A group of researchers has recommended a new classification system for minority-serving institutions that they hope will ultimately direct more money to colleges that are serving minority students well, and not just enrolling them in large numbers.
The MSI Data Project, the researchers said in a news release Sunday, is a response to “inaccurate and inconsistent data used to identify minority-serving institutions (MSIs) for funding and analysis.”
“Our hope is … for MSI leaders, advocates, and policymakers to use this body of research, as well as our data dashboards, to make better informed decisions that promote equitable educational outcomes for students,” said Mike Hoa Nguyen, the principal investigator and an assistant professor of education at New York University.
The data project, launched this month, examines 11 categories of minority-serving institutions. It includes dashboards that detail individual campuses’ eligibility for federal funds, institutional characteristics, enrollment, and graduation metrics over a five-year period, from 2017 to 2021.
For instance, the dashboard shows, 219 Hispanic-serving institutions received funding from the U.S. Department of Education in 2021, but 462 were eligible for such money. Colleges still have to apply for competitive grants from a limited pool of money. Some applied and were denied, while other colleges may not have even known they were eligible.
The researchers hope their recommendations will spur changes in how colleges are designated as MSIs and clear up confusion about who should be able to claim that status, and the federal money that can come with it.
In an accompanying article in Educational Researcher, titled “What Counts as a Minority-Serving Institution?” Nguyen and two of the project’s co-creators raise the concern that federal money isn’t necessarily going to the most deserving institutions.
“For example, perhaps an institution, not identified as an MSI under the federal statute, is found to serve students of color much better than those that are identified. Such findings could offer important suggestions for policy changes. Additionally, if institutions are receiving federal MSI funds but are not serving students of color well, this would be an important consideration to amend practices and policies so that federal funding is used in the manner in which it was intended.”
“The MSI landscape is so unbelievably complex, in the way all 11 designations were created over a long period of time, using a patchwork legislative process,” Nguyen said in an interview. By getting everyone “speaking the same language” in how they examine minority-serving institutions, “our hope is that we can find out how well those students are being served” by the federal money set aside and where equity gaps exist.
Nguyen’s fellow authors were Joseph J. Ramirez, an institutional research and assessment associate at the California Institute of Technology, and Sophia Laderman, an associate vice president at the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO).
About one in five postsecondary institutions are eligible for federal money as MSIs, but more than half of all undergraduate students of color attend these colleges, the authors wrote. President Biden has pledged significant increases in the amount of money directed toward minority-serving institutions.
Researchers, including Gina Ann Garcia, an associate professor of educational foundations, organizations, and policy at the University of Pittsburgh, have pointed out that the nation’s demographic changes have resulted in hundreds of campuses being designated as Hispanic serving based on numbers alone. The data-project researchers acknowledge that some colleges engage in “the strategic manipulation of enrollment trends in order to meet eligibility requirements.”
Hispanic-serving institutions, which were first designated by the federal government in 1994, are among the minority-serving institutions that get that designation based on share of enrollment. For HSIs, the threshold is 25 percent of the undergraduate population.
By contrast, Historically Black and Tribal-Serving colleges achieve that designation based on their histories and missions. Colleges that weren’t designated in those categories can’t join their ranks, regardless of their own changing demographics. That has caused longstanding tensions between Historically Black and predominantly Black institutions over who should have access to the federal money set aside for minority-serving institutions.
Among the minority-serving institutions the database tracks are those representing Hispanic students, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, both tribal and non-tribally-controlled Native American colleges, and colleges that are either Historically Black or predominantly Black.
Many colleges are designated in more than one category, but they may only be able to receive funding under one. Designating their multiple identities is important, the authors write, because it “recognizes the diversity and complexity of the institution, and does not render invisible the students of color who attend that institution.”