This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-857 
entitled 'Higher Education: Including Public, Nonprofit, and For-profit 
Institutions in a Single Definition Is Unlikely to Immediately Affect 
Federal Spending, but Long-term Effects Are Unclear' which was released 
on August 1, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
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 Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

July 2007: 

Higher Education: 

Including Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Institutions in a Single 
Definition Is Unlikely to Immediately Affect Federal Spending, but Long-
term Effects Are Unclear: 

GAO-07-857: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-857, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Higher Education Act (HEA) defines “institution of higher 
education” to include public, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions, 
allowing students at these institutions access to $83.1 billion in aid. 
However, the act also includes a second, narrower definition of 
institution of higher education specifically excluding for-profits from 
access to nearly $1.96 billion in other funding. 

During the 109th Congress, legislation proposed consolidating the two 
definitions. In response to a congressional request, this report 
examines the extent to which a single definition might affect federal 
spending, other aspects of applicable federal programs, as well as 
state-level programs and policies. 

To address these objectives, GAO searched the U.S. Code to identify 
federal statutes and programs potentially affected by a change in 
definition, conducted in-depth reviews of programs and policies, and 
interviewed relevant officials. 

What GAO Found: 

Given that GAO’s review of references to the narrower HEA definition 
did not identify any mandatory spending or entitlement programs, it is 
unlikely that a single definition would immediately increase federal 
spending; however, more for-profit institutions may become eligible to 
compete for federal funds and participate in various aspects of certain 
federal programs. GAO’s searches of the U.S. Code to identify federal 
statutes and related programs that could be affected by the adoption of 
a single definition yielded numerous federal statutes referring to the 
HEA definition that limits participation to public and nonprofit 
institutions. However, these references appear to be tied to 
discretionary programs funded through annual appropriations, not 
mandatory spending or entitlement programs. Accordingly, adopting a 
single definition will not immediately increase federal spending. 

Although a single definition could affect federal programs by allowing 
some for-profit institutions to apply for discretionary funds, many 
federal programs may be unlikely to witness greater competition because 
for-profit institutions generally lack the kinds of academic programs 
that would qualify for such grants. While federal spending is not 
likely to increase, some of the provisions GAO identified were funding-
related and, as such, could also affect program administration or 
increase competition for program resources. For example, some of the 
provisions relate to forming partnerships to pursue funding, and under 
a single definition, for-profit institutions could become a potential 
partner. In a limited number of cases, the provisions GAO identified 
were not connected to federal funding, but under a single definition 
could expand the pool of eligible participants for some program 
activities. 

A single federal definition is unlikely to immediately affect state 
programs but could potentially affect state higher education programs 
and policies in the future. State statutes and regulations generally do 
not reference the federal definition when establishing eligibility 
criteria for state higher education programs, and officials in several 
states told GAO that an institution’s for-profit status is less 
important than other factors when determining state program 
eligibility. State officials told GAO that the likely effects of a 
single definition were greater competition for funding and greater 
political influence for for-profit higher education institutions. 

The effects of a single definition on the American higher education 
system over a longer time frame are difficult to predict. For example, 
states might align their own policies to match the definition; for-
profit institutions might expand their research programs; and Congress 
might decide to increase funding for existing discretionary programs. 
As policy makers address questions about access, they will want to 
remain aware of these diverse costs and benefits. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO does not make recommendations in this report. The Department of 
Education stated that a single definition could increase federal 
spending by increasing access to some special postal rates and tax 
benefits. GAO does not believe that the former is likely; the tax code 
does not rely on the HEA definitions of institution of higher 
education. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-857]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact George Scott at (202) 512-
5932 or ScottG@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

A Single Definition Is Unlikely to Immediately Increase Federal 
Spending, but May Expand For-Profits' Ability to Compete for Funding 
and to Participate in Other Aspects of Certain Programs: 

A Change to a Single Definition of an Institution of Higher Education 
Is Unlikely to Immediately Affect State Programs, but Could in the 
Future: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Search of U.S. Code: 

Review of Statutory References: 

In-depth Reviews of States: 

Appendix II: U.S. Code References to Institution of Higher Education: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Results of U.S. Code Search for References to Section 101 
Definition of an Institution of Higher Education, by Title: 

Abbreviations: 

HEA: Higher Education Act: 
IPEDS: Integrated Postsecondary Education Database System: 
SMART: Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 31, 2007: 

The Honorable George Miller: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Education and Labor: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Dale E. Kildee: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Michael N. Castle: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education: 
Committee on Education and Labor: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable John A. Boehner: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Raúl M. Grijalva: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Betty McCollum: 
House of Representatives: 

In recent years, the scale and scope of for-profit higher education in 
the United States has changed considerably, prompting a reconsideration 
of the role of for-profits in the nation's higher education system. In 
1998, for-profits accounted for approximately 11 percent of all private 
higher education enrollments. By 2004, that percentage had doubled and 
included an industry of almost 2,600 for-profit institutions educating 
some 1.24 million students. Full-time enrollment in 4-year for-profits 
continues to increase, and one for-profit university now boasts that it 
is the largest private university in the United States. The Higher 
Education Act (HEA), the primary legislation authorizing most federal 
student aid programs (Title IV), already defines institution of higher 
education to include public, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions, 
allowing all such institutions to share in the $83.1 billion of federal 
grants and loans distributed as financial aid. However, an institution 
of higher education is defined more narrowly for purposes of non Title 
IV HEA programs--such as grants for infrastructure or to support 
teacher training--to include only public and nonprofit institutions. As 
a result, for-profit institutions are currently unable to access the 
nearly $1.96 billion in federal funding for these programs. 

There has been an ongoing debate about creating a single definition of 
institution of higher education that would give for-profit institutions 
greater access to non Title IV HEA programs. Proponents of this 
approach have sought to repeal the existing statutory definitions and 
replace them with a single definition that would include public, 
nonprofit, and for-profit institutions as part of an effort to increase 
college access and remove barriers for nontraditional 
students.[Footnote 1] Proponents argued that the dual definitions in 
the current law foster a tiered system where not all institutions share 
the same standing in the nation's higher education system. During 
deliberations to reauthorize the HEA, some members of Congress 
expressed concerns that other federal statutes or state laws or 
programs might explicitly or implicitly reference the existing narrower 
federal definition and that a change to a single definition could have 
unintended consequences, such as giving for-profit institutions access 
to non HEA programs and increasing federal spending. 

To provide you with the information about the potential impact of 
adopting a single definition we examined the ways in which a single 
definition of an institution of higher education might affect: 1) 
federal spending and other aspects of federal programs across the 
federal government and 2) state programs and policies. 

To address our objectives, we conducted searches of the U.S. Code to 
identify federal statutes and the related programs that could be 
affected by the adoption of a single definition of an institution of 
higher education. Our search was confined to statutory provisions 
codified in or classified to the U.S. Code and, as such, does not 
include appropriations acts. We did not search the Code of Federal 
Regulations or other sources of federal policy, such as agency guidance 
or other publications. In addition to searching the U.S. Code, we 
analyzed data from the Department of Education's Integrated 
Postsecondary Education Database System (IPEDS) to review the volume of 
for-profit institutions' research expenditures and the major fields of 
study of those enrolled. In addition, we conducted in-depth reviews of 
applicable state higher education programs and policies in six states-
-California, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming--and 
conducted approximately 35 interviews with officials and 
representatives from federal, state, and private sector organizations 
in the higher education field. In some cases, the interviews involved 
multiple attendees who represented various state agencies and public 
and private organizations. The six states were selected on the basis of 
a variety of criteria, including the intensity of the state's higher 
education regulatory environment, expert recommendations, recent 
legislative activity in areas of for-profit school regulation or 
oversight, and the percentage of total state-funded financial aid going 
to students at for-profit higher education institutions. Appendix I 
provides a more detailed description of our study's scope and 
methodology. We conducted our review between March 2006 and April 2007 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Given that our review of references to the narrower HEA definition did 
not identify any mandatory spending or entitlement programs, it is 
unlikely that a single definition would immediately increase federal 
spending; however, more institutions may become eligible to compete for 
federal funds and participate in various aspects of certain federal 
programs. Numerous federal statutes reference the definition limiting 
the participation of for-profit institutions, but these references were 
to programs involving discretionary spending. Under a single 
definition, more institutions could become eligible to compete for 
these programs, but given that most 4-year for-profits do not have the 
kinds of academic programs that would qualify for grants, in the short 
run it is unlikely that many federal programs would witness greater 
competition. For example, many of the U.S. Code sections we reviewed 
involve making grant awards to eligible institutions for research in 
the physical and life sciences, fields in which few for-profits have 
academic programs. While federal spending is not likely to increase, 
some of the provisions we identified were funding-related and, as such, 
could also affect program administration or increase competition for 
program resources. For example, some of the provisions relate to the 
formation of partnerships to pursue funding. Under a single definition, 
for-profit institutions could be a potential partner. In a limited 
number of cases, the provisions we identified were not connected to 
federal funding, but under a single definition could expand the pool of 
eligible participants for some program activities. For example, with a 
single definition, representatives of for-profit institutions could 
become eligible to sit on some federal advisory committees. 

A single federal definition is unlikely to have an immediate impact on 
state programs but could potentially affect state higher education 
programs and policies in the future. There will likely be no immediate 
impact on state financial aid programs because generally, state 
statutes and regulations do not reference the federal definition of an 
institution of higher education when establishing eligibility criteria. 
According to officials in several states we reviewed, an institution's 
profit-making status is less important than other factors in 
determining eligibility for state programs. States generally rely more 
on factors such as regional versus national accreditation and whether 
institutions offer degrees and are based in that particular state. Even 
though there is unlikely to be any immediate impact on state programs 
and policies, state officials and representatives from other higher 
education organizations we spoke with believe there could be future 
implications. Although opinions of officials and representatives varied 
widely, increased competition for funding and increased political 
influence of the for-profit higher education industry were most often 
cited as potential long-term effects of changing the federal 
definition. 

In response to a draft of this report, the Department of Education 
(Education) offered technical comments suggesting that a single 
definition could have an effect on federal spending by giving for- 
profit institutions access to special postage rates and extending 
certain tax benefits to for-profit institutions. We do not believe that 
such consequences are likely. With regard to the first issue, the 
Postal Service receives an appropriation to cover the costs of revenues 
it foregoes as a result of some reduced mailing rates, but this 
appropriation does not appear to cover the costs of the reduced rate 
currently available to nonprofit and public institutions for mailing 
course catalogs.[Footnote 2] However, according to Postal officials, 
changing the definition of an institution of higher education could 
result in some institutions seeking access to classes of postage that 
they might not have had access to before. If they were to prevail, this 
could affect Postal revenues. Regarding the second issue, our review of 
the tax code, codified at Title 26, indicates that it does not rely on 
the section 101 definition of "institution of higher education" for 
purposes of determining the availability of tax benefits. In the 
comments, Education also stated that the report should be explicit 
regarding special eligibility requirements now contained in section 102 
applicable to for-profit institutions. We have added language to 
clarify this point. 

Background: 

The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), is administered by 
the U.S. Department of Education and authorizes a range of programs and 
activities, including federal student financial aid (also known as the 
Title IV programs), aid to institutions, and aid to improve K-12 
teacher training at postsecondary institutions. For the purpose of 
determining postsecondary institutions' eligibility to participate in 
HEA's various programs and activities, the HEA currently contains two 
definitions of "institution of higher education." Section 101 defines 
the term "institution of higher education" for the purposes of all 
programs and activities of the HEA other than the Title IV student 
federal financial aid programs.[Footnote 3] Under section 101, in order 
to meet the definition of institution of higher education, the 
institution must be either a public or nonprofit institution. For Title 
IV programs, however, section 102 of the HEA[Footnote 4] defines 
"institution of higher education" more broadly to include all 
institutions recognized under the section 101 definition, as well as 
proprietary (for-profit) institutions that meet certain additional 
eligibility requirements.[Footnote 5] Because of this broader 
definition, students at some for-profit institutions have access to and 
may participate in Title IV financial aid programs. Legislative 
proposals for a single definition of institution of higher education 
for the HEA would repeal the existing statutory definitions and replace 
them with a single definition that includes public, nonprofit, and for- 
profit institutions, thereby giving all institutions, regardless of 
their profit-making status, access to HEA programs and potentially to 
other federal programs that use the section 101 definition.[Footnote 6] 

For-profit education has become an increasingly larger component of 
American higher education. Between 1998 and 2004, the percentage of 
students enrolled in for-profits compared to all enrollments doubled. 
In 1998, one in ten students enrolled in private institutions was at a 
for-profit; by 2004, that ratio had dropped to one in five. For- 
profits' offerings tend to be concentrated in a small number of applied 
fields and range from non-degree-granting to doctoral programs, though 
the former is more typical. In 2004, 2,186 of the 2,563 for-profit 
institutions only offered programs leading to no more than a 2-year 
degree, and at 4-year institutions, 98 percent of all enrollments were 
either in business (85 percent) or education (13 percent) programs. 
Demographically, such institutions tend to enroll large percentages of 
women and minorities. Indeed, between 2000 and 2004 the percentage of 
females at for-profits increased from 50 percent to 57 percent. 

Regulation and oversight of the nonprofit and for-profit higher 
education sectors is largely decentralized. Individual states develop 
their own public higher education systems, establish and implement 
rules governing the establishment of private nonprofit and for-profit 
universities, and specify the minimum requirements that all 
institutions operating in the state must meet in order to grant 
academic degrees. Quality control is maintained largely through a 
voluntary accreditation system, whereby privately run accrediting 
agencies review the qualifications of member institutions. Though it is 
possible to forego accreditation, the HEA stipulates that an 
institution must be accredited by one of 61 nationally recognized 
accrediting agencies designated by the U.S. Department of Education to 
be eligible for Title IV federal financial aid programs. 

A Single Definition Is Unlikely to Immediately Increase Federal 
Spending, but May Expand For-Profits' Ability to Compete for Funding 
and to Participate in Other Aspects of Certain Programs: 

Given that our review of references to the narrower HEA definition did 
not identify any mandatory spending or entitlement programs, it is 
unlikely that a single definition would immediately increase federal 
spending; however, more institutions may become eligible to compete for 
federal funds and participate in various aspects of certain federal 
programs. Although numerous federal statutory provisions reference the 
section 101 definition that excludes for-profit institutions of higher 
education, none of these provisions appears to implicate mandatory 
spending programs. However, more institutions could become eligible to 
compete for programs that are funded with discretionary spending. In 
addition, some of the provisions we identified could affect program 
administration or increase competition for program resources. For 
example, some of the provisions relate to the formation of partnerships 
to apply for federal funding. Under a single definition, for-profit 
institutions could become a potential partner for some federal grant 
programs. A single definition could also expand the pool of eligible 
applicants for some federal activities. For example, faculty members of 
for-profit institutions could become eligible to sit on some federal 
advisory committees. 

Numerous Federal Statutes Reference the Federal Definition That 
Excludes For-Profit Institutions of Higher Education: 

Section 101 of the Higher Education Act, which defines institutions of 
higher education as public or nonprofit institutions, is frequently 
referenced in federal laws, many of which pertain to subjects beyond 
education. We identified references to the definition in more than 
350[Footnote 7] statutes spread across 22 of the U.S. Code's 50 
titles.[Footnote 8] Slightly more than half of these references were 
located in Title 20, which pertains to education, and about 20 percent 
were found in Title 42, which pertains to public health and welfare. 
The remainder, scattered throughout the U.S. Code, deal with subjects 
as varied as agriculture, national defense, and immigration. What is 
more, the programs covered by statutes using this definition are 
administered by a variety of federal agencies. Table 1 below lists the 
number of sections we identified in our search arranged by applicable 
U.S. Code Title. A complete listing of the statutory references to the 
section 101 definition we identified can be found in appendix II. 

Table 1: Results of U.S. Code Search for References to Section 101 
Definition of an Institution of Higher Education, by Title: 

Title: 20; 
Subject matter: Education; 
Total number of sections: 192. 

Title: 42; 
Subject matter: The public health and welfare; 
Total number of sections: 77. 

Title: 10; 
Subject matter: Armed forces; 
Total number of sections: 12. 

Title: 29; 
Subject matter: Labor; 
Total number of sections: 12. 

Title: 30; 
Subject matter: Mineral lands and mining; 
Total number of sections: 11. 

Title: 15; 
Subject matter: Commerce and trade; 
Total number of sections: 10. 

Title: 22; Subject matter: Foreign relations and intercourse; Total 
number of sections: 9. 

Title: 7; 
Subject matter: Agriculture; 
Total number of sections: 8. 

Title: 25; 
Subject matter: Indians; 
Total number of sections: 4. 

Title: 33; 
Subject matter: Navigation and navigable waters; 
Total number of sections: 4. 

Title: 50; 
Subject matter: War and national defense; 
Total number of sections: 4. 

Title: 8; 
Subject matter: Aliens and nationality; 
Total number of sections: 2. 

Title: 5; 
Subject matter: Government organization and employees; 
Total number of sections: 1. 

Title: 11; 
Subject matter: Bankruptcy; 
Total number of sections: 1. 

Title: 14; 
Subject matter: Coast Guard; 
Total number of sections: 1. 

Title: 16; 
Subject matter: Conservation; 
Total number of sections: 1. 

Title: 18; 
Subject matter: Crimes and criminal procedure; 
Total number of sections: 1. 

Title: 23; 
Subject matter: Highways; 
Total number of sections: 1. 

Title: 37; 
Subject matter: Pay and allowances of the uniformed services; 
Total number of sections: 1. 

Title: 39; 
Subject matter: Postal Service; 
Total number of sections: 1. 

Title: 40; 
Subject matter: Public buildings, property, and works; 
Total number of sections: 1. 

Title: 47; 
Subject matter: Telegraphs, telephones, and radiotelegraphs; 
Total number of sections: 1. 

Title: Total; 
Subject matter: [Empty]; 
Total number of sections: 355. 

Source: GAO analysis of the United States Code. 

[End of table] 

A Single Definition Would Not Likely Increase Federal Spending 
Immediately, but May Expand the Pool of Eligible Applicants for Some 
Program Funding and Activities: 

A single definition of institution of higher education is unlikely to 
increase federal spending in the short term. Approximately 44 percent 
of the references we identified relate to the provision of federal 
program funds directly to students or institutions.[Footnote 9] 

Our review of these provisions did not identify any mandatory or 
entitlement programs that are not subject to spending caps. 
Accordingly, the adoption of a single definition of an institution of 
higher education will not immediately increase mandatory federal 
spending. The funding-related references appear to be tied to 
discretionary programs that are funded through the annual 
appropriations process. Spending for these programs would increase only 
if Congress elected to appropriate additional funds. 

Although a single definition could affect federal programs by allowing 
for-profit institutions to apply for discretionary funds, in the short 
run, many federal programs may be unlikely to witness greater 
competition. Many of the U.S. Code sections related to federal funds 
were for research in the physical and life sciences.[Footnote 10] 
However, academic programs at 4-year for-profits are largely 
concentrated in the areas of business and education, and the dollar 
volume of research such institutions do is small, suggesting limited 
capacity for research in many of the areas where federal funds for 
science research are available.[Footnote 11] We also identified a 
number of U.S. Code sections addressing education-related training 
programs that for-profit institutions could more readily qualify for, 
such as the Teacher Institutes program or the Teacher Quality 
Enhancement program.[Footnote 12] Additionally, for-profit institutions 
operating in large urban areas and enrolling disproportionately more 
minority students than nonprofit institutions may be more competitive 
than such institutions for certain programs. One example is the Urban 
Community Service program, which provides funds to urban academic 
institutions to address problems in their communities.[Footnote 13] In 
general though, the number of federal discretionary grant programs that 
would be affected by greater competition appears to be limited. 

Many of the statutory provisions we identified were funding-related and 
could also have an effect on various aspects of program administration 
or increase opportunities for for-profits to partner with other 
entities for purposes of applying for grant funds. With a single 
definition, for-profit institutions could become eligible for some 
grants for which they could not previously apply, but as recipients, 
for-profits may also be subjected to additional reporting obligations. 
For example, some of these provisions require that grant recipients 
report certain kinds of information to the administering agency, or 
that institutions enrolling students who receive federal funds file 
reports about those students.[Footnote 14] Other provisions in this 
category state that only partnerships consisting of institutions of 
higher education and other entities, such as school districts and state 
education agencies, are eligible to apply.[Footnote 15] Accordingly, 
with a single definition, entities desiring to apply for a grant could 
collaborate with for-profit institutions as well as public and 
nonprofit institutions. 

In a limited number of cases, the provisions we identified were not 
connected to federal funding, but under a single definition could 
expand the pool of eligible applicants for some program activities. For 
example, some provisions specify the qualifications individuals must 
have to pursue employment supported by federal funds, such as a 
provision related to the No Child Left Behind Act that requires certain 
teachers' aides to complete at least 2 years of study at an institution 
of higher education or meet other qualification requirements.[Footnote 
16] Under a single definition this would include individuals who had 
completed their studies at for-profit institutions as well. Other 
provisions authorize federal agencies to form advisory committees for 
particular purposes and specify that committee membership may include 
representatives of institutions of higher education. For example, the 
provision establishing the Advisory Council on Coal Research makes the 
council's membership open to representatives of institutions of higher 
education who are knowledgeable in the fields of coal research and 
mining.[Footnote 17] To the extent that a faculty member at a for- 
profit was recognized as holding the necessary qualifications, a single 
definition could allow such individuals to become members of some 
federal advisory committees. 

For a small number of the provisions we analyzed, a single definition 
is unlikely to have any effect on federal programs. These instances 
generally involve statements related to program purposes or simply 
encourage policy initiatives. For example, one provision[Footnote 18] 
encourages eligible institutions to provide opportunities for students 
to develop their knowledge and understanding of developing countries, 
and another provision[Footnote 19] expresses Congress's sense that all 
institutions should take certain specific measures to change the 
culture of alcohol consumption on college campuses. With a single 
definition, these policy statements would apply to both for-profit and 
nonprofit institutions. 

A Change to a Single Definition of an Institution of Higher Education 
Is Unlikely to Immediately Affect State Programs, but Could in the 
Future: 

A single federal definition of an institution of higher education is 
unlikely to have an immediate impact on state programs, but could 
potentially affect state higher education programs and policies in the 
future. There will likely be no immediate impact on state financial aid 
programs because in general, state laws and regulations establishing 
eligibility criteria for these programs do not directly reference the 
federal definition. According to state officials, several institutional 
characteristics, rather than the schools' profit-making status, are 
most often employed to determine eligibility for state student aid 
programs, including what agency accredits the institution, whether the 
institution offers degrees, and where the institution is located. Even 
though there is unlikely to be any immediate impact on state programs 
and policies, state officials and representatives from other higher 
education organizations with whom we spoke believe there could be 
future implications. While perceptions varied widely, officials and 
representatives suggested that the change in definition could 
eventually affect state programs and policies by increasing competition 
for federal grant programs and possibly giving the for-profit higher 
education industry more influence in shaping relevant state policies. 

States We Reviewed Rely Mainly on Several Institutional 
Characteristics, Not the Federal Definition, to Determine Eligibility 
for State-Funded Student Financial Aid Programs: 

Having a single definition is unlikely to result in an immediate or 
substantial impact at the state level. Our search of state statutory 
and regulatory codes identified only a small number of direct 
references to the HEA section 101 definition of institution of higher 
education. According to state officials in all the states we reviewed, 
state aid directed to institutions is only provided to public and 
private nonprofit higher education institutions. None of the states we 
reviewed provided state aid, such as grants supporting an institution's 
core operations or research activities, directly to for-profit 
institutions although in half of the states, students attending for- 
profit institutions are eligible to receive state financial aid. For 
state student financial aid, eligibility requirements emphasize one or 
more factors like accreditation, types of programs offered, and 
location, rather than institutions' profit-making status. 

Three of the six states we reviewed make state financial aid available 
to students at for-profit institutions: California, New York, and 
Pennsylvania. These states ensure the integrity of the programs they 
fund by requiring that participating institutions have qualifications 
such as accreditation and degree-granting status, and participation in 
federal programs. State higher education officials in these states told 
us that they were more focused on the quality and type of programs 
institutions offered rather than their profit-making status. For 
example, officials in New York told us they limit state Tuition 
Assistance Program funding to students at degree-granting institutions 
only, regardless of their profit-making status. Similarly, an 
institution of higher education in Pennsylvania must be accredited and 
approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Education in order to be 
eligible for the State Grant Program.[Footnote 20] California also 
provides funding to students at for-profit institutions with Cal Grant 
funds. For example, in California, any private institution that 
participates in the Pell Grant program and any two of the three major 
federal campus-based student aid programs may access student financial 
aid funds,[Footnote 21] regardless of for-profit status.[Footnote 22] 

Wyoming, Texas, and Oregon currently exclude for-profit institutions 
from state student financial aid programs. However, officials in each 
of these states told us that for-profit institutions may have been 
excluded not simply because of their for-profit status but also because 
of limited public resources, relevant state laws being created before 
the growth in degree-granting for-profit institutions, or because of 
state lawmakers' preference to limit public funds to public 
institutions. For example, in Wyoming, the Hathaway Scholarship Program 
funding is limited to students attending the University of Wyoming or a 
Wyoming community college, even though a Wyoming official told us there 
was some debate at the time of the program's inception about opening it 
up to students attending other accredited, degree-granting private 
institutions. Texas also limits state student aid funding through the 
TEXAS Grant Program to the state's public institutions and private 
nonprofit institutions accredited by Southern Association of Colleges 
and Schools. One official indicated that these funds may be limited to 
public and nonprofit institutions because of limited state funding or 
because relevant state regulations were established long before the 
rise in for-profit, degree-granting institutions. Oregon also excludes 
for-profit institutions from its student financial aid program, the 
Oregon Opportunity Grant, funding only accredited nonprofit, Oregon- 
based schools, public institutions, and community colleges. 

Officials and Representatives We Interviewed Predict Little or No 
Immediate Impact on State Programs, but Views Vary on Long-Term Impact: 

While many officials and representatives we spoke with believed the 
single definition would not have an immediate impact on state programs 
and policies, they did raise a number of potential long-term 
consequences to consider. Opinions on the exact nature of the long-term 
consequences, however, varied among and within states, indicating that 
future impact is difficult to predict. In general, we found that those 
representing the for-profit higher education industry were more likely 
to note the potential benefits of a single definition while 
representatives from nonprofit and public institutions, along with 
state higher education officials, were more likely to identify the 
possible problems. Of the potential consequences mentioned most often 
by officials and representatives with whom we spoke, two main issues 
emerged: (1) increased competition for federal grant program funds and 
(2) increased political influence of the for-profit higher education 
industry in state policymaking. 

Increased Competition for Federal Grant Program Funds and Increased 
Oversight Responsibility: 

Many officials and representatives of nonprofit and for-profit 
institutions with whom we spoke believed that the single definition 
would increase competition for federal funding. Some representatives 
and state officials believe that increased competition could, in 
theory, provide postsecondary students access to a broader range of 
programs and expand overall educational choice. On the other hand, 
representatives from the public and nonprofit sectors suggested that 
increased competition would reduce already scarce public funding for 
nonprofit and public universities in their states. However, as we 
stated earlier in this report, it may be unlikely that most for-profits 
will be competitive for federal grant programs in the short term. Some 
officials and representatives concurred with this point, stating that 
they thought it unlikely that for-profit institutions that do not 
already qualify for those funds for which they would be most 
competitive--i.e., teacher training programs--would take the necessary 
steps to meet the qualifications for federal grant programs in other 
fields given the return on investment. 

Some officials expressed concern that a single definition will cause a 
strain on state agency resources. Assuming the single definition makes 
more institutions eligible to apply for federal funds, several state 
officials were worried about the administrative burden of monitoring 
the increased number of institutions receiving federal funds. According 
to officials, state agencies are already responsible for administering 
federal grant programs in their respective states and providing 
oversight for institutions that receive federal funds.[Footnote 23] 
Additionally, since states rely heavily on institutions' accreditation 
status in their oversight, some state officials we spoke with suggested 
that quality control in the recognition of accrediting agencies would 
become more important. 

Increased Political Influence of For-Profit Institutions: 

State officials and representatives from for-profit institutions we 
spoke to believed that a single definition could potentially give the 
for-profit sector added influence, allowing it to shape policy change 
in individual states. For example, one official in Oregon, which 
currently excludes for-profits from state financial aid funding, said 
that pressure to open state programs to for-profit institutions already 
exists in this state and believed that the single federal definition 
could potentially increase that pressure on the state legislature. 
While officials in several states we reviewed described their states' 
higher education policies as largely independent of the federal 
government's, some officials and representatives from other higher 
education organizations with whom we spoke noted that states consider 
federal policy when setting state policy and developing guidance. An 
official in Pennsylvania, for example, told us that as a matter of 
practice, administration of state financial aid generally parallels 
federal guidelines in order to ease the administrative burden on the 
state's program administrators. Indeed, several officials told us that 
they believed states could eventually follow the federal lead on this 
issue. 

Additionally, some state officials and representatives from for-profit 
institutions believed that for-profit institutions could use successful 
passage of the single definition at the federal level to push for 
policy changes on other related issues, such as transfer of credit 
policy, although many for-profit representatives with whom we spoke 
said they wanted only the symbolic recognition provided by a single 
definition.[Footnote 24] Many traditional public and nonprofit 
institutions currently only accept transfer credit from regionally 
accredited institutions, and since for-profit institutions generally 
lack such accreditation, their students face problems when trying to 
transfer to traditional nonprofit schools. Representatives from several 
for-profit institutions believed that a change in the federal 
definition could help remove these barriers. Other representatives 
believed that transfer-of-credit policy would remain tied to 
accreditation rather than profit-making status, regardless of the 
outcome of the single definition debate. At the same time, some 
representatives with whom we spoke from the for-profit sector 
maintained that they were not seeking eligibility for specific federal 
and state grant programs or other policies. Rather, they stated that 
the single definition provides symbolic recognition of their 
institution's important and fundamental role in the American 
postsecondary education system. 

Concluding Observations: 

A change in the federal definition of institution of higher education 
is likely to have a limited impact in the short run. However, the 
effects of a single definition on the American higher education system 
over a longer time frame are difficult to predict yet important to keep 
in mind. While states largely set their higher education policies 
independently, future federal policy initiatives could provide states 
with incentives to more closely align their own policies with those at 
the federal level. Newfound eligibility to compete for federal 
resources may or may not encourage for-profit institutions to invest in 
education and research programs outside of their traditional domain, 
and greater competition may encourage nonprofit institutions to expand 
their own commercial activities. Furthermore, a larger pool of eligible 
institutions may, in the future, increase pressure on the Congress to 
increase the funding levels for existing discretionary programs. 
Overall, while a single definition would grant for-profit institutions 
greater parity, additional federal recognition would bring additional 
oversight. As policy makers address questions about access, they will 
want to remain aware of these diverse costs and benefits. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. 
In response to a draft of this report, Education offered technical 
comments about the effect that a single definition would have on 
federal spending. Although Education suggests that giving for-profit 
institutions access to special postage rates would result in immediate 
budgetary consequences for the federal government, we do not believe 
that such consequences are likely. This is, in part, because the Postal 
Service receives an appropriation to cover the costs of revenues it 
foregoes as a result of some reduced mailing rates, but this 
appropriation does not appear to cover the costs of the reduced rate 
currently available to nonprofit and public institutions for mailing 
course catalogs. However, according to Postal officials, changing the 
definition of an institution of higher education could result in some 
institutions seeking access to classes of postage that they might not 
have had access to before. If they were to prevail, this could affect 
Postal revenues. Similarly, Education suggested that there could be 
increased federal costs for extending certain tax benefits to for- 
profit institutions. However, our review of the tax code, codified at 
Title 26, indicates that it does not rely on the section 101 definition 
of "institution of higher education" to determine the availability of 
tax benefits, but rather relies on other criteria. As a result, we do 
not anticipate that a single definition would, in itself, result in any 
immediate tax consequences. Finally Education stated that the report 
should be explicit regarding special eligibility requirements now 
contained in section 102 and applicable to for-profit institutions. We 
have added language to clarify this point and agree that Congress 
should be aware of these additional eligibility rules as it considers 
future legislative proposals for a single definition. Education's 
comments have been reproduced in appendix III. 

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, 
relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site 
at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact George Scott at (202) 512-5932 if 
you or your staff have any questions about this report. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report 
are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

George A. Scott: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

Signed by: 

Dayna K. Shah: 
Managing Associate: 
General Counsel, Office of General Counsel: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to examine ways in which a single definition of an 
institution of higher education might affect: 1) federal spending and 
other aspects of applicable federal programs, and 2) state programs and 
policies. To answer these questions, we searched the U.S. Code to 
identify federal statutes and the related programs that could be 
affected by the adoption of a single definition of an institution of 
higher education. We also analyzed data from the Department of 
Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Database System (IPEDS) 
to review both the volume of 4-year for-profit institutions' research 
expenditures and the major fields of study of those enrolled. In 
addition, we conducted interviews with federal, state, and private 
sector organizations in the higher education field and contacted 
selected states to obtain more information about the potential impact 
of the single definition within these states. See below for more 
detailed information on each of these aspects of our research. We 
performed our work from March 2006 through April 2007 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Search of U.S. Code: 

In order to determine the number of references to the section 101 
definition of "institution of higher education" in the U.S. Code, we 
performed multiple searches of the commercial legal databases Westlaw 
and Lexis. First, we searched these databases for explicit references 
to section 101's definition in statutory text, for example, by 
searching for occurrences of the phrases "section 101" or "institution 
of higher education" in close proximity to "the Higher Education Act," 
or for references to the codified version of the section 101 
definition, "20 U.S.C. § 1001." We reviewed these results carefully to 
ensure that they referred to the section 101 definition of institution 
of higher education and not to some other unrelated provision and in a 
small number of cases, eliminated search results based upon this 
review. 

In conducting this preliminary review, we observed that a significant 
number of the statutory provisions we identified contained definitions 
that applied for purposes of various subdivisions of the U.S. Code, 
such as a particular chapter or subchapter. Therefore, we performed a 
second set of searches designed to identify implicit references to the 
section 101 definition. For example, 10 U.S.C. § 2199 refers to the 
section 101 definition of institution of higher education and specifies 
that this definition applies for purposes of the entire chapter in 
which the reference occurs. Accordingly, in order to identify the 
implicit references to the section 101 definition in the relevant 
chapter, we searched that chapter only for additional uses of the term 
"institution of higher education." In this particular case, our search 
revealed three additional code sections (§§ 2196 - 2198) that refer to 
institutions of higher education, but incorporate the section 101 
definition by reference, rather than by identifying it explicitly. We 
repeated this process where appropriate to expand our search results. 
Notably, this step generated approximately three times more search 
results than the first, which indicates that the majority of statutory 
provisions that rely on the section 101 definition do not do so 
explicitly, but rather incorporate it by reference. Both of these 
research steps were performed initially in March 2006 and were repeated 
in January 2007 to ensure that our analysis reflects any legislative 
changes that occurred in the course of our work. The full list of 
search results is available in appendix II. 

There are some limitations to our methodology that should be noted. 
First, in some cases, we also observed that the term "institution of 
higher education" is used to define another term (for example, 
"postsecondary educational institution"), which is then used to 
establish grant eligibility or other program requirements. However, we 
did not conduct additional searches to identify statutory references to 
these other terms. As a result, our analysis may overlook some 
peripheral references to "institution of higher educations." Second, we 
did not verify whether Congress has provided recent funding for 
particular programs or provisions. Additionally, our search was 
confined to statutory provisions codified in or classified to the U.S. 
Code and as such does not include appropriations acts. We did not 
search the Code of Federal Regulations or sources of federal policy, 
such as agency guidance or other publications. To the extent that these 
sources rely on the section 101 definition, there may also be 
implications for a change to a single definition. 

Although this approach enabled us to identify the number of provisions 
that potentially would be affected by a single definition of 
institution of higher education, we did not attempt to identify the 
number of federal programs that would be affected. Our decision was 
affected by multiple factors. First, given that numerous statutory 
provisions together may form a single program, the number of statutes 
is not indicative of the number of federal programs that would be 
affected by a single definition.[Footnote 25] Second, some statutes are 
free standing and cannot be identified as part of a larger program. 
Additionally, in some cases, the statutes forming a particular program 
are codified in places scattered throughout the U.S. code. However, in 
some cases, the structure of the U.S. Code lends itself more easily to 
identifying statutes that together form a program.[Footnote 26] As a 
result, our analysis refers to both federal programs and particular 
provisions. 

Review of Statutory References: 

In order to determine whether a change in the definition of an 
institution of higher education will have a federal budgetary impact or 
result in higher federal spending, our approach was to determine if any 
of the identified references involved mandatory funding--programs whose 
budget authority is provided in laws other than appropriations acts, 
such as entitlement programs. To determine the budgetary impact, we 
identified references that are related to programs that provide funds 
directly to students or institutions and traced these direct-funding 
references to readily available descriptive information. Such readily 
available information included published program data, the President's 
budget, agencies' budget justification documents, and/or other 
information made publicly available by agencies administering the 
programs. We also reviewed a list of mandatory accounts to determine if 
these direct-funding references involved mandatory funding. To 
determine the likely impact of a single definition on other aspects of 
federal programs, we reviewed the statutory text of provisions not 
directly related to federal funding to determine if the adoption of a 
single definition would have any impact on these program activities. 

In-depth Reviews of States: 

To determine how a single definition might affect state programs and 
policies, we conducted in-depth reviews of six states. We visited three 
states: California, New York, and Oregon, and interviewed officials by 
phone in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming.[Footnote 27] These states 
were selected on the basis of a variety of criteria, including the 
intensity of the state's regulatory environment, expert 
recommendations, recent legislative activity in areas of private school 
regulation or oversight, and the percentage of total state financial 
aid going to students at for-profit higher education institutions. 
During our interviews, we discussed each state's higher education 
system with various state officials. These discussions included how it 
is structured and regulated, the extent of state oversight, and the 
eligibility criteria for states' higher education grant programs, such 
as institutional aid and student financial aid. We also reviewed 
documents obtained from higher education officials during these 
meetings, including state laws or regulations outlining eligibility 
criteria for states' student financial aid programs. To determine 
perspectives on how the creation of a single definition of institution 
of higher education may affect federal and state programs and policies, 
we also spoke with representatives from nonprofit and for-profit higher 
education institutions, and several higher education associations 
representing the interests of the for-profit and nonprofit, private 
higher education sectors nationwide. In total, we conducted 
approximately 35 interviews that, in some cases, included multiple 
attendees who represented various state agencies and public and private 
institutions and organizations. 

As part of our review of the six selected states, we conducted a 
limited search of state statutory and administrative codes to help 
determine if a single federal definition would have an immediate impact 
on state policies or programs. We requested that state officials in our 
six interview states provide us with relevant statutory language 
defining institutional eligibility criteria for state student financial 
aid programs. Based on the information they provided, we searched state 
statutes and regulations to identify the appropriate institutional 
eligibility requirements. In addition, we searched each of these 
states' statutory codes and program regulations using key terms to 
assess whether the federal definition of an institution of higher 
education was used to determine institutional eligibility for other 
higher-education-funding programs in our interview states. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: U.S. Code References to Institution of Higher Education: 

References in the U.S. Code to "Institution of Higher Education" as 
defined by Section 101 of the Higher Education Act. 

Title 5. Government Organization and Employees. 

Part III. Employees. 

Subpart I. Miscellaneous. 

Chapter 98. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

§ 9809. Science and technology scholarship program. 

Title 7. Agriculture. 

Chapter 55. Department of Agriculture. 

§ 2279. Outreach and assistance for socially disadvantaged farmers and 
ranchers. 

§ 2279c. student internship programs. 

Chapter 64. Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching. 

Subchapter III. Agricultural Research and Education Grants and 
Fellowships. 

§ 3152. Grants and fellowships for food and agricultural sciences 
education. 

Subchapter XIV. Institutions of Higher Education in Insular Areas. 

§ 3361. Definition. 

Chapter 103. Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform. 

Subchapter III. Miscellaneous Provisions. 

Part B. General. 

§ 7657. Senior Scientific Research Service. 

Chapter 107. Renewable Energy Research and Development. 

§ 8103. Biorefinery development grants. 

§ 8104. Biodiesel fuel education program. 

§ 8105. Energy audit and renewable energy development program. 

Title 8. Aliens and Nationality. 

Chapter 12. Immigration and Nationality. 

Subchapter II. Immigration. 

Part II. Admission Qualifications for Aliens; Travel Control of Aliens 
and Citizens. 

§ 1182. Inadmissible Aliens. 

§ 1184. Admission of nonimmigrants. 

Title 10. Armed Forces. 

Subtitle A. General Military Law. 

Part II. Personnel. 

Chapter 31. Enlistments. 

§ 510. Enlistment incentives for pursuit of skills to facilitate 
national service. 

Part III. Training and Education. 

Chapter 111. Support of Science, Mathematics, and Engineering 
Education. 

§ 2192a. Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) 
Defense Education Program. 

§ 2193. Improvement of education in technical fields: grants for higher 
education in science and mathematics. 

§ 2196. Manufacturing engineering education: grant program. 

§ 2197. Manufacturing experts in the classroom. 

§ 2198. Management training program in Japanese language and culture. 

§ 2199. Definitions. 

Chapter 112. Information Security Scholarship Program. 

§ 2200. Programs; purpose. 

§ 2200a. Scholarship program. 

§ 2200b. Grant program. 

§ 2200e. Definitions. 

Subtitle E. Reserve Components. 

Part IV. Training for reserve components and Educational assistance 
programs. 

Chapter 1611. Other Educational assistance programs. 

§ 16401. Marine Corps platoon leaders class: college tuition assistance 
program. 

Title 11. Bankruptcy. 

Chapter 5. Creditors, The debtor, and the estate. 

Subchapter II. Debtor's duties and benefits. 

§ 522. Exemptions. 

Title 14. Coast Guard. 

Part II. Coast Guard Reserve and Auxiliary. 

Chapter 21. Coast Guard Reserve. 

Subchapter A. General. 

References in the U.S. Code to "Institution of Higher Education" as 
defined by Section 101 of the Higher Education Act: § 709a. Reserve 
student precommissioning assistance program. 

Title 15. Commerce and Trade. 

Chapter 7. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

§ 278h. Research program on security of computer systems. 

Chapter 40. Department of Commerce. 

§ 1542. Establishment of the Ernest F. Hollings Scholarship Program. 

Chapter 81. High- performance computing. 

Subchapter III. Department of Energy high-end Computing Revitalization. 

§ 5541. Definitions. 

§ 5542. Department of Energy high-end computing research and 
development program. 

Chapter 92. Year 2000 Computer Date Change. 

§6604. Punitive damages limitations. 

Chapter 100. Cyber Security Research and Development. 

§ 7402. Definitions. 

§ 7403. National Science Foundation research. 

§ 7404. National Science Foundation computer and network security 
programs. 

§ 7410. Grant eligibility requirements and compliance with immigration 
laws. 

§ 7411. Report on grant and fellowship programs. 

Title 16. Conservation. 

Chapter 6. Game and Bird Preserves; Protection. 

§ 698u-5. Advisory committee. 

Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure. 

Part I. Crimes. 

Chapter 11. Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of Interest. 

§ 207. Restrictions on former officers, employees, and elected 
officials of the executive and legislative branches. 

Title 20. Education. 

Chapter 28. Higher Education Resources and Student Assistance. 

Subchapter I. General provisions. 

Part A. Definitions. 

§ 1001. General definition of institution of higher education. 

§ 1003. Additional definitions. 

Part B. Additional General Provisions. 

§ 1011. Antidiscrimination. 

§ 1011a. Protection of student speech and association rights. 

§ 1011b. Treatment of territories and territorial student assistance. 

§ 1011d. Student representation. 

§ 1011e. Financial responsibility of foreign students. 

§ 1011h. Binge drinking on college campuses. 

§ 1011i. Drug and alcohol abuse prevention. 

Part C. Cost of Higher Education. 

§ 1015. Improvements in market information and public accountability in 
higher education. 

Part D. Administrative Provisions for Delivery of Student Financial 
Assistance. 

§ 1018. Performance-Based Organization for delivery of federal student 
financial assistance. 

Subchapter II. Teacher Quality Enhancement. 

Part A. Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants for States and Partnerships. 

§ 1021. Purposes; definitions. 

§ 1022. State grants. 

§ 1023. Partnership grants. 

§ 1025. Administrative provisions. 

§ 1027. Accountability for programs that prepare teachers. 

§ 1028. State functions. 

§ 1029. General provisions. 

Part B. Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology. 

§ 1041. Purpose and program authority. 

§ 1042. Eligibility. 

§ 1043. Use of funds. 

Subchapter III. Institutional Aid. 

§ 1051. Findings and Purpose. 

Part A. Strengthening Institutions. 

§ 1058. Definitions; eligibility. 

§ 1059c. American Indian tribally controlled colleges and universities. 

§ 1059d. Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions. 

Part B. Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 

§ 1060. Findings and purposes. 

§ 1061. Definitions. 

§ 1063. Allotments to institutions. 

§ 1063b. Professional or graduate institutions. 

Part C. Endowment Challenge Grants for Institutions Eligible for 
Assistance under Part A or Part B. 

§ 1065. Endowment Challenge Grants. 

Part D. Historically Black College and University Capital Financing. 

§ 1066c. Limitations on Federal insurance for bonds issued by 
designated bonding authority. 

Part E. Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program. 

Subpart 1. Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program. 

§ 1067. Findings. 

§ 1067a. Purpose; authority. 

Subpart 2. Administrative and General Provisions. 

§ 1067g. Eligibility for grants. 

§ 1067k. Definitions. 

Part F. General Provisions. 

§ 1068b. Application review process. 

Subchapter IV. Student Assistance. 

Part B. Federal Family Education Loan Program. 

§ 1078-11. Loan forgiveness for child care providers. 

Subchapter V. Developing Institutions. 

Part A. Hispanic- Serving Institutions. 

§ 1101. Findings; purpose; and program authority. 

§ 1101a. Definitions; eligibility. 

§ 1101b. Authorized activities. 

Subchapter VI. International Education Programs. 

Part A. International and Foreign Language Studies. 

§ 1121. Findings and purposes. 

§ 1122. Graduate and undergraduate language and area centers and 
programs. 

§ 1123. Language resource centers. 

§ 1124. Undergraduate international studies and foreign language 
programs. 

§ 1125. Research; studies; annual report. 

§ 1126. Technological innovation and cooperation for foreign 
information access. 

§ 1128a. American overseas research centers. 

Part B. Business and International Education Programs. 

§ 1130. Findings and purpose. 

§ 1130-1. Centers for international business education. 

§ 1130a. Education and training programs. 

Part C. Institute for International Public Policy. 

§ 1131. Minority foreign service professional development program. 

§ 1131a. Study abroad program. 

§ 1131c. Internships. 

Part D. General Provisions. 

§ 1132. Definitions. 

Subchapter VII. Graduate and Post-Secondary Improvement Programs. 

Part A. Graduate Education Programs. 

Subpart 1. Jacob K. Javits Fellowship Program. 

§ 1134. Award of Jacob K. Javits Fellowships. 

§ 1134a. Allocation of fellowships. 

§ 1134b. Stipends. 

§ 1134c. Fellowship conditions. 

Subpart 2. Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need. 

§ 1135. Grants to academic departments and programs of institutions. 

§ 1135a. Institutional eligibility. 

§ 1135b. Criteria for applications. 

§ 1135c. Awards to graduate students. 

§ 1135d. Additional assistance for cost of education. 

Subpart 3. Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program. 

§ 1136. Legal Educational Opportunity Program. 

Part B. Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education. 

§ 1138. Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education. 

§ 1138c. Special projects. 

Part C. Urban Community Service. 

§ 1139c. Allowable activities. 

§ 1139d. Peer review. 

§ 1139f. Designation of urban grant institutions. 

§ 1139g. Definitions. 

Part D. Demonstration Projects to Ensure Students with Disabilities 
Receive a Quality Higher Education. 

§ 1140. Purposes. 

§ 1140a. Grants authorized. 

§ 1140b. Applications. 

§ 1140c. Rule of construction. 

Subchapter VIII. Miscellaneous. 

§ 1153. Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program. 

Chapter 31. General Provisions Concerning Education. 

Subchapter II. Appropriations and Evaluations. 

Part 2. Planning and Evaluation of Federal Education Activities. 

§ 1228c. Disclosure requirements. 

Chapter 33. Education of Individuals with Disabilities. 

Subchapter I. General Provisions. 

§ 1401. Definitions. 

Subchapter II. Assistance for Education of All Children with 
Disabilities. 

§ 1412. State eligibility. 

§ 1416. Monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement. 

Subchapter IV. National Activities to Improve Education of Children 
with Disabilities. 

Part A. State Personnel Development Grants. 

§ 1452. Eligibility and collaborative process. 

§ 1454. Use of funds. 

Part B. Personnel Preparation, Technical Assistance, Model 
Demonstration Projects, and Dissemination of Information. 

§ 1461. Purpose; definition of eligible entity. 

§ 1462. Personnel development to improve services and results for 
children with disabilities. 

§ 1465. Interim alternative educational settings, behavioral supports, 
and systemic school interventions. 

Part C. Supports to Improve Results for Children with Disabilities. 

§ 1471. Parent training and information centers. 

Part D. General Provisions. 

§ 1481. Comprehensive plan for parts B and C. 

§ 1482. Administrative provisions. 

Chapter 42. Harry S Truman Memorial Scholarships. 

§ 2002. Definitions. 

§ 2005. Truman scholars. 

§ 2008. Scholarship conditions. 

Chapter 44. Vocational Education. 

§ 2302. Definitions. 

Subchapter I. Career and Technical Education Assistance to the States. 

Part A. Allotment and Allocation. 

§ 2324. National activities. 

§ 2325. Assistance for the outlying areas. 

§ 2327. Tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical 
institutions. 

Part B. State Provisions. 

§ 2342. State plan. 

§ 2344. State leadership activities. 

Subchapter II. Tech Prep Education. 

§ 2373. Tech prep education. 

§ 2374. Consortium applications. 

Chapter 52. Education for Economic Security. 

§ 3902. Definitions. 

Subchapter I. National Science Foundation Science and Engineering 
Education. 

§ 3913. Teacher institutes. 

§ 3914. Materials development and methods research for mathematics, 
science, and engineering. 

§ 3916. Other functional activities. 

Subchapter III. Partnerships in Education for Mathematics, Science, and 
Engineering. 

Part A. Higher Education Partnerships. 

§ 3981. Statement of purpose. 

§ 3982. Definitions. 

§ 3984. Authorized activities. 

§ 3985. Application. 

§ 3986. Submission of applications. 

Chapter 57. James Madison Memorial Fellowship Program. 

§ 4505. Recipient's choice of institution. 

§ 4506. Recipient's eligibility. 

§ 4509. Fellowship conditions. 

§ 4514. Definitions. 

Chapter 59. Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education 
Program. 

§ 4702. Definitions. 

§ 4706. Scholarship conditions. 

Chapter 66. Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National 
Environmental Policy Foundation. 

§ 5602. Definitions. 

§ 5605. Authority of Foundation. 

Chapter 70. Strengthening and Improvement of Elementary and Secondary 
Schools. 

Subchapter I. Improving The Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged. 

Part A. Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational 
Agencies. 

Subpart 1. Basic Program Requirements. 

§ 6316. Academic assessment and local educational agency and school 
improvement. 

§ 6317. School support and recognition. 

§ 6319. Qualifications for teachers and paraprofessionals. 

Part B. Student Reading Skills Improvement Grants. 

Subpart 1. Reading First. 

§ 6362. Formula grants to State educational agencies. 

§ 6363. State formula grant applications. 

Subpart 3. William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs. 

§ 6381a. Program authorized. 

§ 6381f. Applications. 

Part C. Education of Migratory Children. 

§ 6398. Coordination of migrant education activities. 

Part D. Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who 
Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk. 

Subpart 1. State Agency Programs. 

§ 6438. Transition services. 

Part F. Comprehensive School Reform. 

§ 6516. Local use of funds. 

Subchapter II. Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality 
Teachers and Principals. 

Part A. Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund. 

§ 6602. Definitions. 

Subpart 2. Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies. 

§ 6623. Local use of funds. 

Subpart 3. Subgrants to Eligible Partnerships. 

§ 6631. Definitions. 

§ 6634. Use of funds. 

Subpart 5. National Activities. 

§ 6651. National activities of demonstrated effectiveness. 

Part B. Mathematics and Science Partnerships. 

§ 6661. Purpose; definitions. 

Part C. Innovation for Teacher Quality. 

Subpart 1. Transitions to Teaching. 

Division A. Troops- To-Teachers Program. 

§ 6673. Recruitment and selection of program participants. 

§ 6674. Participation agreement and financial assistance. 

§ 6676. Support of innovative preretirement teacher certification 
programs. 

Division B. Transition to Teaching Program. 

§ 6681. Purposes. 

§ 6682. Definitions. 

§ 6683. Grant program. 

Subpart 2. National Writing Project. 

§ 6702. National Writing Project. 

Subpart 3. Civic Education. 

§ 6715. Cooperative civic education and economic education exchange 
programs. 

Subpart 4. Teaching of Traditional American History. 

§ 6721. Establishment of program. 

Part D. Enhancing Education through Technology. 

§ 6753. Definitions. 

Subpart 1. State and Local Technology Grants. 

§ 6764. Local applications. 

Subchapter III. Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and 
Immigrant Students. 

Part A. English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and 
Academic Achievement Act. 

Subpart 1. Grants and Subgrants for English Language Acquisition and 
Language Enhancement. 

§ 6822. Native American and Alaska Native children in school. 

§ 6825. Subgrants to eligible entities. 

§ 6826. Local plans. 

Subpart 3. National Activities. 

§ 6861. National professional development project. 

Subpart 4. Definitions. 

§ 6871. Eligible entity. 

Part B. Improving Language Instruction Educational Programs. 

Subpart 1. Program Development and Enhancement. 

§ 6911. Financial assistance for language instruction educational 
programs. 

§ 6912. Program enhancement activities. 

§ 6913. Comprehensive school and systemwide improvement activities. 

§ 6914. Applications. 

Subpart 2. Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination. 

§ 6931. Authority. 

Subpart 3. Professional Development. 

§ 6951. Professional development grants. 

Subpart 4. Emergency Immigrant Education Program. 

§ 6967. Uses of funds. 

Part C. General Provisions. 

§ 7011. Definitions. 

Subchapter V. Promoting Informed Parental Choice and Innovative 
Programs. 

Part A. Innovative Programs. 

Subpart 3. Local Innovative Education Programs. 

§ 7215a. Administrative authority. 

Part D. Fund for the Improvement of Education. 

Subpart 1. Fund for the Improvement of Education. 

§ 7243. Programs authorized. 

Subpart 2. Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Programs. 

§ 7245. Elementary and secondary school counseling programs. 

Subpart 3. Partnerships in Character Education. 

§ 7247. Partnerships in character education program. 

Subpart 4. Smaller Learning Communities. 

§ 7249. Smaller learning communities. 

Subpart 6. Gifted and Talented Students. 

§ 7253c. Authorized programs. 

Subpart 7. Star Schools Program. 

§ 7255c. Applications. 

§ 7255f. Definitions. 

Subpart 8. Ready to Teach. 

§ 7257. Grants. 

Subpart 11. Community Technology Centers. 

§ 7263a. Eligibility and application requirements. 

Subpart 13. Excellence in Economic Education. 

§ 7267b. Grant program authorized. 

Subpart 15. Arts in Education. 

§ 7271. Assistance for arts education. 

Subpart 16. Parental Assistance and Local Family Information Centers. 

§ 7273e. Local family information centers. 

Subpart 21. Women's Educational Equity Act. 

§ 7283b. Programs authorized. 

§ 7283c. Applications. 

§ 7283d. Criteria and priorities. 

Subchapter VI. Flexibility and Accountability. 

Part A. Improving Academic Achievement. 

Subpart 1. Accountability. 

§ 7301a. Grants for enhanced assessment instruments. 

Subchapter VII. Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education. 

Part A. Indian Education. 

Subpart 2. Special Programs and Projects to Improve Educational 
Opportunities for Indian Children. 

§ 7441. Improvement of educational opportunities for Indian children. 

§ 7442. Professional development for teachers and education 
professionals. 

Subchapter VII. Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education. 

Part A. Indian Education. 

Subpart 3. National Activities. 

§ 7451. National research activities. 

§ 7452. In-service training for teachers of Indian children. 

§ 7453. Fellowships for Indian students. 

Subpart 4. Federal Administration. 

§ 7473. Preference for Indian applicants. 

Part B. Native Hawaiian Education. 

§ 7512. Findings. 

§ 7515. Program authorized. 

Subchapter IX. General Provisions. 

Part A. Definitions. 

§ 7801. Definitions. 

§ 7803. Applicability to Bureau of Indian Affairs operated schools. 

Part E. Uniform Provisions. 

Subpart 2. Other Provisions. 

§ 7908. Armed Forces recruiter access to students and student 
recruiting information. 

Chapter 73. Adult Education and Literacy. 

Subchapter I. Adult Education and Family Literacy. 

§ 9202. Definitions. 

Chapter 76. Education Research, Statistics, Evaluation, Information, 
and Dissemination. 

Subchapter I. Education Sciences Reform. 

§ 9501. Definitions. 

Part A. Institute of Education Sciences. 

§ 9514. Office of the Director. 

§ 9516. National Board for Education Sciences. 

Part C. National Center for Education Statistics. 

§ 9544. Performance of duties. 

§ 9546. Dissemination. 

Part D. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 
Assistance. 

§ 9562. Commissioner for education evaluation and regional assistance. 

§ 9564. Regional educational laboratories for research, development, 
dissemination, and technical assistance. 

Part F. General Provisions. 

§ 9579. Fellowships. 

Title 22. Foreign Relations and Intercourse. 

Chapter 33. Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Program. 

§ 2460. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. 

§ 2462. Establishment of grant program for foreign study by American 
college students of limited financial means. 

Chapter 55. Research and Training for Eastern Europe and the 
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union. 

§ 4502. "Institution of higher education" and "Advisory Committee" 
defined. 

§ 4504. Authority to make payments; purposes. 

Chapter 57. United States Scholarship Program for Developing Countries. 

§ 4701. Statement of purpose. 

§ 4703. Scholarship program authority. 

§ 4706. Policy regarding other international educational programs. 

§ 4707. Establishment and maintenance of counseling services. 

§ 4709. General authorities. 

Title 23. Highways. 

Chapter 5. Research, Technology, and Education. 

§ 504. Training and education. 

Title 25. Indians. 

Chapter 1. Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

§ 13. Expenditure of appropriations by Bureau. 

Chapter 20. Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance. 

§ 1801. Definitions. 

Subchapter I. Tribally Controlled Colleges or Universities Grant 
Program. 

§ 1809. Effect on other programs. 

Subchapter II. Tribally Controlled College or University Endowment 
Program. 

§ 1832. Establishment of program; program agreements. 

[Empty]. 

Title 29. Labor. 

Chapter 14. Age Discrimination in Employment. 

§ 623. Prohibition of age discrimination. 

Chapter 16. Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation 
Services. 

§ 705. Definitions. 

§ 718. Traditionally underserved populations. 

Subchapter I. Vocational Rehabilitation Services. 

Part A. General Provisions. 

§ 721. State plans. 

§ 723. Vocational rehabilitation services. 

Subchapter II. Research and Training. 

§ 762. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. 

§ 764. Research and other covered activities. 

Subchapter III. Professional Development and Special Projects and 
Demonstrations. 

§ 772. Training. 

§ 773. Demonstration and training programs. 

Chapter 31. Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities. 

§ 3002. Definitions. 

§ 3003. State grants for assistive technology. 

§ 3005. National activities. 

Title 30. Mineral Lands and Mining. 

Chapter 25. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation. 

Subchapter VII. Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions. 

§ 1291. Definitions. 

Subchapter VIII. University Coal Research Laboratories. 

§ 1311. Establishment of university coal research laboratories. 

§ 1312. Financial assistance. 

§ 1313. Limitation on payments. 

§ 1314. Payments; Federal share of operating expenses. 

§ 1315. Advisory council on coal research. 

Subchapter IX. Energy Resource Graduate Fellowships. 

§ 1321. Fellowship awards. 

§ 1322. Fellowship recipients. 

§ 1323. Distribution of fellowships. 

§ 1324. Stipends and allowances. 

§ 1326. Fellowship conditions. 

Title 33. Navigation and Navigable Waters. 

Chapter 26. Water Pollution Prevention and Control. 

Subchapter I. Research and Related Programs. 

§ 1259. Training grants and contracts. 

§ 1260. Applications; allocation. 

§ 1261. Scholarships. 

§ 1262. Definitions and authorizations. 

Title 37. Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services. 

Chapter 7. Allowances. 

§ 430. Travel and transportation: dependent children of members 
stationed overseas. 

Title 39. Postal Service. 

Part IV. Mail Matter. 

Chapter 36. Postal Rates, Classes, and Services. 

Subchapter I. Provisions Relating to Market-Dominant Products. 

§ 3626. Reduced rates. 

Title 40. Public Buildings, Property, and Works. 

Subtitle I. Federal Property and Administrative Services. 

Chapter 5. Property Management. 

Subchapter I. Procurement and Warehousing. 

§ 502. Services for other entities. 

Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare. 

Chapter 6A. Public Health Service. 

Subchapter III-A. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration. 

Part B. Centers and Programs. 

Subpart 2. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 

§ 290bb-25b. Programs to reduce underage drinking. 

Subpart 3. Center for Mental Health Services. 

§ 290bb-36. Youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies. 

§ 290bb-36b. Mental and behavioral health services on campus. 

Chapter 16. National Science Foundation. 

§ 1862i. Scientific and technical education. 

§ 1869c. Low-income scholarship program. 

Chapter 35. Programs for Older Americans. 

Subchapter I. Declaration of Objectives and Definitions. 

§ 3002. Definitions. 

Subchapter II. Administration on Aging. 

§ 3011. Establishment of Administration on Aging. 

§ 3012. Functions of Assistant Secretary. 

Subchapter IV. Activities for Health, Independence, and Longevity. 

Part A. Grant Programs. 

§ 3032. Program authorized. 

§ 3032a. Career preparation for the field of aging. 

§ 3032c. Health care service demonstration projects in rural areas. 

§ 3032d. Computer training. 

§ 3032g. Native American programs. 

Subchapter XI. Allotments for Vulnerable Elder Rights Protection 
Activities. 

Part C. General Provisions. 

§ 3058cc. Administration. 

Chapter 46. Justice System Improvement. 

Subchapter II. National Institute of Justice. 

§ 3722. National Institute of Justice. 

Subchapter III. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

§ 3732. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Subchapter IX. Definitions. 

§ 3791. General provisions. 

Chapter 77. Energy Conservation. 

Subchapter III. Improving Energy Efficiency. 

Part B. State Energy Conservation Plans. 

§ 6322. State energy conservation plans. 

Chapter 84. Department of Energy. 

Subchapter VI. Administrative Provisions. 

Part C. General Administrative Provisions. 

§ 7274e. Scholarship and fellowship program for environmental 
restoration and waste management. 

Chapter 85. Air Pollution Prevention and Control. 

Subchapter II. Emission Standards for Moving Sources. 

Part A. Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards. 

§ 7545. Regulation of fuels. 

Chapter 105. Community Services Programs. 

Subchapter II. Head Start Programs. 

§ 9844. Research, demonstrations, and evaluation. 

Subchapter IV. Grants to States for Planning and Development of 
Dependent Care Programs and for Other Purposes. 

§ 9874. Use of allotments. 

§ 9877. Definitions. 

Chapter 123. Drug Abuse Education and Prevention. 

Subchapter IV. Miscellaneous. 

§ 11851. Definitions. 

Chapter 129. National and Community Service. 

Subchapter I. National and Community Service State Grant Program. 

Division A. General Provisions. 

§ 12511. Definitions. 

Division B. School- Based and Community-Based Service-Learning 
Programs. 

Part II. Higher Education Innovative Programs for Community Service. 

§ 12561. Higher education innovative programs for community service. 

Division C. National Service Trust Program. 

Part I. Investment in National Service. 

§ 12571. Authority to provide assistance and approved national service 
positions. 

§ 12572. Types of national service programs eligible for program 
assistance. 

§ 12573. Types of national service positions eligible for approval for 
national service educational awards. 

Part II. Application and Approval Process. 

§ 12581. Provision of assistance and approved national service 
positions by competitive and other means. 

§ 12582. Application for assistance and approved national service 
positions. 

Part III. National Service Participants. 

§ 12591. Description of participants. 

§ 12592. Selection of national service participants. 

Division D. National Service Trust and Provision of National Service 
Educational Awards. 

§ 12602. Individuals eligible to receive a national service educational 
award from the Trust. 

§ 12604. Disbursement of national service educational awards. 

Division E. Civilian Community Corps. 

§ 12626. Definitions. 

Division G. Corporation for National and Community Service. 

§ 12651f. Employees, consultants, and other personnel. 

Division H. Investment for Quality and Innovation. 

§ 12653. Additional Corporation activities to support national service. 

Chapter 136. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement. 

Subchapter VIII. Police Corps and Law Enforcement Officers Training and 
Education. 

Part A. Police Corps. 

§ 14092. Definitions. 

§ 14095. Scholarship assistance. 

§ 14096. Selection of participants. 

Part B. Law Enforcement Scholarship Program. 

§ 14111. Definitions. 

§ 14113. Establishment of program. 

§ 14114. Scholarships. 

§ 14116. State application. 

Chapter 149. Energy Policy, 2005. 

§ 15801. Definitions. 

Subchapter IV. Coal. 

Part A. Clean Coal Power Initiative. 

§ 15964. Clean coal centers of excellence. 

Part B. Clean Power Projects. 

§ 15977. Department of Energy transportation fuels from Illinois basin 
coal. 

Subchapter VI. Nuclear Matters. 

Part B. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project. 

§ 16022. Project management. 

Subchapter VII. Vehicles and Fuels. 

Part A. Existing Programs. 

§ 16051. Joint flexible fuel/hybrid vehicle commercialization 
initiative. 

Subchapter VIII. Hydrogen. 

§ 16151. Purposes. 

§ 16154. Programs. 

§ 16161. Solar and wind technologies. 

Subchapter IX. Research and Development. 

§ 16181. Goals. 

§ 16182. Definitions. 

Part A. Energy Efficiency. 

§ 16192. Next Generation Lighting Initiative. 

Part B. Distributed Energy and Electric Energy Systems. 

§ 16215. Electric transmission and distribution programs. 

Part C. Renewable Energy. 

§ 16232. Bioenergy program. 

Part E. Nuclear Energy. 

§ 16272. Nuclear Energy Research Programs. 

Part F. Fossil Energy. 

§ 16291. Fossil energy. 

§ 16294. Research and development for coal mining technologies. 

§ 16296. Low-volume oil and gas reservoir research program. 

Part G. Science. 

§ 16320. Spallation Neutron Source. 

§ 16324. Energy research fellowships. 

Part H. International Cooperation. 

§ 16341. Western Hemisphere energy cooperation. 

Part I. Research Administration and Operations. 

§ 16353. Merit review of proposals. 

Part J. Ultra- Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other 
Petroleum Resources. 

§ 16372. Ultra- deepwater and unconventional onshore natural gas and 
other petroleum research and development program. 

Subchapter X. Department of Energy Management. 

§ 16392. Technology Infrastructure Program. 

§ 16394. Outreach. 

Subchapter XI. Personnel and Training. 

§ 16414. National Power Plant Operations Technology and Educational 
Center. 

Subchapter XVI. Studies. 

§ 16522. Low-volume gas reservoir study. 

Chapter 150. National Aeronautics and Space Programs. 

Subchapter III. Science. 

Part B. Remote Sensing. 

§ 16671. Definitions. 

§ 16676. Education. 

Subchapter IV. Aeronautics. 

§ 16701. Definition. 

Part B. High Priority Aeronautics Research and Development Programs. 

§ 16721. Fundamental research program. 

§ 16727. University-based Centers for Research on Aviation Training. 

Part C. Scholarships. 

§ 16741. NASA aeronautics scholarships. 

Title 47. Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs. 

Chapter 5. Wire or Radio Communication. 

Subchapter II. Common Carriers. 

Part I. Common Carrier Regulation. 

§ 223. Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia 
or in interstate or foreign communications. 

Title 50. War and National Defense. 

Chapter 15. National Security. 

Subchapter VII-A. Education in Support of National Intelligence. 

Part A. Science and Technology. 

§ 441g-2. Intelligence Community Scholarship Program. 

Chapter 37. National Security Scholarships, Fellowships, and Grants. 

§ 1902. Scholarship, fellowship, and grant program. 

§ 1903. National Security Education Board. 

§ 1908. Definitions. 

Source: GAO Analysis of the United States Code. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education: 

United States Department Of Education: 
Office Of Postsecondary Education: 
The Assistant Secretary: 

Jul 12 2007: 

Mr. George A. Scott: 
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Scott: 

The Department of Education (ED) appreciates the opportunity to review 
the General Accounting Office's (GAO's) draft report, Higher Education: 
Including Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Institutions In A Single 
Definition Is Unlikely to Immediately Affect Federal Spending, but Long-
Term Consequences Are Unclear (GAO-07-857). GAO makes no recommendation 
based on this report. 

While ED has no substantive comments, below are three technical 
comments: 

* Current statute, 39 USC 3626, which governs special postage rates for 
educational institutions, references the HEA Section 101 definition of 
an institution of Higher Education (IHE). Thus, the change to a single 
definition will likely have some immediate budgetary consequence for 
the federal government. 

* IHEs have tax benefits in addition to those that apply to regular 
non- profits in terms of non-taxed tuition benefits that they can 
provide to employees. In addition, they don't have to spend as much of 
their endowments as do other non-profits. If the same tax benefits 
apply to a for-profit IHE, this could be costly to the federal 
government. 

* The report incorporates by reference the single definition that was 
included in the HEA reauthorization bill the House of Representatives 
passed during the 109th Congress, which included a provision to 
consolidate the two definitions into one. The House language retained 
the unique requirements for some institutions within the combined 
definition. The report should be explicit about the terms of these 
requirements included in the House-passed language. Without this 
information, the reader could be lead to believe that there would be no 
impact from removing all of the special eligibility requirements 
applicable to for-profit institutions that are now contained in Section 
102. In the absence of these unique requirements, however, not only 
would for-profit institutions now eligible under the Title IV programs 
become eligible under other HEA programs (as the draft indicates), but 
other for-profit institutions currently not eligible under both Title 
IV and other HEA programs would gain eligibility. 

If you have questions about these comments, please contact Dottie 
Kingsley, Director, Strategic Planning at (202) 502-7505 or by e-mail, 
dottie.kingsley@ed.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James F. Manning: 
Acting Assistant Secretary: 
Office of Postsecondary Education: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

George Scott, (202) 512-5932 or scottg@gao.gov: 

Dayna Shah, (202) 512-8208 or shahd@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Jeff Appel and Patrick DiBattista, Assistant Directors; and Susan Chin, 
Analyst-in-Charge; managed this assignment. Nora Boretti, Sheila McCoy, 
and Carlo Salerno made significant contributions to this report. In 
addition, Yumiko Jolly and Kathy Leavitt provided assistance in data 
collection and analysis; Susannah Compton provided writing assistance; 
and Richard Burkard provided legal assistance. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] Legislation to reauthorize the HEA passed by the House of 
Representatives during the 109th Congress included a provision to 
consolidate the two definitions into a single definition of an 
institution of higher education. College Access and Opportunity Act of 
2006, H.R. 609, 109th Cong., § 101 (2006). 

[2] 39 U.S.C. § 2401. 

[3] 20 U.S.C. §1001. 

[4] 20 U.S.C. §1002. 

[5] For example, in order to participate in Title IV programs, for- 
profit institutions must have been in existence for two years and must 
obtain at least 10 percent of their revenues from non Title IV sources. 
20 U.S.C. § 1002(b). 

[6] However, such proposals may retain the additional requirements, 
such as those mentioned above, applicable to for-profit institutions. 

[7] There are also a significant number of provisions using the phrase 
"institution of higher education," but not referring to the section 101 
definition, that are not included in our analysis. 

[8] The number of statutes is not indicative of the number of federal 
programs that would be affected by a single definition. Numerous 
statutory provisions together may form a single program. For example, 
at least seven different U.S. Code sections are used to define and 
authorize the Teacher Quality Enhancement program (20 U.S.C. § 1022). 

[9] For purposes of this analysis, the term "institutions" includes 
institutions of higher education but may also include state agencies 
and local educational agencies. 

[10] For example, 42 U.S.C. § 16721 offers grants to institutions of 
higher education to conduct research in aeronautical sciences and 
technologies, and 7 U.S.C. § 8103 awards grants to eligible entities, 
including institutions of higher education, to help subsidize the 
development and construction of biorefineries for carrying out projects 
demonstrating the commercial viability of processes for converting 
biomass to fuels or chemicals. 

[11] Information based on the latest year available. More than 98 
percent of enrollments at 4-year proprietary institutions were either 
in business-oriented (85.3 percent) or education (13 percent) programs. 
In addition, of the 367 four-year for-profits reporting expenditures 
data through IPEDS in 2004, only 13 reported expenditures related to 
research and public service. One institution reported just more than $2 
million that year, and the mean expenditure was $10,715. Data was not 
reported on the percentage of research expenditures related to science. 

[12] The Teacher Quality Enhancement program under Title II of the HEA 
provides grants to states for many purposes, including implementing 
reforms that hold institutions of higher education with teacher 
preparation programs accountable for preparing teachers who are highly 
competent in the academic content areas in which the teachers plan to 
teach. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1021 - 1030. The Teacher Institutes program 
provides for the National Science Foundation to make competitive grants 
to institutions and other entities to support teacher education and 
training in the areas of mathematics and science. 20 U.S.C. § 3913. 

[13] 20 U.S.C. §§ 1139c, 1139d, 1139f, and 1139g. 

[14] See 20 U.S.C. § 4706. 

[15] See 20 U.S.C. § 1452. 

[16] 20 U.S.C. § 6319. 

[17] 30 U.S.C. § 1315. 

[18] 22 U.S.C. § 4709. 

[19] 20 U.S.C. § 1011h. 

[20] Out of state institutions are eligible only if they are 
accredited, degree-granting, nonprofits. 

[21] The three federal programs are the Supplemental Educational 
Opportunity Grant, Work-Study, and the Perkins Loan. 

[22] Any institution--public, nonprofit, or for-profit--are eligible to 
participate as long as they are accredited by Western Association of 
School and Colleges, the regional accrediting body responsible for 
California, and meet certain requirements. 

[23] Examples of federal programs administered by states include 
Teacher Training under HEA and the Adult Education and Literacy 
Programs under the Workforce Investment Act. 

[24] GAO, Transfer Students: Postsecondary Institutions Could Promote 
More Consistent Consideration of Coursework by Not Basing 
Determinations on Accreditation, GAO-06-22 (Washington, D.C.: October 
2005). 

[25] For example, at least seven different U.S. Code sections 
identified in our search are used to define and authorize the Teacher 
Quality Enhancement Grant Program (20 U.S.C. § 1022). 

[26] See appendix II for examples of how the structure of the U.S. Code 
can be used in some cases to identify programs. Title 10, for example, 
deals generally with topics related to the armed forces. It is further 
divided into subtitles, which are divided into parts, which are divided 
into chapters. In this case, Chapter 112 pertains to the Information 
Security Scholarship Program. For purposes of our work, the sections 
within this program that are relevant are § 2200, § 2200a, § 2200b, and 
§ 2200e. 

[27] These officials, in general, included officials from the state 
department of education, state student aid administrations, and state 
legislative staff. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

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. Government Accountability 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: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: