INTRODUCTION Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 which provides for a program to strengthen developing institutions has evolved into one of the more visible Federal programs for furnishing direct aid to institutions of higher education. The program follows a tradition of Federal aid to institutions established by the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, and Federal support for research. The ten year history of the Developing Institutions Program has been one of successive growth and demonstrates the continued vitality of the notion of a strong Federal role in higher education. During its first year of operation 1966-67, the program made awards to 127 institutions; in 1976, ten years later, the program made 237 awards. The total dollars amount of the awards in 1966 was five million; in 1976 the amount was 110 million. Today, almost a third of the institutions in the higher education community are directly or indirectly affected by the Title III Program. Thus, the policies under which this program is operated are of great concern to American Higher education. 1 Purpose The major purposes of this examination of the Title III Program are (1) to provide a basis for policy in regard to the resolution of a number of critical issues which the program is now facing, and (2) to determine the appropriate shape and direction which the program should take in the future. The report which follows represents the results of an attempt to address these two problems. Limitations In addition to the limitations imposed by the nature of the assignment, the study was conditioned by two important considerations. First, the time frame in which the examination had to be made was exceptionally short -approximately ten weeks, summer 1977. The second limitation is related to the first, the lack of a sufficient number of technically prepared personnel that could be assigned full time. Because of the nature and purpose of the inquiry, the report might be more properly termed the results of a policy examination of the Title III Program. Approach This is not a contract project. The work was directed from within the Bureau of Higher and Continuing Education. A consultant who also operated from within the Bureau of Higher and Continuing Education directed the work and developed the report. A Title III Study Group gave recommendations and served as a review panel. Significantly, the Study Group was composed of distinguished educators, some of whom were drawn from educational organizations with a history of resolving difficult educational problems. The report, including recommendations, is mainly centered around fourteen specific questions developed by the Bureau of Higher and Continuing Education and for which that Bureau was seeking answers. 1. 2. Should we retain two separate programs - Should the program be limited to private minority or low-income students? 5. Does the definition of "developing institu- 6. Should there be a time limit on participation in the Basic Program? 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. If no limit is placed on the number of years institutions can participate in the program, how do we keep the program from becoming the private preserve of the current grantees and keep it open to new participants without substantial periodic increases in the appropriation? Should AIDP institutions be permitted to use program funds for fund-raising activities? What methods should be used to help institutions meet the fund replacement requirement in the Advanced Program? If an endowment funding provision is added to the Advanced Program, would all AIDP institutions participate? If not, what alternatives can we offer to the non-participants to help them meet the fund replacement requirement? If institutions are awarded endowment building grants, will they continue to need Federal grant aid up to the time their endowment funds mature (i.e., for 15-25 years)? Should we seek to increase the authorization |