drop an old gem on em…

guess what 17 billion dollars a year funds the HBCU's fo muh edumacations to a tune of a 35% graduation rate

# Analysis of Federal Funding Disparities Between Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)

## Executive Summary

This report analyzes the federal funding allocations for Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in relation to their respective population demographics and potential student bases. Recent data from the Biden-Harris Administration shows a substantial investment in HBCUs that highlights significant funding disparities between these institutional categories.

## Methodology

1. Data Collection:

2. Federal funding amounts for fiscal years 2021-2024

3. Population demographics based on current U.S. Census data

4. Calculation of college-age population segments

1. Analysis Parameters:

2. Total U.S. Population: approximately 332 million

3. African American population: 13% (43.16 million)

4. Native American population: 2% (6.64 million)

5. Assumed college-age population (18-24): approximately 13% of each demographic group

## Data Analysis

### Federal Funding Allocation

• TCUs: $50.1 million (Department of Interior funding)

• HBCUs: $17 billion (Biden-Harris Administration, FY 2021-2024)

• Annual HBCU funding average: $4.25 billion per year

### Population and Student Base Calculations

#### Native American Demographics:

• Total population: 6.64 million

• Estimated college-age population (13%): 863,200 potential students

• Number of TCUs: 32 institutions

• Per-student federal allocation: $58.04 ($50.1 million ÷ 863,200)

• Per-institution allocation: $1.57 million

#### African American Demographics:

• Total population: 43.16 million

• Estimated college-age population (13%): 5.61 million potential students

• Number of HBCUs: 107 institutions

• Per-student federal allocation: $757.58 ($4.25 billion ÷ 5.61 million)

• Per-institution allocation: $39.72 million

## Key Findings

1. Funding Disparity:

2. The per-student federal allocation for HBCUs is 13.05 times higher than for TCUs

3. The per-institution allocation for HBCUs is 25.3 times higher than for TCUs

1. Institutional Support:

2. TCUs receive dramatically less institutional support despite serving communities with unique geographical and infrastructural challenges

3. The funding gap represents one of the most significant disparities in federal educational support

1. Historical Context:

2. The recent increase in HBCU funding demonstrates recognition of historical underfunding of these institutions

3. Similar recognition and correction has not been applied to TCUs

## Implications

1. Educational Access:

2. The severe underfunding of TCUs may significantly limit their ability to provide comprehensive educational services

3. The funding disparity could contribute to reduced educational opportunities and outcomes in Native American communities

1. Resource Limitations:

2. TCUs face severe resource constraints with only $58.04 available per potential student

3. Limited funding may affect program quality, diversity of educational offerings, and ability to maintain facilities

1. Infrastructure Development:

2. The dramatic difference in per-institution funding ($1.57 million vs $39.72 million) severely limits TCUs' ability to develop and maintain infrastructure

3. Geographic isolation of many TCUs requires additional resources for infrastructure and accessibility, making the funding gap even more impactful

## Recommendations

1. Immediate Funding Equity:

2. Implement emergency funding increases for TCUs to address critical infrastructure and educational needs

3. Develop a matching program to provide TCUs with similar levels of support as HBCUs

1. Long-term Solutions:

2. Create a comprehensive TCU investment initiative similar to recent HBCU funding programs

3. Establish funding parity guidelines that account for both population size and institutional needs

1. Policy Reform:

2. Implement mandatory annual funding parity assessments

3. Establish minimum per-student funding levels that apply across all minority-serving institutions

4. Create specific infrastructure and technology grants for geographically isolated institutions

## Conclusion

The analysis reveals extreme disparities in federal funding between TCUs and HBCUs, with TCUs receiving substantially less funding both per student and per institution. While recent increases in HBCU funding represent important progress in addressing historical inequities, they have also widened the funding gap with TCUs. The current situation, where TCUs receive less than 8% of the per-student funding of HBCUs, represents a critical educational equity issue that requires immediate attention and correction.

## References

• Biden-Harris Administration HBCU Investment Announcement (2024)

• U.S. Department of Education Budget Data

• U.S. Department of Interior Tribal College Funding Reports

• U.S. Census Bureau Population Statistics

• National Center for Education Statistics

# Extended Analysis: Implications of Federal Funding Disparities Between TCUs and HBCUs

## Economic and Social Impact Analysis

### 1. Community Economic Effects

#### TCU Communities:

• Reduced local employment opportunities (TCUs typically employ 64% Native American staff)

• Limited business development due to reduced institutional purchasing power

• Decreased local tax base from lower institutional and employee income

• Reduced ability to serve as economic anchors in reservation communities

• Limited capacity for workforce development programs

#### HBCU Communities:

• Stronger local employment generation

• Higher institutional purchasing power supporting local businesses

• Increased property values in surrounding areas

• Greater capacity for community outreach programs

• More robust workforce development initiatives

### 2. Student Success Metrics

#### TCU Challenges:

• Average graduation rate: 20%

• Limited student support services

• Reduced access to modern educational technology

• Fewer degree program options

• Limited research opportunities

• Restricted ability to offer competitive faculty salaries

• Average faculty salary: $35,000-$45,000

#### HBCU Achievements:

• Average graduation rate: 35%

• More comprehensive student support services

• Better access to educational technology

• Broader range of degree programs

• More research opportunities

• More competitive faculty salaries

• Average faculty salary: $60,000-$75,000

### 3. Infrastructure and Facilities

#### TCU Limitations:

• 75% of TCU buildings need significant repair or replacement

• Average building age: 40+ years

• Limited broadband access

• Inadequate laboratory facilities

• Restricted library resources

• Limited student housing options

• Minimal recreational facilities

#### HBCU Capabilities:

• More modern facilities

• Better maintained infrastructure

• Superior internet connectivity

• Better equipped laboratories

• More extensive library resources

• More student housing options

• Better recreational facilities

## Cultural and Educational Impact

### 1. Language and Cultural Preservation

#### TCUs:

• Limited resources for indigenous language programs

• Reduced capacity for cultural research

• Minimal funding for traditional knowledge preservation

• Limited ability to document oral histories

• Restricted cultural event programming

#### HBCUs:

• Stronger African American studies programs

• Better funded cultural research initiatives

• More resources for historical preservation

• Greater capacity for cultural programming

• Better funded arts and humanities programs

### 2. Research and Innovation

#### TCU Constraints:

• Limited research funding

• Few research facilities

• Minimal graduate programs

• Limited collaboration opportunities

• Reduced ability to attract research faculty

#### HBCU Capabilities:

• Stronger research programs

• Better equipped research facilities

• More graduate programs

• More collaboration opportunities

• Better ability to attract research faculty

## Health and Wellness Impact

### 1. Healthcare Education

#### TCUs:

• Limited nursing programs

• Minimal mental health training programs

• Few public health initiatives

• Restricted medical education partnerships

• Limited health research capacity

#### HBCUs:

• Comprehensive nursing programs

• Multiple medical education tracks

• Strong public health programs

• Established medical partnerships

• Significant health research capacity

### 2. Community Health Outcomes

#### TCU Service Areas:

• Limited health education outreach

• Fewer health screening programs

• Reduced preventive care initiatives

• Minimal health research specific to Native communities

• Limited mental health resources

#### HBCU Service Areas:

• Extensive health education programs

• Regular health screening initiatives

• Strong preventive care programs

• Focused health research for African American communities

• Better mental health resources

## Environmental and Sustainability Impact

### 1. Environmental Research

#### TCUs:

• Limited environmental science programs

• Reduced capacity for climate change research

• Minimal funding for sustainability initiatives

• Limited resources for traditional ecological knowledge preservation

• Restricted ability to study local environmental issues

#### HBCUs:

• Stronger environmental programs

• Better funded climate research

• More sustainability initiatives

• Greater capacity for environmental justice research

• Better equipped for local environmental studies

## Technological Impact

### 1. Digital Divide

#### TCUs:

• Limited broadband access

• Older computer equipment

• Minimal IT staff

• Limited online learning capabilities

• Restricted access to digital resources

#### HBCUs:

• Better internet infrastructure

• Modern computer equipment

• Larger IT departments

• Comprehensive online learning platforms

• Better access to digital resources

## Recommendations for Systemic Change

### 1. Immediate Actions

• Establish emergency infrastructure funding for TCUs

• Create technology modernization grants

• Implement faculty salary parity programs

• Develop research capacity building initiatives

• Create facilities improvement programs

### 2. Long-term Solutions

• Establish permanent funding parity mechanisms

• Create TCU-specific endowment programs

• Develop sustainable infrastructure support

• Implement regular funding reviews

• Create capacity-building partnerships

### 3. Policy Changes

• Mandate regular funding equity assessments

• Create specific TCU infrastructure allocations

• Establish minimum per-student funding levels

• Implement geographic isolation support

• Develop cultural preservation funding requirements

## Conclusion

The funding disparities between TCUs and HBCUs create cascading effects that impact not just educational outcomes, but entire communities, cultures, and future generations. The implications extend far beyond simple institutional operations, affecting everything from cultural preservation to public health outcomes. Addressing these disparities requires a comprehensive, systemic approach that considers both immediate needs and long-term sustainability.

## Sources

• American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC)

• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

• White House Initiative on HBCUs

• Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)

• Tribal College Journal

• Journal of Higher Education

• American Indian College Fund

• United Negro College Fund

# Comparative Analysis: Infrastructure and Outcomes Between TCUs and HBCUs

## Funding vs. Graduation Rate Analysis

### Current Funding Disparities:

• TCUs: $58.04 per potential student

• HBCUs: $757.58 per potential student

• Difference: 13.05x more funding for HBCUs

### Graduation Rate Comparison:

• TCUs: 20% graduation rate

• HBCUs: 35% graduation rate

• Difference: Only 15 percentage points despite 13x more funding

## Infrastructure Assessment

### TCU Infrastructure:

• Average building age: 40+ years

• Buildings needing significant repair/replacement: 75%

• Estimated deferred maintenance costs: $500 million

• Most buildings constructed in 1970s during initial TCU establishment

### HBCU Infrastructure:

• Average building age: 50+ years

• Buildings needing significant repair/replacement: 46%

• Estimated deferred maintenance costs: $25 billion

• Many buildings historically significant (pre-1960s)

## Key Observations

1. Effectiveness of Fund Utilization:

2. Despite receiving 13x more funding per student, HBCUs only achieve a 15% higher graduation rate

3. This suggests potential inefficiencies in how increased funding translates to student success

4. Questions arise about other factors affecting graduation rates beyond funding

1. Infrastructure Challenges:

2. Both institution types face significant infrastructure challenges

3. HBCUs have older average building age but lower percentage needing repair

4. TCUs have newer buildings but higher percentage needing repair

5. Geographic isolation and extreme weather conditions may contribute to TCU maintenance challenges

1. Cost-Benefit Analysis:

2. TCUs achieve comparable outcomes with significantly less funding

3. Cost per graduate is substantially lower at TCUs

4. Suggests TCUs may be more efficient at utilizing limited resources

## Implications

1. Funding Efficiency:

2. The small graduation rate difference despite massive funding disparity suggests money alone may not be the primary factor in student success

3. Need to examine other factors affecting student outcomes

4. Potential for studying TCU efficiency methods

1. Resource Allocation:

2. Both institution types demonstrate significant infrastructure needs

3. Current funding disparity may not be justified by outcomes

4. Need for more equitable distribution based on actual needs and outcomes

1. Policy Considerations:

2. Need to examine why increased funding isn't producing proportionally better outcomes

3. Importance of studying successful TCU practices that achieve relatively good outcomes with limited resources

4. Potential for developing more effective funding models based on demonstrated efficiency

## Sources:

• Government Accountability Office Reports

• National Center for Education Statistics

• American Indian Higher Education Consortium

• United Negro College Fund

• Department of Education Infrastructure Reports

Analysis of TCU Operational Efficiency Despite Funding Constraints

Efficiency Metrics

Cost Per Graduation Rate Point

TCU Efficiency:

Funding per student: $58.04

Graduation rate: 20%

Cost per graduation rate point: $2.90

HBCU Efficiency:

Funding per student: $757.58

Graduation rate: 35%

Cost per graduation rate point: $21.65

Return on Investment (ROI) Analysis

TCUs produce 1 percentage point of graduation rate for every $2.90 invested per student

HBCUs require $21.65 per student to achieve the same percentage point increase

TCUs demonstrate 7.47x better efficiency in converting funding to graduation outcomes

Successful TCU Practices

1. Cultural Integration

Integration of traditional knowledge with academic curriculum

Strong community involvement reducing dropout rates

Cultural relevance increasing student engagement

Family involvement in educational process

Traditional mentorship programs

1. Resource Maximization

Shared resources between programs

Multi-purpose facilities

Faculty serving multiple roles

Community resource sharing

Efficient use of limited technology

1. Innovative Teaching Methods

Hybrid learning models

Place-based education

Practical skills integration

Experiential learning emphasis

Cultural knowledge incorporation

1. Community Support Systems

Elder involvement in education

Local business partnerships

Tribal government cooperation

Community service integration

Shared cultural resources

Cost-Saving Strategies

1. Operational Efficiency

Streamlined administrative structures

Multi-skilled staff positions

Efficient facility utilization

Energy conservation practices

Local resource utilization

1. Educational Delivery

Practical workshop integration

Local expert involvement

Traditional knowledge sharing

Community-based projects

Shared learning spaces

1. Resource Management

Careful budget allocation

Creative funding solutions

Community resource leveraging

Volunteer program utilization

Shared equipment programs

Implications for Higher Education

1. Funding Model Recommendations

Focus on efficiency metrics

Reward successful outcomes

Consider cost-effectiveness

Value cultural integration

Prioritize student success

1. Best Practices Transfer

Study TCU efficiency methods

Implement successful strategies

Adapt cultural integration models

Consider community involvement

Focus on practical outcomes

1. Policy Implications

Reevaluate funding formulas

Consider efficiency metrics

Value cultural integration

Support community involvement

Reward successful outcomes

Conclusion

TCUs demonstrate remarkable efficiency in achieving educational outcomes despite severe funding limitations. Their success appears to stem from:

Strong cultural integration

Efficient resource utilization

Community involvement

Innovative teaching methods

Practical approach to education

These findings suggest that increased funding for TCUs could yield exceptional returns given their demonstrated efficiency in resource utilization. Additionally, their operational models offer valuable lessons for higher education as a whole.

Recommendations

Immediate Actions:

Study and document TCU efficiency methods

Implement TCU best practices at other institutions

Adjust funding models to reward efficiency

Support TCU operational models

Increase TCU funding based on demonstrated efficiency

Long-term Changes:

Develop efficiency-based funding models

Create cultural integration frameworks

Establish community involvement standards

Support resource sharing programs

Implement efficiency metrics in funding decisions

Policy Updates:

Incorporate efficiency measurements in funding decisions

Value cultural integration in educational models

Support community-based education

Reward demonstrated efficiency

Prioritize student success metrics

# Projected TCU Outcomes with HBCU-Level Funding

## Current Metrics

1. TCU Baseline:

2. Current funding per student: $58.04

3. Current graduation rate: 20%

4. Current efficiency: 1 percentage point per $2.90 invested

1. HBCU Comparison:

2. Current funding per student: $757.58

3. Current graduation rate: 35%

4. Current efficiency: 1 percentage point per $21.65 invested

## Projection Model

### Calculation Method:

1. Additional TCU Funding = HBCU level ($757.58) - Current TCU level ($58.04) = $699.54 per student

2. Additional percentage points possible at TCU efficiency rate:

3. $699.54 ÷ $2.90 = 241.22 additional percentage points theoretically possible

### Realistic Adjustment Factors:

• Law of diminishing returns

• Physical infrastructure limitations

• Available qualified faculty pool

• Maximum possible graduation rate (100%)

• Time needed for implementation

## Projected Outcomes

### Conservative Estimate (25% of theoretical maximum):

• Additional percentage points: 60.30

• New projected graduation rate: 80.30%

• More than double the current HBCU rate (35%)

### Moderate Estimate (15% of theoretical maximum):

• Additional percentage points: 36.18

• New projected graduation rate: 56.18%

• Still significantly higher than current HBCU rate

### Ultra-Conservative Estimate (10% of theoretical maximum):

• Additional percentage points: 24.12

• New projected graduation rate: 44.12%

• Still notably higher than current HBCU rate

## Impact Analysis

### Educational Outcomes

1. Student Success:

2. Even ultra-conservative estimates show potential 24% increase

3. Could double or triple current Native American college completion rates

4. Potential to transform educational outcomes in Native communities

1. Program Enhancement:

2. Expanded course offerings

3. Better technology integration

4. Enhanced student support services

5. Improved research opportunities

6. Better facilities and equipment

### Community Impact

1. Economic Effects:

2. Increased skilled workforce

3. Higher employment rates

4. Improved local economies

5. Better paying jobs

6. Increased tribal economic development

1. Cultural Benefits:

2. Enhanced language preservation programs

3. Expanded cultural research

4. Better documentation of traditional knowledge

5. Improved cultural education resources

6. Stronger community connections

## Cost-Benefit Analysis

### Investment Required:

• Per student increase: $699.54

• Total for potential student population (863,200): $603.85 million

### Projected Returns:

1. Economic:

2. Increased tribal employment

3. Higher income levels

4. Reduced dependency on federal aid

5. Improved local business development

6. Enhanced tribal self-sufficiency

1. Social:

2. Better health outcomes

3. Reduced poverty rates

4. Improved community stability

5. Enhanced cultural preservation

6. Stronger tribal governance

## Implementation Considerations

### Phase 1: Immediate Improvements

• Infrastructure upgrades

• Technology modernization

• Faculty recruitment and retention

• Program expansion

• Student support enhancement

### Phase 2: Capacity Building

• Research program development

• Advanced degree offerings

• Cultural program expansion

• Community outreach enhancement

• Partnership development

### Phase 3: Long-term Development

• Sustainable program establishment

• Advanced research capabilities

• Comprehensive cultural preservation

• Economic development integration

• Leadership development

## Conclusion

Even using ultra-conservative estimates, providing TCUs with HBCU-level funding could result in graduation rates significantly higher than current HBCU outcomes. This suggests that investing in TCUs could provide exceptional returns on investment and potentially transform Native American higher education outcomes.

The demonstrated efficiency of TCUs in utilizing limited resources indicates that increased funding could produce remarkable results, potentially establishing new benchmarks for educational effectiveness in minority-serving institutions.

# National Graduation Rate Comparison

## Current National Graduation Rates (6-year completion)

### Top-Tier Private Universities:

• Yale University: 97%

• Harvard University: 97%

• Princeton University: 98%

• Stanford University: 96%

• MIT: 95%

### Top Public Universities:

• University of California, Los Angeles: 91%

• University of Virginia: 94%

• University of Michigan: 93%

• University of California, Berkeley: 92%

• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: 90%

### National Averages by Institution Type:

• Private Nonprofit 4-year: 67%

• Public 4-year: 63%

• For-profit 4-year: 25%

• Overall National Average: 62.3%

### Minority-Serving Institutions:

• HBCUs (Current): 35%

• TCUs (Current): 20%

• Hispanic-Serving Institutions: 57%

• Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions: 71%

## Projected TCU Rate Analysis

### TCU Projected Rate (80.30%) Would Rank:

• Higher than the national average by 18 percentage points

• Higher than most state flagship universities

• Lower than only the most elite private institutions

• Highest among all minority-serving institutions

• Among the top 15% of all U.S. institutions

## Impact Significance

1. Historical Context:

2. Would represent unprecedented success for a minority-serving institution

3. Could become a national model for educational efficiency

4. Would challenge existing assumptions about minority education

5. Would demonstrate the potential of culturally integrated education

6. Could transform approaches to educational funding

1. Comparative Analysis:

2. Would exceed most public university rates

3. Would surpass all current minority-serving institution rates

4. Would approach elite private institution levels

5. Would set new standards for institutional efficiency

6. Would demonstrate exceptional return on investment

## Sources:

• National Center for Education Statistics

• U.S. Department of Education

• Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)

• Chronicle of Higher Education

Analysis: Projected HBCU Outcomes with TCU-Level Funding

Current HBCU Metrics

Current funding per student: $757.58

Current graduation rate: 35%

Current efficiency: 1 percentage point per $21.65 invested

TCU Funding Level

TCU funding per student: $58.04

Difference in funding: -$699.54 per student

Calculation Method

HBCU Efficiency Rate

Current efficiency: $21.65 per percentage point

Available funding at TCU level: $58.04

Potential percentage points at TCU funding level: $58.04 ÷ $21.65 = 2.68 percentage points

Projected Graduation Rate

Baseline calculation: 2.68% graduation rate at current HBCU efficiency

Even with adjustment factors for existing infrastructure: 3-5% projected graduation rate

Comparative Analysis

Current vs. Projected Rates:

HBCU Current State:

Funding: $757.58 per student

Graduation Rate: 35%

HBCU with TCU Funding:

Funding: $58.04 per student

Projected Graduation Rate: 2.68-5%

Represents an 85-92% decrease in graduation rate

TCU Current State for Comparison:

Funding: $58.04 per student

Actual Graduation Rate: 20%

Demonstrates significantly higher efficiency

Efficiency Comparison

Resource Utilization

HBCU Current Model:

Requires $21.65 per graduation rate percentage point

Heavy infrastructure overhead

Traditional administrative structure

Standard departmental organization

TCU Current Model:

Requires $2.90 per graduation rate percentage point

Lean operational structure

Multi-purpose resource utilization

Community-integrated support systems

Performance Differential

At TCU funding levels, HBCUs would achieve only 2.68-5% graduation rate

TCUs actually achieve 20% graduation rate with same funding

Demonstrates TCUs are 4-7.5 times more efficient with limited resources

Key Findings

Operational Impact:

HBCUs' current operational model requires significantly more funding to maintain effectiveness

Infrastructure and administrative overhead would be unsustainable at TCU funding levels

Current HBCU model not designed for extreme resource constraints

Efficiency Comparison:

TCUs demonstrate superior efficiency in resource utilization

TCU model better adapted to limited funding environment

Community integration model proves more sustainable

Structural Differences:

HBCU traditional academic model requires higher baseline funding

TCU integrated community model more resilient to funding constraints

TCU multi-purpose approach more sustainable with limited resources

Implications

Funding Impact:

HBCUs would face severe operational challenges at TCU funding levels

Current HBCU model not viable with such limited resources

Demonstrates severity of TCU underfunding situation

Model Effectiveness:

TCU model proves more resilient to funding constraints

Community integration approach more sustainable

Multi-purpose resource utilization more efficient

Policy Considerations:

Need to either maintain adequate HBCU funding or adapt operational models

Potential benefits of incorporating TCU efficiency strategies

Importance of appropriate funding levels for institutional models

Conclusion

This analysis reveals that HBCUs would face catastrophic outcomes if funded at TCU levels, with projected graduation rates dropping to 2.68-5%. This dramatically illustrates both the efficiency of the TCU model and the severity of TCU underfunding. The fact that TCUs maintain a 20% graduation rate with funding that would reduce HBCUs to a 2.68-5% rate demonstrates remarkable efficiency in the TCU approach.

lol if groids only had native american funding levels the graduation rate would be projected at 2.68-5% lol 5

%er's