how institutions educate their students, and Minority Serving 
Institutions, like other schools, are grappling with how best to adapt. 
Through such methods as E-mail, chat rooms, and direct instructional 
delivery via the Internet, technology can enhance students' ability to 
learn any time, any place, rather than be bound by time in the 
classroom or in the library. For Minority Serving Institutions, the 
importance of technology takes on an additional dimension in that 
available research indicates their students may arrive with less prior 
access to technology, such as computers and the Internet, than their 
counterparts in other schools.[Footnote 12] These students may need 
considerable exposure to technology to be fully equipped with job-
related skills.

Distance Education:

Distance education is one major application of this new technology. 
Although distance education is not a new concept, it has assumed 
markedly newer forms and greater prominence over the past decade. 
Distance education can trace its history to the 1870s when 
correspondence courses--a home study course generally completed by 
mail--were first offered. Now, distance education is increasingly 
delivered in electronic forms, such as videoconferencing and the 
Internet. Through these approaches, distance education provides 
postsecondary education access to students who may live in remote 
locations or whose schedules require greater flexibility. For example, 
schools such as the University of Phoenix Online and the University of 
Maryland University College target entire distance learning degree 
programs to working adults who take their classes largely at home. 
Distance education's effect on helping students complete their courses 
of study is still largely unknown. Although there is some anecdotal 
evidence that distance education can help students complete their 
programs or graduate from college, school officials that we spoke to 
did not identify any studies that evaluated the extent to which 
distance education has improved completion or graduation rates.

There Are Some Variations in the Use of Distance Education at Minority 
Serving Institutions Compared to Other Schools:

It is difficult to generalize across the Minority Serving Institutions, 
but available data indicate that while Minority Serving Institutions 
tend to offer at least one distance education course at about the same 
rate as other schools, they differ in how many courses are offered and 
which students take the distance education courses. Minority Serving 
Institutions tend to be similar to non-Minority Serving Institutions in 
the percentage of schools that offer distance education, and to a 
considerable degree, they also mirror other schools in that distance 
education is more prominent at larger schools and at public schools. 
However, there are also differences between Minority Serving 
Institutions and other schools, and between the three categories of 
Minority Serving Institutions we reviewed. We found that Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges offered fewer 
distance education courses than other schools, which may be a 
reflection of their generally smaller size. The limited data available 
about student participation in distance education indicates that 
minority students may be somewhat less involved in distance education 
than other students. In the 1999-2000 school year, for example, 6 
percent of students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
were involved with distance education, compared with 8.4 percent at 
non-Minority Serving institutions--perhaps reflecting the fewer number 
of distance education courses that Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities offer. This result is statistically significant.

Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions Offering at Least One 
Distance Education Course Is about the Same as the Percentage for Other 
Schools:

The percentage of Minority Serving Institutions that offered at least 
one distance education course is about the same as the percentage for 
all degree granting postsecondary institutions eligible for the federal 
student aid programs. Education's July 2003 report indicates that about 
56 percent of 2-year and 4-year institutions whose students were 
eligible for federal student aid programs offered distance education 
courses during the 2000-01 school year.[Footnote 13] The results from 
our questionnaire showed that about 56 percent of Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities, 63 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, 
and 63 percent of Tribal Colleges offered at least one distance 
education course (see fig. 4). However, the data from our survey and 
the survey conducted by Education are not completely comparable because 
they cover two different time periods. Education's survey covered the 
2000-01 school year while our survey covered the 2002-03 school 
year.[Footnote 14]

Figure 4: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Offer 
Distance Education Is about the Same as the Percentage for Other 
Schools:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

According to our survey, Minority Serving Institutions offered distance 
education courses[Footnote 15] for two main reasons: (1) it improves 
access to courses for some students who live away from campus and (2) 
it provides convenience to older, working, or married students. The 
following examples illustrate these conditions.

* Northwest Indian College, a Tribal College in Bellingham, Washington, 
has over 10 percent of its 600 students involved in distance education. 
It offers distance education by videoconference equipment or 
correspondence. The College offers over 20 distance education courses, 
such as mathematics and English to students at seven remote locations 
in Washington and Idaho. According to College officials, distance 
education technology is essential because it provides access to 
educational opportunities to students who live away from campus. For 
example, some students taking distance education courses live hundreds 
of miles from the College in locations such as the Nez Perce 
Reservation in Idaho and the Makah Reservation in Neah Bay, Washington. 
According to school officials, students involved in distance education 
tend to be older with dependents, and therefore, find it difficult to 
take courses outside of their community. Also, one official noted that 
staying within the tribal community is valued and distance education 
allows members of tribes to stay close to their community and still 
obtain skills or a degree.

* The University of the Incarnate Word is a private nonprofit Hispanic 
Serving Institution with an enrollment of about 6,900 students. The 
school, located in San Antonio, Texas, offers on-line degree and 
certificate programs, including degrees in business, nursing, and 
information technology. About 2,400 students are enrolled in the 
school's distance education program. The school's on-line programs are 
directed at nontraditional students (students who are 24 years old or 
older), many of whom are Hispanic. In general, the ideal candidates for 
the on-line program are older students, working adults, or adult 
learners who have been out of high school for 5 or more years, 
according to the Provost and the Director of Instructional Technology.

Distance Education at Most Minority Serving Institutions Follows 
National Trends with Regard to Size and Type of School Offering at 
Least One Distance Education Course:

For the most part, those Minority Serving Institutions that offered at 
least one distance education course tended to be similar to other 
schools offering at least one distance education course with regard to 
size and type of school. Our survey results showed that Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions with 
3,001 to 9,999 students were more than twice as likely to offer 
distance education courses as schools with 2,000 or fewer students (see 
fig. 5). Similarly, in July 2003, Education reported that a higher 
percentage of larger schools eligible for federal student aid programs 
offered distance education compared with smaller schools. Education 
reported its results using somewhat different size categories than the 
ones we used in our questionnaire, so the results cannot be presented 
side by side for comparative purposes. However, according to 
Education's report, the distribution was much the same: 41 percent of 
the schools with an enrollment of less than 3,000 offered distance 
education courses, compared with 88 percent of the schools with an 
enrollment of 3,000 to 9,999 and 95 percent of the schools with an 
enrollment of greater than 10,000.

Figure 5: Higher Percentage of Larger Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions Offer Distance 
Education:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Our survey disclosed that Tribal Colleges, even though all have fewer 
than 2,000 students, were noticeably different from Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions in the 
extent to which they were involved with distance education. Among 
Tribal Colleges, 65 percent offered at least one distance education 
course, compared with 34 percent of Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and 33 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions with 2,000 
or fewer students. Our site visits to these schools raised several 
possible explanations. Potential students of many Tribal Colleges live 
in communities dispersed over large geographic areas--in some cases, 
potential students might live over a hundred miles from the nearest 
Tribal College or satellite campus--making it difficult or impossible 
for some students to commute to these schools. In these cases, distance 
education is an appealing way to deliver courses to remote locations. 
Also, officials at one Tribal College told us that some residents of 
reservations may be place-bound due to tribal and familial 
responsibilities, making distance education one of the few realistic 
postsecondary education options. Also important, according to some 
officials, is that tribal residents have expressed an interest in 
enrolling in distance education courses.

With regard to type of school, Minority Serving Institutions mirrored 
the national trend in that the percentage of Minority Serving 
Institutions offering distance education was higher among public than 
private institutions (see fig. 6). Among public Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, about 80 
percent or more offered distance education; these percentages dropped 
by 20 percent or more for private nonprofit schools and was even lower 
for private for-profit schools. Similarly, Education's survey showed 
that about 90 percent of 4-year public institutions offered distance 
education, compared with 40 percent of private institutions.

Figure 6: Higher Percentage of Public Minority Serving Institutions 
Offer Distance Education:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges Tend 
to Offer Fewer Distance Education Courses:

While roughly the same percentage of Minority Serving Institutions 
offered at least one distance education course as non-Minority Serving 
Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal 
Colleges tended to offer fewer courses. For example, of the schools 
that offered at least one distance education course, 52 percent of the 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 61 percent of Tribal 
Colleges offered 10 or fewer undergraduate distance education courses. 
By contrast, only 27 percent of 2-year and 4-year institutions that 
offered at least one distance education course and that were eligible 
for the federal student aid programs offered 10 or fewer distance 
education courses, according to Education's survey. Similarly, about 25 
percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions that offered at least one 
distance education course also offered 10 or fewer courses. To some 
extent, these differences may reflect the fact that Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges, as a group, are smaller 
than other institutions. The relationship discussed earlier about an 
institution's enrollment and the size of its distance education program 
may help explain why the number of courses offered via distance 
education are generally smaller at these two types of Minority Serving 
Institutions.

While the overall size of the distance education programs was smaller, 
the percentage of Minority Serving Institutions offering degree 
programs through distance education was close to that of other schools. 
Education reported that about 19 percent of 2-year and 4-year 
institutions eligible for the federal student aid programs offered 
degree or certificate programs that could be earned entirely through 
distance education. Similarly, about 19 percent of Hispanic Serving 
Institutions and about 17 percent of Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities offered degree or certificate programs through distance 
education (see fig. 7). The percentage was lower for Tribal Colleges 
(11 percent).

Figure 7: Percent of Minority Serving Institutions Offering Degree 
Programs Is about the Same or Less Than Other Schools:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Fewer Minority Students Take Distance Education Courses:

By analyzing Education's NPSAS database, we were also able to make some 
comparisons of the number of students taking distance education courses 
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, and non-Minority Serving Institutions. We were unable to 
develop data on the extent that Tribal College students use distance 
education because NPSAS included data from only one Tribal College. 
There appears to be a difference between minority students and other 
students in the extent to which they are involved with distance 
education courses. More specifically:

* Students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities tend to use 
distance education to a lesser extent than students at other schools. 
In school year 1999-2000, about 6 percent of undergraduate students at 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities enrolled in at least one 
distance education course and about 1.1 percent took their entire 
program through distance education. By comparison, 8.4 percent of 
undergraduates at other schools enrolled in at least one distance 
education course, and 2.5 percent took their entire program through 
distance education. These differences may reflect the fact that 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities generally offer fewer 
distance education courses than non-Minority Serving Institutions.

* Hispanic students attending Hispanic Serving Institutions use 
distance education at a lower rate than other students at the same 
schools. About 51 percent of the undergraduates at Hispanic Serving 
Institutions are Hispanic, but they comprise only about 40 percent of 
the undergraduate students enrolled in distance education classes. This 
difference is statistically significant. Similarly, our analysis also 
shows that the greater the percentage of Hispanic students at the 
institution, the lower the overall rate of distance education use at 
that school.

We analyzed student characteristics, such as their age and income, to 
determine if these characteristics could explain why these students 
were less involved in distance education, but our analysis did not 
establish such a link. The analysis showed that distance education 
students are more likely to be older, married, independent, a part-time 
student, and have a higher income than the average postsecondary 
student. Conversely, the average student at Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities is more likely to be younger, single, dependent, a 
full-time student, and have a lower income than the average 
postsecondary student, and to a somewhat lesser degree, the 
characteristics of students at Hispanic Serving Institutions tend to 
follow the same pattern. When we conducted a logistic regression 
analysis[Footnote 16] to analyze these differences more carefully, we 
did not find that these characteristics tended to explain the extent to 
which a student is involved in distance education. Among the 
characteristics that we describe above, only a single student 
characteristic--marital status--was associated with whether a student 
enrolls in distance education, and this relationship was limited. This 
suggests that there may be other reasons, such as fewer courses being 
offered, that help explain why a smaller percentage of students at 
Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic students at Hispanic Serving 
Institutions enroll in distance education courses.

Teaching Preference and Resources Available for Distance Education 
Affect the Extent to Which Minority Serving Institutions Offer Distance 
Education:

According to officials of Minority Serving Institutions, there are two 
factors that explain why some Minority Serving Institutions do not 
offer distance education. First, nearly half of Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions did not 
offer any distance education because they preferred to teach their 
students in the classroom rather than through distance education. 
Limited resources is the second factor reported by schools for not 
providing distance education. In addition, when placed within a broader 
context of technology improvements, Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions viewed distance 
education as a relatively low priority when compared to other purposes, 
such as increasing the use of information technology in the classroom. 
Most Tribal Colleges also viewed expanding technology usage on campus 
as a high priority, but they more frequently considered distance 
education a higher priority than Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions.

By Design, Some Minority Serving Institutions Prefer Not to Offer 
Distance Education:

To a great degree or very great degree, nearly half of Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions 
indicated that they do not offer distance education because classroom 
education best meets the needs of their students.[Footnote 17] 
Conversely, only 10 percent of Tribal Colleges that are not involved in 
distance education indicated that classroom education best meets the 
needs of their students. Here are examples from two schools that prefer 
teaching their students in the classroom rather than by the use of 
distance education.

* Howard University, an Historically Black University in Washington, 
D.C., with about 10,000 students, has substantial information 
technology; however, it prefers to use the technology in teaching 
undergraduates on campus rather than through developing and offering 
distance education. The University has state-of-the-art hardware and 
software, such as wireless access to the school's network; a digital 
auditorium; and a 24-hour-a-day Technology Center, which support and 
enhance the academic achievement for its students. Despite its 
technological capabilities, the University does not offer distance 
education courses to undergraduates and has no plans to do so. 
According to the Dean of Scholarships and Financial Aid, the University 
prefers teaching undergraduates in the classroom because more self-
discipline is needed when taking distance education courses. Also, many 
undergraduates benefit from the support provided by students and 
faculty in a classroom setting.

* Robert Morris College is a private nonprofit Hispanic Serving 
Institution located in Chicago, Illinois, that offers bachelor degrees 
in business, computer technology, and health sciences. About 25 percent 
of its 6,200 undergraduates are Hispanic. Although the College has one 
computer for every four students, it does not offer distance education 
courses and has no plans to do so. School officials believe that 
classroom education best meets the needs of its students because of the 
personal interaction that occurs in a classroom setting.

Some Schools Would Like to Offer More Distance Education, but Have 
Limited Resources to Do So:

Among Minority Serving Institutions that do not offer distance 
education, over 50 percent would like to offer distance education in 
the future, but indicated that they have limited resources with which 
to do so. About half of Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
and Hispanic Serving Institutions that do not offer distance education 
indicated that they do not have the necessary technology--including 
students with access to computers or the Internet at their residences-
-for distance education. A higher percentage of Tribal Colleges (67 
percent) cited limitations in technology as a reason why they do not 
offer distance education. Technological limitations are twofold for 
Tribal Colleges. The first, and more obvious limitation is a lack of 
resources to purchase and develop needed technologies. The second is 
that due to the remote location of some campuses, schools do not have 
access to needed technology--that is, schools may be limited to the 
technology of the surrounding communities. For example, a school cannot 
purchase certain technologies that are not provided in those 
communities. All 10 Tribal Colleges that did not offer distance 
education indicated that improvements in technology, such as 
videoconference equipment and network infrastructure with greater 
speed, would be helpful. Here are some examples of how resource 
limitations impact development of distance education programs at 
Minority Serving Institutions.

* Little Priest Tribal College, located on the Winnebago Indian 
Reservation in northeastern Nebraska, does not offer any distance 
education courses, but would like to do so in the future. The college 
serves about 160 undergraduates and the Academic Dean indicated that 
two-way videoconference equipment and support personnel would be needed 
in order to offer distance education courses. She said that the school 
would like to offer courses in the native language (called Ho Chunk) of 
the Winnebago Tribe. Currently, a native speaker capable of teaching 
the language resides in Wisconsin-hundreds of miles from the Winnebago 
reservation. Having such equipment would allow the instructor to teach 
the native language to students who attend classes on campus, according 
to the Academic Dean.

* Fisk University, an Historically Black University in Nashville, 
Tennessee, serves about 800 undergraduates and about 30 graduate 
students. The school does not offer distance education courses, but 
hopes to do so in the future. The Director, Academic Computing, 
indicated that distance education would help supplement the curriculum 
that the school currently offers to students. The school would also 
like to offer on-line courses in African-American History, however, it 
currently does not have the information technology equipment for 
distance education.

For Many Institutions, Expanding Technology on Campus is More Important 
Than Applying It to Distance Education:

Minority Serving Institutions generally indicated that offering more 
distance education was a lower priority than using technology to 
educate their classroom students. All of the institutions reported that 
their highest priority was providing more training for faculty in the 
use of information technology as a teaching method. Other priorities 
included improving network infrastructure, increasing the use of 
technology in classrooms, and guaranteeing that all students have 
access to a computer. (See fig. 8 for a comparison of how distance 
education compares to other selected technology goals.):

Figure 8: Distance Education Generally Ranks Lower in Relation to Other 
Technology Goals:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Minority Serving Institutions indicated that they expect to have 
difficulties in meeting their goals related to technology. Eighty-seven 
percent of Tribal Colleges, 83 percent of Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities, and 82 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions cited 
limitations in funding as a primary reason for why they may not achieve 
their technology-related goals. For example, the Southwest Indian 
Polytechnic Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, serves about 670 
students and it uses distance education to provide courses for an 
associates degree in early childhood development to about 100 students. 
The school uses two-way satellite communication and transmits the 
courses to 11 remote locations. According to a technology specialist at 
the school, this form of distance education is expensive compared to 
other methods. As an alternative, the Institute would like to establish 
two-way teleconferencing capability and Internet access at the off-site 
locations as a means of expanding educational opportunities. School 
officials noted, however, that many of the locations have no telephone 
or Internet service because they are in such remote areas of the state.

About half of the schools also noted that they might experience 
difficulty in meeting their goals because they did not have enough 
staff to operate and maintain information technology and to help 
faculty apply technology. For example, officials at Diné College, a 
Tribal College on the Navajo Reservation, told us they have not been 
able to fill a systems analyst position for the last 3 years. School 
officials cited their remote location and the fact that they are 
offering relatively low pay as problems in attracting employees that 
have skills in operating and maintaining technology equipment.

Having a systematic approach to expanding technology on campuses is an 
important step toward modernizing and evaluating technology at 
postsecondary schools. About 75 percent of Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities, 70 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, and only 
48 percent of Tribal Colleges had completed a strategic plan for 
expanding their technology infrastructure. Fewer schools had completed 
a financial plan for funding technology improvements. About half of 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, and 19 percent of Tribal Colleges have a financial plan 
for expanding their information technology (see fig. 9).

Figure 9: Percentage of Minority Serving Institutions That Have 
Strategic and Financial Plans for Expanding Their Technology 
Infrastructure:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Studies by other organizations describe challenges faced by Minority 
Serving Institutions in expanding their technology infrastructure. For 
example, an October 2000 study by Booz, Allen, and Hamilton determined 
that historically or predominantly Black colleges identified challenges 
in funding, strategic planning, and keeping equipment up to date. An 
October 2000 report by the Department of Commerce found that most 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities have access to computing 
resources, such as high-speed Internet capabilities but individual 
student access to campus networks is seriously deficient due to, among 
other things, lack of student ownership of computers or lack of access 
from campus dormitories. An April 2003 Senate Report noted that only 
one Tribal College has funding for high-speed Internet.

Education Can Further Refine Its Programs for Monitoring Technology 
Usage at Minority Serving Institutions:

Education is taking steps to monitor the extent to which its grants are 
improving the use of technology by Minority Serving Institutions; 
however, its efforts could be improved in two ways. First, as Education 
creates a new system for measuring the outcomes of its grants, it has 
opportunities to more completely capture technology-related 
information, including distance education, across the three major types 
of Minority Serving Institutions. Second, although Education has set a 
goal of improving technology capacity at Minority Serving Institutions, 
it has not yet developed a baseline against which progress can be 
measured. If Education is to be successful in developing such baseline 
data, it may need to examine the potential use of its existing research 
efforts, such as IPEDS. IPEDS is currently used to capture information 
on the different characteristics of institutions involved in the 
federal student aid programs. Education has studied the possibility of 
including technology-related information in IPEDS, but so far, has yet 
to make a decision on this matter.

Education Has Made Progress in Tracking Outcomes of Title III and Title 
V Programs, but Additional Improvements May Be Needed to Ensure More 
Complete Coverage Across the Major Types of Minority Serving 
Institutions:

Increasing the technological capacity of Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges is 
one goal Education has identified in its 2002-03 annual performance 
plan. Education's efforts are part of a larger effort by the 
administration to emphasize the outcomes of federal programs. According 
to the Office of Management and Budget, improving programs by focusing 
on results is an integral component of the administration's budget 
preparation process. In this regard, Education has made progress in 
tracking outcomes of its Title III and Title V programs, but additional 
improvements may be needed to make its efforts more complete across the 
three major types of Minority Serving Institutions.

In spring 2000, Title III and Title V program staff began an effort to 
improve the program monitoring system. As part of these efforts, 
Education wanted to develop a system that can capture information to 
demonstrate how grants improve the education of students that Minority 
Serving Institutions serve. Among the activities that Education and 
grantees discussed were how grants are being used to improve 
information technology on campuses and how best to collect information 
on how such efforts improve the education of students. For example, 
program staff held a series of four meetings with about 200 schools and 
conducted telephone conferences with another 90 institutions to obtain 
feedback on the format and effectiveness of the draft annual 
performance report. The Office of Management and Budget reviewed and 
approved the annual performance report and commended Education for 
"substantial revisions" made to its performance reporting system and 
"meaningful interaction with stakeholders." In March 2003, Education 
received the first set of data from its grantees for its annual 
performance report. According to staff responsible for the annual 
performance report, the new monitoring effort is a "work in progress" 
and continued improvements and revisions will likely occur later this 
year.

In this regard, the progress Education has made in developing an annual 
performance report that focuses on results is a major step toward 
improving program performance, however, additional improvements may be 
needed. More specifically, we found that the way Education tracks the 
usage of grant funds for technology improvements among Minority Serving 
Institutions may not completely reflect how Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities and Tribal Colleges use their grants. The tracking of 
technology-related information appears to be adequate for Hispanic 
Serving Institutions. (See table 3.) For example, Education's tracking 
effort for Hispanic Serving Institutions includes the extent to which 
program funds (1) improve student and faculty access to the Internet, 
(2) increase the number of computers available to students outside of 
classrooms, and (3) expand the number of new distance education courses 
and students. Similar information is not collected for Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges even though a 
substantial number of these schools use grant funds to expand distance 
education offerings or to improve technology on campus. Eight of the 11 
Tribal Colleges that received new Title III grants in 2001 stated that 
funds would be used to develop or expand technology usage, including 
distance education. Similarly, between 1999-2001, about 23 percent of 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities that responded to our 
survey indicated that they used Title III funds on distance education.

Table 3: Differences in the Types of Activities Monitored by Education 
in Minority Serving Institution Annual Reports:

Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for 
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Increase 
in the number of "wired" classrooms; Minority Serving Institution 
reports: Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Title III (part 
B)): Yes[A]; Minority Serving Institution reports: Hispanic Serving 
Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes; Minority Serving Institution 
reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part A)): Yes.

Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for 
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Offer 
training to faculty in the use of technology; Minority Serving 
Institution reports: Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
(Title III (part B)): Yes; Minority Serving Institution reports: 
Hispanic Serving Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes; Minority Serving 
Institution reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part A)): Yes.

Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for 
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Increase 
student access to the Internet; Minority Serving Institution reports: 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Title III (part B)): 
No[A]; Minority Serving Institution reports: Hispanic Serving 
Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes; Minority Serving Institution 
reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part A)): No.

Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for 
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Increase 
the number of computers available to students outside of the classroom; 
Minority Serving Institution reports: Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities (Title III (part B)): No; Minority Serving Institution 
reports: Hispanic Serving Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes; 
Minority Serving Institution reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part 
A)): No.

Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for 
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Increase 
the number of courses using technology; Minority Serving Institution 
reports: Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Title III (part 
B)): No; Minority Serving Institution reports: Hispanic Serving 
Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes; Minority Serving Institution 
reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part A)): No.

Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for 
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Increase 
the number of students taking courses using technology; Minority 
Serving Institution reports: Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities (Title III (part B)): No; Minority Serving Institution 
reports: Hispanic Serving Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes; 
Minority Serving Institution reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part 
A)): No.

Activities monitored by Education in annual performance reports for 
Title III (part B), Title V (part A), and Title III (part A): Increase 
the number of students using distance learning; Minority Serving 
Institution reports: Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
(Title III (part B)): No; Minority Serving Institution reports: 
Hispanic Serving Institutions (Title V (part A)): Yes; Minority Serving 
Institution reports: Tribal Colleges (Title III (part A)): No.

Source: Department of Education and GAO analysis of Education's Annual 
Performance Reports for Title III, part A, Title III, part B, and Title 
V, part A of the Higher Education Act, as amended.

[A] A "yes" response indicates that the information was collected in 
the report. A "no" response indicates that the information was not 
collected in the report.

[End of table]

According to managers of the Titles III and V programs, the differences 
in the types of information on activities and outcomes that are 
captured for each report stems from differences in the titles 
themselves. Title V, part A, under which funds are provided to Hispanic 
Serving Institutions, explicitly allows program funds to be used for 
"creating or improving facilities for Internet or other distance 
learning academic instruction capabilities, including purchase or 
rental of telecommunications technology equipment or services." The 
program for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Title III, 
part B) and Tribal Colleges (Title III, part A) does not specifically 
address the use of funds in this manner, however, using grant funds for 
expanding distance education offerings or technology usage are 
authorized activities, according to Education staff. Inasmuch as 
Minority Serving Institutions indicated in their questionnaire 
responses that they have an interest in expanding both the use of 
technology in the classroom and distance education, it may be 
appropriate to make the annual performance reports as inclusive as 
possible.

Education Does Not Have Baseline Data to Measure Technological Capacity 
at Minority Serving Institutions:

One difficulty that Education will encounter in attempting to judge the 
extent to which Minority Serving Institutions are increasing their 
technological capacity is that it has no baseline to measure against. 
Education may have opportunities to fill this void by expanding its 
existing research efforts to include data on technology usage and 
capabilities at all schools, including Minority Serving 
Institutions.[Footnote 18] One vehicle for accomplishing this could be 
through IPEDS, a product of one of Education's research efforts that is 
conducted annually and that contains data on the characteristics of 
institutions and their students' eligibility for federal student aid 
programs.

Although Education has researched the usage of distance 
education[Footnote 19] at postsecondary institutions, it does not 
collect data from postsecondary institutions on the capacity of or 
improvements in their technology infrastructure. The growing use of 
technology by postsecondary institutions has surfaced as an important 
area of research in recent years and Education has held meetings on how 
to measure technology capacity at postsecondary institutions. Staff 
from the Title III and Title V programs indicated that having such data 
for Minority Serving Institutions and other institutions would provide 
a national perspective on technology infrastructure at these schools. 
However, according to other Education officials, two issues need to be 
addressed before such a change can be made. First, there are different 
views on how to accurately measure technology infrastructure at 
postsecondary institutions. For example, in determining how many 
computers are available to students at a school, there is no agreement 
on whether personal computers, computers in the library, and computers 
for faculty should be included in total or in part. Second, before 
Education expands any of its data collection efforts, Office of 
Management and Budget regulations[Footnote 20] that implement the 
Paperwork Reduction Act require agencies to evaluate, among other 
things, the need for collecting data and the costs to respondents of 
generating, maintaining, or providing the data. Education would need to 
determine how best to resolve these issues before moving forward with 
any changes.

Conclusions:

Minority Serving Institutions view the use of technology as a critical 
tool in educating their students. Technology allows greater access to 
the latest research and to a broader array of information. Ultimately, 
Minority Serving Institutions, like other schools, face stiff 
challenges in keeping pace with the rapid changes and opportunities 
presented by information technology.

In creating the Title III and Title V programs, the Congress 
acknowledged that Minority Serving Institutions have historically had 
limited resources to invest in educating their students when compared 
to other institutions. More complete data on how Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges use Title III funds for 
improving technology on campus, and thus, the education of students, 
would help inform program managers and policymakers about progress that 
has been made and opportunities for improvement. Additionally, as 
Education examines the many research efforts it has, it may find it 
beneficial to collect information on distance education and technology 
capacity at postsecondary institutions. Doing so would provide baseline 
data on Minority Serving Institutions and the progress they make in 
improving their technology capacity.

Recommendations:

We recommend that the Secretary of Education (1) direct managers of the 
Title III and Title V programs to further improve their annual 
performance report for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 
Tribal Colleges by including areas such as student access to computers 
and the number of distance education courses that were offered and (2) 
study the feasibility of adding questions on distance education and 
information technology to an existing study at Education, such as 
IPEDS, to develop baseline data on technology capacity at Minority 
Serving Institutions and to judge the extent to which progress is being 
made.

Agency Comments:

In commenting on a draft of this report, Education generally agreed 
with our findings and recommendations. Specifically, Education agreed 
to broaden its monitoring of Title III and Title V programs to ensure 
that appropriate information about the needs of institutions in the 
area of distance learning and technology for course delivery are 
considered. Education generally agreed with our second recommendation 
to study the feasibility of adding questions on distance education and 
information technology to existing research efforts that it carries 
out. Education stated that it would explore expanding the sample of the 
Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS) to include 
more Minority Serving Institutions. According to Education, PEQIS is 
used to collect information on topics of national importance from 
postsecondary institutions. Education used PEQIS to collect data for 
three distance education studies, including the most recent, Distance 
Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001, 
data from which we used in this report. Also, Education stated that it 
would consider our specific suggestion related to what data could be 
collected from institutions under IPEDS. In addition to commenting on 
our recommendations, Education offered some technical comments on the 
report and we revised the draft report when appropriate. Education's 
written comments are reprinted in appendix V.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its 
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 
24 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this 
report to appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of 
Education, and other interested parties. In addition, this report will 
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or members of your staffs have any questions regarding this 
report, please call me on (202) 512-8403. Other contacts and 
acknowledgments are listed in appendix VI.

Cornelia M. Ashby 
Director, 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security:

Signed by Cornelia M. Ashby: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

To determine whether the use of distance education varies between 
Minority Serving Institutions and non-Minority Serving Institutions, we 
developed and sent questionnaires to a fall 2000 list of 108 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities,[Footnote 21] 334 Hispanic 
Serving Institutions, and 32 Tribal Colleges[Footnote 22] that we 
received from Education. Each type of school received a distinct 
questionnaire. The questionnaires had questions on whether the 
institution offered distance education, and if so, how many courses and 
degree programs were offered. The response rate to each questionnaire 
was 78 percent for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 75 
percent for Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 82 percent for Tribal 
Colleges. We compared the results of the survey with a July 2003 report 
from Education's National Center for Education Statistics entitled 
Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Education 
Institutions: 2000-2001. This survey was sent to over 1,600 2-year and 
4-year degree granting institutions that were eligible for the federal 
student aid programs and provided information on distance education 
offerings by these schools. We also analyzed the National Postsecondary 
Student Aid Survey (NPSAS) to determine the extent that students at 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving 
Institutions enrolled in distance education courses. NPSAS contains 
information on characteristics of students who attended postsecondary 
institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
and Hispanic Serving Institutions in the 1999-2000 school year. NPSAS 
contained information on students at only one Tribal College, so we 
were unable to develop similar information for students attending 
Tribal Colleges. Finally, we analyzed IPEDS to develop data on the 
institutional characteristics of Minority Serving Institutions.

To determine what factors account for any differences in usage of 
distance education between Minority Serving Institutions and non-
Minority Serving Institutions, we developed statistics from NPSAS on 
the characteristics of students enrolled in distance education and 
those that were not. We conducted logistic regression--a type of 
analysis that is designed to show the influence of one or several 
variables on another variable to see whether student characteristics, 
such as age and income influenced their involvement in distance 
education at Minority Serving Institutions. We also used the results 
from our survey to see if different characteristics of Minority Serving 
Institutions, such as their size, location in rural or urban areas, and 
type of funding sources, such as whether the school was public or 
private nonprofit, had any bearing on whether the school offered 
distance education. Additionally, we used the results of our survey to 
see whether institutional strategies for teaching students may have had 
any effect on whether schools offered distance education.

To determine what factors Minority Serving Institutions consider when 
deciding whether to offer distance education, we used the results from 
our survey. To determine what steps Education could take, if any, to 
improve its monitoring of the results of their Title III (part A) and 
(part B) and Title V (part A) programs as it relates to improvements in 
technology, including distance education, we also used the results from 
our survey. Additionally, we reviewed the statutes that created 
programs for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic 
Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. We interviewed managers of 
these programs and obtained and reviewed documents related to 
Education's performance measures and goals.

To develop our survey instruments, we interviewed officials at 
organizations that represent Minority Serving Institutions, including 
the United Negro College Fund, the National Association for Equal 
Opportunity in Higher Education, the Hispanic Association of Colleges 
and Universities, and the American Indian Higher Education Consortium. 
We developed and pretested our questionnaire during visits to 6 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities--Morgan State University 
in Baltimore, Maryland; Howard University in the District of Columbia; 
Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte, North Carolina; Xavier 
University in New Orleans, Louisiana; Wiley College in Marshall, Texas; 
and Texas College in Tyler, Texas. Also, we developed and pretested our 
survey at 5 Hispanic Serving Institutions--San Antonio Community 
College in San Antonio, Texas; University of the Incarnate Word in San 
Antonio, Texas; Rio Hondo College in Whittier, California; East Los 
Angeles College in Monterrey Park, California; and National Hispanic 
University in San Jose, California. We also developed and pretested our 
survey at 4 Tribal Colleges--Northwest Indian College in Bellingham, 
Washington; Diné College in Tsaile, Arizona; Southwestern Indian 
Polytechnic Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and D-Q University in 
Davis, California. In addition, to obtain additional information based 
on the results provided by Minority Serving Institutions, we visited 
and interviewed officials at Delaware State University in Dover, 
Delaware; Gavilan College in Gilroy, California; and Salish-Kootenai 
College in Pablo, Montana. To obtain additional information on how non-
Minority Serving Institutions fund their distance education programs, 
we visited Cabrillo College in Aptos, California; Montana Tech in 
Butte, Montana; and the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware.

Finally, we reviewed studies on the history and use of technology at 
Minority Serving Institutions. The studies included Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities (An Assessment of Networking and 
Connectivity), Department of Commerce, October 2000; Historically Black 
Public Colleges and Universities: An Assessment of Current Information 
Technology Usage, Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, October 2000; 
Latinos and Information Technology--The Promise and the Challenge, The 
Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, February 2002; Tribal Colleges: An 
Introduction, American Indian Higher Education Consortium, February 
1999; and The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving From Promise 
to Practice, Report of the Web-Based Education Commission to the 
President and the Congress of the United States, December 2000.

We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards between October 2002 and September 2003.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Historically Black Colleges and Universities:

In most ways, Historically Black Colleges and Universities provide the 
same educational opportunities found at other schools. The Department 
of Education reported that there were 102 Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities in 20 states as well as the District of Columbia, and 
one in the Virgin Islands that were participating in federal student 
aid programs in the 2000-01 school year. Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities offer a variety of degrees--from associates to 
doctoral. They are comprised of technical colleges, community colleges, 
public colleges, private colleges, and both religious and nonsectarian 
schools. They range in size from large (12,000 students at Florida A&M) 
to small (under 100 students at Clinton Junior College and Texas 
College). In other ways, there are distinctions to be made between 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other schools. The 
clearest distinctions are in the students they serve, and in the 
histories and missions of the institutions.

History:

The 102 institutions recognized as Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities were established at various times in the nation's history 
in response to historical circumstances that limited educational 
opportunities for Black students. The earliest of the Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities precede the Civil War when 
abolitionists from the North founded formal institutions of higher 
learning for Black Americans. This first wave of establishing 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities began in 1837, when 
Richard Humphreys, a Quaker philanthropist, founded Cheyney University 
of Pennsylvania, with the purpose of educating free Blacks and 
emancipated slaves. Other pre-Civil War Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities that were founded to educate freed slaves include Lincoln 
University in Pennsylvania, founded in 1854; Wilberforce University in 
Ohio, founded in 1856; and Harris-Stowe State College in Missouri, 
founded in 1857.

The second wave of creating Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities began after the Civil War. More than four million slaves 
and free Blacks were illiterate at the time of emancipation in 1865. 
Between 1870 and 1890, 13 public colleges were established, including 
Virginia State University in Virginia and Claflin College in South 
Carolina. The founding of private schools, however, represented the 
largest portion of the second wave of school creation. Between 1865 and 
1890, 37 privately supported Black colleges were created. Schools such 
as these were founded and funded by missionary philanthropists who 
supported education for Black Americans as a way to bring about racial 
equality. Included in this group are schools such as Morehouse College 
in Georgia and Stillman College in Alabama.

Federal support for Black institutions of higher education grew in the 
late 1800s. This support resulted, in part, from the passage of the 
Morrill Act of 1890--which prompted the third wave of creating 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities in this country. Under the 
Morrill Act of 1890,[Footnote 23] the Congress made available land 
grants for the establishment of institutions of higher education under 
the condition that land-grant schools could not discriminate in their 
admissions policies based on race. States that did not want to create 
integrated institutions could use the grants to create racially 
segregated schools, provided that the funding was divided equitably 
between the institutions. Land-grant colleges and universities were 
required to teach practical industrial subjects, such as agriculture 
and mechanical arts. The Morrill Act of 1890 helped to fund 20 of 
today's Historically Black Colleges and Universities, including Alcorn 
State University in Mississippi, Florida A&M University, and Tuskegee 
University in Alabama.

The Higher Education Act was originally passed in 1965. Title III of 
this act provides financial assistance to institutions of higher 
education with low per-student expenditures, large numbers of 
financially disadvantaged students, or a large proportion of minority 
students. Title III, part B of the act provides grants to Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities that are determined by the Secretary of 
Education to meet the statutory definition of such 
institutions.[Footnote 24] The purpose of Title III, part B is to 
provide financial assistance to establish or strengthen the physical 
plants, financial management, academic resources, and endowments of 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Total funding under Title 
III, part B for Historically Black Colleges and Universities has 
increased from $136 million, funding 98 institutions in fiscal year 
1999, to $206 million, funding 99 institutions in fiscal year 2002, or 
an increase of about 51 percent. Additionally, funding for graduate 
program opportunities at Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
has increased 50 percent from $30 million in fiscal year 1999 to $49 
million in fiscal year 2002.

Characteristics of Historically Black Colleges and Universities:

In the 2000-01 school year, there were 102 Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities eligible for the federal student aid programs. These 
schools were located in 20 states--primarily in the Southern and 
Eastern portion of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the 
Virgin Islands. Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities were only 2 percent of all 
public and nonprofit postsecondary institutions, in the fall of 2000 
they enrolled 14 percent (223,359) of Black non-Hispanic students in 
the United States.[Footnote 25] The percent of Black non-Hispanic 
students at a Historically Black College or University in the fall of 
2000 ranged from 100 percent at 5 institutions (Clinton Junior College 
and Morris College in South Carolina, Johnson C. Smith University in 
North Carolina, Tougaloo in Mississippi, and Miles College in Alabama) 
to 10 percent at Bluefield State College in West Virginia, with an 
average of 85 percent. In comparison, non-Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities averaged around 10 percent Black students in the fall 
of 2000.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities offer a range of degrees 
from different types of institutions. Degrees offered in 2000-01 
included associate, bachelor, master, first professional, and doctoral. 
Eighty-seven percent offered a bachelor's degree or higher. Of the 102 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, about half were private 
nonprofit institutions, and about half were public institutions. There 
are no private for-profit Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 
Additionally, there are single gender schools, such as Spelman College 
in Atlanta, Georgia--a women's college--and one Catholic Historically 
Black University--Xavier University in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities are generally smaller in 
size, have lower tuitions, and smaller endowments than postsecondary 
institutions overall.[Footnote 26] The average postsecondary 
institution is 1.4 times larger than the average Historically Black 
College or University. While 83 percent of Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities had 5,000 students or fewer, the same is true of only 
78 percent of other institutions. The largest Historically Black 
University in the fall of 2000 was Florida A&M with 12,126 students, 
compared to the largest non-Historically Black University, which was 
the University of Texas at Austin with 50,000 students.

Two important sources of revenue for postsecondary institutions--
tuition and endowments--were both lower at Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities than at other institutions. The average in-state, 
undergraduate tuition at public Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities was $1,993 in the 2000-01 school year. For private 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, the average undergraduate 
tuition was $7,009. These same statistics for other institutions were 
$2,067, and $11,480, respectively. The average market value of 
institutional endowments for public schools at the end of the 2000-01 
school year was about $5 million for Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, but over $51 million for other public institutions. 
Endowment data on private nonprofit schools are not available in IPEDS.

Characteristics of Students at Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities:

Demographic characteristics of students at Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities vary somewhat from national averages for postsecondary 
students. According to data from the Department of Education's 1999-
2000 NPSAS, the average undergraduate student at a Historically Black 
College or University was younger than the national average of 
undergraduate students (24.8 years old versus 26.4 years old). 
Undergraduates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities were 
also more likely to be single, dependent, and full-time students when 
compared to the national average. Eleven percent of students at 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities were married compared to 
23 percent of students overall, and 42 percent of students at 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities were independent, compared 
to 49 percent of students overall. Seventy-five percent of students at 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities were full-time students 
compared to 52 percent overall.

Economic Characteristics:

Although tuition is generally lower at Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, students who attend these schools are generally able to 
contribute less to the cost of their education than are students at 
non-Minority Serving Institutions. Median household family incomes are 
considerably lower for Black Americans than they are for households 
overall. This is reflected in one measure of a family's ability to pay 
for college--the Expected Family Contribution.[Footnote 27] The 
Expected Family Contribution was lower in 2000-01 for families of 
students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities than it was 
for families of students attending other, non-Minority Serving 
Institutions. In the 2000-01 school year, the average Expected Family 
Contribution for students attending public non-Minority Serving 
Institutions was $659, while it was only $480 for families of students 
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Additionally, the 
percentage of students receiving Pell Grants--financial aid that is 
available to the neediest students in the nation--at Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities was 51 percent, compared to 24 percent of 
students at non-Minority Serving Institutions.

Both students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and their 
parents have lower income levels than students and parents at other 
institutions. In 1998, the average yearly income of independent 
students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities was $24,508, 
while it was $35,643 for independent students at non-Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities. Also in 1998, the average yearly income of 
parents of dependent, undergraduate students was 1.3 times higher for 
non-Historically Black College and University parents--$48,311 for 
Historically Black College and University parents, and $65,037 for non-
Historically Black College and University parents.

[End of section]

Appendix III: Hispanic Serving Institutions:

As part of the 1992 Amendments to the Higher Education Act, the 
Congress stipulated that Hispanic Serving Institutions were deserving 
of grant funds to address educational needs of Hispanic students. 
Education reported that in the 2000-01 school year, there were 334 
institutions eligible for federal student aid programs that were 
located in 14 states and Puerto Rico that qualified as Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, including the University of Miami and the University of 
New Mexico. Degrees offered from Hispanic Serving Institutions include 
associate, bachelor, master, professional, and doctoral. In the fall of 
2000, the largest Hispanic Serving Institution had 46,834 students and 
the smallest had 58 students.

History:

The creation of Hispanic Serving Institutions has resulted from a 
growing Hispanic population, and attempts to move this population more 
fully into the U.S. educational system.[Footnote 28] Recent immigration 
to the United States has grown since the mid-1940s, with an increasing 
percentage of these immigrants coming from Latin America. The 
combination of high rates of immigration with high fertility rates 
among the Hispanic population has resulted in its being the fastest 
growing segment of the U.S. population and the largest minority group. 
At the same time, however, Hispanics have the highest high school drop 
out rate of any group in the country, and lower college enrollment and 
completion rates than both blacks and whites.

In 1992, the Congress added a new section to the Higher Education Act 
of 1965 authorizing a grant program for Hispanic Serving 
Institutions.[Footnote 29] An institution is considered a Hispanic 
Serving Institution if its enrolled undergraduate full-time equivalent 
student population is at least 25 percent Hispanic and not less than 50 
percent of the institution's Hispanic students are low-income 
individuals. The purpose of the grants is to expand educational 
opportunities for, and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic 
students; and expand and enhance the academic offerings, program 
quality, and instructional stability of colleges and universities that 
are educating the majority of Hispanic college students and helping 
large numbers of Hispanic students and other low-income individuals 
complete postsecondary degrees. In 1995, the first grantees[Footnote 
30]--37 schools for a 5-year period--were funded after $12 million was 
appropriated for the program. In 1998, the Congress moved the 
provisions authorizing grants to Hispanic Serving Institutions to Title 
V of the Higher Education Act. In fiscal year 1999 the appropriation 
was raised to $28 million. By 2002, 172 of the 334 Hispanic Serving 
Institutions received $86.1 million in grant funds under Title V.

Characteristics of Hispanic Serving Institutions:

In the 2000-01 school year, there were 334 Hispanic Serving 
Institutions that were eligible for federal student aid programs 
located in 14 states and Puerto Rico.[Footnote 31] Our analysis of the 
2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Hispanic Serving Institutions were only 
5 percent of all postsecondary institutions in the fall of 2000, they 
enrolled 48 percent (798,489) of all Hispanic students.[Footnote 32] 
The percent of Hispanic students at a Hispanic Serving Institution 
varied from 25 percent at ITT Technical Institute in California to 100 
percent at 60 institutions in Puerto Rico.

Hispanic Serving Institutions offer a range of degrees--associate, 
bachelor, master, professional, and doctoral--from different types of 
institutions. For 60 percent of the institutions, an associate's degree 
is the highest degree offered, and the other 40 percent offered a 
bachelor's degree or higher. Of the 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions, 
45 percent were public, 23 percent were private nonprofit, and 32 
percent were private for-profit institutions. Hispanic Serving 
Institutions are generally larger in size than postsecondary 
institutions overall.[Footnote 33] The average Hispanic Serving 
Institution in the fall of 2000 was more than two times larger than the 
average postsecondary institution overall. The largest Hispanic Serving 
Institution at that time was Miami Dade Community College in Florida, 
with 46,834 students, while the largest non-Hispanic Serving 
Institution was the University of Texas at Austin, with 50,000 
students. In the fall of 2000 there were 9 Hispanic Serving 
Institutions with more than 25,000 students.

Two important sources of revenue for postsecondary institutions--
tuition and endowments--were lower at public and private nonprofit 
Hispanic Serving Institutions than at non-Hispanic Serving 
Institutions. The average in-state undergraduate tuition at public 
Hispanic Serving Institutions was $1,083 in the 2000-01 school year. 
For private nonprofit Hispanic Serving Institutions, the average 
undergraduate tuition was $7,202, and for private for-profit Hispanic 
Serving Institutions it was $8,830. These same statistics for non-
Hispanic Serving Institutions were $2,151, $11,542, and $8,745, 
respectively. The average market value of institutional endowments for 
public postsecondary institutions at the end of the 2000-01 school year 
was about $15.3 million for Hispanic Serving Institutions, compared to 
$52.1 million for non-Hispanic Serving Institutions. Endowment data on 
private nonprofit schools are not available in IPEDS.

Characteristics of Hispanic Students at Hispanic Serving Institutions:

Demographic characteristics of Hispanic students at Hispanic Serving 
Institutions vary somewhat from national averages for all postsecondary 
students.[Footnote 34] According to data from the 1999-2000 Department 
of Education's National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, the average 
Hispanic undergraduate student at a Hispanic Serving Institution was 
slightly younger than the national average of undergraduate students 
(25.5 years versus 26.4 years). Similar to the national average for 
undergraduates, about half of Hispanic undergraduates at Hispanic 
Serving Institutions were independent and about half were full-time 
students. Hispanic undergraduate students at Hispanic Serving 
Institutions were more likely to work full-time when compared to 
undergraduate students overall--44 percent of Hispanic undergraduates 
at Hispanic Serving Institutions worked full-time compared to 39.3 
percent of students overall.

Economic Characteristics:

Although tuition is generally lower at Hispanic Serving Institutions, 
students who attend Hispanic Serving Institutions are generally able to 
contribute less to the cost of their education than are students from 
non-Minority Serving Institutions; Median household family incomes are 
considerably lower for families of Hispanic origin than they are for 
white, non-Hispanics. This is reflected in one measure of a family's 
ability to pay for college--the Expected Family Contribution.[Footnote 
35] On average, the Expected Family Contribution was lower in 2000-01 
for families of students at Hispanic Serving Institutions than it was 
for families of students attending other, non-Minority Serving 
Institutions--$449 compared to $659. Additionally, the percentage of 
students receiving Pell Grants--financial aid that is available to the 
neediest students in the nation--at Hispanic Serving Institutions was 
31 percent, compared to 24 percent of students at non-Minority Serving 
Institutions.

Both students at Hispanic Serving Institutions and their parents have 
lower income levels than other institutions. The average yearly income 
of independent students at Hispanic Serving Institutions in 1998 was 
$28,921, while it was $35,501 for independent students overall. For 
Hispanic students attending Hispanic Serving Institutions, the average 
income is even lower, at $26,193. The average yearly income of the 
parents of dependent, undergraduate students in 1998 was 1.5 times 
higher for non-Hispanic Serving Institution parents--$43,675 for 
Hispanic Serving Institution parents, and $67,034 for non-Hispanic 
Serving Institution parents.

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Tribal Colleges:

Tribal Colleges were founded to educate students both in Western models 
of learning, as well as in traditional American Indian cultures and 
languages. This dual mission of Tribal Colleges distinguishes them from 
other colleges and universities. The Department of Education reported 
that there were 29 Tribal Colleges in 12 states participating in 
federal student aid programs in the 2000-01 school year.[Footnote 36] 
All of these colleges offered associate degrees, 2 offered bachelor's 
degrees, and 2 offered master's degrees. In the fall of 2000, the 
largest Tribal College had less than 2,000 students.

History:

The history of Tribal Colleges is rooted in the desire of tribes to 
have greater control in the education of their members--called self-
determination--and in the desire to improve access to postsecondary 
educational opportunities for American Indians. The Navajo tribe 
founded the first Tribal College, Diné College (formerly Navajo 
Community College), in 1968. By 1980, 20 Tribal Colleges, such as 
Blackfeet Community College in Montana, Northwest Indian College in 
Washington, and Sinte Gleska University in South Dakota, had been 
founded by various tribes. Tribal Colleges were often modeled after 
community colleges and shared community college philosophies of open 
admissions, job training, and community development along with local 
control and dedication to local needs.

For hundreds of years, the education system in the United States almost 
always sought to assimilate American Indians into a cultural and 
educational backdrop that was largely European. For example, in the 
nineteenth century, boarding schools were created with the intent of 
separating American Indian youth from their heritage and culture. 
However, beginning about 1968, the federal government moved toward a 
policy of tribal self-determination that included a greater set of 
tools and resources so that tribes could better control their own 
educational activities. For example, the Indian Self Determination and 
Education Assistance Act[Footnote 37] was passed in 1975, and in part, 
called for "assuring maximum Indian participation in the direction of 
educational as well as other federal services to Indian communities.":

Concurrent to the self-determination movement, as the result of the GI 
Bill[Footnote 38] of 1944 and the Higher Education Act of 1965, a 
college education became more accessible to all Americans, including 
American Indians. Tribes, including the Blackfeet, the Chippewa, and 
the Standing Rock Sioux created colleges in response to the growing 
interest on the part of American Indians in obtaining a college 
education.

While many Tribal Colleges offer degrees in areas of study frequently 
found at other postsecondary institutions, such as accounting, 
education, computer science, and nursing, they also offer courses and 
degrees unique to their tribes or to Tribal Colleges. For example:

* DQ University in Davis, California, offers associate of arts degrees 
in Native American fine arts, as well as in indigenous studies. They 
also offer certificates in gaming administration and in Indian dispute 
resolution.

* Diné College in Arizona offers associate degrees in Navajo culture, 
history, and language, and Navajo bilingual/bicultural education.

* Oglala Lakota Community College in South Dakota has an associate of 
arts degree in tribal management, as well as a bachelor of arts in 
Lakota studies.

One source of federal support for Tribal Colleges is through the Higher 
Education Act of 1965.[Footnote 39] Title III of the act provides 
financial assistance to institutions of higher education with low per-
student expenditures, large numbers of financially disadvantaged 
students, or a large proportion of minority students. Title III, part A 
provides grants to American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and 
Universities, as defined by federal statute.[Footnote 40] The purpose 
of Title III, part A is to assist eligible institutions to become self-
sufficient by providing funds to improve and strengthen their academic 
quality, institutional management, and fiscal stability. In fiscal year 
1999, 8 Tribal Colleges received a total of $3 million under Title III, 
part A. By fiscal year 2002, 27 Tribal Colleges received $17.5 million.

Characteristics of Tribal Colleges:

In the 2000-01 school year, there were 29 Tribal Colleges[Footnote 41] 
located in 12 states that were eligible for federal student aid 
programs. Our analysis of the 2000-01 IPEDS shows that while Tribal 
Colleges were less than 1 percent of all public and not-for-profit 
postsecondary institutions, they enrolled 8 percent of American Indian/
Alaska Native students in the United States, serving 11,262 
students.[Footnote 42] The percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native 
students in the student body at Tribal Colleges averaged 85 percent in 
fall 2000 and ranged from 100 percent (at Crownpoint Institute of 
Technology in New Mexico, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in 
New Mexico, Institute of American Indian Arts in New Mexico, Haskell 
Indian Nations University in Kansas, and Stone Child College in 
Montana) to 21 percent (at Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College in 
Minnesota). In comparison, other U.S. colleges and 
universities[Footnote 43] averaged around 1 percent American Indian 
students in fall 2000.

Tribal Colleges are typically community colleges, and therefore, 
offered less variety in the types of degrees offered, as well as the 
type of institution compared to other U.S. colleges and universities. 
In addition, they were much smaller on average than other U.S. colleges 
and universities. While there were 2 Tribal Colleges whose highest 
degree offered was a master's degree in 2000-01 (Oglala Lakota College 
and Sinte Gleska College) and 2 whose highest degree offered was a 
bachelor's degree (Haskell Indian Nations University and Salish 
Kootenai College), 25, or 86 percent, reported an associate degree as 
their highest degree offered. All 29 of the Tribal Colleges received 
funding from the federal government. There were no private for-profit 
Tribal Colleges. The average U.S. college or university was eight times 
larger than the average Tribal College. The largest Tribal College, 
Diné College in Arizona, enrolled 1,712 students in the fall of 2000. 
In comparison, the University of Texas at Austin was the largest 
university in the nation, with an enrollment of almost 50,000 students.

Two important revenue sources for postsecondary institutions--tuition 
and endowments--were both lower at Tribal Colleges than at other U.S. 
colleges and universities. The average in-state, undergraduate tuition 
at Tribal Colleges was $2,017 in the 2000-01 school year.[Footnote 44] 
The average in-state, undergraduate tuition at non-Tribal public 
colleges was $2,132 for the same year. The average market value of 
institutional endowments for public schools at the end of their 1999-
2000 fiscal year was over $57 million for those non-Tribal Colleges 
that reported having endowments, but under $1.8 million for the 15 
Tribal Colleges that reported having endowments. Endowment data on 
private nonprofit schools are not available in IPEDS.

Characteristics of Students Attending Tribal Colleges:

The database used to generate characteristics of students at 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and at Hispanic Serving 
Institutions--NPSAS--only contained information on 1 Tribal College. As 
a result, we were unable to compile data on characteristics of students 
attending Tribal Colleges. A report issued by the American Indian 
Higher Education Consortium, however, provides such information. 
According to the 1999 report, the typical Tribal College student was a 
single mother in her early 30s. According to the same report, in the 
fall of 1996, 64 percent of Tribal College undergraduates were women, 
as compared to 56 percent of undergraduates at all public institutions. 
The report cites the average age of Tribal College students in 1997 as 
31.5 years old, while NPSAS data from 2000 shows the average age of 
undergraduate students overall to be 26.4 years old. The consortium 
also stated that half of all Tribal College students attended school on 
a part-time basis, which is a similar rate to undergraduate students 
overall.

Economic Characteristics:

[End of section]

Although tuition is lower, students who attend Tribal Colleges are 
generally able to contribute less to the cost of their education than 
are students at non-Minority Serving Institutions. Median household 
family incomes are considerably lower on Indian reservations than they 
are in the rest of the country. This is reflected in one measure of a 
family's ability to pay for college--the Expected Family 
Contribution.[Footnote 45] The Expected Family Contribution was lower 
in 2000-01 for families of Tribal College students than it was for 
families of students attending other, non-Minority Serving 
Institutions. In the 2000-01 school year, the average Expected Family 
Contribution for students attending public non-Minority Serving 
Institutions was $659, while it was only $259 for Tribal College 
students. Additionally, the percentage of students receiving Pell 
Grants--financial aid made available to the neediest students in the 
nation--at Tribal Colleges was 60 percent, compared to 24 percent of 
students at non-Minority Serving Institutions. Again, because NPSAS 
data are not available for Tribal Colleges, we were unable to compile 
further information on the economic status of students and their 
parents.

[End of section]

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY 
EDUCATION:

AUG 21 2003:

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:

Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby Director, Education, Workforce, and Income 
Security Issues United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 
20548:

Dear Ms. Ashby:

Thank you for providing the Department of Education with a draft copy 
of the U.S. General Accounting Office's (GAO's) report entitled 
"Distance Education: More Data Could Improve Education's Ability to 
Track Technology at Minority Serving Institutions" (GAO-03-900). I 
understand that GAO expects to publish the final report next month.

This study focuses on the state of distance education at Minority 
Serving Institutions (MSIs) and reviews (1) the use of distance 
education at MSIs, (2) key factors influencing these schools' decisions 
about whether or not to offer distance education, and (3) steps the 
Department of Education (the Department) could take, if any, to improve 
its monitoring of technological progress under the Titles III and V 
programs. I was pleased to learn that the use of distance education at 
MSIs is consistent with national averages and MSIs are fully 
participating in the use of technology to deliver courses as evidenced 
by 57 percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), 
64 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 61 percent of Tribal 
Colleges offering at least a course via distance learning.

In this report, you recommend that the Department (1) direct managers 
of the Title III and Title V programs to broaden their tracking systems 
so that they are applied in a more complete manner to the different 
types of MSIs, and (2) study the feasibility of adding questions on 
distance education and information technology to existing research 
efforts carried out by the Department.

As you point out, one of our annual performance goals is to increase 
the technological capacity of MSIs. We agree that the Department should 
broaden its monitoring of the Title III and Title V programs to ensure 
that we have appropriate information about the needs of institutions in 
the area of distance learning and technology for course delivery. The 
programs authorized by Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act of 
1965 address the specific needs of different types of institutions of 
higher education that generally serve substantial numbers of low-income 
students and have limited financial resources. However, each program 
has its own unique application and reporting requirements that are 
necessarily responsive to the specific needs of the institutions and 
the students that they serve. Thus, our efforts to expand monitoring in 
these programs must continue to reflect these differences in program 
requirements, institutional characteristics, and 
student body. Some of these differences and teaching preferences are 
reflected in the report.

With regard to the broader issue of adding questions on distance 
education and information technology to the Department's existing 
research efforts, the draft report refers to the need to examine the 
potential use of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
(IPEDS). As you note in the report, the National Center for Education 
Statistics (LACES) has been examining the question of whether to add 
items to IPEDS on distance learning and information technology. While 
LACES has been working with the higher education community, to identify 
possible items related to distance learning and information technology, 
there is currently no consensus among higher education institutions on 
what data should be collected annually.

For this reason, LACES has used the Postsecondary Education Quick 
Information System (PEQIS) to collect data on this issue. PEQIS is 
designed to conduct brief surveys of postsecondary institutions or 
state higher education agencies on postsecondary education topics of 
national importance. LACES has conducted three studies of distance 
learning using PEQIS on distance education. The most recent report, 
Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 
2000-2001, released last month, presents data from a nationally 
representative survey on distance education at degree-granting 
postsecondary institutions. The data provide a national "snapshot" on 
the status of distance education in 2000-2001, including information 
about institutions offering distance education courses, distance 
education enrollments and course offerings, degree and certificate 
programs, and distance education technologies. In addition, 
institutions were asked to report on program goals, factors keeping 
institutions from starting or expanding their distance education 
programs, participation in distance education consortia, and 
information on issues related to accommodations for students with 
disabilities.

The new report shows that during the 12-month 2000-2001 academic year, 
56 percent (2,320) of all 2-year and 4-year Title IV-eligible degree-
granting institutions offered distance education courses for any level 
or audience, (i.e., courses designed for all types of students, 
including elementary and secondary, college, adult education, 
continuing and professional education, etc.) In addition, 12 percent of 
all institutions indicated that they planned to start offering distance 
education courses in the next three years; 31 percent did not offer 
distance education courses in 2000-2001 and did not plan to offer these 
types of courses in the next three years.

The report also concluded that public institutions were more likely to 
offer distance education courses than were private institutions. In 
2000-2001, 90 percent of public 2-year and 89 percent of public 4-year 
institutions offered distance education courses, compared with 16 
percent of private 2-year and 40 percent of private 4-year 
institutions. College-level, credit-granting distance education 
courses at either the undergraduate or 
graduate/first-professional level were offered by 55 percent of all 2-
year and 4-year institutions. College-level, credit-granting distance 
education courses were offered at the undergraduate level by 48 percent 
of all institutions, and at the graduate level by 22 percent of all 
institutions. These findings at the national level appear to track 
closely to the trends identified in the draft report.

The previous two studies Distance Education in Higher Education 
Institutions (Lewis, Alexander, and Farris 1997), which collected 
information for 1994-95, and Distance Education at Postsecondary 
Institutions: 1997-98 (Lewis et al. 1999)-looked at slightly different 
populations.

As I indicated above, we have found that our approach of using sample 
surveys through PEQIS has provided a national perspective on a wide 
variety of topics related to distance learning across various 
categories of institutions. We will explore expanding the sample to 
include additional MSIs. In addition, we would certainly consider more 
specific suggestions for what data we should collect from institutions 
under IPEDS.

I appreciate your examination of this important issue. Under separate 
cover, we have provided to your staff some technical comments on the 
report. The Department of Education is committed to the continued 
development of distance education, especially at Minority-Serving 
Institutions.

Sincerely,

Sally L. Stroup:

Signed by Sally L. Stroup:

[End of section]

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

Contacts:

Kelsey Bright, Assistant Director (202) 512-9037 Neil Asaba, Analyst-
in-Charge (206) 287-4774:

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to those named above, Jerry Aiken, Susan Baker, Jessica 
Botsford, Julian Fogle, Chris Hatscher, Joel Grossman, Cathy Hurley, 
John Mingus, Jill Peterson, Doug Sloane, Stan Stenersen, and Susan 
Zimmerman made important contributions to this report.

FOOTNOTES

[1] These include institutions in territories of the United States, 
such as Puerto Rico and Guam, that are authorized to distribute federal 
student financial aid.

[2] The three main types of Minority Serving Institutions are 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, and 
Hispanic Serving Institutions. Other types of Minority Serving 
Institutions include Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian serving 
institutions.

[3] 20 U.S.C. 1093(h).

[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Distance Education: Growth in 
Distance Education Programs and Implications for Federal Education 
Policy, GAO-02-1125T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2002).

[5] NPSAS is a nationwide survey conducted every 3 to 4 years that 
collects demographic information on postsecondary students, as well as 
information on how postsecondary students fund their education. NPSAS 
randomly samples about 19 million students attending over 6,000 
institutions eligible for the federal student aid programs. The most 
recent NPSAS covers the 1999-2000 school year.

[6] IPEDS is a system of surveys designed to collect data from all 
primary providers of postsecondary education. These surveys collect 
institution-level data in such areas as enrollments, program 
completions, faculty, staff, and finances. Data are collected annually 
from approximately 9,600 postsecondary institutions, including over 
6,000 institutions eligible for the federal student aid programs. 

[7] Pub. L. No. 102-325, § 302(d) (1992).

[8] Pub. L. No. 105-244, § 303(e) (1998). 

[9] Although NPSAS contained data allowing us to develop information on 
the economic status of students and families at Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, this 
database contained data on students at only one Tribal College. The 
Pell Grant information is the only other information we were able to 
develop from Education's databases.

[10] All Tribal Colleges also receive a majority of their operating 
funds from various federal sources, such as the Tribally Controlled 
College or University Assistance Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-471 
(1978). Whether they receive state funding, however, varies from state 
to state.

[11] Federal aid also flows to these institutions in a number of other 
forms. For example, students at these colleges or universities are 
eligible for the federal student aid programs, including Pell Grants 
and other funding for low-income students, such as student loans and 
work-study funds. In addition, other federal entities, such as the 
National Science Foundation, the Department of Agriculture, and the 
Department of Defense have programs that Minority Serving Institutions 
could use to improve information technology on their campuses.

[12] The Web-Based Education Commission, The Power of the Internet for 
Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice. (Washington D.C.: December 
2000).

[13] Department of Education's National Center for Education 
Statistics, Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary 
Institutions: 2000-2001. (Washington D.C.: July 2003).

[14] Our survey and Education's survey are also different in the way 
that information was summarized. For example, Education's survey 
aggregates all private nonprofit schools and private for-profit schools 
as private schools. Our survey breaks out these types of schools into 
separate categories.

[15] The two most common modes of delivering distance education for 
Minority Serving Institutions were (1) on-line courses using a computer 
and (2) live courses transmitted via videoconference.

[16] Logistic regression procedures are often used to estimate the size 
and significance of the associations of different factors, such as 
marital status, age, and family income with a discrete or categorical 
outcome, such as whether a student did (or did not) take a distance 
education course in the past year.

[17] Forty-four percent of Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, 37 percent of Hispanic Serving Institutions, and 39 
percent of Tribal Colleges do not offer any distance education.

[18] Education recognizes the importance of its research to 
policymakers and other users. Education stated in its 2002-03 annual 
plan that it will focus Education's research activities on topics of 
greatest relevance. In this regard, the Congress has expressed interest 
in information technology at Minority Institutions. In April 2003, the 
Senate passed S. 196, Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless 
Technology Opportunity Act of 2003 to strengthen technology 
infrastructure at Minority Serving Institutions. If enacted, this 
statute would create a new grant program at the National Science 
Foundation for funding technology improvements at institutions that 
serve a high percentage of minority students.

[19] The Department of Education's National Center for Education 
Statistics has produced several reports on distance education, 
including Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary 
Institutions: 2000-2001 (Washington D.C.: July 2003) and Distance 
Education Instruction by Postsecondary Faculty and Staff: Fall 1998 
(Washington D.C.: February 2002). While the reports provide aggregate 
data on distance education, they do not provide data on distance 
education at Minority Serving Institutions.

[20] 5 C.F.R., part 1320.

[21] When we analyzed the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 
System (IPEDS), we limited our work to the 102 Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities that were eligible for the federal student 
aid programs. For our survey instrument, we received a list of 108 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities from Education. Five of 
the schools were not eligible for federal student aid programs in 2000-
01 (Carver State Technical College; Selma University; Shorter College; 
Natchez College, and Knoxville College). A sixth school, Hinds 
Community College-Utica Campus had reported itself as part of the main 
campus by the time we conducted our analysis of IPEDS.

[22] When we analyzed IPEDS, we limited our work to the 29 Tribal 
Colleges eligible for the federal student aid programs. For our survey 
instrument, we received a list of 32 Tribal Colleges from Education. 
Three of the schools were not eligible for the federal student aid 
program in 2000-01 (Si Tanka College; White Earth Tribal and Community 
College, and Medicine Creek Tribal College).

[23] During the Civil War, in 1862, the Congress passed the First 
Morrill Act, which provided funding in the form of land grants to 
states for founding institutions of higher education. Land-grant 
colleges were intended to educate students in agriculture and the 
mechanical arts.

[24] The definition of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 
found at 20 U.S.C. 1061(2) is threefold. First, Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities had to be established before 1964. Second, 
the institution's principal mission had to be then, as now, the 
education of Black Americans. Third, the institution must be accredited 
by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined 
by the Secretary of Education to be a reliable authority as to the 
quality of training offered, or is, according to such an agency or 
association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation. 

[25] The calculations in this section are based on data for the 2000-01 
school year. This was the most current complete dataset available. This 
section excludes institutions not eligible for the federal student aid 
programs and for-profit institutions. The for-profit institutions are 
excluded because there are no for-profit Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities.

[26] Postsecondary institutions refer to all public and private 
nonprofit schools eligible for the federal student aid programs.

[27] Expected Family Contribution is a formula that considers family 
income; accumulated savings; the amount of taxes paid; family size; the 
number of children simultaneously enrolled in college; the age of the 
older parent and how close they may be to retirement; and the student's 
own financial resources. See 20 U.S.C. § 1087nn.

[28] People of Hispanic origin were those who indicated that their 
origin was Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or 
some other Hispanic origin. Hispanics may be of any race.

[29] Pub. L. No. 102-325 § 302(d) (1992). 

[30] Funds are awarded as 5-year grants, with a mandatory 2-year wait 
out period before an institution can reapply.

[31] These 334 Hispanic Serving Institutions include branch campuses. 
For example, there are 16 campuses of ITT Technical Institute that are 
counted as separate Hispanic Serving Institutions.

[32] The calculations in this section are based on data for the 2000-01 
school year. This was the most current complete dataset available. The 
calculations exclude institutions that were not eligible for federal 
student aid programs.

[33] Postsecondary institutions overall refers to all institutions that 
were eligible for federal student aid programs, including those that 
offer less than an associate degree. All Hispanic Serving Institutions 
offer at least an associate degree.

[34] Students at Hispanic Serving Institutions refers to both Hispanic 
and non-Hispanic students, unless otherwise noted.

[35] Expected Family Contribution is a formula that considers family 
income; accumulated savings; the amount of taxes paid; family size; the 
number of children simultaneously enrolled in college; the age of the 
older parent and how close they may be to retirement; and the student's 
own financial resources. See 20 U.S.C. § 1087nn.

[36] The Department of Education listed 3 other Tribal Colleges where 
students were not eligible for the federal student financial aid 
programs. 

[37] Pub. L. No. 93-638 (1975).

[38] Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, ch. 268, 58 Stat. 284.

[39] Other sources of federal aid for Tribal Colleges include the 
Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978, Land 
Grant Funding, and the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian 
Affairs. 

[40] 25 U.S.C. 1801(a)(4). The definition of a tribally controlled 
college or university is an institution of higher education, which is 
formally controlled, or has been formally sanctioned, or chartered, by 
the governing body of an Indian tribe or tribes, except that no more 
than one such institution shall be recognized with respect to any such 
tribe.

[41] In 2002, the number increased by 3 to 32.

[42] The calculations in this section are based on data for the 2000-01 
school year. This was the most current complete dataset available. 
These calculations exclude institutions that were not eligible for 
federal student aid programs and for-profit institutions. The for-
profit institutions are excluded because there are no for-profit Tribal 
Colleges. 

[43] References to "other U.S. colleges and universities" includes 
institutions located in U.S. territories, both public and private 
nonprofit. 

[44] This figure is based on 22 Tribal Colleges who reported tuition 
charges. 

[45] Expected Family Contribution is a formula that considers family 
income; accumulated savings; the amount of taxes paid; family size; the 
number of children simultaneously enrolled in college; the age of the 
older parent and how close they may be to retirement; and the student's 
own financial resources. It is defined in the Higher Education Act of 
1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1087nn. 

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: