Background When DCTAG was created, there was no income eligibility requirement.  However, in 2007, federal law limited eligibility to students from families  with annual taxable incomes less than $1,000,000. In 2015, federal law  further limited eligibility to students from families with annual taxable  incomes less than $750,000; the law provided that this limit was to be  subsequently adjusted for inflation as measured by the percentage  increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.  For example, in academic year 2018, eligibility was limited to students  from families with annual taxable incomes less than $762,000 (see  textbox for selected eligibility requirements). Complete the Free Application for Federal Generally begin a course of study within 3  years of graduating high school or  obtaining a General Equivalency Diploma. institution’s requirements for Satisfactory  Academic Progress. Universities (HBCU) nationwide and other participating private nonprofit  institutions in the D.C. metropolitan area. Populations Eligible  for and Enrolled in  DCTAG Remained  Relatively Stable as  Amounts Awarded  Increased and  Recipients Graduated  at Higher Rates than  Selected National  Comparison Groups We identified the following trends in eligibility for and enrollment in  DCTAG and graduation rates for recipients: DCTAG’s potentially eligible population. ACS data for calendar  years 2007−2016 indicate that the population of high school students  with incomes within DCTAG’s eligibility requirements has remained  relatively stable. Over this time frame, about 25,000 students in D.C.  were enrolled in high school each year, and about 90 percent of D.C.  households had annual incomes less than $200,000. Additional  households with annual incomes of $200,000 and above were also  likely eligible for DCTAG based on income. Enrollment in DCTAG. DCTAG program data indicate that the  number of DCTAG recipients remained relatively stable over the last  decade. DCTAG provided awards to an average of about 4,750  recipients annually over academic years 2007−2016 (see fig. 1).  While enrollment in DCTAG peaked in academic year 2012, the  number of DCTAG recipients in academic year 2016, the last year in  our period of review, was similar to the number of recipients in  academic year 2007, the first year in our period of review. Enrollment in DCTAG by type of high school attended. DCTAG  program data indicate the majority of recipients over academic years  2007–2016 graduated from D.C.’s public high school system—both  traditional public schools and public charter schools. D.C.’s traditional  public schools include six selective schools, or magnet schools, that  limit admission to students that meet certain criteria or eligibility  requirements. For example, in academic year 2016, more than 70  percent of DCTAG recipients graduated from D.C.’s public high school  system (see fig. 2). Many DCTAG recipients have also graduated  from private schools or schools outside D.C., were home schooled, or  attained their General Equivalency Diploma. For academic years  2007−2016, between about 30 and 40 percent of DCTAG recipients  came from high schools or programs outside the D.C. public school  system. Enrollment in DCTAG by taxable household income. Although in  2007 federal law limited eligibility for DCTAG to students from families  with annual taxable incomes less than $1,000,000, DCTAG  enrollment data show the program made awards to students from  families with a wide range of household taxable incomes in academic  years 2009−2016. At the same time, enrollment data indicate the  program’s particular support for students from middle and lower  income families. Nearly 60 percent of recipients over this time frame  came from families with annual household taxable incomes of  $50,000 or less (see fig. 3). Enrollment in DCTAG by Ward. DCTAG program data indicate that  for academic years 2007−2016, about 50 percent of recipients came  from the three D.C. wards with the lowest median household incomes,  according to American Community Survey estimates (see fig. 4). Enrollment in DCTAG by attendance at 4-year and 2-year  institutions. DCTAG program data show that for academic years  2007−2016, about 90 percent of DCTAG recipients attended 4-year  institutions (see fig. 5). To counter the downward trend in enrollment  at 2-year institutions that began in academic year 2013, OSSE  officials told us they made programmatic changes to DCTAG for  academic year 2018. Specifically, OSSE officials told us they  determined out-of-state-tuition at 2-year public institutions attended by  DCTAG recipients exceeded in-state tuition by an average of $4,500  per year. However, the maximum annual award for recipients  attending these institutions was only $2,500. For academic year 2018,  OSSE officials said they increased the maximum annual award to  attend 2-year public institutions to $10,000 to close this gap. Enrollment in DCTAG by amount awarded. For academic years  2007−2016, the percentage of recipients receiving DCTAG’s  maximum annual awards increased from 40 percent to 62 percent  (see fig. 6). OSSE officials linked an increase in the percentage of  recipients receiving maximum awards to rising tuition at colleges and  universities over this period. We analyzed data from IPEDS on  average tuition and required fees at 4-year public institutions and our  analysis confirmed that the average gap between out-of-state and in- state tuition exceeded DCTAG’s $10,000 maximum annual award  starting in academic year 2015. DCTAG graduation rates. College graduation rates are an important  measure of performance for DCTAG. OSSE officials told us they  maintain a program goal of helping recipients choose schools from  which they are likely to graduate. For academic years 2012−2015, 6- year college graduation rates for DCTAG recipients were lower than  those for students nationwide. However, OSSE officials reported  that rates for recipients compare favorably to rates for national and  regional groups of students with characteristics similar to those of  DCTAG recipients. Our analysis confirmed that in academic year  2015, about 72 percent of DCTAG recipients were African-American  and the DCTAG graduation rate was about 10 percentage points  higher than for African-Americans nationwide. Similarly, in academic  year 2015, nearly 40 percent of DCTAG recipients attended  Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and the DCTAG  graduation rate was about 15 percentage points higher than for the  nationwide population of students at these schools (see fig. 7).  Additionally, OSSE officials estimated that more than 65 percent of  DCTAG recipients were eligible for Pell Grants in academic year  2016. The National Center for Education Statistics recently started  reporting graduation rates for Pell Grant recipients, beginning with the  cohort of recipients that should have graduated by academic year  2016. Although not directly aligned, the academic year 2016  graduation rate for Pell Grant recipients nationwide was 48 percent— similar to the academic year 2015 graduation rate for DCTAG  recipients. DCTAG and Its  Partners Help  Recipients Prepare  for College, Complete  Applications for  Financial Aid, and  Stay on Track to  Graduate DCTAG partners with other entities to offer support services intended to  help D.C. students prepare for college, apply for financial aid, and stay on  track to graduate college. These partners include other entities within  OSSE, as well as partners in the broader community such as public and  private high school officials and college access providers. DCTAG  provides some support services directly to students, such as individual  counseling on how to complete a DCTAG application (see fig. 8). An  OSSE official told us that DCTAG counselors instruct applicants and  renewing recipients on tasks such as how to obtain required supporting  documents to verify their residency in D.C. Additionally, to keep recipients  on track to graduate, DCTAG emails recipients a quarterly newsletter with  reminders to reapply for DCTAG and federal student aid so that they do  not disrupt their studies by losing financial assistance. OSSE officials also  said that DCTAG expands the reach of its support services by partnering  with other entities within OSSE and in the community. For example,  DCTAG works with OSSE’s Office of College and Career Readiness,  whose mission is to increase D.C. public school students’ access to  college. Through this collaboration, DCTAG helps eligible students  prepare for higher education, such as through assistance to public  schools to offer college entrance exams at no cost to students. Similarly,  by partnering with college access providers, DCTAG supplements the  support services it offers to help students stay on track to graduate. For  example, DCTAG partners with the D.C. College Access Program, a  privately funded scholarship program that offers support services for D.C.  students in college. One of their services includes using scholarship  recipients to mentor incoming D.C. students. OSSE’s Reporting to  Key Stakeholders on  DCTAG Does Not  Include Program  Performance  Information We found that although OSSE communicates DCTAG’s program data  and activities to internal stakeholders, Congress, and the public in various  formats, these reporting methods do not include the program’s four goals  (see textbox), relate performance information to these program goals, or  describe progress toward achieving them (see table 1). For example,  OSSE’s 2017 annual report to Congress on DCTAG did not include  DCTAG’s four program goals, nor did OSSE relate information about the  performance of the program to those goals. Instead, the 2017 annual  report was comprised of descriptive statistics that were presented without  explanation or sufficient context to allow readers to understand the  significance of what was being reported. Specifically, this information was  unrelated—quantitatively or qualitatively—to DCTAG’s program goals of  ensuring D.C. residents are aware of and apply to DCTAG, or of helping  DCTAG students make smarter college choices, which OSSE officials  told us includes helping students select schools where they are more  likely to graduate. As a result, it is unclear how to interpret the information  presented in these reports and whether reported results indicate positive  or negative program performance. Federal standards for internal control state that program managers should  communicate necessary quality information so both internal and external  parties can help the program achieve its objectives. We have previously  reported that annual reports are essential for managers of federal  programs to communicate to decision makers the progress an agency  has made toward achieving its goals during a given year and, in cases  where goals are not met, identify opportunities for improvement or  whether goals need to be adjusted. In addition, our prior work found that  managers of these programs can increase the value of their reports to  congressional decision makers and the public by relating annual  performance information to the agency’s strategic goals and mission.  Furthermore, we reported that performance measurement does not  require establishing a causal link between program activities and program  outcomes, but rather emphasizes that the nature of performance  measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program  accomplishments, particularly toward pre-established goals. OSSE officials agreed on the importance of developing an annual report  relating performance to program goals for the DCTAG program and  concurred with our finding that they had not communicated DCTAG’s  performance information, such as progress toward program goals, in a  single annual report. They explained that developing performance  measures is challenging. For example, they said DCTAG recipients have  access to multiple support programs, which creates difficulties in  establishing causal links between a program and the desired outcome.  OSSE officials also stated that many DCTAG initiatives are new and, as a  result, complete data on those initiatives are not yet available. Although  we recognize that developing an annual report could be challenging, our  prior work has found performance measurement guidelines would not  require program managers to establish causal links as part of ongoing  performance monitoring and reporting of progress toward program goals.  Unless DCTAG’s stakeholders have access to an annual report that  relates performance information to the program’s goals, they may be  limited in their ability to judge the significance of what is being reported,  determine whether the agency is making progress toward achieving its  goals, or make informed program management and funding decisions. The Design of  Selected Scholarship  Programs Reflects  Unique State and  Local Needs Each of the three other selected scholarship programs we reviewed was  created to meet unique state or local needs. Boston Tuition-Free Community College Plan. Created to make  college more affordable for the city’s low-income students. Kalamazoo Promise. Created to promote the economic and social  well-being of the community by expanding college access with full- tuition scholarships. Washington State Opportunity Scholarship. Created to address  shortfalls in the state’s Science, Technology, Engineering, and  Mathematics (STEM) and health care workforce and increase  educational opportunities for low-income and middle-income students. Because each program was designed to address a unique state or local  need, they differ with regard to eligibility, funding, recipient supports, and  outcome measures. (For additional information on these three programs  see appendix I.) Eligibility. Each of the three selected scholarship programs  established eligibility criteria, such as income requirements, residency  requirements, and grade point average (GPA) requirements among  others, that reflect program objectives. For example, to ensure that  the Boston program serves the intended low-income population, the  program requires students to be eligible for Pell grants to receive  funding. Funding. While the selected scholarship programs have dedicated  funding streams, their funding sources reflect the origins of each  program. For example, Boston’s program was initiated by the city’s  mayor and is funded through a public charitable trust from fees for  large-scale commercial building projects while the Kalamazoo  promise was initiated by a group of anonymous donors who have  funded the program in perpetuity, according to program officials.  Alternately, the Washington program was initiated through  cooperation between the state government and private sector  companies and is funded by private donations that are matched by  state funds up to an annual maximum of $50 million. Recipient supports. Each of the selected scholarship programs have  developed supports such as coaching and peer mentoring to help  recipients transition to college and stay on track to graduate. For  example, the Kalamazoo Promise partners with and provides funding  to two local colleges to create counseling, coaching, or peer  mentoring services for scholarship recipients, according to program  managers. Outcome measures. The selected scholarship programs have  developed outcome measures to better understand the programs’  impact, such as whether students stay on track to graduate or find  employment post-graduation. For example, program managers with  the Washington program said they initiated a post-graduation survey  in 2015 to better understand the employment status of graduates in  STEM and health care fields, their job location, and annual salary. Conclusions Steady enrollment in DCTAG provides an encouraging signal that the  program may be meeting the purpose set forth in federal law to expand  access to higher education opportunities for D.C. students. However,  without annual reports that relate DCTAG’s performance information to  the program’s goals, it is difficult to assess the impact of the program and  its support services. The information OSSE currently makes available  about DCTAG does not provide the context needed for the program’s  internal stakeholders, Congress, or the public to determine whether the  program is meeting its goals or if any changes may be necessary. Recommendation for  Executive Action OSSE should issue an annual report on DCTAG that relates information  about the program’s performance to the program’s goals.  (Recommendation 1) Agency Comments  and Our Evaluation We provided a draft of this report to the Mayor of the District of Columbia  for review and comment. Comments from the Mayor are reproduced in  appendix II. In response to our recommendation, the Mayor stated that  OSSE plans to expand DCTAG’s current annual reports to Congress with  direct links to DCTAG’s annual strategic performance goals and the  reports will combine data points to illustrate the program’s performance.  The Mayor also raised a concern about the title of the draft report, stating  that it implied OSSE is not meeting legislative requirements. We have  modified the title and text of the report to avoid this implication. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of  Education, and other interested parties. In addition, this report is available  at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. Appendix I: Other State and Local  Scholarship Programs Based on interviews with officials of three selected state and local  scholarship programs and a review of program documents, we present a  selection of information to provide additional context on these programs.  They include the Boston Tuition-Free Community College Plan, the  Kalamazoo Promise, and the Washington State Opportunity Scholarship.  The following tables include information on these scholarship programs’  eligibility requirements, funding sources, recipient supports, and annual  reports and performance measures. Table 2 presents a selection of  eligibility requirements for the Boston Tuition-Free Community College  Plan, the Kalamazoo Promise, and the Washington State Opportunity  Scholarship. Table 3 presents a summary of the three selected scholarship programs’  funding sources, as well as how students may use those funds. Table 4 presents a summary of the supports developed by the three  selected scholarship programs to support students, keep them on track to  graduate from college, and help them begin their careers. Table 5 presents a summary of the annual reports and selected  performance measures developed by the three selected scholarship  programs. Appendix II: Comments from the Mayor of  the District of Columbia Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff  Acknowledgments GAO Contact Melissa Emrey-Arras, (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Staff  Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Bill J. Keller (Assistant Director),  Tom Moscovitch (Analyst-in-Charge), and Michael C. Duane made  significant contributions. Also contributing to this report were James  Bennett, Deborah K. Bland, Sheila R. McCoy, Benjamin A. Sinoff, Rachel  R. Stoiko, and Kate van Gelder.
Congress funds DCTAG through an annual appropriation, which was $40 million in fiscal year 2018. DCTAG provides D.C. residents up to $10,000 per year to attend college. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, included a provision for GAO to review DCTAG. This report examines, among other things, the characteristics of DCTAG recipients and steps taken by the program to support recipients, as well as the extent to which OSSE reports DCTAG's performance to internal and external stakeholders. GAO assessed the most recent data available on DCTAG, covering academic years 2007–2016, as well as data on college graduation, tuition, and fees from the Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System for academic years 2007–2016, and data on enrollment in high schools and median household income in D.C. from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey for 2007–2016; interviewed representatives of DCTAG and the entities it partners with to support recipients; and reviewed relevant laws, the applicability of standards for internal control, and guidance on performance management. The federally funded District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (DCTAG) program was created in 1999 to give college-bound District of Columbia (D.C.) residents greater choices among institutions of higher education. Since its creation, the DCTAG program has awarded over $440 million to more than 26,000 residents to defray costs charged to out-of-state residents at some of the nation's public colleges and universities. While the program serves students from families with a wide range of household incomes, about half the students receiving a DCTAG award in academic years 2007–2016 came from the three D.C. wards with the lowest household incomes, as the figure below illustrates. DCTAG coordinates with public and private partners in the community to help students prepare for college, complete financial aid applications, and stay on track to graduate college. Although the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE), which manages DCTAG on behalf of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, issues various annual reports, these reports do not relate program performance to the program's four goals. One of these goals is to help D.C. students make smarter college choices. OSSE officials stated that they regularly communicate information about DCTAG data and activities internally and externally. However, these efforts do not provide the context necessary for program managers, Congress, or the public to understand the program's goals, nor determine whether DCTAG is making progress toward meeting them. Standards for internal control state that program managers should communicate information that internal and external stakeholders need to help the program achieve its objectives. Absent an annual report relating performance to goals, DCTAG's stakeholders will be limited in their ability to assess the program's performance or identify opportunities to improve it.