Historical Context of HSIs & Policy

• HSIs emerged due to demographic shifts and systemic underfunding of institutions serving Latinx students.

• Unlike HBCUs and TCUs, HSIs were not originally designated based on historical mission but rather on enrollment demographics.

• Federal recognition of HSIs came through the Higher Education Act (HEA) amendments, particularly Title V, which provides funding for institutional development.

Historical Underfunding: TCUs were created to serve Indigenous students, but they continue to suffer from chronic underfunding at both state and federal levels.

• Land Grant Inequities: Unlike other land-grant institutions, TCUs receive far less funding from state and federal sources.

• Sovereignty & Policy Barriers: Federal policies often fail to recognize the unique governance structures of TCUs, leading to bureaucratic challenges in securing funding.

• Why is it Problematic for HBCUs?

  • HBCUs serve high proportions of first-gen, low-income, and underrepresented students, who often face systemic barriers to success.

  • PBF models do not account for structural inequities, putting HBCUs at a financial disadvantage.

  • Many HBCUs have fewer financial resources to invest in student support programs compared to predominantly white institutions (PWIs).

• Challenges of Dual Status:

  • Competing for Funding: Federal and state policies do not always provide separate funding streams, forcing institutions to prioritize one group over another.

  • Institutional Identity Conflicts: Colleges struggle to serve diverse student populations while maintaining eligibility for MSI-specific funding.

  • Accountability and Oversight Issues: Policymakers often fail to create clear guidelines on how institutions should navigate dual designation.

·       Defining Financial Resilience at HSIs

• Financial resilience refers to an institution's ability to adapt, sustain, and grow despite funding challenges.

• HSIs often operate with limited financial resources, relying heavily on federal and state funding.

·       Funding Challenges for HSIs

• Overreliance on Federal Funds: Many HSIs depend on Title V funding, but this support is not guaranteed and highly competitive.

• State Disinvestment: In states with high Latinx populations, public funding has not kept pace with enrollment growth at HSIs.

• Lower Endowments & Philanthropic Support: Compared to non-HSIs, these institutions receive less private funding and alumni donations.

• This mindset was a very intentional shift starting with Reagan to cut spending and push towards privatization. This shift has very specifically shifted the conversation around education to pretty much ONLY focus on career outcomes, rather than all the other outcomes we know to be true around education.  

• These histories are important for all conversations around policy and sociology. I wish there were space in every paper to call out these histories in a meaningful way.

• Especially when many of the PBFs intentionally create ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in their system. Even if these schools are able to increase outcomes, if other schools do the same, it does not matter.

• At DH, we started disaggregating data around AAPI students, but only after the students themselves forced the administration’s hand. The CSU has been collecting the necessary data to do this for years, but has still remained committed to almost exclusively viewing race through IPEDS categories.

• What does the future of this recommendation look like? Even if we are able to maintain the existence of the DoE and all the other departments listed in this section, it will take decades for funding to return to what it looked like even in 2024.

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that public policy for MSIs often prioritizes economic and workforce needs over equity and social justice.

   1. Policies on higher education funding and access focus on economic benefits rather than addressing systemic exclusion.

   2. MSI students are often framed as a workforce resource rather than as individuals needing equitable educational opportunities.

2. I realize that MSIs are disproportionately affected by the declining purchasing power of Pell Grants and state disinvestment in higher education.

   1. Pell Grants once covered a significant portion of tuition, but their purchasing power has dropped significantly.

   2. Many MSIs serve low-income, first-generation students who rely heavily on financial aid, making these funding reductions particularly damaging

3. I understand that performance-based funding policies often disadvantage MSIs by failing to account for their unique student populations.

   1. States like Florida and Texas tie funding to student outcomes like graduation rates, disproportionately hurting MSIs.

   2. HBCUs in performance-funded states have seen a decline in completion rates, suggesting these policies do not support equitable student success.

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that PBF models disadvantage HBCUs by failing to account for the unique challenges their students face.

   1. HBCUs serve a large proportion of low-income, first-generation students who often require additional academic and financial support.

   2. PBF rewards institutions based on metrics like graduation and job placement rates, but these measures do not account for socioeconomic barriers that impact HBCU student outcomes.

2. I realize that states with aggressive PBF policies have seen a decline in funding for public HBCUs.

   1. In states like Florida, Tennessee, and Mississippi, PBF has resulted in less funding for smaller regional universities and HBCUs while favoring flagship public institutions.

   2. Florida A&M University lost state funding despite improving graduation rates, illustrating how PBF policies fail to support institutions that serve underprivileged students.

3. I understand that PBF pressures HBCUs to change admissions practices, which may negatively impact their historical mission.

   1. Some HBCUs have increased admissions selectivity to improve graduation rates and secure more state funding.

   2. This shift contradicts their historical mission of providing access to students who have been underserved by traditional education systems, potentially limiting opportunities for students in need.

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that dual designation as both an HSI and an AANAPISI presents challenges in federal funding access for universities.

   1. Institutions that qualify as both Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs) must choose between funding streams, as current federal regulations prohibit receiving multiple MSI grants simultaneously.

   2. This forces universities to prioritize one minority group over another, creating tensions within campus communities.

2. I realize that demographic shifts in California make dual designation an increasingly relevant issue.

   1. Latino and AAPI student enrollments in California’s CSU system have grown significantly, making it more likely that campuses qualify for both HSI and AANAPISI status.

   2. Despite this, policies have not adapted to reflect the changing racial/ethnic composition of student populations, limiting institutional flexibility in serving all minority groups equitably.

3. I understand that legislative efforts, such as the MSI Fairness Act, aim to address these funding challenges but have yet to succeed.

   1. In 2015, the MSI Fairness Act was proposed to allow institutions to receive multiple MSI grants at the same time, but it failed to pass.

   2. Without policy reform, dual-designated institutions remain disadvantaged, as they must choose between funding sources instead of being able to fully support both Latino and AAPI students.

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that HSIs are disproportionately impacted by declining state and federal funding, making financial resilience a critical issue.

   1. HSIs serve a large percentage of low-income, first-generation Latino students, yet they receive significantly less per-student state and local appropriations compared to non-HSIs.

   2. Between 1999 and 2010, public four-year HSIs received on average $1,274 less per student in state and local funding than non-HSIs, making it harder for these institutions to invest in student success initiatives.

2. I realize that federal funding for HSIs has not kept pace with the rapid increase in HSI-eligible institutions, leading to intense competition for limited resources.

   1. The number of HSIs more than doubled between 1996 and 2010, yet federal Title V appropriations have remained relatively stagnant.

   2. In 2009, only half of federally recognized HSIs received Title V grants, and the funding amounts were significantly lower compared to investments in other MSIs.

3. I understand that HSIs’ reliance on tuition revenue makes them more vulnerable to financial instability and limits affordability for students.

   1. HSIs are more dependent on government sources of revenue than non-HSIs, making them highly susceptible to public funding cuts.

   2. As state appropriations decline, HSIs have had to increase tuition and fees, which disproportionately affects Latino students, who are more likely to come from low-income backgrounds and rely on financial aid.

Key Takeaways

1. I understand that the historical legacy of forced assimilation continues to shape the challenges faced by TCUs today.

   1. TCUs were created in response to the failures of federal policies, which historically aimed to assimilate Native students into White culture through boarding schools and vocational training.

   2. The Native American self-determination movement of the 1960s and 1970s pushed for the creation of tribally led higher education institutions, ensuring Native students had access to culturally relevant education.

2. I realize that TCUs operate under severe financial constraints due to the federal government’s failure to fully honor treaty obligations.

   1. The U.S. government promised education funding for Native nations in exchange for land, but these commitments have largely gone unfulfilled, leaving TCUs chronically underfunded.

   2. Federal funding per Native student at TCUs is below authorized levels, and state governments generally do not provide financial support, making it difficult for these institutions to expand programs and services.

3. I understand that TCUs serve as more than academic institutions; they provide essential community services to address socioeconomic disparities.

   1. Many TCUs function as community hubs, offering services such as healthcare, childcare, workforce training, and food assistance in geographically remote areas.

   2. Because reservations often have limited infrastructure, high unemployment, and lack access to basic services, TCUs play a vital role in improving the overall well-being of tribal communities.