Detailed Information on the
Federal Support for Howard University Assessment

Completing the study on the financial health of minority serving institutions of higher education and utilizing the results to validate program performance measures and improve program performance.

Developing trend analysis of efficiency data for Howard University and comparable institutions.

Working with Howard University to develop a system to document its expenditure of Federal funds for Howard University Hospital.

Conducting annual site visits as required by the authorizing law.

Working with Howard University to develop a system to document its expenditure of Federal funds.

Establishing targets for the newly created efficiency measure.

Working with Howard to determine which office at the University has ultimate responsibility for oversight of the Federal appropriation.

Reviewing and revising program manger's performance agreement to ensure that manager is held accountable for achieving key program results.

Measure: Graduation: The percentage of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking, undergraduate students who graduate within six years of enrollment.

Explanation:The percentage of full-time undergraduate students completing a four year degree within six years of entry at the same institution.

Measure: Persistence: The percentage of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking, undergraduate students who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year.

Explanation:

Measure: Enrollment: The number of full-time, degree-seeking, undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at Howard University

Explanation:Annual increase in the number of full-time undergraduate students enrolled at Howard University

Measure: Cost per graduating student.

Explanation:The efficiency measure is calculated by dividing the annual appropriation by the number of undergraduate, doctoral, first professional and masters degrees awwarded in that same year (in $$).

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program provides funds to Howard University in order to increase access to high-quality postsecondary education to disadvantaged individuals, especially African Americans. The annual appropriation for Howard University provides partial support for construction, development, improvement, endowment, and maintenance of Howard University and Howard University Hospital. The funds are used to maintain the current level of educational services and are targeted at strengthening academic programs and providing support for the priority programs identified by the University for the purpose of educating youth in the liberal arts and sciences.

Evidence: Section 8 of the Howard University Incorporation Act of 1867 states that the purpose of the Howard University appropriation is "to aid in the construction, development, improvement, endowment and maintenance of the university."

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: This program plays an important role in providing disadvantaged individuals, particularly African Americans, with access to a high-quality postsecondary education and supports the Department's Strategic Plan objective to strengthen HBCUs. African American students continue to lag behind white students in education attainment nationally, HBCUs, and Howard University in particular, have played an important role providing postsecondary education opportunities for African Americans and other disadvantaged individuals.

Evidence: In the Higher Education Act of 1965, Congress found that State and the Federal government had discriminated against institutions of higher education (IHEs) that have traditionally served the largest numbers of African American students in the allocation of land and financial resources, dating all the way back to the Morrill Act of 1862. Congress further found that these institutions had historically been discriminated against in the award of contracts and grants under Federal legislation relating to IHEs, including the Higher Education Act, and that the current state of such institutions is partly attributable to this discrimination. Overall, African American students continue to lag behind white students in education attainment. According to NCES statistics, in 2001-2002, African Americans earned only 9% of the bachelor's degrees, 8.4% of the master's degrees, and 5.4% of PhDs awarded in the United States, even though African Americans comprise 13% of the population. There is an 18.8% gap in graduation rates between white and African American students. Furthermore, African Americans are underrepresented in several academic disciplines, and are less likely to receive professional degrees in the sciences and related technology fields, and visual and performing arts than white students. Sources: Section 321 of Title III of the Higher Education Act findings and purposes; NCES Digest of Education Statistics, 2003 (Tables 264, 267, and 270); NCES, IPEDS 2002 data; Census 2000 Brief--The Black Population: 2000, Bureau of the Census

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: While no other Federal, state or local entity provides funds for Howard University on the scale of the ED appropriation, there are many programs at the Federal, State, and local level that are designed to provide disadvantaged individuals, particularly African Americans, with access to a high-quality postsecondary education and strengthen HBCUs. These include programs specifically designed to strengthen the educational attainment and financial stability of HBCUs, such as the Aid for Institutional Development program (HEA, Title III), as well as a wide array of programs that support higher education partnerships, fellowships, internships, workforce development, capacity building, collaborative research, academic and cultural exchanges, student academic training and mentoring, special seminars and policy forums, small grants, special projects, and other activities.

Evidence: See the Higher Education Act of 1965, Title III in particular.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: By statute, the only entity eligible to receive Federal support through this program is Howard University. As a result of the statutory structure of the program, funding is awarded to one specified grantee without regard to performance and there are only very minimal provisions within the authorizing statute to ensure that a high level of performance is maintained. This structure limits competition and provides no direct Federal funding incentive for the grantee to improve program performance.

Evidence: See program authority in Howard University Incorporation Act. See also the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), 34 CFR Part 75.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The program is designed to ensure that disadvantaged individuals, particularly African Americans, have access to a high-quality postsecondary education and Howard University successfully targets these groups.

Evidence: 85% of Howard University students are African American and 71% of U.S. Howard students receive need-based Federal aid.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: In order to track the effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals, ED has developed a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program. They are: 1) The persistence rate of Howard students 2) The graduation rate of Howard students 3) Enrollment of Howard students

Evidence: The measures reflect performance with regards to the ultimate goals of the program; ensuring access to high quality postsecondary education for disadvantaged students, particularly African American students, and ensuring that Howard students persist and graduate successfully. The first two measures have existed for some time but have been adjusted slightly as part of a comprehensive process to standardize ED programs relating to minority serving institutions. As a result of this adjustment, the source of data for the measures will be NCES's IPED survey. IPEDS data are reported by virtually all IHEs and are subject to NCES established consistency and validity checks. This change should increase the reliability of the data.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures. Targets for these measures are designed to exceed the national average for comparable institutions of higher education.

Evidence: N/A

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: In order to track the effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals, ED has developed a limited number of specific annual performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program. They are: 1) The persistence rate of Howard students 2) The graduation rate of Howard students 3) Enrollment of Howard students In addition, the program's efficiency measure will track the cost per successful outcome, where successful outcome is defined as graduation.

Evidence: The measures reflect performance with regards to the ultimate goals of the program; ensuring access to high quality postsecondary education for disadvantaged students, particularly African American students, and ensuring that Howard students persist and graduate successfully. The first two measures have existed for some time but have been adjusted slightly as part of a comprehensive process to standardize ED programs relating to minority serving institutions. As a result of this adjustment, the data source for the measures will be NCES's IPEDS survey. IPEDS data are reported by virtually all IHEs and are subject to NCES established consistency and validity checks. This change should increase the reliability of the data.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures. Targets for these measures are designed to exceed the national average for comparable institutions of higher education.

Evidence: N/A

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: These measures have been in place for many years and Howard University is committed to improving the graduation and persistence rates of its students. ED has worked collaboratively with Howard University staff to develop performance measures and meaningful long-term program goals.

Evidence: Howard University's continued success at meeting performance goals demonstrates that the strategies employed to achieve these goals have been effective.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: ED is currently implementing a study of a broad range of minority-serving programs in the Office of Postsecondary Education that will include Howard University. This study will provide specific data about program performance as well as test the validity and robustness of program performance measures. The study will investigate the relative fiscal health of minority-serving institutions and attempt to isolate the most significant components of an institution's fiscal health. In particular, the analysis would also examine whether enrollment, persistence, and graduation are drivers of financial health.

Evidence: The Minority Serving Institution Study will provide analysis of performance information for Howard University as well as other minority serving institutions. The first impact data will be available in fiscal year 2007.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: ED has not satisfied the first part of the question because program performance changes are not tied with changes in funding levels. The program, at this time, does not have sufficiently valid and reliable performance information to assess (whether directly or indirectly) the impact of the Federal investment. However, ED has satisfied the second part of this question in that ED's budget submissions show the full cost of the program (including S&E). ED's 05 integrated budget and performance plan includes the program's annual and long-term goals.

Evidence: N/A

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The program has identified strategic planning deficiencies and taken meaningful steps to address these deficiencies.

Evidence: ED has created a new performance measure and an efficiency measure for the program and has revised the annual and long-term performance measures to standardize the measure with measures for other similar programs within the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE). As a result of the revision, similar programs within OPE will have the same performance measures, which will assist in strategic planning and program management. Additionally, as part of the revision of the performance measures, the data for these measures will no longer be self-reported by the university and will instead come from IPEDS data collected by NCES. IPEDS data are reported by virtually all IHEs and are subject to NCES established consistency and validity checks. This change will increase the credibility and reliability of these data. Further, in light of the fact that Howard University has achieved the previously established long-term goals, new annual and long-term targets have been established based on program and benchmarking information.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: ED collects a considerable amount of performance data from Howard University. However, a clear link has not yet been established between the data collection and tangible changes in program management.

Evidence: N/A

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: While ED has initiated several efforts to improve accountability in its programs, it is not clear that Federal managers of this program are held accountable for program performance. Across the Department, ED is in the process of ensuring that "EDPAS" plans -- which link employee performance to relevant Strategic Plan goals and action steps - hold Department employees accountable for specific actions tied to improving program performance. ED is also revising performance agreements for its SES staff to link performance appraisals to specific actions tied to program performance. Finally, ED is reviewing its grant policies and regulations to see how grantees can be held more accountable for program results.

Evidence: The President's Management Agenda scorecard (Human Capital and Budget & Performance Integration initiatives) notes ED's efforts to improve accountability. The Department's Discretionary Grants Improvement Team (DiGIT) recommendations indicate that ED is reviewing its grant policies and recommendations.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: At the Federal level, all funds are obligated according to an annual spending schedule that is established at the beginning of the fiscal year. At the grantee level, the funds are obligated within the timeframe set by ED.

Evidence: ED has established sound financial monitoring strategies, which are applicable to this program. A quarterly excessive drawdown report is generated in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. The report highlights grantees that drawdown funds at a rate that is inconsistent with predetermined benchmarks. Further, to ensure that funds are properly managed, ED has strengthened its financial management practices by implementing e-Monitoring in December, 2004. ED now monitors grantees' financial records using GAPS and e-Monitoring. ED e-Monitoring is a new software tool that enables grant program staff to better monitor their grants and helps to prevent potential fraud, waste, and abuse. ED also generates reports that highlight inactivity of Federal grant funds. Since these strategies were implemented, no corrective action has been required regarding this program.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: To measure program efficiency, ED has established an efficiency measure that tracks the cost per successful outcome, where successful outcome is defined as graduation. The same measure has been established for all of the minority serving institution programs within the Office of Postsecondary Education. This will enable ED to compare program performance across similar programs. Given the nature of the program's sole-source grant, it is reasonable to assume that the program is administered as efficiently as possible from a cost perspective.

Evidence: The efficiency measure is determined by dividing the program's annual appropriation by the number of students graduating in that year. The efficiency measure for fiscal year 2002 is $134,393 (the appropriation for fiscal year 2002 was $207.1 million and the number of graduating students was 1,541).

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Program responsibility for the program has been placed within the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education. The Deputy Assistant Secretary also oversees the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as well as the Higher Education Programs, which includes several programs that strengthen institutions serving large minority and disadvantaged populations. This positioning has led to efforts to coordinate and standardize policies and programmatic implementation for similar programs within ED. One outcome of this effort has been the common measures and data sources (IPEDS) that have been developed for key programs related to minority serving IHEs. At the grantee level, Howard University works collaboratively and coordinates with related programs. As a flagship HBCU and a Level I Research institution, an ongoing participatory and advisory relationship with other institutions is necessary.

Evidence: Howard University participates in the Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area. The Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area is a cooperative arrangement in postsecondary education that is designed to permit the sharing of academic resources by member institutions and to offer qualified students the opportunity to enroll at other institutions for courses not available at their on campus. The Consortium also provides a forum for members to share common ideas and concerns. The Consortium includes American University, Catholic University, Gallaudet University, Georgetown University, George Mason University, George Washington University, Marymount University, Southeastern University, Trinity University, University of the District of Columbia and University of Maryland-College Park. Additionally, Howard University works closely with a broad range of HBCUs through a number of Federal and academic organizations and institutions.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: No internal control weaknesses have been reported by auditors. Plus, ED has a system for identifying excessive draw downs, and can put individual grantees on probation which requires Departmental approval of all grantee draw downs. ED uses a number of tools and practices to ensure strong financial management. ED has strengthened its financial management practices, as recommended by GAO in September of 2004, by implementing e-Monitoring on December 22, 2004. ED e-Monitoring is a new software tool that enables grant program staff to better monitor their grants and helps to prevent potential fraud, waste, and abuse. It allows staff to classify each grant into categories based on grantee performance, and maintains electronic records of phone, correspondence, and e-mail communications with grantees. Using e-Monitoring and GAPS data along with other reports allows the department to monitor the status of a grantee's performance across programs. Further, these systems are used to flag institutions determined not to have applied funds appropriately and to withhold funding, if necessary.

Evidence: Program financial management records including the GAPS and e-Monitoring systems. GAO's final audit report is titled "Low-Income and Minority Serving Institutions: Department of Education Could Improve Its Monitoring and Assistance" (GAO-04-961).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The program has identified management deficiencies and taken meaningful steps to address these deficiencies.

Evidence: ED has transferred management of the program to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education. The Deputy Assistant Secretary also oversees the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as well as the Higher Education Programs, which includes several programs that strengthen institutions serving large minority and disadvantaged populations. Consequently, ED is able to better manage and coordinate amongst these related programs to ensure that they are implemented in a consistent manner.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The program's authorizing statute does not authorize ED to exercise oversight of Howard University activities beyond the requirement that "the university shall be open to inspection by the Bureau of Education and shall be inspected by the said bureau at least once each year. An annual report making full exhibit of the affairs of the university shall be presented to Congress each year." ED does not carry out such annual inspections or reports. Moreover, no system exists to document expenditure of Federal funds. However, ED staff have established a good working relationship with university staff communicate regularly in order to obtain information on matters pertaining to the program. Further, regular meetings take place between staff at Howard University and ED officials, including the Secretary of Education and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education. Also, Howard provides regular performance measurement information. The Grants Administration Program System (GAPS), supplemented by OPE's e-Monitoring system, is used to ensure that all related grant financial management practices are followed.

Evidence: Howard University Incorporation Act of 1867.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Performance data on Howard University are collected annually through the IPEDS survey by NCES and through annual performance reports submitted by the university to the program office. These data are available on the Department's web-site. Additionally, GPRA data are now reported in several formats, including on the ED website.

Evidence: IPEDS data can be accessed at the College Opportunities On-line Website at nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool Performance data relating to Howard University is also available on the ED website at: www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2004report/edlite-g520uschoward.html

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Performance data show that Howard University has achieved its long-term targets.

Evidence: The long-term target for the graduation measure was to increase Howard University's graduation rate to above the Consortium average. According to IPEDS data, in 1998 the Consortium average was 52.4% whereas the graduation rate for Howard University was only 41.3%. In 2003, the Consortium rate had increased slightly to 56.5%, whereas the graduation rate for Howard University had increased to 69.4%. The long-term target for the persistence measure was to increase Howard University's persistence rate to above the national average. NCES only added a question to the IPEDS survey on persistence last year, so insufficient IPEDS data exist to draw long-term comparisons. Data provided by Howard University show that in 1997 the student attrition rate (which is the inverse of the persistence rate) at Howard University was 19.6% when the national attrition rate was 26.7%. By 2004, the University had improved its attrition rate to 12.8%, whereas the national attrition rate had declined to 32.7%.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Performance data show that Howard University has consistently achieved its annual targets.

Evidence: The annual targets for the graduation measure were set to increase Howard University's graduation rate by 2% annually until the rate was better than the Consortium's graduation rate. According to IPEDS data, in 1998 the Consortium average was 52.4% whereas the graduation rate for Howard University was only 41.3%. In 2003, the Consortium rate had increased slightly to 56.5%, whereas the graduation rate for Howard University had increased to 69.4%. In each of the intervening years Howard University had increased its performance by more than 2%. The annual target for the persistence measure was to increase Howard University's persistence rate to above the national average by 2% a year. NCES only added a question to the IPEDS survey on persistence last year, so insufficient IPEDS data exist to draw long-term comparisons. Data provided by Howard University show that in 1997 the student attrition rate (which is the inverse of the persistence rate) at Howard University was 19.6% when the national attrition rate was 26.7%. Since that time the university has made considerable progress improving its attrition rate at a time when the national rate was getting progressively worse. By 2004, Howard University's attrition rate had gone from being 7.1% better than the national average to being almost 20% better than the national average.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The Department recently established an efficiency measure for this program. It is based on the number of students that successfully graduate. The measure is determined by dividing the program's annual appropriation by the number of students graduating in that year. A parallel measure has been established for the HBGI, HSI, and Title V programs. ED is developing a second efficiency measure for Howard that will be based on total educational costs.

Evidence: The efficiency measure is determined by dividing the program's annual appropriation by the number of students graduating in that year. The efficiency measure for fiscal year 2002 is $134,393 (the appropriation for fiscal year 2002 was $207.1 million and the number of graduating students was 1,541).

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: According to performance data published by NCES through the IPEDS system, Howard University compares favorably to other universities with similar purpose and goals. Howard is unique among the HBCUs, having distinguished itself as a flagship university with the ability to compete with postsecondary schools nationally to attract high caliber students. The average SAT scores (measured at the 75th percentile score) of entering Howard University freshmen are the highest of any HBCU and above the same national average for all Title IV four-year degree-granting institutions. Further, Howard's has implemented rigorous student support services have resulted in persistence and graduation rates well above the average for HBCUs and other comparable IHEs. Howard University also has achieved the distinction of being the only HBCU categorized by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a Doctoral/Research University-Extensive (Research Level 1).

Evidence: ED's performance measures for Howard University focus on persistence and graduation. Howard University compares favorably in these areas when compared with other institutions charged with providing postsecondary opportunity to disadvantaged students, particularly African American students. IPEDS data indicate that Howard University has a graduation rate of 68% and a first year persistence rate of 90%--rates significantly higher than the averages for all HBCUs (36 % and 64%, respectively) and for all 4-year Title IV degree-granting institutions (54 % and 67%, respectively). (NCES, IPEDS, Graduation Rate Survey, 2002). Howard University also compares favorable in these areas to the other institutions in the Consortium. The mean persistence rate for the other institutions in the Consortium was 80.5% and the mean graduation rate for other institutions in the Consortium 56.5%, in 2003. The average SAT scores for Howard University's 2003 freshman class were 1,340 at the 75th percentile. From 2001 through 2003, Howard averaged more than 300 points higher than both the median or mean score at the 75th percentile for the HBCUs as a whole (NCES, IPEDS, Institutional Characteristics, 2001, 2002, and 2003 data). Further, the Class of 2002 had more National Achievement Scholars (59) than any other university in the nation, with the single exception of Harvard (62). Achievement scholars typically have outstanding high school scholastic records, rank in the top 10 percent of their classes, earn high grades, and take heavy course loads. (Periodic Review Report for the Commission on higher Education, Middle states Association of Schools and Colleges, June 2004) The definition of a Carnegie Foundation Research Level 1 institution is one that offers a wide range of baccalaureate programs and is committed to graduate education through the doctorate. During the period studied by the Foundation, the institution must award 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 disciplines. Howard University currently offers doctoral degrees in 27 disciplines and master's degrees in 62 disciplines.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: No evaluations of this program have been conducted. ED is currently developing an independent evaluation of a broad range of minority-serving programs in the Office of Postsecondary Education that will include Howard University. This study will provide specific data about program performance as well as test the validity and robustness of program performance measures. In addition, Howard University is independently accredited by its regional accrediting agency, which performs reviews on the fiscal and administrative aspects of the institution as part of the accreditation process.

Evidence: N/A