and appropriation levels for Title III
above the current $120 million level

in order to be able to fund the endowment

grants without at the same time reducing the number of new institutions entering the

program? Or should the extra funds for the

endowment grants be taken from the Basic
Program?

13. Should AIDP grantees be limited to only one
grant or should they be permitted to apply
for continuation grants or new non-continu-
ation grants? If they are not to be limited
to one grant, what limits should be imposed
on participation in the program?

14. What changes, other than those mentioned

above, should be considered by us?

These fourteen questions represent old, continuing, and new issues related to the Developing Institutions program. They are used here as a frame of reference which makes the development of a complicated conceptual scheme unnecessary. Further, the assignment of specified tasks to be accomplished makes possible the use of a rather simple and straight forward method of developing the report. The method employed involves essentially the

initial use of five sets of sources: (1) a review of previous studies including the reports of the Advisory Council on Developing Institutions, (2) special impact evaluation reports of the program and papers on special topics prepared by the developing institutions staff, (3) interviews with persons inside and outside DHEW, (4) examination of program files to assess operational methods, and (5) site visits to carefully selected

institutions.

Because of the absence of surveys and other techniques for generating quantitative data, previous studies and other documentary materials are highly significant for this examination of the Developing Institutions program. During the ten years of its operation, the program has been the subject of at least seven major studies, six of which were conducted under government contracts and one conducted by the General Accounting Office. Each of these studies examined the Developing Institutions Program.

Purpose: To support and enhance the imaginative administration of Title III and improve the process of selecting grant recipients for cooperative programs between colleges and universities.

Results: A revised application form was sug-
gested. Further, this study suggested
that the program, as then staffed, was
under-administered and that evaluative
assessment procedures needed to be
implemented.

2.

1970

Purpose:

James L. Miller, Jr. and Gerald Gurin.
The Use and Effectiveness of Title III
in Selected "Developing Institutions"

Results:

1.

2.

To identify promising programs or
supplements to existing programs as
a result of Title III funds.

To identify relationships between
educational promise and a number of
variables including: level of Title
III funding, institutional charac-
teristics of external agencies
working with the program.

The following major recommendations
were made:

1. That the funding strategy for Title
III continue to emphasize moderate
and large size grants.

3.

4.

That administrative improvement programs be encouraged.

That the whole concept of inter

institutional cooperation be examined.

5. That staff be added and more site visits encouraged.

Columbia Research Associates

A Statistical Analysis of Title III
Selection Criteria

Purpose:

1.

Basically a technical analysis:

To consider the feasibility of

2. Low income students were increasingly represented in the developing institutions.

3. NTF's were widely used in faculty growth. Black colleges doubled their number of earned doctorates in many Black colleges had a significant increase in white faculty.

cases.

5. 1974

4.

Administrators in developing

institutions had significant endowment monies.

GAO Report

Strengthening Developing Institutions

Purpose: To assess the Federal program for
Strengthening Developing Institutions.

Results:

A series of recommendations were made on the basis of the GAO's analysis.

A Study Design for Evaluation of

Strengthening Developing Institutions
Program.