Introduction the National Security Education

CHAPTER ONE

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction

The world watched and celebrated as thousands of East Germans peacefully

crossed the Berlin Wall into West Germany on November 9, 1989. With the end to the

Cold War in sight this jubilation was short lived as the world watched the armies of Iraq

invade Kuwait on August 2, 1990. During the build-up of United States and Coalition

armed forces in the Gulf region during Operation Desert Shield and the military

campaign of Operation Desert Storm it became clear that the United States needed to

rethink national security matters and priorities for the country. Then-United States

Senator David L. Boren, a Democrat from Oklahoma who voted against authorizing the

Persian Gulf War but ultimately supported President George H.W. Bush once the war

started, authored the National Security Education Act which was eventually signed into

law on December 4, 1991 by President George H.W. Bush. The National Security

Education Act was the first major piece of international education legislation focusing on

the national security (and defense) of the United States since Title VI of the former

National Defense Education Act of 1958. Senator Boren’s idea for the National Security

Education Act came during his service as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on

Intelligence. Senator Boren, while recounting his motivations for authoring the National

Security Education Act, stated:

When I was chairing the Intelligence Committee we brought in all the old

pioneers: those [who] were there from the beginning with intelligence,

helped start the CIA [and] helped us win World War II...They said the

most important thing you can have is a group of highly intelligent people

who are extremely well educated, who understand the cultures and speak

the languages, who can go into [other] countries and be advocates for the

United States.... It's human talent that is key to our national security.

Senator Boren and the majority of his colleagues on the Senate

Intelligence Committee and across the Senate Floor believed that sending

United States undergraduate and graduate students abroad to learn about

the people, languages and cultures of other countries, in particular non-

Western countries, was critical to building an intelligent and capable cadre

of professionals and future federal employees that would benefit and

support the changing and challenging national security efforts of the

United States. While David L. Boren authored the National Security

Education Act, he was not alone in visualizing the legislation in the

creation of an international education trust fund. Modeled after the post-

Sputnik National Defense Act of 1958, Senator Boren along with co-

sponsor colleagues then-Senator Sam Nunn [D-GA], chairman of the

Armed Services

Committee, and then-Senator John Warner [R-VA], ranking minority member of the

Armed Services Committee, announced on July 18, 1991 their intent to create an

international education trust fund focusing on scholarships for United States

undergraduate students to study abroad in in underrepresented countries and on graduate

level fellowships and institutional grants for area studies and foreign language study. The

Boren National Security Education Program Trust Fund was the result of the Boren-

Nunn-Warner National Security Education Act which was contained in the 1992

Intelligence Authorization Act.5

http://www.nsep.gov/about/history/.

5 Steve Kennedy and Jynks Burton. “Ferment on Capitol Hill.” NAFSA Newsletter 42, no. 8, 1 and

23, August/September 1991; and, Theodore M. Vestal, International Education: Its History and Promise for

Today. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994, 151.

The National Security Education Act of 1991 established the Boren National

Security Education Program Trust Fund of $150 million to provide: 1) scholarships for

undergraduate study abroad; 2) graduate foreign language and area studies fellowships;

and, 3) university grants to create or improve foreign language and area studies

programs.6 National Security Education Program funding was and remains intended for

academic study and research in non-Western countries with a requirement to incorporate

the study of foreign languages deemed critical to the national security of the United

States. The National Security Education Program7 has had a mandated post-funding

6 John M. Keller and Maritheresa Frain, The Impact of Geo-Political Events, Globalization, and

National Policies on Study Abroad Programming and Participation,” in A History of U.S. Study Abroad:

1965Present, ed. William W. Hoffa and Stephen C. DePaul (Carlisle, PA: Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary

Journal of Study Abroad, 2010), 37; The Modern Language Journal. “The Boren National Security

Education Program Trust Fund,” The Modern Language Journal 77, no. 1 (1993): 44; and, National

Security Education Program, “Legislative History of NSEP,”

http://www.nsep.gov/about/history/index.html; Vestal, 152; Association of Departments of Foreign

Languages. “Back Matter Spring 1992,” The ADFL Bulletin Online, (1992),

http://www.adfl.org/bulletin/V23N3/OLD/233999.HTM; and, NAFSA: Association of International

Educators, Major Funding Boost for International Education, NAFSA Newsletter 43, no. 3, December

1991/January 1992, 40.

7 In 2001, the National Security Education Program Scholarships and Fellowships change their

names to the “David L. Boren Scholarships” and the “David L. Boren Fellowships.” For the sake of

consistency I will refer to the Scholarship and Fellowship programs as the “National Security Education

Program Scholarships and Fellowships.” The National Security Education Program has grown and

matured since its inception in 1991 and currently consists of the following initiatives: David L. Boren

Scholarships award United States undergraduate students scholarships to study abroad in countries deemed

critical to the national security of the United States and to study the languages and cultures of these

countries; David L. Boren Fellowships award United States graduate students fellowships to conduct

independent research projects combining language and cultural studies in countries deemed critical to the

national security of the United States; The Language Flagship implements a “new paradigm” for advanced

foreign language study of Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, Swahili, Turkish

and Urdu for graduate students through a partnership of the Federal Government, higher education and the

private sector; English for Heritage Language Speakers (EHLS) provides professional native speakers of

Arabic, Chinese and other critical foreign languages a similar level of English language proficiency;

National Language Service Corps (NLSC) is an effort to create a national corps of “on-call language-

certified Americans” who are able and ready to serve the United States with their foreign language skills

during times of crisis and national need; Project GO (Global Officers) is a United States Department of

Defense initiative to train and improve the foreign language skills in Arabic, Chinese, Hausa, Hindi, Urdu,

Korean, Pashto, Persian (Dari, Farsi,

Tajik), Russian, Swahili, Tatar, Turkish, Uzbek and Wolof and to develop regional expertise and

service requirement in the Federal Government for undergraduate scholarship and

graduate fellowship recipients since its inception. The National Security Education

Program, its service requirement and post-service requirement employment in the Federal

Government are the focus of this dissertation.

Historical Background of the National Security Education Program

A precursor of what was to come with the National Security Education Act was

Senator Boren’s collaboration on two significant international educational exchange

agreements with his Senate colleague Clairborne Pell, a Democrat from Rhode Island.

First was Senator Boren’s and Senator Pell’s proposal in 1989 to President George H.W.

Bush to establish an annual exchange of 20,000 students between the United States and

the Soviet Union which was then followed by their sponsorship of the Educational

Exchanges Enhancement Act of 1991 (S.517)8 which was established to increase the

number of United States graduate and undergraduate students (up to 10,000) heading on

international educational exchanges to the new democracies of Eastern Europe and non-

intercultural communication skills of future military officers by working with ROTCs of the Army, Air

Force and Navy and 18 higher education institutions across the United States; African Languages Initiative

seeks to increase the number of David L. Boren Scholars, Fellows and Alumni engaged in the study of the

critical languages of Africa (former United States Representative Dan Boren [D-OK], son of David L.

Boren, worked on the African Languages Initiative provision of H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization

Act of 2010); and, Language Training Centers which provide university-based grants focused on providing

foreign language and culture training to United States Department of State personnel. More information on

these initiatives of the National Security Education Program are available online at

http://www.nsep.gov/initiatives/. National Security Education Program, Nine Critical Initiatives, One

Goal, http://www.nsep.gov/initiatives/.

8 The Educational Exchanges Enhancement Act of 1991 was introduced into the United States House of

Representatives by Representative Howard Wolpe [D-MI] as HR 2504. Amy Yenkin and Lisa Treacy.

“Government Watch: Legislative and Regulatory Update,” NAFSA Newsletter 43, no. 3, December

1991/January 1992, 3; and, Vestal, 149.

Western countries. Elements from and the objectives of both of these international

education initiatives sponsored by Senator Boren can be found in the National Security

Education Act.

The National Security Education Act brought with it much controversy and many

concerns within the academic community. For one thing, the National Security

Education Program Trust Fund was placed under and administered by the Defense

Intelligence College which is part of the United States Department of Defense with the

National Security Education Board, chaired by the United States Secretary of Defense, or

designee, providing guidance and oversight of the program. Having an international

education “Trust Fund” housed under and administered by the United States Department

of Defense rather than under the auspices of the United States Departments of State or

Education, or even Commerce for that matter, was a major shift in the focus and goals of

international education funding in the United States. Additionally, recipients of National

Security Education Program funding were held to a service requirement in the Federal

Government. There have been several changes to the conditions associated with fulfilling

the service requirement since the start of the National Security Education

Program but this requirement remains an essential component of the program. The

National Security Education Program Trust Fund funded the program from FY1992

through FY2005 and since FY2006 the program began receiving an annual appropriation

through the Department of Defense annual appropriations and through a transfer from the

Office of the Director for National Intelligence.10 Finally, the National Security

Education Board was established to set policy for the program but had no management

responsibilities. Of particular concern was the legislatively mandated make-up of the

National Security Education Board members which designated the United States

Secretary of Defense as Chairman to govern the National Security Education Program

with other Board members including the United States Secretaries of State, Commerce

and Education as well as the Directors of the United States Information Agency and the

Central Intelligence Agency or designees. The requirement that the National Security

Education Board be chaired by the United States Secretary of Defense and include the

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency were the appointments that caused the most

concern within the higher education community across the United States.

The National Security Education Program certainly has had its share of critics as

well as its share of supporters. The National Security Education Act was signed into law

in December 1991 and the debates within the academic community, and in particular

within the Area Studies communities, began to percolate shortly thereafter in early 1992.

On February 14, 1992, the Presidents of the African Studies Association, Latin American

Studies Association, and the Middle East Studies Association of North America sent a

letter to Senator Boren on behalf of their Boards of Directors expressing their grave

10 National Security Education Program. National Security Education Program 2010 Annual Report.

Arlington, VA: National Security Education Program, 2011, 13. For an excellent overview on the

National Security Education Program from idea in 1990 through the first year of President Bill Clinton’s

Administration including specifics on the political side of the program and funding levels to the

establishment of the NSEP Office by then-Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney to details on the early

leadership of the program, etc., see, previously cited Theodore M. Vestal, International Education: Its

History and Promise for Today. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994, 149-180 and208-217

concern for the administration of the program and the presence of the Director of the

Central Intelligence Agency having a role in the oversight of the program [as a member

on the National Security Education Board]. Additionally, these three scholarly

associations (in general agreement with similar organizations expressing concern for the

National Security Education Program) wrote in their letter to Senator Boren that

linking university based research to U.S. national security agencies, even

indirectly, will restrict our already narrow research opportunities; it will endanger

the physical safety of scholars and our students studying abroad; and it will

jeopardize the cooperation and safety of those we study and collaborate with in

these regions.

Other scholarly organizations such as the Association for Asian Studies also wrote

directly to Senator Boren while groups such as Concerned Asian Scholars published their

concerns in the scholarly bulletins and organizations such as the South Asia Council of

the Association for Asian Studies, the Joint Committee on South Asia of the Social

Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies issued a joint

resolution in November 1992 urging the “institutions that may act as pass-through

organizations [organizations contracted to administer the National Security Education

Program] for these funds not to accept any monies under the administration of U.S.

national security agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Central

Intelligence Agency.”14 The Social Science Research Council even took the step of

writing Vice-President Gore in July 1993 with their concerns of the National Security

Education Program and included the following recommendations for changes to the

program as part of his Reinventing Government Program [National Performance

Review]:

• First, build a coalition among a small number of key players in support

of transferring the program to an agency – presumably the Center for

International Education in the Department of Education – and putting it

under legislative oversight – presumably Labor and Human Resources

in the Senate and Education and Labor in the House – that are consistent

with its real goals;

• Second, change the composition of the Program’s board so that it no

longer includes representation from the Department of Defense or the

Director of Central Intelligence; and

• Third, modify the language rationalizing the program so that it no

longer emphasizes contributions to the intelligence establishment [in the

form of the post-award service requirement].15

Additionally, the early days of the National Security Education Act also saw featured

articles such as “Spooks on campus. (National Security Education Act of 1991 allows

intelligence agencies to control university international relations programs)” published in

the media which continued the discussion beyond academia.16 Despite assistance from

14 Resolution of the South Asia Council of the Association for Asian Studies and the Joint Committee on

South Asia of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies,

November 1992, copy in the author’s possession; and, James K. Boyce, “The National Security Education

Act of 1991: Issues and Analysis,” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 24, no. 2, April-June 1992, 85-87.

15 Stanley J. Heginbotham to The Honorable Albert Gore, Vice-President of the United States, 19 July 1993,

copy in author’s possession.

16 David MacMichael, “Spooks on campus. (National Security Education Act of 1991 allows intelligence

agencies to control university international relations programs),” The Nation, June 8, 1992.

international education groups such as the Liaison Group for International Educational

Exchange and NAFSA: Association of International Educators who worked with Senate

staff in refining the concept and structure of the Trust Fund so that it would be acceptable

to the higher education community there remained serious concerns about the program.

To be sure, not every scholar or professional who held membership in these academic

associations or area studies communities had concerns about the National Security

Education Act or the National Security Education Program but it was the voice of those

opposed to the program that was the loudest.

There was also a healthy and rigorous debate within the international education

community on the National Security Education Program and what it meant for the field

and, more importantly, United States students studying and conducting research abroad

on United States Department of Defense funds. There was no clear majority position that

the field of international education held on the National Security Education Program and

no formal resolutions were issued by any of the stake holder organizations. Individual

international educators (administrators and faculty), however, held strong positions both

in opposition of and support for the National Security Education Program and many were

well versed on the National Security Education Act legislation and were heavily

consulted on their campuses and other organizations on the National Security Education

Program. The debates and individual position statements on the National Security

Education Program were well informed, articulately written and primarily posted to

SECUSS-L for the entire international education to view and respond. As the

National Security Education Program was preparing for the first scholarship and

fellowship application cycles throughout 1993, institutions of higher education across

the United States were faced with the need to formally decide how they would handle

applications from their undergraduate and graduate students. Several institutions across

the country struggled with how (and if) they would participate in the first year of the

program and beyond. Institutions including: Montclair State University, Yale

University, Michigan State University, University of Iowa, Indiana University,

University of California at Santa Cruz, Augsburg College, Clemson University, Texas

Tech University, University of Washington, Trinity College, Wesleyan University,

Villanova University and Santa Clara University all struggled internally on how they

would or would not support the National Security Education Program. The following

table highlights how an additional group of colleges and universities dealt with the first

pilot 1994-1995 National Security Education Program application cycle.

Table 1. Institutional Policies on the 1994-1995 National Security Education Program

Application Cycle

Institution

Designated National

Security Education

Program Campus

Representative?

Established

National

Security

Education

Program

Campus

Evaluation

Committee?

Notes

University of

California at

Berkeley

Deferred participation and

reviewed for next competition

cycle.

University of

Minnesota

Yes

Provided all prospective

applicants a letter with

summary document of National

Security Education Program

history of concerns.

University of

Pennsylvania

Yes

Information about controversial

nature of the National Security

Education Program and

potential implications of

accepting National Security

Education Program grants was

disseminated to all prospective

applicants.

copy in author’s possession.

University of

California at

San Diego

Yes

Provided all prospective

applicants with background

information on the program and

informed students of

institutional concerns of the

National Security Education

Program and rational for

institutional participation.

Stanford

University

Yes

Required both undergraduate

and graduate applicant’s

signature and date on disclosure

statement before evaluation and

mailing applications.

Harvard

University

Faculty of Arts and Sciences

(FAS) Faculty Council decided

to help Harvard students apply

on their own.

The

University of

Chicago

Yes

Program competition was not

advertised to students. At the

time of the undergraduate

deadline, applications were

signed but not rated. By the

graduate deadline, campus was

prepared to convene a

committee to rate the

applications but none applied.

Provided all prospective

applicants with background

information on National

Security Education Program

and the controversial nature of

the program.

Mount

Holyoke

College

Unknown

Forwarded all submitted

applications to Regional

Screening Committees.

Provided all applicants with

letter outlining the controversial

nature of the program but

supportive tone for the program

was prevalent throughout letter

Sources: Richard M. Buxbaum, University of California at Berkeley, to Ms. R. Charlene King, Director,

National Security Education Program, 22 November, 1993, copy in the author’s possession; Michael F.

Metcalf, The University of Minnesota, to The National Security Education Program, 16 February 1994,

copy in the author’s possession; Harvard University. The National Security Education Program (NSEP):

Application Modifications and Issues Summary for Harvard Graduate Students, January 1994; Esherick, J.,

National Security Education Program: Some Background Information, University of California San Diego,

February 1, 1994; Joyce M. Randolph, The University of Pennsylvania and the 1994 National Security

Education Program, Summary Report, 9 March, 1994; Betchel International Center, Stanford University.

Disclosure Statement for Undergraduates: National Security Education Program, February 1994; Mary

Cay Martin, The University of Chicago, to Joyce Randolph, The University of Pennsylvania, 3 March,

1994, copy in the authors’ possession; Ralph W. Nicholas, The University of Chicago, to Prospective

Applicants for NSEP Fellowships, 26 October, 1994, copy in the author’s possession; Mary Cay Martin,

The University of Chicago, to Barbara Burn, Group of Advisors of the National Security Education

Program and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 14 March 1994, copy in the author’s possession;

and, Joanne M. Picard, Mount Holyoke College, to NSEP Scholarship Applicants, 23 February, 1994, copy

in the author’s possession.

Decisions on institutional policy and response to the National Security Education

Program did not come easy and were often times a laborious process involving many

stakeholders across campus. Institutions such as the University of Chicago struggled to

finalize an institutional response to National Security Education Program given the

controversy of the program both within the campus community and across the United

States. Faculty and administrators at The University of Chicago with focus on languages

and area studies, international education and financial aid met on multiple occasions

throughout late 1993 and early 1994 and sent several letters and updates to the President

and Provost of the University outlining their concerns about the program, peer

institutional responses and recommending an institutional response. As noted in the

above table, The University of Chicago’s faculty believed then, as they do now, in

freedom of choice and in not preventing students from applying for funds for which they

were eligible.

While the debates and concerns about the National Security Education Program

continued across the academic community, both the Institute of International Education

and the Academy for Educational Development were able to assemble qualified and

credentialed academics and professionals from across the United States and from a

variety of higher education institutions to serve on the inaugural application

screening/review panels.22 The Association of American Universities was supportive of

the National Security Education Program and, while understanding the concerns of their

colleagues, issued a statement of support stating that “we believe that the National

Security Education Program is an important new initiative that can make a very positive

contribution to American higher education.”23 Shortly after her appointment as Director

of the National Security Education Program in 1993, Charlene King sent letters to 3,300

college presidents to inform them of the new National Security Education Program

opportunity and asked that they appoint a campus liaison for the program. King and the

National Security Education Program anticipated between 300 and 500 responses but in

the author’s possession.; Mary Cay Martin, to Joyce Randolph, 3 March, 1994, copy in the author’s

possession; Ralph W. Nicholas, to Hugo Sonneschein, President and Geoffrey Stone, Provost, 21 January,

1994, copy in the author’s possession.; and, Ralph W. Nicholas, to Hugo Sonnenschein, President, 11

December, 1993, copy in the author’s possession.

22 Institute of International Education, “National Security Education Program, Undergraduate

Scholarships, Regional Screening Panel Members,” (1994); and, Academy for Educational Development,

“National Security Education Program, Graduate Fellowships Panelists 1994,” (1994).

23 Gil Merkx, University of New Mexico, to John Vaughn, Association of American Universities,

Confidential 2nd Draft letter of support of NSEP, 27 January 1994, copy in author’s possession; David

Wiley, “National Security Education Program: Who’s Setting the Agenda.” The Journal of the

International Institute 1, no. 1, (Winter, 1994), http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.4750978.0001.102; and,

National Security Education Program. List of National Security Education Program Representatives on

AAU Campuses, 21, December, 1993.

the end the National Security Education Program received contact information for

campus liaisons from over 1,500 institutions. These examples highlight that not everyone

within higher education in the United States was against the National Security Education

Program.

In order to address the concerns and criticism leveled against the National

Security Education Act and the National Security Education Program, some changes were

made to the program but, in most cases, not to the satisfaction of the numerous critics. In

September 1992, a number of amendments to the National Security Education Act were

made to include increasing the size of the National Security Education Board from ten to

13 members to include the chairperson of the National Endowment for the Humanities as

an ex officio member and two additional private members to be appointed by the

president, removing requirements that the Act be administered by the Defense

Intelligence College and to allow independent centers to administer the program such as

the Institute of International Education for the undergraduate scholarship and the

Academy for Educational Development for the graduate program. A transition in

National Security Education Program leadership occurred in May 1993 as the new

Clinton Administration was reorganizing the Department of Defense. Specifically,

Charlene King was appointed Director and Bob Slater became Deputy Director.27 Both

King and her predecessor Martin Hurwitz made extensive efforts to reach out to the

higher education community in the United States. This was evidenced not only by King

sending frequent updates and letters to National Security Education Program campus

liaisons/representatives but also by the establishment of a twenty-eight member Group of

Advisors to the National Security Education Program which came to be known as the

“Breakfast Club” and by the establishment of the National Security Education Program

Standards and Assessment Group.28 Additionally, the National Security Education

Program, the Institute of International Education and the Academy for Educational

Development staff travelled across the country holding workshops and briefings to update

the higher education community on the details of the program and to clarify any

questions. These advisory groups of academics and professionals allowed for more

dialogue and information distribution among stakeholders and the National Security

Education Program. In one of his first acts as United States Secretary of Defense, Les

Aspin issued a Decision Memorandum that delegated authority for the National Security

27 In April 1992, United States Secretary of Defense Richard Chaney established the National

Security Education Program Office in the Pentagon and charged Dwane P. Andrews, Assistant Secretary for

Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence, to implement the National Security Education Act.

Martin Hurwitz was appointed Administrator of the National Security Education Program Office on May

12, 1992 and Charlene King was named Director of External Affairs of the National Security Education

Board, Vestal, 159.

28 Vestal, 160, National Security Education Program, Members of the Group of Advisors, 1993; The

NSEP Standards and Assessment Group, Designing a Quality Study Abroad Experience, November 1993;

Institute of International Education, “National Security Education Program a Reality,” Educational

Associate, the Newsletter for Members of the Institute of International Education 6, October-December,

1993: 1-2; and , Charlene King, National Security Education Program, to NSEP Representative, “Overview

of Recent Congressional Actions”, 1 August 1994, copy in author’s possession.

Education Act to the Undersecretary of Policy and under the leadership of the Assistant

Secretary for Democracy and Peace Keeping. Finally, while unsuccessful due to a host of

complicated administrative and legal issues, Vice-President Gore’s National

Performance Review Commission made the recommendation that the National Security

Education Program be moved to the United States Department of Education accompanied

by the endorsement of President Bill Clinton and United States Secretary of Defense Les

Aspin.

After two years of successful Scholarship and Fellowship competitions (more than

900 awards were distributed to United States undergraduate and graduate students during

this period) the program faced many challenges, both internally and externally. The

United States Congress reduced the National Security Education Trust Fund by $75

million which reduced the amount of funds available for Scholarships and Fellowships by

approximately 20% from $2.5 million to $2.0 million. The National Security Education

Program also experienced a change in the mandated service requirement as a result of

new language inserted into the Defense Appropriations Bill in the United States House of

Representatives that stated “any individual accepting a scholarship or fellowship from

this program agrees to be employed by the Department of Defense or in the Intelligence

community in accordance with federal employment standards.”32 The proposed change

to the service requirement almost doomed the program but it was then-Senator Paul

Simon [D-IL], a stalwart supporter of international education programs, who proposed

that the service requirement be altered to allow service in any agency in the Federal

Government with national security responsibilities. The change to the National Security

Education Program service requirement sparked a renewed concern about the program

among many in academia as evidenced by the Association of African Studies Programs to

renew its call for the National Security Education Program to move from the United

States Department of Defense to the United States Department of Education during its

1994 spring meeting and it was believed by many that the program was no longer

available and did not promote the 1996 competition to students and thus the program saw

a decline in the number of applications from United States undergraduate and graduate

students.33

32 Stephen F. Moseley, Academy for Educational Development, to NSEP Applicants, Fellows, Campus

Representatives, Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange, 12 December 1995, copy

in author’s possession;

33 NSEP Program Office, Update: Congressional Actions Concerning NSEP, e-mail message sent to

SECUSS-L listserv, 7 April 1995, copy in author’s possession; Paul Desruisseaux, “First Winners Picked in

National Security Education Program,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 1, 1994; Amy Margaro

Rubin, “National Security Education Program Keeps Awards Level, Despite Fall in Applications,” The

Chronicle of Higher Education, May 30, 1997: A50; Amy Magaro Rubin, “National Security Education

Program Changes Controversial Service Requirement,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4,

1996: A50; Amy Magaro Rubin, “Change in Service Requirement Seen Hurting Foreign-Study Program,”

The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 13, 1995: A43; Amy Magaro Rubin, “Congress Supports-but

Modifies-Federal Foreign-Study Program,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 8, 1995: A38;

Sandra Lauffer, Academy for Educational Development, to Mary Martin, University of Chicago, 11 June

While the fervor in opposition to the National Security Education Program

subsided substantially after the first several (and successful) years of the program, the

debates continued into the 2000’s and flared up again in the immediate years following

the September 11, 2001 attacks. The concerns resulted in a renewed boycott of the

program by many scholars. In addition, debates among scholars/commentators arose such

as Stanley Kurtz criticizing Area Studies scholars and Title VI centers for their boycott

and lack of support for programs like the National Security Education Program and a

rebuttal to Stanley Kurtz’s public criticisms by The American Council on Education that

was evident in the media and during Congressional testimony. Despite the concerns and

debates over the years against the National Security Education Program, students

continued to apply, receive and accept program funding and continued to fulfill their

mandated service requirement.

The academic community in the United States perhaps has been justified with

their concerns of the National Security Education Act and the National Security

Education Program given the covert funding and influence that the CIA exerted over a

variety of student organizations, foundations, non-governmental organizations and within

many universities themselves during the 1950s and 1960s. Organizations such as the

National Student Association,37 the Asia Foundation and even the Institute of

International Education (which would later be selected to administer the National

Security Education Program undergraduate scholarship as one of the so-called

passthrough organizations) were identified as having received funding from the CIA.38

Such exploits of the CIA and other federal agencies involved in intelligence matters with

the academic community were not forgotten and the passing of the National Security

Education Act ignited fears that history would repeat itself. For instance, in 2005, then-

Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert S. Mueller, III created the National

Security Higher Education Advisory Board which was made up of nineteen university

presidents and chancellors as a means to improve relations and

37 To learn more about the National Student Association and information on the CIA involvement with this

organization read John M. Keller and Maritheresa Frain, The Impact of Geo-Political Events,

Globalization, and National Policies on Study Abroad Programming and Participation,” in A History of

U.S. Study Abroad: 1965-Present, ed. William W. Hoffa and Stephen C. DePaul (Carlisle, PA: Frontiers:

The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 2010), 27-28 and William W. Hoffa, A History of US Study

Abroad: Beginnings to 1965 (Lancaster, PA: Whitmore, 2007), 192-200.

38 Vestal, 165; Sol Stern, “A Short Account of International Student Politics and the Cold War with

Particular Reference to the NSA, CIA, Etc.,” Ramparts, March 1967, 29-38; National Research Council,

Committee on Educational Paradigms for Homeland Security, Policy and Global Affairs, Frameworks for

Higher Education in Homeland Security (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2005);

Thomas Nilsson, “Students as Cold Warriors: The International Student Movement during the Cold War

(1946-1969)” European Student Link, The European Student Magazine of ESIB 28, no. 3, December 2004,

3, http://www2.fzs.de/uploads/international_student_movement02.pdf; and, Phil Agee, Jr. “CIA Infiltration

of Student Groups: The National Student Association Scandal,” Campus Watch, Fall, 1991, 12-13.

communications with higher education. Mueller appointed Graham B. Spanier, President

of Pennsylvania State University, to Chair the National Security Higher

Education Advisory Board and he served in this capacity until he was fired from

Pennsylvania State University in November 2011 in the wake of the sex abuse scandal

involving a former Football coach. In 2012, Spainer took up working with the Federal

Government on a special (and undisclosed) national security related project and it

remains unclear if he continues this work in the wake of eight criminal charges (including

three felonies) in the aftermath of the sex abuse scandal.

A second, and more relevant, example of the Federal Government combining

intelligence work with higher education programs occurred in November 2007 when U.S.

Student Fulbright Scholar to Bolivia John Alexander van Schaick reported to ABC News

that he was asked by United States Embassy of Bolivia Assistant Regional Security

Officer, Vincent Cooper during a mandatory orientation and security briefing session to

“keep tabs” on and provide the “names, addresses, and activities of any Venezuelan or

Cuban doctors or fieldworkers [he] came across” during his time in Bolivia. The

Chronicle of Higher Education reported that van Schiack was conducting research as a

Fulbright Scholar in the Santa Cruz department of Eastern Bolivia which is an area that

Cuba frequently sends doctors to support free medical services sponsored by Bolivia’s

president Evo Morales who is an ally of Cuban President Fidel Castro. Earlier during

July 2007, Vincent Cooper made a similar request of tracking and reporting the

whereabouts of Venezuelan and Cuban doctors to the United States Embassy of Bolivia

while presenting to a group of United States Peace Corps Volunteers serving in Bolivia.

The United States Department of State acknowledged that Vincent Cooper would be

reprimanded and that this was against Embassy policy but four months later Cooper

repeated this act with Fulbright Scholar van Schiack. At the time of Vincent Cooper’s

contact with the Peace Corps Volunteers and Fulbright Scholar van Schiack, Philip S.

Goldberg was serving as United States Ambassador to Bolivia (2006-2008). On

February 16, 2010, Ambassador Goldberg was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of the

Bureau of Intelligence and Research and currently holds that position. To be sure, the

Fulbright U.S. Student Program and the United States Peace Corps are very different

programs than the National Security Education Program Scholarships and Fellowships.

However, the Bolivia incident described above is the perfect example of the concerns and

critiques levied at the National Security Education Program since the National Security

Education Act was signed into law back in December 1991.

This abbreviated historical overview of the National Security Education Act of

1991 and of the early years of the National Security Education Program offers a glimpse

into how this program developed over time and provides insight on the types of students

who applied for National Security Education Program Scholarship and Fellowship

funding and on those who did not apply for funding. This overview also provides a

perspective on the challenges many early National Security Education Program

applicants, Scholars and Fellows faced in the early years of the program as it developed

as well as the push back many students faced from faculty who were vehemently opposed

to the program from the beginning and remain so today.

Purpose of the Research

As previously mentioned, the service requirement, along with the concern that the

National Security Education Program was and remains funded by the United States

Department of Defense and the connection to the Central Intelligence Agency, was very

controversial in the early years of the program and remains a concern for some faculty

and scholarly organizations to this day. The primary concerns of the National Security

Education Program within the scholarly community focused on mixing academic work

and intelligence work as well as the safety and welfare of students and scholars who may

be known to be financially supported by or plan to eventually work for the United States

Department of Defense and/or for the intelligence community. Questions arise about

whether the National Security Education Program is successfully achieving government

objectives of employing National Security Education Program Alumni in critical areas of

federal service and how long National Security Education Program alumni are working in

such positions.

The following text from the 2007 National Security Education Program Annual

Report demonstrates the clear need for my research:

Although NSEP award recipients are committed to working in the Federal

Government, NSEP is aware that job mobility is a critical aspect of the

modern career. It is estimated that most professionals will work in no

fewer than five jobs during their careers. Anecdotal evidence suggests

that many NSEP award recipients remain with the Federal sector well

beyond the duration of the Service Requirement. Although not part of the

program’s statutory authority, NSEP is committed to obtaining additional

data on post-Service Requirement employment.

In order to assist the National Security Education Program in their data collection efforts

on post-service requirement employment of Alumni the research question for this study

asks: In what areas of government and for what duration (retention) have National

Security Education Program Alumni worked?

To my knowledge there has not been any formal research studies conducted on the

National Security Education Program service requirement or on any post-service

requirement employment in the Federal Government. This research project is an effort to

not only learn more about post-service requirement employment in the Federal

Government by National Security Education Program Alumni but also to serve as a

catalyst for future scholarship on this topic.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

There have been National Security Education Program Scholars and Fellows over

the years who decided in the end to forgo the service requirement which required them to

repay their full Scholarship or Fellowship award. Data from the National Security

Education Program Office shows that <1% of National Security Education Program

Scholars and Fellows are delinquent in completing their service requirement and they are

pursued for repayment. What is missing, however, is a more complete picture of the

career choices made and the directions taken by the National Security Education Program

Alumni once they have met the minimum obligations of their service requirement and, in

particular, those who fulfilled their service requirement in the Federal Government.

While the research question for this study will attempt to provide insight into the

federal employment and careers of National Security Education Program Alumni the

following literature review provides a valuable perspective on employment in the Federal

Government and in particular in the national security arena. This literature review

chapter is broken down into thematic sections pertaining to employment in the Federal

Government from the perspective of National Security Education Program Alumni.

National Security Education Program Service Requirement

As observed above, the National Security Education Program was controversial

from the beginning due to it falling under the auspices of the United States Department of

Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence or designee serving on the National

Security Education Board and the mandated service requirement that program Alumni

must fulfill. In reviewing the National Security Education Act, one cannot miss that two

of the five “Purposes” of the Act directly relate to the service requirement. Specifically,

Purpose (3) of the Act is “to produce an increased pool of applicants for work in the

departments and agencies of the United States Government with national security

responsibilities” and Purpose (4) of the Act is “to expand, in conjunction with other

Federal programs, the international experience, knowledge base, and perspectives on

which the United States citizenry, Government employees, and leaders rely.” During the

first pilot competition of the National Security Education Program, the service

requirement was vague and read:

Individuals who receive NSEA graduate fellowships, or undergraduate

scholarships covering a period of 1 year or longer, will be obligated to

serve either as a Federal employee or an educator for a minimum period of

time in return. The length of service requirement will be established by

regulation; it can be longer than the period of assistance for scholarship

recipients, and may be 1-3 times the period of assistance for fellowship

recipients. Individuals can meet this obligation by employment in any

Federal agency, or as an educator, in the area of study for which the

scholarship or fellowship as awarded.

The wording of the service requirement left many (both academics concerned about the

National Security Education Program as well as prospective applicants) wondering what

the service requirement entailed. Despite the vagueness of the service requirement and

despite the controversy of the program and lack of promotion at many colleges and

universities across the United States, a total of 1,812 undergraduate students applied to

the National Security Education Program in the first year of the competition with 312

offered scholarships. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, 675 graduate

students applied to the National Security Education Program in this same year and 172 of

them were offered fellowships. The following example of one of the 172 graduate

Fellows from the 1994-1995 competition highlights the type of service one was able to

give back in the early years of the program. The Fellow was a student from the Monterey

Institute of International Studies who studied at the Institute off Foreign Trade in

Shanghai for six weeks during the summer and upon her return she was able to fulfill her

service requirement by working at an internship at the National Committee on United

States-China Relations in New York.

The service requirement has changed over the years due to legislative mandates

and the following table provides an overview of the specific details pertaining to the

service requirement by dates of Scholarship/Fellowship.

Table 2. Legislative Changes to the National Security Education Program Service

Requirement

Years

National Security Education Program

Service Requirement Details

1991-1996 (with first pilot cycle being

1994-1995)

The initial service requirement was vague and

for the most part excluded Scholars. Fellows

could fulfill the requirement by working in the

Federal Government or in education in an area

related to one’s program/area of study

1996-2003

All recipients were required to seek

employment with an agency/office in the

Federal Government involved with national

security affairs. Those unsuccessful in

securing federal employment could work in

higher education related to their National

Security Education Program study. Scholars

had eight years and Fellows had five years to

fulfill their service requirements.

2004-2006

All recipients were required to fulfill their

service requirement in a position at the

Department of Defense or other element of the

intelligence community that is certified by the

Secretary of Defense as appropriate to utilize

the unique language and region expertise

acquired by the recipient. Scholars have three

years and Fellows have two years to fulfill

their service requirements after graduation.

2007

All recipients are required to fulfill their

service requirement with the Department of

Defense, any element of the intelligence

community, the Department of Homeland

Security, or the Department of State as

priority organizations. If there is no suitable

position available then the Scholars and

Fellows may fulfill the requirement in any

federal agency or office with national security

responsibilities.

2008 to present

All recipients are required to first search for

positions in four “priority” areas of

Government, namely, the United States

Departments of Defense, Homeland Security,

and State, or any element of the Intelligence

Community. If they are unable to secure work

in one of the priority areas, they can search

anywhere in the Federal Government for

positions with national security

responsibilities. As a final option, award

recipients may fulfill their service in

education.

Sources: National Security Education Program, 2011, 120; Boren Awards for International Study,

2013, http://borenawards.org/service.html; Amy Magaro Rubin, “Service Requirement Broadened

for Federal Foreign-Study Program,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 3, 1997: A61.

As evidenced in the table above, the service requirement has evolved over time and since

inception, a total of 4,497 National Security Education Program Scholars and Fellows

(2,839 Scholars and 1,658 Fellows) have been awarded funding. Of these nearly 4,500

Scholars and Fellows, the National Security Education Program Office reports that as of

November 2011, a total of 2,344 or 52% of NSEP award recipients had completed or

were fulfilling their service requirement. The National Security Education Program

Office also reports that 48% of the NSEP award recipients completed their service

requirement within the four “priority” areas of Government with an additional 28%

serving in other positions related to national security.

The National Security Education Program Office staff members have done a

yeoman’s job over the years in providing information and resources to National Security

Education Alumni as they sought employment in the Federal Government. Dating back

to 1995, the National Security Education Program Office has been surveying federal

agencies with national security responsibilities to learn what global skills are needed for

their workforce based on their “knowledge of world regions, languages and cultures, and

field of study.” A somewhat more recent example can be seen in the creation of NSEPnet

which is an online federal service employment hiring website designed specifically for

National Security Education Program Alumni that includes valuable career advice and

resources on working in the Federal Government. The National Security Education

Program Office also created a Senior Executive Liaison Officer position to assist hiring

managers across the Federal Government in learning more about the National Security

Education Program, its service requirement and special hiring authority they have when

they receive applications from program Alumni and, most importantly, the valuable talent

and knowledge that program Alumni bring to their open agencies. The National Security

Education Program Office has also worked hard to partner with specific agencies as a

means to create career pathways for program Alumni. One prime example is with the

United States Department of State’s Diplomacy Fellows Program where National

Security Education Program Fellows are eligible to bypass the Written Examination

portion of the Foreign Service exam and may proceed directly to the Oral Assessment.

National Security Education Program Alumni have also been afforded specific

employment seeking benefits that are not available to follow:

• The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2010 (NDAA FY 10)

Provides the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, and

State, as well as the heads of other federal agencies with

national security responsibilities, the ability to appoint NSEP

award recipients to ‘Excepted Service’ positions. NDAA FY 10

also authorizes award recipients, upon satisfactory completion

of two (2) years of substantially continuous service, the ability

to be noncompetitively converted to career or career-

conditional status.

• Schedule A Appointment Authority

Recipients of National Security Education Program Awards

(Scholarships/Fellowships) may be appointed to positions in

the Federal Government under a Schedule A government-wide

hiring authority, Code of Federal Regulations Title 5, Volume

1, Section 213.3102 (r) (positions established in support of

fellowship and similar programs). The authority became

effective November 28, 1997. Under this Schedule A, agencies

may appoint individuals to federal positions without applying

an examination process.

• Section 1332 of The Homeland Security Act of 2002, P.L.

107-296, November 25, 2002

It shall be the policy of the United States Government to

advertise and open all federal positions to United States

citizens who have incurred service obligations with the United

States Government as the result of receiving financial support

for education and training from the United States Government.

The National Security Education Program Office has understood and acknowledged for

many years the difficulty program Alumni experience when applying for positions that

require extensive security clearance reviews. The various bureaucratic hurdles and

frustrations that program Alumni face is problematic were best summed up in the

testimony of Dr. Robert O. Slater, then-Director of the National Security Education

Program, to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on April 1, 2004:

The major challenge confronted by NSEP is increasing the number of

award recipients who succeed in gaining employment in the Federal

Government, and more specifically the national security community, in a

reasonable and timely fashion. The program cannot by itself overcome

and be held responsible for the process. NSEP could easily double and

triple the numbers joining the Defense and IC with some assistance. But

NSEP award recipients confront a daunting set of challenges. Our award

recipients, anxious to find employment, routinely submit resumes that are

frequently unacknowledged. Access to jobs is highly restricted – more

than fifty percent of all federal jobs, at any given moment, are reserved for

those already employed in the Federal Government. A Homeland Security

Act of 2002 provision guaranteeing access for NSEP award recipients to

any federal job vacancy is yet to be implemented. And the security

clearance process, particularly for NSEP award recipients can take 18-24

months to complete. The irony for NSEP is that while our candidates are

exactly what the national security community needs and wants, the very

process that enabled them to gain their expertise – their intensive language

study overseas – is often the major reason why they cannot secure timely

security clearances.

A 2012 study by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that lengthy security checks and the lack

of security reciprocity across agencies not only reduces agency/department efficiency by

not being able to place highly skilled employees on time sensitive projects but also

negatively impacts employee morale and career advancement within the national security

sector.

The National Security Education Program Office continues its hard work to advance the

employment support offered to program Alumni as evidenced by the following select

accomplishments in 2011:

• The National Security Education Program held its 13th Annual

Symposium of Fellows and Federal Job Information Session in

Washington, DC in September. This Symposium brought 63

Fellows together to meet with federal hiring officials to learn

about employment opportunities and to network.

• Also in September, the National Security Education Program

launched their Security Clearance Pilot Initiative that Saw ten

program Alumni begin the process of obtaining SECRET level

clearance and ten program Alumni to begin the process of

obtaining ten TOP SECERET level clearances. Not only will

these twenty program Alumni be hired for federal employment

but they will serve as a control group and offer perspective on

the security clearance process of National Security Education

Program Alumni.

The National Security Education Program Office has also done an excellent job of

collaborating with and supporting the Boren Forum staff and the Boren Awards for

International Study staff at the Washington, D.C. office of the Institute of International

Education. The Boren Forum is the National Security Education Program Alumni group

and they are very active in supporting alumni in meeting their service requirement

obligations as well as pursuing positions in the Federal Government post-service

requirement completion. The Boren Forum provides members with numerous benefits

for seeking and securing employment in the Federal Government including:

• An online message board with forums dedicated to job

postings, job search advice, international experiences, and

more;

• Professional and social events including meetings with federal

recruiters, lectures on current events, regular happy hours, and

the annual summer barbecue;

• An annual job fair featuring federal contractors in the

Washington, DC area; and,

• A semiannual newsletter, featuring federal opportunity updates,

alumni success stories, foreign cultural highlights, and more.

The work of the National Security Education Program Office, the Boren Forum and the

Boren Awards for International Study staff based out of the Washington, DC office of the

Institute of International Education has not only paid off for the program Alumni but also

for the various federal agencies and departments that have benefited from the expertise

and skills gained by hiring National Security Education Program Alumni. The Army

Intelligence and Security Command’s National Ground Intelligence Center, for example,

has hired twelve National Security Education Program Alumni over the years with great

success. To be sure, there are many other federal agencies that are actively hiring

program Alumni and the Army Intelligence and Security Command’s National Ground

Intelligence Center is but one prime example of one that has greatly benefited.

Federal Government Employment in the National Security Arena

There certainly is no shortage of examples in the literature for calls to increase

and enhance the foreign language skills and the international experiences of college and

university students as a means to increase the global competitiveness and national

security capabilities of the United States. These calls for increased global competence

and expertise also extends to those currently working in the Federal Government as there

are immediate staffing needs for those with area study and foreign language expertise.

An excellent example of one such observation and concern is conveyed by the Iraq Study

Group in their 2006 Report:

All of our efforts in Iraq, military and civilian are handicapped by

Americans’ lack of language and cultural understanding. Our embassy of

1,000 has 33 Arabic speakers, just six of whom are at the level of fluency.

In a conflict that demands effective and efficient communication with

Iraqis, we are often at a disadvantage. There are still far too few Arab

language–proficient military and civilian officers in Iraq, to the detriment

of the U.S. mission.20

This statement by the Iraq Study Group highlights the critical need for human talent and a

federal workforce that is well trained and educated on area studies and cultures and in

critical languages such as Arabic so that the various national security missions and

operations of the United States run as effectively as possible. The National Security

Education Program was created to meet this need and serves this exact purpose.

November/December 2012, 10-12; The Iraq Study Group, The Iraq Study Group Report, The Way

Forward-A New Approach, (New York: Vintage Books, 2006); Burton Bollag, “A Failure to

Communicate.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 27, 2007, A24; U.S. General Accounting Office,

Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls,

Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO-02-375, January 2002; William J. Lahneman, The Future of

Intelligence Analysis: Volume I, Final Report, Center for International Security Studies at Maryland, The

University of Maryland, 2006,

http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/future_intel_analysis_final_report1.pdf; U.S. Congress. Senate.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,

the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Hearings on “A National Security Crisis: Foreign

Language Capabilities in the Federal Government, May 21, 2012,

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/oversight-of-government-management/hearings/a-

nationalsecurity-crisis-foreign-language-capabilities-in-the-federal-government; Research & Policy

Committee,

Committee for Economic Development (“CED”), Education for

Global Leadership: The Importance of International Studies and Foreign Language Education for U.S.

Economic and National Security (Washington: Committee for Economic Development, 2006); and, Gregg

H.S. Golden, “Notes on a National Strategy for Global Education” (master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate

School, 2011).

20 The Iraq Study Group, 92.

There have been numerous calls by key stakeholders (students, language

instructors, area studies instructors, national security and intelligence community

members, and business leaders) for a strategic plan and national collaborative effort to

enhance the foreign language, area studies and cultural expertise of federal employees

working in the national security sector in many of these reports. While the Federal

Government appears to be working towards identifying areas for improvement,

streamlining efforts and consolidating programs that provide critical language and area

studies training for those working in national security positions, in many instances, the

approach remains a decentralized process. For example, higher education to intelligence

community/feeder programs such as the National Security Education Program appear to

operate independently and in a more decentralized manner rather than in partnership with

other feeder programs.

An example of a higher education to intelligence community feeder program and

perhaps the most direct linkage between the intelligence community in the United States

and academia is evidenced in section 318 of the 2004 Intelligence Authorization Act.

With this Act, the United States Congress approved $4 million to fund a pilot program

known as the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program. The Pat Roberts Intelligence

Scholars Program was named after Senator Pat Roberts [R-KS] who had the vision to

establish the program during his four-year term as Chair of the United States Senate

Intelligence Committee. Housed within the United States Central Intelligence Agency,

the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program is “demand-driven and compliments the

hiring requirements of the Directorate of Intelligence” and in addition to serving at least

one internship in a Directorate of Intelligence office or center, the Pat Roberts

Intelligence Scholars Program provides financial incentive to the immediate hiring of

eligible candidates. The Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program works with eligible

candidates that have expertise in the following specialties: area expertise in many

countries and regions of the world deemed critical to the national security of the United

States; coursework in critical areas of study such as in counterterrorism, physical and

biological sciences, engineering, cyber security, etc.; expertise or academic training in

national security, international affairs, analytic methodology, etc.; language training or

proficiency in several non-Western less commonly taught languages deemed critical to

national security efforts of the United States and this language training adds a “significant

competitive edge” to those in the program. President Barack H. Obama believed in the

value of the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program so much that only a few months

after he took his first Oath of Office that he indicated he wanted to fund the program on a

permanent basis with no more earmarks. While the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars

Program did not see the same debates within academia as the National Security Education

Act and the National Security Education Program had there was a fair of amount of

coverage and dialogue expressing concerns for the program.27

A 2002 research report conducted by the United States General Accounting

Office, at the request of Senators Thad Cochran [R-MS] and Christopher J. Dodd [D-CT]

and Representatives James A. Leach [R-IA] and Sam Farr [D-CA] (members of the

House-Senate International Education Study Group), analyzed the need for personnel

with and the use of foreign language capabilities of the United States Army, the United

States Department of State, the United States Department of Commerce’s Foreign

Commercial Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The research found that

while these four agencies reported varied types and degrees of foreign language shortages

they specifically noted “shortages of translators and interpreters and people with skills in

specific languages, as well as a shortfall in proficiency level among people who use

foreign language skills in their jobs” and that such deficiencies have had a negative

111publ259/html/PLAW-111publ259.htm; David Goldstein, “Obama Gives Backing to Kansas

Republican’s Ridiculed Plan,” McClatchy Newspapers, 23 June 2009,

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/06/23/70542/obama-gives-backing-to-kansas.html.

27 For a selection of information and literature on the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program, see David

H. Price, Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Military State (Oakland, California:

CounterPunch and AK Press, 2011); Dave H. Price, “Exposing the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars

Program: The CIA’s Campus Spies,” CounterPunch, 12-14 March 2005,

http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/03/12/the-cia-s-campus-spies/; Senator Pat Roberts, Pat Roberts

Intelligence Scholars Program (PRISP), http://www.roberts.senate.gov/PRISP.htm; BBC, “Rears over CIA

‘University Spies,’” BBC News, 2 June 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4603271.stm;

Paul J. Nuti, “The Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program: FAQs,” American Anthropological

Association, 2006, http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/infocus/prisp/nuti-faqs.htm.

impact on the ability of these agencies to operate as maximum potential. The General

Accounting Office research report also highlighted the various strategies these agencies

were implementing to meet their foreign language needs to include: allocating significant

funding to further train employees in foreign language studies, providing pay incentives

to employees who study certain languages for “language-designated positions”; creating

attractive career paths for linguists with the opportunity to rise to positions above the

GS12 level in some agencies; hiring contract staff and recruiting native language

speakers; and, recruiting language-capable employees including National Security

Education

Program Alumni.

In 2006, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a five year

Strategic Human Capital Plan to:

1) Build an agile, “all source” workforce by projecting and planning for

mission critical human resource requirements;

2) Win the war for talent, by attracting and retaining the best and the

brightest candidates, recognizing and rewarding technical expertise,

performance excellence, integrity, and commitment to service; and,

3) Strengthen the Intelligence Community by creating a culture of

personal, professional, technical and managerial leadership at all

organizational levels

Recognizing that a changing generational workforce and the fierce competition for

human talent is at play the world today, the Report identified several human capital

challenges currently facing the intelligence community. The intelligence community

recognized that it faces what it calls “hyper-competition” for the best and the brightest

employees proficient in the most difficult languages and scientific disciplines and

frequently in competition with their own contractors for their own employees. This was

also evidenced in the study by PricewaterhouseCoopers in that they highlighted the

increased competition with the Private sector for employees with “specialized skills in

mission-critical areas.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence Strategic Human Capital Plan

Report also identified the generational gaps of its workforce and the challenges brought

by generational differences. Beyond the generational “culture clashes” between the

different generations in the workforce, the intelligence community needs to “recalibrate”

their human capital policies and practices to accommodate a younger generational

workforce that see themselves as holding multiple jobs with a variety of employers than

seek a 25-30 year career. Additionally, the Report also identified what they call an

imbalanced workforce as the tight budgets and hiring freezes and downsizing of the

1990’s created the current situation of critical shortfalls of experienced mid-career

professionals moving into leadership positions. This mid-career professional population

is predominately from Generation X and they have been the focus of other studies

pertaining to federal employment and retention. The National Security Education

Program Alumni population under investigation in this research study is from a

generation typically referred to as Generation X, those born between 1961 and 1981.

Some estimate that approximately 25-29% of the federal workforce is comprised of

employees from Generation X compared to approximately 40% of those from Generation

X employed in the private sector due, primarily, to the lack of hiring for federal positions

in the 1990s just as these individuals would be entering federal service. Additionally, the

private sector is not as constrained as the Federal Government when it comes to hiring

and professional advancement practices. These private sector differences are very

attractive to many from Generation X who feel frustrated with the challenges and

uncertainty on advancing their careers, salary and responsibilities within the Federal

Government. As previously mentioned above, employees from Generation X will hold

multiple professional positions and with a variety of employers as they tend not to be

overly loyal to employers.

Summary of Literature Review

As previously mentioned, the National Security Education Program Office is

working hard to place Scholars and Fellows into federal positions that would benefit from

the area study expertise and foreign language skills gained while studying and

researching abroad on National Security Education Program funding. Similar programs

like the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program, while relatively new, most likely add

a layer of competition to finding employment in the national security sector that is

already difficult and cumbersome to enter and navigate. Data on the Pat Roberts

Intelligence Scholars Program is not made publically available so we have do not have

the opportunity to further investigate the impact it has had on the intelligence community

in the United States or to allow for comparison to similar programs such as the National

Security Education Program. Furthermore, the various challenges faced by those from

Generation X in finding employment in the Federal Government and, in particular, within

the national security sector provide insight into the career paths of National Security

Education Program Alumni.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

As previously mentioned, there have not been any formal/published research

studies conducted on the National Security Education Program service requirement nor

have there been any formal/published research studies conducted on the employment of

National Security Education Program Alumni in the Federal Government post-service

requirement. This provided an exciting and unique opportunity to produce the first

methodological research roadmap in this area and it allowed me to forge through an uncut

and uncharted landscape. Navigating without a methodological roadmap to highlight

valuable panoramas and perspectives worthy of viewing and consideration was

challenging. Similarly, having a guide to alert one to the potential hazards and pitfalls

one might encounter along the route would have been a very valuable tool. In order to

plot this new route, roadmaps from related territories were consulted and modified with

the advice and support of fellow research cartographers familiar with the terrain I planned

to explore. After much deliberation and plotting a methodological research roadmap and

strategy were produced and I set out on this research expedition.

Conducting this research was important on many levels. Foremost, this was the

first research study focusing on the post-service requirement Federal Government

employment of National Security Education Program Alumni to ever be conducted

Second, as the National Security Education Program is a publically funded

program of the Federal Government it is important to investigate if the program is

meeting the objectives set forth in the legislation. The creation and dissemination of new

knowledge is a critical part of scholarship and this research projects meets this criteria.

The hope is that this research project will stimulate interest in navigating this terrain

further and that future researchers will use this methodological research roadmap as an

initial guide in their explorations.

Instrumentation

A recent study conducted by the Office of Postsecondary Education in the United

States Department of Education entitled A Study of Four Federal Graduate Fellowship

Programs: Education and Employment Outcomes and the survey instruments used will

serve as a useful model to my own study and survey instrument.1 This Department of

Education study focused on the academic and employment outcomes of graduate students

who received financial support through one of four federal fellowship programs (the

Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad fellowship program, the Foreign

Language and Area Studies Fellowship Program, the Graduate Assistance in Areas of

1 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and

Program Studies Service, A Study of Four Federal Graduate Fellowship Programs: Education and

Employment Outcomes, Washington, D.C., 2008.

National Need Fellowship Program, and the Jacob K. Jacob K. Javits Fellowship

Program) between 1997 and 1999.

For the purposes of my study I decided to create and model my survey instrument

after that used in this Department of Education study with specific attention paid to the

survey administered to the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship Program

recipients as they most closely resemble the National Security Education Program

Scholars and Fellows. Specifically, the purpose of the Foreign Language and Area

Studies Fellowship Program is:

• to assist in the development of knowledge, resources, and trained

personnel for modern foreign language and area or international studies;

• to foster foreign language acquisition and fluency; and

• to develop a domestic pool of international experts to meet national needs.

Similar to the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship Program, the purpose of the

National Security Education Program is “to enhance the national security of the United

States by increasing our national capacity to deal effectively with foreign cultures and

languages.” A skip logic survey instrument design was implemented for this study as not

all questions pertained to all National Security Education Program Alumni. Please see

Appendix B for my survey instrument.

In social science research it is important for researchers to pilot test their survey

questions as a means to discover elements of the instrument that may need refinement,

deletion or the possibility of adding new questions. Pilot testing a survey instrument is

also a method for improving reliability of the measurement and should be done whenever

possible. I was not able to test pilot the online survey instrument with the National

Security Education Program Alumni per the requirements with the National Security

Education Program Office. However, the online survey instrument used in this study

went through multiple levels of review and revision. As previously mentioned above, my

online survey instrument was modeled after the study conducted by the Office of

Postsecondary Education in the United States Department of Education entitled A Study

of Four Federal Graduate Fellowship Programs: Education and Employment Outcomes

as the goals of this project closely aligned with what I wanted to learn about the National

Security Education Program. The first level of review was conducted by two

international education colleagues holding Ph.D.’s from the Center for Global Education

at the University of California, Los Angeles. After revisions were made a second and

more intensive review of the online survey instrument was conducted in person with

several National Security Education Program staff members, including research staff and

senior staff, as well as with the Executive Director of the Boren Forum and this review

session was held at their headquarters in Roslyn, Virginia. This review consisted of a

question by question review and discussion on the value and purpose of each question. A

third level or review occurred during the oral defense of my dissertation proposal by my

faculty adviser and faculty reviewers. A final review of the online survey instrument

occurred during the Loyola University of Chicago Institutional Review Board approval

process as I sought final approval of my research study as a means to ensure that all

ethical standards would be met during the data collection phase of the project.

Population and Sample

In order to answer my research question: In what areas of government and for

what duration (retention) have National Security Education Program Alumni worked?

My study focused on Alumni who received funding during the first ten years of the

National Security Education Program (1994-1995 to 2003-2004). Specifically focusing

on the first ten years of the program was important because older National Security

Education Program Alumni had, for the most part, already completed their service

requirement obligations and would have been able to continue with their careers in the

Federal Government thus allowing me to fully investigate the areas of government and for

what duration the National Security Education Program Alumni worked.

I did not select a random sample of National Security Education Program Alumni

to survey for my study. Since my study did not select a sample for which to survey I

conducted what is technically known in research terms as a census inquiry. In a census,

an entire population is studied instead of a sample or subset of the population. For my

study, in cooperation with the National Security Education Program Office, the e-mail

invitation to participate in my study was sent to all 2,420 Alumni listed in the National

Security Education Program Office database who participated on the program between

1994 and 2004 as this was the complete population I wished to study.

Data Collection Procedure

My research project received Expedited approval from the Institutional Review

Board at Loyola University Chicago as it was determined that my project carried minimal

risk level. Further, the Institutional Review Board determined that documented consent

was not required for participants and they approved a waiver of documentation of

informed consent.

A survey participation invitation message, written by me and approved by

Institutional Review Board, was sent to all National Security Education Program Alumni

who received program funding during the first ten years of the program (1994-2004) via

e-mail by the National Security Education Program Office on my behalf. This invitation

e-mail was sent to prospective participants prior to them having access to the survey. The

final statement of the invitation e-mail read:

By beginning the online survey, you acknowledge that you have read this

information and agree to participate in this research, with the knowledge that you

are free to withdraw your participation at any time without penalty. You may print

a copy of this Consent to Participate in Research form for your records.

and this statement informed all prospective participants of their informed consent. At the

end of the survey participation letter participants viewed the link to the online survey

instrument and by clicking the on the survey button "I agree" I obtained their informed

consent.

The National Security Education Program Office staff sent out the request to

participate in my research project to all National Security Education Program Alumni on

my behalf in November 2011 and those who participated were directed to my online

survey instrument via a link embedded within my message. The online survey instrument

was open and available to National Security Education Program Alumni for completion

for 30 days. While it was necessary to work under the timeline and schedule of the

National Security Education Program Office in terms of when they would be able to send

my initial and follow-up messages there were no known problems related to the launch

date of my data collection activities.

A second e-mail message message was sent to National Security Education

Program Alumni on my behalf by the National Security Education Program Office staff

one week before the online survey instrument closed to serve as a reminder of the study

and as a second request to complete the online survey instrument. Please see Appendix A

for my recruitment e-mail message sent to National Security Education Program Alumni.

I was required to use Snap Surveys 10 software which was licensed by Loyola

University Chicago as this was an online survey instrument. The survey instrument data

was securely stored within the Snap Surveys software as well as on my personal home

computer for the duration of the study.

Alumni and participant confidentiality was very important for this study given the

nature of the types of employment National Security Education Program Alumni may have

completed during their service requirement and/or during any post-service requirement

employment in the Federal Government. Research participant confidentiality is a crucial

and necessary component of ethical research and protecting participant identity and treating

their responses in a confidential manner was so important to me that I decided not to conduct

any individual interviews with Alumni. This was also the reason why the National Security

Education Program Office sent the participation e-mail message to Alumni on my behalf.

Not having access to the Office database and Alumni personal information ensured that

their identity would remain confidential. Finally, no identifying IP addresses of those

completing the online survey instrument were collected by me or the Snap Survey 10

software.

Data Analysis Procedure

This research project was a quantitative data analysis endeavor and the data were

predominately presented in frequency distribution tables as both total counts (the total

number of instances, for example) and/or base percent for each of the questions. This

data analysis mirrors what was done and presented in the Department of Education report

A Study of Four Federal Graduate Fellowship Programs: Education and Employment

Outcomes that I modeled my survey after.

Additionally, several cross-tabulations analyses were completed using Chi-square

(X2) as a means to examine the association between the two variables and I reported the

statistical significance of the relationships. While we typically want to see a significance

level lower than 5% (p< 0.05) or 1% (p< 0.01), for this study I looked for a significance

level no greater than 0.10 (10% level) which is a very generous level to use. The main

variable of interest for the cross-tabulation analysis that I ran was question #28 “How

many years total did you spend employed in these federal positions?’ and it is this

question from which all of the cross-tabulations were prepared.

CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

Introduction

In this chapter I present the findings of the data collected from the online survey

instrument. Analyzing the data for my study was a quantitative endeavor. For the

majority of the chapter I present and provide analysis of the data in the form of frequency

tables displaying both counts and base percentage for each of the questions. For my

research project, measuring and reporting central tendency (mean, median and mode) was

neither relevant nor necessary during the data analysis process. A secondary and more

thorough data analysis and reporting process utilizing cross-tabulation and the Chi-square

test for independence with certain questions was also employed to provide additional

insight into the federal employment directions and histories of National Security

Education Program Alumni.

This chapter is structured and organized thematically rather than chronologically

by question number as this allows for the reader to better digest and interpret the findings

in a more productive and meaningful manner.

Response Rate

This section of the chapter will report on the response rate for my study.

Response rate is a basic calculation of survey completion, typically presented as a

percentage, that provides both the researcher and consumers of the research a basis for

which to evaluate the quality of the data collected and analyzed It has been noted in

multiple sources that it is not uncommon for surveys to suffer from low response and

completion rates and that there is generally no agreed upon standard of an acceptable

minimum response rate. A white paper produced by the online survey company

SuperSurvey analyzed meta-data for 199 online surveys conducted using the

SuperSurvey cluster found that the average survey response rate was 32.52%, the median

survey response rate was 26.45% and the total response rate was 13.35%. In this

metaanalysis study by SuperSurvey, the total response rate of 13.35% was calculated by

the percentage of invitations sent that resulted in a response. While online surveys are

not new to academic research they are, however, a relatively new phenomena in survey

research and are ripe for analysis and better understanding in an ever changing

technological landscape. It has been noted that surveys, and in particular, online surveys

are becoming a commodity and that we may have reached a saturation point in society

where they are no longer valued. Society has entered into a state of information overload

and we are bombarded with messages across a variety of electronic platforms such as e-

mail, Chat and Instant Message, Facebook, Twitter, and Google Alerts to name just a few

of the more popular communication and information aggregator tools, and there is

likelihood that invitation e-mail messages to complete online surveys go unnoticed.

Survey fatigue and information overload may lead to what some research has found

leading to lower response rates when comparing online and other types of survey

methods. It has been found that online surveys yield 11% lower response rates than other

methods of surveying and this difference is reduced an additional 5% if the survey

invitations were received via e-mail. Despite the above information pertaining to low

response rates with online surveys, I determined that the best manner with which to reach

National Security Education Program Alumni was via an e-mail invitation and that the

best method to answer my survey instrument was via an online survey tool.

The response rate for this study is also being reported as a “total response rate” as

calculated by the percentage of survey invitations sent to National Security Education

Program Alumni that resulted in a response (or completion) of the survey instrument.

Specifically, the response rate for my survey is calculated to be 15.34% as a total of 1,793

National Security Education Program Alumni successfully received my invitation to

participate in the study and 275 of those Alumni participated in my study and completed

the survey instrument. It is important to note that a total of 2,420 e-mail invitations were

originally sent on my behalf to National Security Education Program Alumni and 627 of

those e-mail invitations bounced leaving 1,793 National Security Education Program

Alumni who successfully received my invitation to participate in the study. As previously

mentioned, I calculated the response rate for my study by factoring out the number of

bounced e-mail invitations and using the 1,793 National Security Education Program

Alumni who successfully received my invitation. To provide further response rate

analysis I have calculated the response rate based on the total 2,420 invitations sent to

participate in the study (including the 627 e-mail invitations that bounced) to be an

11.36% response rate. This response rate of is only four percentage points below the total

response rate of 15.34% I reported and calculated based on the total number of survey

invitations received and completed by National Security Education Program Alumni.

One explanation for a 15.34% total response rate is that I intentionally did not

incentivize the National Security Education Program Alumni into completing my survey

instrument despite knowing that this had the potential to increase the response rate of my

study.11 Aside from the personal financial implications involved with offering incentives,

I did not offer any incentives, financial or otherwise, to National Security Education

Program Alumni to complete my survey as a way to protect their confidentiality. It was

important and necessary for me to protect confidentiality and knowing which National

Security Education Program Alumni responded to my invitation and completed my

survey instrument would have violated this important protection. A second explanation

for a 15.34% total response rate is that the Snap Survey 10 software I was required to use

by Loyola University Chicago was not very mobile friendly for uses to view and

complete my survey instrument via mobile devices such as smart phones and tablets even

though the capability was available. With the rapid growth of smart phone and tablet

ownership and use across the United States and globe it is highly likely that

Education Program, U.S. Department of Defense via e-mail on January 27, 2012.

11 Gillham, 48.; Ruane, 142; Couper and Bosnjak, 538; Citro, Marsden and Wright, 73; John Adams and

others, Research Methods for Graduate Business and Social Science Students (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc., 2007), 138-139; and, Constance F. Citro, Daniel R. Ilgen and Cora B. Marrett.

Protecting Participants and Facilitating Social and Behavioral Research, Panel on Institutional Review

Boards, Surveys, and Social Science Research. (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2003),

102-103.

many of the National Security Education Program Alumni only received my e-mail

invitation to complete my survey via their smart mobile device. In such a case where the

Alumni wanted to use their smart mobile device to complete my survey instrument and

they found the Snap Survey 10 online software to be less mobile friendly on their device

they most likely would have not even started to complete the survey instrument.12 A final

explanation for a 15.34% total response rate can be extrapolated from the explanation of

the findings to Question #2 “What year did you participate on your National Security

Education Program scholarship or fellowship?” which is explained below in the

“Analytic Findings” in more detail.

Demographics of Survey Response Pool

In an effort to better determine if my survey response pool is representative of the

National Security Education Program recipient pool I present data and several tables

below pertaining to the demographic questions on my survey instrument to allow for a

comparative analysis. Specifically, I present the demographic data of the National

Security Education Program Alumni completing my survey instrument along with the

12 Rimma Kats, “90 Percent of Adults Use at Least One Mobile Device: Study,” Mobile Marketer, 31

March 2010, http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/research/5824.html; and, Joanna Brenner, Pew

Internet: Mobile, 31 January 2013, http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/February/Pew-

InternetMobile.aspx.

National Security Education Program recipient demographic data from the 1995, 1999

and 2004 competition years.

Question #3 of my survey instrument asked “What academic term did you

complete your National Security Education Program scholarship or fellowship?” As one

can see in Table 3 below, 45.82% (126 respondents) of National Security Education

Program Alumni completed their scholarship or fellowship for an academic year. That

group was followed by 39.63% (109 respondents) of National Security Education

Program Alumni who completed their scholarship or fellowship for one semester with

only 14.55% (40 respondents) of the National Security Education Program Alumni

completing their scholarship or fellowship during the summer term.

Table 3. Question #3 Analysis – What academic term did you complete your National

Security Education Program scholarship or fellowship?

Academic Term

Freq.

Percent

Autumn Term

19.27

Spring Term

20.36

Summer Term

14.55

Academic Year

126

45.82

Total

275

100

The 2003 and 2004 combined National Security Education Program Annual

Report shows similar findings to what National Security Education Program Alumni

reported for their academic term of study. For the 2003-2004 National Security

Education Program Scholars, more than half participated on academic-year programs and

nearly 40% participated on semester-long programs with summer-long programs

rounding out to approximately 10%.15 Data from the National Security Education

Program on the length of study and research for National Security Education Program

Fellows is less specific than the National Security Education Program Scholar data.

However, data presented in the form of a chart listed in the 2003 and 2004 combined

National Security Education Program Annual Report shows that the majority of the

15 National Security Education Program, 2005, 6.

National Security Education Program Fellows spend a year or longer abroad while being

funded.

Question #4 of my study asked “In what type of degree program were you

enrolled at the time of your National Security Education Program Award?” Table 4 below

shows that 56.73% (156 respondents) of the National Security Education Program

Alumni participating in my study were completing their Bachelor’s degree at the time of

their National Security Education Program Scholarship. Additionally, 27.27% (75

respondents) of the National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my

study were working on their Doctoral degree at the time of the National Security

Education Program Fellowship with the remaining 16% (44 respondents) working

towards their Master’s or professional degree. The following table shows the breakdown

by degree program of National Security Education Program Alumni for my study.

Table 4. Question #4 Analysis - In what type of degree program were you enrolled at the

time of your National Security Education Program award?

Degree Program

Freq.

Percent

Bachelor's

156

56.73

Master's

14.91

Doctoral

27.27

Professional/Other

1.09

Total

275

100

Table 5 below presents the type of degree program National Security Education

Program recipients were enrolled in at the time of their National Security Education

Program award during the 1995, 1999 and 2004 competitions. The National Security

Education Program annual reports consulted for this comparative analysis exercise

present data on undergraduate Scholars and graduate Fellows only and do not break down

post-undergraduate degree program levels such as Master’s, Doctoral and

Professional/Other as I did in my survey. Nonetheless, the data present themselves to be

comparatively close to one another. The National Security Education Program Alumni at

the Bachelor’s degree program level participating in my study represent, as indicated

above, 56.73% of the total survey response pool while the National Security Education

Program undergraduate Scholars represent 60.52% for the 1995 recipient pool (+3.79%

over the National Security Education Program Alumni percentage at the Bachelor’s level

in my study), 62.96% for the 1999 recipient pool (+6.23% over the National Security

Education Program Alumni percentage at the Bachelor’s level in my study) and 65.82%

for the 2004 recipient pool (+9.09% over the National Security Education Program

Alumni percentage at the Bachelor’s level in my study). The National Security Education

Program Alumni at the Master’s, Doctoral and Professional/Other degree program level

participating in my study represent 43.27% of the total while the National Security

Education Program graduate Fellows represent 39.48% for 1995 recipient pool (-3.79%

less than the National Security Education Program Alumni percentage at the graduate

level in my study), 37.04% for 1999 recipient pool (-6.23% less than the

National Security Education Program Alumni percentage at the graduate level in my

study) and 34.18% for 2004 recipient pool (-9.09% less than the National Security

Education Program Alumni percentage at the graduate level in my study).17

Table 5. National Security Education Program recipients type of degree program enrolled

in at the time of National Security Education Program award

National Security

Education Program

Recipients

Degree Program

1995

1999

2004

Undergrad Scholars

138

60.52%

153

62.96%

183

65.82%

Graduate Fellows

39.48%

37.04%

34.18%

Total

228

100%

243

100%

278

100%

Understanding the academic background of National Security Education Program

Alumni was the focus of question #6. Specifically, question #6 asked “What was your

major field of study in this degree program?” Question #6 was an open ended question

and a variety of answers for major field of study were given by the respondents. In order

to better analyze and interpret the results I categorized each of the answers into more

common fields of study as well as reduced the fields to one per National Security

Education Program Alumni respondent. For those National Security Education Program

Alumni who listed more than one field of study I simply used the first field listed and

then aggregated all fields of study into broad colleges to better categorize the responses.

17 U.S. Department of Defense. 1995-1996 Annual Report on the Conduct of the National Security

Education Program. National Security Education Program: Arlington, VA, 1997, E-1, F-1; National

Security Education Program. Annual Report 1999. Arlington, VA: National Defense University, National

Security Education Program, 2000, 14, 17; and, National Security Education Program. Combined Annual

Report for Years 2003 and 2004. Arlington, VA: National Defense University, National Security Education

Program, 2005, 4, 7.

Table 6 below provides an aggregated breakdown of fields of study by college pursued by

the National Security Education Program Alumni at the time of their awards.

Table 6. Question #6 Analysis - What was your major field of study in this degree

program?

College

Freq.

Percent

Engineering, Physical Sciences, & Math

5.82

Health and Human Services

2.55

Liberal Arts

210

76.36

Life Sciences and Agriculture

7.27

Business and Economics

6.91

Law

1.09

Total

275

100

Table 30 in Appendix D provides a complete list of all fields of study pursued by National

Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study. In order to further

evaluate the results of question #6 “what was your major field of study in this degree

program?” I extracted the data for the top five fields of study (non-aggregated) pursued

by National Security Education Program Alumni in my study as well as data for the top

five fields of study from the 1995, 1999 and 2004 National Security Education Program

competitions and present them in the tables below. The top five fields of study in my

study represent 57.82% of the total for all fields of study pursued by National Security

Education Program Alumni at the time of their awards. Following is the specific break

down of these top five fields of study in my study as presented in Table 7 below:

33.82% (93 of the 275 National Security Education Program Alumni) studied

International Relations/Political Science; 8.0% (22 of the 275 National Security

Education Program Alumni) studied Area Studies; 8.0% (22 of the 275 National Security

Education Program Alumni) studied History; 4.36% (12 of the 275 National Security

Education Program Alumni) studied Anthropology; and 3.64% (10 of the 275 National

Security Education Program Alumni) studied Business.

Table 7. National Security Education Program Alumni Top Five Fields of Study

Top National

Security

Education

Program Alumni

Fields of Study

International Relations/Political

Science

Area Studies

History

Anthropology

Business

Tables 8 and 9 below break down the top five fields of study for National Security

Education Program Scholars and National Security Education Program Fellows from the

1995, 1999 and 2004 National Security Education Program competitions. As one can see

from comparing the top five fields of study for the National Security Education

Program Alumni in my study with the top five fields of study for National Security

Education Program Scholars and Fellows from the 1995, 1999 and 2004 competitions

there is much overlap in the fields of study pursued among all of these National Security

Education Program recipient groups.

Table 8. Top Five Fields of Study of National Security Education Program Scholars

Top

Fields of

Study of

Scholars

1995

1999

2004

Foreign Lang.

Political Science/Hist.

Int’l Relations

Hist. & Political Sci.

Int’l Relations

Political Science

Int’l Relations

Physical/ Life Science

History

Business

Engineering

Applied Sciences

Physical/Life Science

Business & Econ.

Economics

Table 9. Top Five Fields of Study of National Security Education Program Fellows

Top Fields of

Study of

Fellows

1995

1999

2004

Political Science

Int’l Affairs

History

Int’l Affairs

Political Science

Anthropology

History

Int’l Affairs

Applied Sciences

Anthropology

Lang. & Literature

Anthropology

Education

While these data demonstrate and enhance the probability that my survey response pool is

representative of the entire National Security Education Program recipient pool I

surveyed they also provide insight into the types of students who are drawn to the

National Security Education Program.

In an effort to understand where National Security Education Program Alumni in

my study studied during their National Security Education Program award I asked

question #7 “In what country did you study in during your National Security Education

Program award?” Question #7 was an open ended question and in the end National

Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study went to a total of 58

different countries during their National Security Education Program awards. There were

several National Security Education Program Alumni who listed more than one country

of study in the response field and I simply used the first country specified in the answer

and then categorized all 58 countries of study into world regions to better view and

understand the responses. Table 10 below provides a breakdown of the countries of study

by world region.

Table 10. Question #7 Analysis – In what country did you study in during your National

Security Education Program award?

World Region

Freq.

Percent

Africa (sub-Sahara)

7.64

East Asia and the Pacific

24.73

East Europe and Eurasia

Near East (North Africa/Middle East)

13.45

South and Central Asia

6.18

Western Hemisphere

Total

275

100

As evidenced in Table 10 above, the largest percent (28%) of National Security Education

Program Alumni participating in my study went to East Europe and Eurasia during their

National Security Education Program award. The East Europe and Eurasia region is

followed in popularity by East Asia and the Pacific (24.73%) and the Western

Hemisphere (20%) regions as the biggest draws for National Security Education Program

Alumni in my study. These three world regions combined constitute 72.73% of all

countries of study for the National Security Education Program Alumni in my study. The

remaining world regions of the Near East, includes North Africa and the Middle East,

(13.45%), Africa, sub-Sahara, (7.64%) and South and Central Asia (6.18%) attracted only

27.27% of all National Security Education Program Alumni participating in this study.

Question #16 asks “What year did you complete your National Security Education

Program service requirement?” This question and the results provide no major insight

into my sample population other than identifying that the majority of my survey

respondents (64.01%) completed their service requirement between 2005 and 2011. I

have included Table 35 in Appendix D for review and critique of question #16.

Demographic data on gender follows and as observed in Table 13 below, of the

275 National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study, a total of

115 (41.82%) were men and 160 (58.18%) were women. Data for the 1995 and 2004

National Security Education Program competitions, as displayed in table 11 below, show

that demographic data based on gender are comparable to the National Security

Education Program Alumni participants in my survey with the data for the 1995 National

Security Education Program Scholars and Fellows being nearly identical to the population

I surveyed.20

Table 11. Question #33 Analysis – What is your gender?

Gender

Freq.

Percent

Male

115

41.82

Female

160

58.18

Total

275

100

Table 12. Gender of 1995 and 2004 National Security Education Program Scholars and

Fellows

Gender of National

Security Education

Program Scholars &

Fellows

1995

200421

Male

40.71%

50%

Female

58.09%

50%

Not Specified

1.2%

I also collected demographic data on race and ethnicity for the National Security

Education Program Alumni participating in my study. I asked two questions pertaining to

race and ethnicity with the first question, question #34, asking “What is your race?”

20 U.S. Department of Defense, 1997, D-2, F-2; and, National Security Education Program, 2005,

22. Data pertaining gender of Scholars and Fellows from the 1999 NSEP national competition was not

available in the 1999 National Security Education Program Annual Report, nor in either of the 1997-1998

and 2000 NSEP Annual Reports, to present in Table 14.

21 The 2003-2004 National Security Education Program Annual Report does not provide specific

data pertaining to gender of Scholars and Fellows who received National Security Education Program

awards. The reports does state that “in 2003 and 2004, National Security Education Program awarded an

average 50 percent of its awards to men” which is why I set the percentages for both men and women at

50% each.

and the second question, question #35, asking “Are you of either Hispanic or Latino

origin?” Tables 13 and 14 below show the race and ethnic background of the National

Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study with 86.16% as White,

7.27% as Asian/Asian-American, 5.45% Black/African-American and 1.09% as

American Indian/Alaskan or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Additionally, of the 275 National

Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study only 4.73% (13 Alumni)

indicated that they are of Hispanic or Latino origin.

Table 13. Question #34 Analysis – What is your race?

Race

Freq.

Percent

White

237

86.18

Black/African-Am.

5.45

Asian/Asian-Am.

7.27

Am. Indian/Alaskan Nat.

0.73

Nat. Haw./Other Pac. Isl.

0.36

Total

275

100

Table 14. Question #35 Analysis – Are you of either Hispanic or Latino origin?

Hispanic / Latino

Origin?

Freq.

Percent

Yes

4.73

262

95.27

Total

275

100

For comparative purposes I prepared Table 15 below which provides a breakdown by race

and ethnicity for the 1995 and 2004 National Security Education Program Scholars and

Fellows. It should be noted that race and ethnicity data appear to have been collected

differently which in turn requires a slightly different presentation of the race and ethnicity

breakdown. Perhaps the biggest discrepancy between the National Security Education

Program Alumni participating in my study and the National Security Education Program

Scholars and Fellows from 1995 and 2004 is with the percentage of White/Caucasian

student. Specifically, White/Caucasian National Security Education Program Alumni

participating in my study made up 86.18% of my survey response pool where as

White/Caucasian Scholars and Fellows made up 66.66% of the 1995 National Security

Education Program national competition award recipients (a difference of 19.5%) and

White/Caucasian Scholars and Fellows made up 60% of the 2004 National Security

Education Program national competition award recipients (a difference of 26.18%).

Further comparison among Black/African-Americans and Asian/Asian-Americans groups

shows less of a difference percentage wise. Specifically, Black/African-American

National Security Education Program Alumni in my study make up 5.45% of the total

compared to 8.33% for 1995 National Security Education Program Scholars and Fellows

and 6.0% for 2004 National Security Education Program Scholars and Fellows while

Asian/Asian-Americans make up 7.27% of the total of the National Security Education

Program Alumni in my study compared to 9.52% for the 1995 National Security

Education Program Scholars and Fellows and 11% of the 2004 National Security

Education Program Scholars and Fellows. It is worth noting that the 10.97% (1995

National Security Education Program competition) and 18% (2004 National Security

Education Program competition) calculation for “no response/other” may explain in part

why there is such a large percentage discrepancy between White/Caucasian National

Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study and the Scholars and

Fellows from the 1995 and 2004 competitions.

Table 15. Race and Ethnicity of 1995 and 2004 National Security Education Program

Scholars and Fellows

Race of National

Security Education

Program Scholars and

Fellows

1995

2004

Caucasian

66.66%

60%

African-American

8.33%

Asian-American

9.52%

11%

Hispanic

3.33%

Native American

1.19%

No Response/Other

10.97%

18%

Total

100%

Sources: United States Department of Defense, 1997, D-2, F-2; and, National Security Education Program,

2005, 21.

The race and ethnicity breakdown of the National Security Education Program Alumni

participating in my study align more with race and ethnicity data for the national United

States student study abroad population as seen in Table 16 below. For instance,

White/Caucasian National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study

represented 86.18% of my survey response pool compared to 83.80% of the total United

States student study abroad population in 1994 and 83.70% in 2004. Further comparison

between National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study and the

national student study abroad population reveals that while Black/African-Americans made

up 5.45% of the survey response pool in my study they represented only 2.8% of the total

United States student study abroad population in 1994 and 3.4% of that population in 2004.

Further, Asian-Americans made up 7.27% of the National Security Education Program

Alumni participating in my study compared to 5% of the 1994 United States student study

abroad population and 6.10% of that population in 2004.

Table 16. United States Study Abroad Data on Race and Ethnicity

U.S Study Abroad

Student Profile

1993/94

1995/96

1997/98

1999/00

2001/02

2003/04

Caucasian

83.80%

84.40%

84.50%

83.70%

82.90%

83.70%

Asian American

5.00%

5.10%

4.80%

5.80%

6.10%

African American

2.80%

2.90%

3.80%

3.50%

3.40%

Hispanic American

5.00%

5.50%

5.00%

5.40%

5.00%

Multiracial

3.10%

2.30%

0.80%

0.90%

2.00%

1.30%

Native-American

0.30%

0.60%

0.50%

0.40%

0.50%

Total

100%

98.40%

100%

Source: Rajika Bhandari and Patricia Chow, “Profile of U.S. Study Abroad Students, 1998/99-2007/08.”

Open Doors 2009: Report on International Educational Exchange. (New York: Institute of International

Education, 2009), 95; and, David Comp, “Comparative Data on Race and Ethnicity in Education Abroad.”

Diversity in International Education Hands-On Workshop Summary Report. (Stamford, CT: American

Institute For Foreign Study, 2010), 19.

Questions #36 and #37 are additional demographic questions I included in my

survey instrument. In the end, the answers to questions #36 “What was your age at the

time of your National Security Education Program funding?” and #37 “What is your

current age” provide little insight into better understanding completion of the National

Security Education Program service requirement. The notable data from these two

questions is that 43.27% of the National Security Education Program Alumni

participating in my study were between 18 and 21 years of age at the time of the National

Security Education Program funding followed by 39.64% of the National Security

Education Program Alumni were 26 years or older at the time of National Security

Education Program funding. Tables 49 and 50 have been included in Appendix D for

each of these questions for review and critique.

The various data presented above indicate that my survey response pool is

relatively representative of the National Security Education Program recipient pools. To

be sure, there are some discrepancies between my sample population and the National

Security Education Program recipient pools but my analysis demonstrates many

similarities between the two populations. Despite all of the explanations above about

lower response rates associated with online surveys, the fact that I did not include

incentives to complete my survey instrument and the representativeness of my survey

response pool demographics against National Security Education Program Scholar and

Fellow demographic data, a 15.34% response rate is low and it should be taken into

consideration when reading and critiquing the results.

Analytic Findings

This section of the findings chapter will report and provide analysis of the survey

instrument data in the form of frequency tables displaying both counts and base percent

for each of the questions. It is important to provide the results for the individual

questions asked on the survey instrument as the results are not only informative about

National Security Education Program Alumni and their employment histories but also

because this process allows for a more detailed critique of the survey instrument as a

whole. After presenting and analyzing the data for the individual questions on the survey

instrument I will report and provide cross-tabulation analysis for several questions on the

survey instrument that bear interesting results.

Question #2 of my survey instrument asked National Security Education Program

Alumni “What year did you participate on your National Security Education Program

scholarship or fellowship?” Interestingly, National Security Education Program Alumni

respondents from the first five years of the program (1994-1995 competition through the

1998-1999 competition) comprised only 26.5% of respondents. The remaining 73.5% of

the National Security Education Program Alumni respondents participated on their

scholarship or fellowship during the second five years of the program (1999-2000

competition through the 2003-2004 competition). Table 17 below highlights this

phenomena and breaks down survey completion rates by National Security Education

Program Alumni by competition year.

Table 17. Question #2 Analysis – What year did you participate on your National Security

Education Program scholarship or fellowship?

Year

Number

Percent

1994-1995

1.8

1995-1996

2.2

1996-1997

3.6

1997-1998

10.9

1998-1999

1999-2000

10.9

2000-2001

12.7

2001-2002

8.4

2002-2003

13.1

2003-2004

28.4

Total

275

100

It is difficult to explain this rather large difference in response rates between these

National Security Education Program Alumni from the first five years of the program and

National Security Education Program Alumni from the second five years of the program.

One hypothesis regarding this discrepancy in response rates between National Security

Education Program Alumni from the first five years of the program and National Security

Education Program Alumni from the second five years of the program is that older

Alumni (those from the first five years of the program) did not have e-mail or had older

institutional e-mail addresses at the time of application that are no longer valid or in use.

Lack of an e-mail address or using an institutional e-mail address that is no longer valid

reduces the probability that the National Security Education Program Office has current

contact information for National Security Education Program Alumni. In the year 1994

and through the first five years of the National Security Education Program, e-mail, while

widely used by college and university students, was not as robust or flexible as it was

during the second five years of the National Security Education Program. E-mail

technology changed rapidly during the late 1990s and early 2000s in functionality and use

was most likely adopted by National Security Education Program Scholars and

Fellows in greater numbers and collected by the National Security Education Program.

My hypothesis about the discrepancy in response rates between National Security

Education Program Alumni from the first five years of the program and National Security

Education Program Alumni from the second five years of the program may explain, in

part, the low overall response rate of 15.34% for this study.

In an effort to understand the graduation/degree completion rate of National

Security Education Program Alumni I asked question #5 “Did you complete this degree?”

The results demonstrate that only five (or 1.82%) of the 275 National Security Education

Program Alumni who participated in my study did not complete the degree program they

were enrolled in at the time of their National Security Education Program award. A

98.18% graduation/degree completion rate for National Security Education Program

Alumni is an important statistic to highlight for the National Security Education Program.

This is compelling evidence that participation in the National Security Education Program

does not interfere with degree completion. Running a cross-tabulation between question

#5 “Did you complete this degree?” and question #4 “In what type of degree program

were you enrolled at the time of your National Security Education Program Award?”

demonstrated that the five National Security Education Program Alumni who did not

complete the degree program that were enrolled in at the time of the National Security

Education Program award were all Doctoral students.

As discussed earlier in the historical background section of this study, there were,

and still remains, strong opinions and debate about the National Security Education

Program. Concerns about the National Security Education Program began quickly after it

was established and they have primarily been embedded within the academic community

and in particular within the area studies community. To understand the impact that the

larger concern and debate about National Security Education Program may have had on

applicants I added question #8 “Did any faculty member, scholar or other individual at

your institution advise against your application to the National Security Education

Program?” to my survey instrument. Analysis of the responses show that 10.18% of the

National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study received advice

against applying to the National Security Education Program. What is unknown, and

nearly impossible to assess, is how many students were interested in the National

Security Education Program but ultimately decided not to apply for the Scholarship or

Fellowship based on the concerns and advice of faculty or other individuals at their

institutions.

Completion of the Service Requirement

The main purpose of this research study was to learn if the National Security

Education Program is successful in achieving the purpose and goals of the program.

Specifically, is the National Security Education Program successful in retaining Alumni

in the federal employment sector upon completion of the mandated service requirement?

In addition to completing one’s service requirement obligations in the Federal

Government, National Security Education Program Alumni have been approved, at

various points in the history of the program, to fulfill their service requirement by

teaching in the higher education sector. Both of these service requirement areas were

explored with the National Security Education Program Alumni in this study and are

addressed below.

Question #11 on my survey instrument asked “How long did it take you after

graduation to begin completing the National Security Education Program service

requirement?” As one can see in Table 18 below, within six months of graduation a third

of National Security Education Program Alumni begin fulfilling their service requirement

obligations. Further analysis shows that 73.45% of the National Security Education

Program Alumni participating in my study were able to begin completing their National

Security Education Program service requirement within only two years of graduation

from their degree program and this percentage increases to 82.54% when calculating all

National Security Education Program Alumni who begin fulfilling their service

requirement within three years of graduation.

Table 18. Question #11 Analysis - How long did it take you after graduation to begin

completing the National Security Education Program service requirement?

Length after

Graduation

Freq.

Percent

1-6 Mo

33.09

7-12 Mo

8.73

1 Yr

15.27

2 Yrs

16.36

3 Yrs

9.09

4 Yrs

6 Yrs

4.36

7 Yrs

4.36

Did Not Complete

0.73

Total

275

100

Question #12 asks “How many jobs in the Federal Government or as a Federal

Government contractor have you held since your National Security Education Program

award ended?” This question is poorly worded and it was included on the survey

instrument to learn how many jobs one has held in the Federal Government while

completing the service requirement. This question did not yield useful results as survey

respondents may have considered post-service requirement employment in the Federal

Government as possible to include in answer this question. Questions specific to

postservice requirement will appear later in this analysis. I include Table 33 in Appendix

D for question #12 for review and critique and no analysis has been done.

In an effort to further understand the service requirement and the positions

National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study may have held I

included question #13 “Among the jobs you reported in question #12, how many

involved the use of expertise you gained through your study or research that was

supported by your National Security Education Program award?” on my survey

instrument. Since question #13 asks survey respondents to answer with question #12 in

mind I have determined that this question also yields inaccurate results and will not be

analyzed. I present the results for question #13 in Table 34 in Appendix D for review and

critique.

Analysis of question #14 “How many years have you or did you work in the

Federal Government after completion of your service requirement” has been moved down

to the analysis I provide about questions #27 and #28 as they are similar in focus and

yield slightly different results.

In an effort to better understand where National Security Education Program

Alumni participating in my study completed their service requirement I included

question/statement #15 “Please indicate if you completed your service requirement in the

Federal Government, with a Federal Government contractor, in the higher education

sector or if you completed your service requirement with a mix of these options.” As

observed in Table 19 below, 46.55% of the National Security Education Program Alumni

participating in my study completed their service requirement in the Federal Government.

Interestingly, 30.55% of the National Security Education Program Alumni completed

their service requirement in higher education. While not considered employment in the

Federal Government, 11.64% of the National Security Education Program Alumni

completed their service requirement with a Federal Government contractor and

combining this total figure with the 46.55% of the National Security Education Program

Alumni who worked in the Federal Government during their service requirement we see a

total of 58.19% of the National Security Education Program Alumni serving the Federal

Government.

Table 19. Question/statement #15 Analysis - “Please indicate if you completed your

service requirement in the Federal Government, with a Federal Government contractor, in

the higher education sector or if you completed your service requirement with a mix of

these options.”

Service Requirement

Employer

Freq.

Percent

In the Federal Gov’t

128

46.55

With federal contractor

11.64

In higher education

30.55

Mix of these options

11.27

Total

275

100

Question #17 “Has employment in the higher education sector been one of your

primary responsibilities in any of the jobs you have held since your National Security

Education Program award ended?” employed skip logic rules with questions #18 and

#19. If National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study answered

“no” for this question they were next directed to answer question #20. If National

Security Education Program Alumni answered “yes” for this question they were next

directed to answer questions #18 and #19. As observed in Table 36 in Appendix D,

42.18% (116) of the respondents answered “yes” that employment in the higher education

sector had been one of their primary responsibilities in any of the jobs they held since

their National Security Education Program award ended.

To further determine the success of the National Security Education Program and

to better understand the impact the National Security Education Program award may have

on the teaching within higher education by National Security Education Program Alumni

I asked question #18 “In your higher education sector employment have you taught

subjects related to your studies/research abroad for which you received your National

Security Education Program award?” Table 37 in Appendix D shows that of the 116

National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study who answered

that employment in the higher education sector had been one of their primary

responsibilities in any of the jobs they held since their National Security Education

Program award ended 87 of the Alumni (75%) indicated that they taught subjects related

to their studies/research abroad for which they received their National Security Education

Program award.

In an effort to learn the length of time National Security Education Program

Alumni spent teaching in higher education since the funding for their National Security

Education Program award ended I asked question #19 “Considering the higher education

sector employment you have held since the funding for your National Security Education

Program award ended, how much time have you spent teaching?” I requested that the

National Security Education Program Alumni do not include teaching they performed in

conjunction with their studies toward their degree program. Table 20 below provides a

breakdown of time spent teaching and 39.66% of National Security Education Program

Alumni participating in this study taught for five or more years in the higher education

sector and when calculating the percentage total for National Security Education Program

Alumni who taught for three or more years we see this increase to 54.32%.

Table 20. Question #19 Analysis - Considering the higher education sector employment

you have held since the funding for your National Security Education Program award

ended, how much time have you spent teaching? Please do not include teaching that you

did in conjunction with your work toward the degree supported by your National Security

Education Program award. (Please round to the nearest half-year.)

Time Spent Teaching

Freq.

Percent

1 Yr or Less

30.17

1.5 Yrs

3.45

2 Yrs

9.48

2.5 Yrs

2.59

3 Yrs

5.17

3.5 Yrs

4.31

4 Yrs

2.59

4/5 Yrs

2.59

5+ Yrs

39.66

Total

116

100

One of the most important components of the National Security Education

Program is that all Scholars and Fellows must incorporate foreign language study into

their study and research activities abroad. For this reason, I added questions pertaining to

the foreign language study to my survey instrument in order to learn what languages were

studied and to learn if foreign languages were an important component of federal

employment held by the Scholars and Fellows. In order to understand the breadth of

foreign languages studied by National Security Education Program Alumni participating

in my study I added question/statement #9 “In the space below, please indicate the

language (or the main language) you studied with the support of National Security

Education Program funding.” This was an open ended question/statement and as I did

with the other open ended questions I selected the first foreign language indicated for

those who listed more than one foreign language. In total, National Security Education

Program Alumni participating in my study focused their studies on 48 different foreign

languages. You can see a complete list of all of the foreign languages studied by National

Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study in Table 32 found in

Appendix D. However, I felt it was important to highlight the most popular foreign

languages studied by National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my

study so I prepared Table 21 below showing all foreign languages studied by at least ten

National Security Education Program Alumni.

Table 21. Top Foreign Languages Studied by National Security Education Program

Alumni Participating in this Study

Language of

Study

Freq.

Percent

Russian

17.09%

Arabic

13.82%

Spanish

12%

Mandarin

11.27%

Japanese

6.55%

Portuguese

5.45%

Czech

3.64%

To further understand the foreign languages studied by National Security Education

Program Alumni participating in my study I added question #10 “Did you study other

languages with the support of National Security Education Program funding?” to my

survey instrument. Analysis of the data shows that of the 275 National Security

Education Program Alumni who completed my survey instrument only 26 Alumni

(9.45%) studied two or more foreign languages during their National Security Education

Program award.

To learn if the languages studied and/or the expertise gained while abroad on

National Security Education Program awards were important factors in the types of jobs

National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study applied for I

asked question #20 “Since the funding for your National Security Education Program

award ended have you looked for a job that involved use of the language you used in your

studies or other expertise you gained through the National Security Education Program

Award?” As Table 38 in Appendix D demonstrates, 213 (77.45%) of the National

Security Education Program Alumni sought jobs where they could use their foreign

language skills and or expertise gained during their National Security Education Program

award.

In an effort to further understand how and if National Security Education Program

Alumni capitalize on and utilize their foreign language skills and/or expertise they gained

during their National Security Education Program award I asked question #21 “Do you

consider the expertise you gained through your studies supported by your National

Security Education Program award to be part of a job you currently have, are pursuing or

intend to pursue?” As Table 39 in Appendix D shows, 222 (80.73%) of the National

Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study indicated that they

consider the expertise they gained through their studies during their National Security

Education Program award to be part of their current job, jobs they are pursuing or intend

to pursue.

Question #22 sought to learn if the National Security Education Program

Scholarship and Fellowship programs attracted applicants who had not previously

intended to work in the Federal Government prior to applying. To learn more about this I

added the question “Did you intend to work in the Federal Government prior to applying

to the National Security Education Program?” As Table 40 in Appendix D shows,

49.09% of the National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study

had no intention of working in the Federal Government prior to applying for National

Security Education Program funding. Further analysis of my survey response data

reveals that of 135 National Security Education Program Alumni (49.09%) who did not

intend to work in the Federal Government prior to applying for National Security

Education Program funding 66 (48.88%) of them were primarily employed in the higher

education sector.

Question #23 was included on my survey instrument to learn if the service

requirement influenced the National Security Education Program Alumni’s interest in

working with a particular department or agency in the Federal Government. As observed

in Table 41 in Appendix D, the service requirement influenced only 89 (32.36%) of the

National Security Education Program Alumni while 186 (67.64%) of the National

Security Education Program Alumni did not focus on working in a particular department

or agency in the Federal Government as a result of the service requirement.

Schedule A, which is described in more depth above in the literature review

section of this study, affords special hiring privileges in the Federal Government to

National Security Education Program Scholars and Fellows. I was interested in learning

if National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study were aware of

Schedule A at the time of their National Security Education Program application. A total

of 147 National Security Education Program Alumni (53.45%) indicated that they were

aware of Schedule A at the time of their National Security Education Program

application. While 26.91% of the National Security Education Program Alumni did not

know about Schedule A at the time of National Security Education Program application,

19.64% of the National Security Education Program Alumni were still not familiar with

Schedule A at the time this survey instrument was completed. To further assess the value

of Schedule A to National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study I

added question #25 “Did you take advantage of Schedule A to fulfill your service

requirement?” A total of 128 (87.07%) of the National Security Education Program

Alumni reported that they did not take advantage of Schedule A to fulfill their service

requirement. See Appendix D for Tables 42 and 43 pertaining to Questions #24 and #25.

The next section of my survey instrument sought to learn about post service requirement

employment in the Federal Government. Question #26 simply asked if the National

Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study completed their service

requirement and 99.27% reported completed this mandatory component of their National

Security Education Program Scholarship or Fellowship. Question #27 asked

“Beyond fulfilling your service requirement have you had additional jobs in the Federal

Government?” and employed skip logic with questions #28 through #32. National

Security Education Program Alumni who responded “no” to question #27 were directed

to question #33 as their next question on the survey to complete. National Security

Education Program Alumni who responded “yes” to question #27 were then directed to

question #28 as their next question on the survey to complete. As revealed below in

Table 45 in Appendix D, 91 National Security Education Program Alumni (33.09%) held

employment in the Federal Government beyond fulfilling their service requirement and

184 (66.91%) did not.

To better understand how long the 91 National Security Education Program

Alumni worked in the Federal Government beyond the service requirement I asked

question #28 “How many years total did you spend employed in these federal positions?”

Further analysis of the data presented in Table 22 below reveals that 52.76% of the

National Security Education Program Alumni worked four or more years in the Federal

Government but that number drops 10.99% to 41.77% when calculating all National

Security Education Program Alumni who worked five or more years in the Federal

Government.

Table 22. Question #28 Analysis - How many years total did you spend employed in these

federal positions?

Years in Fed. Jobs

Freq.

Percent

Up to 1 Year

13.19%

1+ Years

7.69%

2+ Years

7.69%

3+ Years

18.68%

4+ Years

10.99%

5+ Years

4.45

6+ Years

10.99%

7+ Years

6.59%

8+ Years

9.89%

9+ Years

4.4%

10+ Years

2.2%

12+ Years

2.2%

13+ Years

1.1%

Total

100%

As mentioned previously, question #14 was moved to this part of the findings

section because it is similar to questions #27 and #28. Besides the fact that question #14

was not strategically placed on my survey instrument it is nearly identically to question

#28 described above. The main difference between question #14 and question #28 is that

question #28 was only available to answer for those who answered “yes” to question #27

“Beyond fulfilling your service requirement have you had additional jobs in the Federal

Government?” and were thus allowed to continue with question #28 rather than being

routed to question #33 as part of the skip logic rules in place for question #27. Further

analysis in my research study will focus on question #28 rather than #14 and I have

included Table 23 below for review and critique.

Table 23. Question #14 Analysis - How many years have you or did you work in the

Federal Government after completion of your service requirement?

Years in Fed. Jobs

After Completion

Freq.

Percent

0 Years

108

39.27

1 Years

12.36

2 Years

9.82

3 Years

6.91

4 Years

6.55

5 Years

5.82

6 Years

6.91

7 Years

8 Years

9 + Years

4.36

Total

275

100

As previously discussed above pertaining to foreign language study, 77.45% of

the National Security Education Program Alumni participating in this study sought jobs

that involved use of the language studied or other expertise gained through support of

their National Security Education Program award. Questions #29 and #30 below focused

on the use of the foreign language and/or the expertise gained through the National

Security Education Program award in the federal employment positions held after

completion of the service requirement by National Security Education Program Alumni.

Question #29 asks “Have you used the language you studied through the National

Security Education Program award in these federal positions?” and 43.96% of the

National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study responded that

they have indeed used their foreign language skills in their federal positions while

56.04% reported that they did not. See Table 46 in Appendix D for a breakdown of this

data.

Question #30 asked “Have you used the expertise you gained through your studies

supported by the National Security Education Program award in these federal positions?”

Of the 91 National Security Education Program Alumni who had worked in the Federal

Government beyond the service requirement, 84.62% of them reported that that have used

the expertise they gained during their National Security Education Program award in their

federal positions versus 15.38% who had not. See Table 47 in Appendix D for a

breakdown.

Another attempt to understand how important Schedule A was to the National

Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study is found in question #31

where I asked “Did you take advantage of Schedule A when applying for your additional

federal positions beyond the service requirement?” Only 10.99% of the 91 National

Security Education Program Alumni took advantage of Schedule A when applying for

positions in the Federal Government beyond their service requirement. See Table 48 in

Appendix D.

In an effort to learn what federal agencies National Security Education Program

Alumni participating in this study worked for after completing their service requirement I

added question #32 “In what federal agencies or with which federal contractors have you

worked since fulfilling your service requirement?” to my survey instrument. Table 24 in

below provides a breakdown of where National Security Education Program Alumni have

worked beyond fulfilling the service requirement.

Table 24. Question #32 Analysis – In what federal agencies or with which federal

contractors have you worked since fulfilling your service requirement?

Federal Agency

Freq.

Percent

CIA

1.11

Dept. of Defense

32.22

Dept. of Homeland Sec.

5.56

Dept. of Justice

5.56

Dept. of State

18.89

Other Fed. Agencies

32.22

US Congress

1.11

USAID

3.33

Total

100

The data above demonstrate that 32.22% of the National Security Education Program

Alumni working in the Federal Government since fulfilling their service requirement did

so in what I categorized as “Other Federal Agencies.” There was a vast variety in the

agencies where National Security Education Program Alumni held employment such as:

The United States Treasury Department, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency &

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.; The Office of Management and Budget, National

Security Division; The United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and, The Environmental

Protection Agency.

Analysis of Cross-Tabulations

This section will present the findings of several cross-tabulation data tables. In

addition to presenting the data from the various cross-tabulations in the tables below I

also use a Chi-square test to examine the association between the two variables and report

the statistical significance of the relationships. In statistics, we generally look for a

probability value (p-value) level lower than 5% (p< 0.05) or 1% (p< 0.01) in order to

speak to statistical significance but for this study I decided to use p< 0.10 (10% level) in

analyzing the cross-tabulations.

The main variable of interest for the cross-tabulation analysis is question #28

“How many years total did you spend employed in these federal positions?’ and it is this

question that the cross-tabulations were calculated. As previously identified, only 91

(33.09%) out of the 275 National Security Education Program Alumni held employment

in the Federal Government beyond fulfilling their service requirement. The following

cross-tabulation analyses are based on these 91 National Security Education Program

Alumni who held employment in the Federal Government beyond their service

requirement.

One of the variables of interest to investigate is the type/level of degree program

National Security Education Program Alumni were enrolled in at the time of the National

Security Education Program award and the relationship, if any; it has on length of

employment in the Federal Government. Cross-tabulation analysis shows that 65.9% of

the National Security Education Program Alumni who received their award during their

Bachelor’s degree program spent the longest time employed in federal positions. While

there is not a statistically significant association, X2 (6, N=91) = 7.23, p > 0.10, between

degree program level at the time of National Security Education Program award and

length of time employed in the Federal Government this is an interesting finding and

worth noting. Table 25 below provides an overview of this cross-tabulation.

Table 25. Questions #28 x #4 Cross-Tabulation Analysis

1-4 Yrs. 5-9 Yrs. 10-13 Yrs. Total

Degree Program

Bachelor's

39.0

73.6

20.0

60.6

1.0

20.0

60.0

65.9

Master's

6.0

11.3

6.0

18.2

2.0

40.0

14.0

15.4

Doctoral

7.0

13.2

6.0

18.2

2.0

40.0

15.0

16.5

Professional/Other

1.0

1.9

1.0

3.0

2.0

2.2

Total 53.0 100.0 33.0 100.0 5.0 100.0 91.0 100.0

The question about major field of study at the time of National Security Education

Program Award and the length of service in the Federal Government is an additional

relationship I wanted to explore. There is not a statistically significant association

between major field of study and length of service in the Federal Government, X2 (10,

N=91) = 12.07, p > 0.10. That said, the cross-tabulation data table presented below

reveals that students who studied Liberal Arts worked in the Federal Government the

longest at 73.6% out of all other fields over a thirteen year period. The Life Sciences &

Agriculture fields of study were second at 11.0% of all fields over thirteen years. Table

26 below provides an overview of this.

No. Col %

No. Col % No. Col %

No. Col %

Years in Fed. Jobs

Table 26. Questions #28 x #6 Cross-Tabulation Analysis

1-4 Yrs. 5-9 Yrs. 10-13 Yrs. Total

Major Field of Study

Eng., Phys. Sci. &

Math

Health/Human Services

Liberal Arts

Life Sci. & Agriculture

Business & Econ.

Law Total

The length of time it took National Security Education Program Alumni to begin

completing their service requirement and the relationship this had with the length of

employment in the Federal Government provides some interesting insight. While this

relationship is not statistically significant, X2 (16, N=91) = 6.80, p > 0.10, it is important

to note that 60.5% of the students who began completing their service requirement within

one year of graduation worked the longest in the Federal Government over a thirteen year

period. Table 27 below provides an overview of this relationship.

No. C

ol %

No. Col %

No Col %

No. Col %

4.0

7.5

4.0

4.4

1.0

3.0

1.0

1.1

35.0

66.0

28.0

84.8

4.0

80.0

67.0

73.6

9.0

17.0

1.0

20.0

10.0

11.0

4.0

7.5

3.0

9.1

7.0

7.7

1.0

1.9

1.0

3.0

2.0

2.2

100

Years in Fed. Jobs

Table 27. Questions 28 x #11 Cross-Tabulation Analysis

Years in Fed. Jobs

1-4 Yrs. 5-9 Yrs. 10-13 Yrs. Total

Length After No. Col % No. Col % No. Col % No. Col %

Graduation

1-6 Mo 20.0 37.7 13.0 39.4 1.0 20.0 34.0 37.4

7-12 Mo 4.0 7.5 4.0 12.1 1.0 20.0 9.0 9.9

1 Yr 7.0 13.2 4.0 12.1 1.0 20.0 12.0 13.2

2 Yrs 9.0 17.0 7.0 21.2 2.0 40.0 18.0 19.8

3 Yrs 5.0 9.4 3.0 9.1 -- -- 8.0 8.8

4 Yrs 4.0 7.5 1.0 3.0 -- -- 5.0 5.5

6 Yrs 2.0 3.8 -- -- -- -- 2.0 2.2

7 Yrs 1.0 1.9 1.0 3.0 -- -- 2.0 2.2

Did Not Complete

Total

National Security Education Program Alumni have had a variety of options available to

them to fulfill the service requirement for their scholarships and fellowships. As a means

to learn if service in the Federal Government, a federal contractor, higher education areas

or a mix of these options had an impact on length of time in future service in the Federal

Government I sought to learn if there was a relationship between these two variables.

While there is not a statistically significant association, X2 (6, N=91) = 6.65, p > 0.10, it is

important to note that 70.3% of those completing their service requirement in the

Federal Government will continue employment in the Federal Government followed by

17.6% of those who completed their service requirement with a mixture of options, both

over a thirteen year period. See Table 28 below for more details.

1.0

1.9

1.0

1.1

53.0

100.0

33.0

100.0

5.0

100.0

91.0

100.0

Table 28. Questions #28 x #15 Cross-Tabulation Analysis

Years in Fed. Jobs

Service 1-4 Yrs. 5-9 Yrs. 10-13 Yrs. Total

Requirement No. Col % No. Col % No. Col % No. Col %

Emply.

In Fed Gov

35.0

66.0

27.0

81.8

2.0

40.0

64.0

70.3

With Fed Contr.

3.0

5.7

1.0

3.0

1.0

20.0

5.0

5.5

In Higher Ed

4.0

7.5

1.0

3.0

1.0

20.0

6.0

6.6

Mix Total

A question that arises is if the National Security Education Program Alumni intended to

work in the Federal Government prior to applying for National Security Education

Program funding. As was previously indicated, 50.91% of the National Security

Education Program Alumni intended to work in the Federal Government prior to applying

for the National Security Education Program Scholarship or Fellowship. Of the 91

National Security Education Program Alumni who continued their employment in the

Federal Government after fulfilling their service requirement it is interesting to note that

59.3% had intended to work in the Federal Government prior to applying for National

Security Education Program funding. There is a statistically significant association, X2

(2, N=91) = 4.84, p < 0.10, between these two variables. Also of interest was to see if

there was a relationship between length of employment in the Federal Government and

the service requirement influencing the National Security Education Program Alumni’s

interest in working with a particular department or agency in the Federal Government.

Of the 91 National Security Education Program Alumni who continued their employment

11.0

20.8

4.0

12.1

1.0

20.0

16.0

17.6

53.0

100.0

33.0

100.0

5.0

100.0

91.0

100.0

in the Federal Government, only 38.5% indicated that the service requirement influenced

the agency or department they worked in. There is a statistically significant relationship

between these two variables, X2 (2, N=91) = 4.84, p < 0.10. Table 29 below provides an

overview of this cross-tabulation.

Table 29. Question 28 x #22 and #23 Cross-Tabulation Analysis

1-4 Yrs. 5-9 Yrs. 10-13 Yrs. Total

Col % Col % Col % Col %

Intend to Work for Fed Prior?

Yes 56.6 69.7 20.0 59.3

No 43.4 30.3 80.0 40.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Service Requirement Influence?

Yes 45.3 24.2 60.0 38.5

No 54.7 75.8 40.0 61.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

N 53.0 33.0 5.0 91.0

Summary of Data Analysis

The preceding data analysis reveals a number of informative findings about

National Security Education Program Alumni and the completion of their service

requirement and, most importantly, their employment in the Federal Government after

fulfilling their service requirement obligations. It is important to note again that this

study had a relatively low response rate for the completion of the online survey

instrument. Despite the 15.34% response rate, a comparison of various demographic

variables between the National Security Education Program Alumni surveyed in this

Years in Fed. Jobs

study and the National Security Education Program recipient pools indicate that the

survey response pool is relatively representative of the National Security Education

Program recipient pools since inception of the program. Having a survey response pool

representative of the National Security Education Program recipient pools is important

when analyzing the data and interpreting the results. A low response rate coupled with a

survey response pool that is not representative of the National Security Education

Program recipient pool brings into question many, if not all, of the overall findings in this

study.

Again, the data analysis process for this study was a quantitative endeavor.

Specifically, the majority of the results are presented in the form of frequency distribution

tables highlighting both counts and base percentage for each of the questions. The results

of several questions that provide brief information, such as “Yes” and “No” questions, are

simply stated in the text with a notation that the frequency distribution tables associated

with each question are available in Appendix D for further review and criticism. Many of

the results presented in the frequency distribution tables for the various survey instrument

questions provide interesting information and insight into the National Security Education

Program service requirement and post-service requirement employment in the Federal

Government. Despite the multi-layered question-by-question review process the survey

instrument went through, there were several questions that yielded limited or useless

results and this was highlighted within the text above. Questions such as #12 and #13

were poorly worded and therefore provided data that was not useful to this study.

Additionally, questions such as #14 was misplaced on the instrument and was similar in

nature to questions #27 and #28 and could have either been removed or reworded to

better capture useful data. Results derived from calculating counts and base percentages

will be discussed in more detail in the Findings section of Chapter Five.

In an effort to add another level of data analysis for this study I conducted several

cross-tabulations and used a Chi-square test to examine the association between two

variables and report any statistical significance in the relationship. I determined that

question #28 “How many years total did you spend employed in these federal positions?”

was perhaps the most valuable question on the survey instrument and I selected this

question to run in all cross-tabulations. I present a select number of cross-tabulations

above as they yield interesting information with the remainder presented in Appendix D

for review and critique. While most of the cross-tabulations were not statistically

significant they do shed some interesting light on the post-service requirement federal

employment of National Security Education Program Alumni and these results were

important to share on many levels. A more detailed discussion of the cross-tabulation

results will be presented in the Findings section of Chapter Five.

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

Summary

There is no doubt that the National Security Education Program has had a

significant impact on the higher education community ever since President George H.W.

Bush signed the National Security Education Act into law on December 4, 1991. During

the very early days of the legislation in 1991 and 1992, concerns about the objectives and

outcomes of the National Security Education Program began to percolate and intensify

within the academic community. In 2011, the National Security Education Program

celebrated its twentieth anniversary and a majority, but not all, of the concerns and

debates focusing on the program have all but disappeared. During this time period,

thousands of undergraduate and graduate students across the United States applied for

and received National Security Education Program Scholarship and Fellowship funding

in competitions that have become more and more competitive as time progressed. These

National Security Education Program Scholars and Fellows headed to non-Western

countries and regions of the world not commonly visited by students from the United

States. They have studied the language(s) of these countries. They have studied and

conducted research on the culture, history, economics, politics and religion of these

countries. A majority of these National Security Education Program Alumni completed

104

their mandated service requirement within a variety of agencies within the Federal

Government or they have passed on their acquired knowledge and expertise from studies

and research abroad to others via the higher education classroom setting. Many National

Security Education Program Alumni continued their employment within the Federal

Government beyond the completion of their mandate service requirement. It is this

group of National Security Education Program Scholarship and Fellowship Alumni I was

most interested in learning about and in particular, whether the National Security

Education

Program is successfully achieving government objectives of employing these National

Security Education Program Alumni in critical areas of federal service and how long

these National Security Education Program Alumni have worked in such positions.

Specifically, my study asked: in what areas of government and for what duration

(retention) have National Security Education Program Alumni worked?

This research project was a quantitative endeavor and I employed the use of

frequency tables that presented both counts and base percent for each of the questions

followed by cross-tabulation analysis for several questions on the survey instrument.

The total response rate for this study was rather low at 15.34% with 73.5% of the

National Security Education Program Alumni respondents participating on their

scholarship or fellowship during the second five years of the program which ran from

1999-2000 competition through the 2003-2004 competition.

More detailed analysis and summary of specific findings from this research

project follow below.

Findings Related to the Completion of the Service Requirement

One of the findings from my study that I wish to highlight in this area focuses on

the amount of time after graduation National Security Education Program Alumni took to

begin completing their service requirement. The results of my study show that 38.82%

of the National Security Education Program Alumni began to complete their service

requirement within the first twelve months after their graduation. Additionally, within

two years of graduation the percentage of National Security Education Program Alumni

starting to complete their service requirement increased to a total of 73.45%. These

figures demonstrate that program Alumni were able to secure federal positions relatively

quickly and that the efforts of the National Security Education Program Office to assist

program Alumni with securing employment is effective. These results also indicate that

National Security Education Program Alumni are proactive and eager in seeking

opportunities to meet this mandated service requirement. Furthermore, only 0.73% of

the respondents did not complete their service requirement thus producing a 99.27%

success rate in placing National Security Education Program Alumni in positions deemed

valuable to the national security of the United States. This is data mirrors what the

National Security Education Program Office reported in their 2011 Annual Report in that

less than 1% of NSEP Alumni failed to complete or were delinquent in completing their

service requirement. To be sure, the maximum length of the service requirement is only

one year in length and this statistic does not address the main question of my study which

is: in what areas of government and for what duration (retention) have National Security

Education Program Alumni worked? Nonetheless, this is an important finding to

highlight.

Focusing attention to completing the service requirement in the Federal

Government, an additional finding I wish to highlight is where National Security

Education Program Alumni fulfilled their service requirement. The data reveals that

46.55% of the National Security Education Program Alumni completed their service

requirement with the Federal Government. Further, adding those National Security

Education Program Alumni who completed their service requirement with a federal

contractor (11.64%) the total percentage of National Security Education Program Alumni

completing their service requirement in the national security efforts of the Federal

Government increases to a total of 58.19%. This total is less than the reported combined

total of 76% of program Alumni fulfilling their service requirement by the National

Security Education Program Office. Nonetheless, this is a significant finding because the

program Alumni are selecting employment positions that align with the goals and focus

of the National Security Education Program.

As previously mentioned in more detail above, Schedule A is a Federal

Government hiring authority, effective starting November, 1997, for United States

citizens who have incurred service obligations with the United States Government as the

result of receiving financial support for education and training from the United States

Government. Schedule A allows federal agencies to appoint eligible individuals to

federal positions without applying an examination process. Analysis of the data

pertaining to Schedule A in this study find that while 53.45% of the National Security

Education Program Alumni were aware of the special hiring privileges afforded by

Schedule A, only 12.93% of the National Security Education Program Alumni took

advantage of Schedule A to fulfill their service requirement. These findings suggest that

new and additional information delivery systems should be considered as a way to

promote the policy and benefits that Schedule A affords National Security Education

Program Alumni. This is not to say that the 40.52% of program Alumni who were aware

of the Schedule A benefits afforded to them did not consider accessing this benefit.

There are two different perspectives to be gained from the fact that only 12.93% of the

program Alumni took advantage of Schedule A when completing their service

requirement. First, is simply that Schedule A helped 12.93% program Alumni secure

service requirement positions rather than helping 0%. Second, it is important to

remember that the Schedule A only became effective November 28, 1997 which would

explain why 46.55% of the NSEP Alumni in this study were either unfamiliar with

Schedule A or unaware of its hiring benefits.

Findings Related to Employment in the Higher Education Sector While

employment in the higher education sector does not answer my research question it does

impact the number of National Security Education Program Alumni who fulfill their

service requirement in the Federal Government. Employment in the higher education

sector, however, is a valid option and one that can contribute to national security needs

and interests of the United States. By educating future generations of students on

subjects related to National Security Education Program Alumni studied and researched

abroad produces a more informed citizenship on world affairs and for any of these

students who seek federal employment within the national security arena, a more

educated and capable federal workforce.

Of the 275 National Security Education Program Alumni participating in my

study, 30.55% (84) completed their service requirement in the higher education sector

and 42.18% (116) of them indicated that employment in the higher education sector had

been one of their jobs since their National Security Education Program award ended.

100

While these are noteworthy findings it is important to highlight that of the 116 National

Security Education Program Alumni who have held employment in the higher education

sector after their National Security Education Program award ended, 75.0% (87)

indicated that they taught subjects related to their studies and research while abroad on

their National Security Education Program Scholarship or Fellowship. Analysis of

responses pertaining to employment in the higher education sector finds that 54.32% of

the National Security Education Program Alumni taught for three or more years. Further

analysis of the data finds that 39.66% of the National Security Education Program

Alumni with five or more years of higher education teaching experience. These data

figures are important as they demonstrate that those who worked in the higher education

sector were committed to their teaching and, more importantly, to teaching the next

generation on subjects related to their studies and research while abroad thus increasing

the global competency off their students.

Findings Related to Foreign Language Study and Expertise Gained

Study of a non-Western foreign language is a required component of National

Security Education Program Scholarship and Fellowship funding. As such, I sought to

understand what impact, if any, the foreign language knowledge and expertise gained

while abroad on National Security Education Program funding had on one’s job search

strategies since National Security Education Program funding and if their expertise

gained abroad (including foreign language study) is part of one’s current employment

responsibilities or thought to be part of employment opportunities they are currently

seeking or plan to pursue. Of special note is that 77.45% (213) of the National Security

101

Education Program Alumni indicated that they sought employment since their National

Security Education Program award ended where they could utilize the foreign language

knowledge and expertise gained from their studies and research abroad. An additional

finding worthy of highlighting is that 80.73% (222) of the National Security Education

Program alumni considered the expertise gained through their studies supported by their

National Security Education Program award to be part of a job they currently held, were

pursuing or intended to pursue. These findings suggest that non-Western foreign

language study continues to be a valuable requirement of the National Security

Education Program Scholarship and Fellowship and an important variable in the

employment experiences and searches of National Security Education Program Alumni.

The need for skilled foreign language and globally informed talent is a constant

need for a variety of industries and fields across the United States as evidenced by many

of the research reports and testimony cited in the literature review section of this study.

There are a plethora of opportunities for National Security Education Program Alumni to

utilize their foreign language knowledge and expertise gained while abroad on National

Security Education Program. This was witnessed in the United States General

Accounting Office 2002 research study that identified major foreign language

deficiencies in the four federal agencies they surveyed. As indicated in the report, these

agencies implemented a variety of strategies to combat the foreign language deficiencies

with one focused on the recruitment of language-capable employees including National

Security Education Program Alumni. Additional evidence on the critical needs for the

Federal Government to have a workforce in the national security sector with critical

foreign language capability is found in the May 2012 Congressional Hearings “A

102

National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the Federal Government.” Of

particular relevance to the language capabilities of National Security Education Program

Scholars and Fellows is the testimony of Glenn Nordin, Principal Foreign Language and

Area Advisor in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, where he

highlighted that “of the 7,000 recorded languages of the world, the Intelligence

Community is challenged to collect and process information in about 150, many of these

are among the less and least commonly or never taught languages.” Nordin further

highlights in his testimony that the intelligence community in the United States is

invested in the National Security Education Program as a means to meet their current

critical language needs.

Further opportunities to serve the Federal Government and utilize their foreign

language expertise could be for National Security Education Program Alumni to

volunteer to support the National Language Service Corps (NLSC) which also falls

under the umbrella of the National Security Education Program but has no formal

overlap with the Scholarship and Fellowship programs.

Findings Related to Post-Service Requirement Federal Employment

Perhaps one of the most important findings related to the post-service requirement

federal employment and one that directly addresses the research question for this study

was question #28 “Beyond fulfilling your service requirement have you had additional

jobs in the Federal Government?” Data analysis shows that 33.09% (91) of the National

Security Education Program Alumni participating in my study held additional

employment in the Federal Government. An important question that arises from this data

103

is if a 33.09% post-service requirement federal employment rate is significant and

important to report?

Additional analysis of several questions from the survey instrument provides

additional insight on the 91 National Security Education Program Alumni who held

additional employment in the Federal Government. For instance, of these 91 National

Security Education Program Alumni, 41.77% (38) of them worked in the Federal

Government for five or more years and this percentage increases to 52.76% (48) when

you calculate those who worked in the Federal Government for four or more years. As

previously discussed in the literature review, for the most part, the National Security

Education Program Alumni who participated in this research study are from the

generation commonly referred to as Generation X. This generation of National Security

Education Program Scholars and Fellows began seeking federal employment during the

budget and hiring freezes and downsizing of the Federal Government during the 1990s

which often times made it very difficult for them to secure positions anywhere let alone

in the national security sector. Additionally, research has shown that those from

Generation X are not seeking long term, 25-30 year, careers as is more common among

members of the preceding Baby Boomer Generation. Instead, Generation X

professionals will typically hold several positions throughout their professional careers.

Finally, as the national security and intelligence communities are experiencing

“hypercompetition” from outside entities, such as government contractors and even

Corporate America, for highly skilled and technical employee talent they are often times

loosing valuable talent.6 These factors provide further insight into why 33.09% of the

104

National Security Education Program Alumni are working in the Federal Government

post-service requirement.

Relating back to the earlier findings section on foreign language study and

6 PricewaterhouseCoopers, , 8 and 12; Booz Allen Hamilton, Keeping Talent: Strategies for Retaining

Valued Federal Employees, Partnership for Public Service, January 2011,

http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/PPS_Retention_Report-2011.pdf; Achievers, Engaging Gen X and

Gen Y Employees: Three Significant Trends in Recognition, 2011,

http://www.achievers.com/sites/default/files/achievers-whitepaper-engaging-genx-and-genyemployees.pdf;

and, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, The US Intelligence Community’s Five Year Strategic

Human Capital Plan, An Annex to the US National Intelligence Strategy, June 22, 2006, 1,

http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/humancapital.pdf.

expertise gained while on National Security Education Program funding, we find that

43.96% (40) of the National Security Education Program Alumni reported that they have

used their foreign language skills in their federal positions. When questioned further

about the use of their expertise gained through their studies supported by the National

Security Education Program award in their federal positions, 84.62% (77) of the National

Security Education Program Alumni reported that they have indeed utilized their

National Security Education Program expertise in their post-service requirement federal

positions.

These additional findings certainly add much more meaning and value to the

33.09% post-service requirement federal employment rate as reported earlier. This is not

to say that a 33.06% post-service requirement employment rate with the Federal

Government is not a good return on investment for the National Security Education

Program. I believe that this percentage rate is significant enough for this study to report.

105

Factoring in the findings that 52.76% of the National Security Education Program

Alumni reported working in the Federal Government for four or more years, 43.96% of

the National Security Education Program Alumni reported using their foreign language

skills in the federal positions, and 84.82% of the National Security Education Program

Alumni reported utilizing their expertise in their post-service requirement federal

employment indicates that the National Security Education Program is preparing future

federal employees with valuable knowledge of foreign languages and area expertise that

are not only important to the national security efforts of the United States but also

difficult to obtain without National Security Education Program funding.

Findings Related to Cross-Tabulations

In an effort to better utilize the data obtained from the survey instrument I carried

out several cross-tabulations to see what, if any, interesting results emerged. As

previously mentioned above, in statistics we look for a probability value (p-value) no

greater than 5% (p<0.05) or 1% (p<0.01) if we are to speak of statistical significance but

for this study I focused on a 10% significance level when analyzing the cross tabulations

data prepared for this study. As highlighted in the discussion of the findings section

above related to the post-service requirement federal employment I identified that

question #28 “Beyond fulfilling your service requirement have you had additional jobs in

the Federal Government?” most directly addresses the research question for this study

and it is question #28 that I used in each of the cross-tabulations presented in this study.

Five cross-tabulations were selected and presented in this study as they provided

interesting results for review and discussion. It is important to note that four of the five

cross-tabulations are not statistically significant.

106

In the first cross-tabulation I looked to see if there was a relationship between the

amount of time spent employed in the Federal Government post-service requirement and

the type/level of degree program National Security Education Program Alumni were

enrolled in at the time of their National Security Education Program award. There was

not a statistically significant relationship, X2 (6, N=91) = 7.23, p > 0.10, with this cross

tabulation but an interesting factor emerges. Specifically, the cross-tabulation reveals

that 65.9% of the National Security Education Program Alumni who received their

National Security Education Program funding during their Bachelor’s degree program

worked in the Federal Government post-service requirement and spent the longest

amount of time employed in these positions. This is an interesting finding because it

suggests that by increasing the number of undergraduate recipients, thus increasing

funding for the undergraduate Scholarship, the number of National Security Education

Program Alumni who bring their expertise gained during their studies and research

abroad into federal positions post-service requirement.

The next relationship I explored was between the amount of time spent employed

in the Federal Government post-service requirement and the major field of study of

National Security Education Program Alumni at the time of National Security Education

Program award. The cross-tabulation run on these two questions did not demonstrate a

statistically significant relationship, X2 (10, N=91) = 12.07, p > 0.10, but an interesting

result emerged from the data analysis. This cross-tabulation revealed that of all the

major fields of study studied by National Security Education Program Alumni who

worked in the Federal Government post-service requirement, 73.6% of them studied

Liberal Arts with the next closest major field of study, 11.0%, being Life Sciences and

107

Agriculture. This result suggests that, while National Security Education Program seeks

to diversify the academic background of recipients and the future federal employees,

those studying the Liberal Arts will most likely continue to lead the way in working in

the Federal Government post-service requirement.

Another relationship that was an area I wished to look at was between the amount

of time spent employed in the Federal Government post-service requirement and the

length of time it took National Security Education Program Alumni to begin completing

their service requirement. This cross-tabulation also found that there was no statistical

significance with this relationship, X2 (16, N=91) = 6.80, p > 0.10. Despite not being

statistically significant this, cross tabulation shows that 60.5% of the National Security

Education Program Alumni who began completing their service requirement within one

year of graduation worked the longest in the Federal Government. This finding suggests

that supporting National Security Education Program Alumni in finding suitable

positions to meet the service requirement before graduation and within the first year after

graduation is an important time period in retaining these Alumni in future federal

positions post-service requirement. This finding provides valuable information on the

need to assist to National Security Education Program Scholars and Fellows in

completing their service requirement as soon as possible to get them into the “pipeline”

so to speak. As seen in the literature review section of this research study, the National

Security Education Program Office has worked hard to assist program Alumni in

securing federal positions to meet their service requirement obligations and by

continuing and expanding this assistance to program Alumni immediately after their

graduation is critical as the potential for long-term employment in the Federal

108

Government is visible. In order to understand the relationship between where National

Security

Education Program Alumni complete their service requirement (in the Federal

Government, with a federal contractor, in the higher education sector or through a mix of

these options) and the amount of time spent employed in the Federal Government

postservice requirement I ran a cross-tabulation. There was not a statistically significant

relationship between these two questions, X2 (6, N-91) = 6.65, p > 0.10, but the data

from the cross-tabulation reveal that 70.3% of the National Security Education Program

Alumni who completed their service requirement in the Federal Government will

continue their employment in the Federal Government. While this is certainly not a

ground breaking finding it demonstrates the importance of locating Federal Government

positions during the service requirement as a means for National Security Education

Program Alumni to continue working in the Federal Government post-service

requirement.

One of the two statistically significant relationships I investigated via

crosstabulations , X2 (2, N=91) = 4.84, p < 0.10, was between the amount of time spent

employed in the Federal Government post-service requirement and if the National

Security Education Program Alumni intended to work in the Federal Government prior to

applying for their National Security Education Program Scholarship or Fellowship. Of

particular interest with this cross-tabulation is that 59.3% of the National Security

Education Program Alumni who intended to work in the Federal Government prior to

applying to National Security Education Program funding continued to work in the

Federal Government post-service requirement. This finding highlights the importance of

109

putting the National Security Education Program Scholarships and Fellowships on the

radar of students interested in federal service as a means to continue to feed the Federal

Government with employees who bring valuable knowledge of and expertise in

nonWestern countries and regions of the world and the foreign languages spoken in those

countries.

The second statistically significant relationship I investigated was between the

amount of time spent employed in the Federal Government post-service requirement and

if the National Security Education Program service requirement influenced the Alumni’s

interest in working with a particular department or agency in the Federal Government, X2

(2, N=91) = 4.84, p < 0.10. This cross-tabulation found that of the 91 National Security

Education Program Alumni who were employed in the Federal Government post-service

requirement, 38.5% indicated that the service requirement influenced the agency or

department they worked in. While this data doesn’t indicate whether the service

requirement influenced future federal employment in a positive or negative way for the

National Security Education Program Alumni it does suggest that the service requirement

provides a valuable introduction to federal employment and serves an important stepping

stone for Alumni as they continue their public service work.

Significant Contributions of the Study

As previously mentioned, the total response rate for this research study was rather

low at 15.34%. Despite this, there are several contributions my study provides to the

National Security Education Program and to the literature that I wish to highlight below.

First, my study provides the National Security Education Program with initial

benchmarking data on post-service requirement employment in the Federal Government.

110

The National Security Education Program has only tracked completion of the National

Security Education Program Alumni’s service requirement as mandated by the

legislation. This initial benchmarking data that my research study provides the National

Security Education Program Office will hopefully serve as a motivating springboard for

future research in this area. Additionally, my research study provides the National

Security Education Program Office with valuable insight on how they may wish to

approach future research on National Security Education Program Alumni and their

postservice requirement employment in the Federal Government. For instance, the

response rate for my study has already been of interest to the National Security

Education Program research staff as they plan future online surveys of Alumni.

Additionally, my study highlights the importance of maintaining an up to date database

of contact information and other information as much as possible. This will certainly be

a challenge given the various privacy laws afforded to individuals but there is high value

in being able to contact Alumni after completion of their service requirement. My study

also provides the National Security Education Program with an online survey instrument

that has already been utilized. The National Security Education Program research staff

will be able to see what questions were valuable and which were not on my survey

instrument. This will allow National Security Education Program to construct a more

valuable analytic tool in the future should they further pursue similar research.

My research study also contributes to the limited literature base on the National

Security Education Program and the National Security Education Act. Despite recently

celebrating its twentieth anniversary, the National Security Education Program is not

111

commonly written about, particularly within the scholarly community. In fact, my study

is perhaps the first and largest study to investigate the National Security Education

Program, in any manner, outside of the research and data collection efforts of the

National Security Education Program itself and presented in their annual reports. While

the annual National Security Education Program reports are critical pieces of literature

that provide helpful data and research results, my study provides an outside research

perspective that is currently not available to my knowledge. My research study may very

well prompt other scholars to conduct research on the National Security Education

Program and/or on the Alumni to better understand the value of this program.

There are several findings from this research project that may prove useful to

National Security Education Program Scholarship and Fellowship advisers on campus in

their recruitment and advising efforts of prospective applicants. Additionally, the

research findings may also be beneficial to Scholarship and Fellowship applicants

themselves. To be sure, I don’t expect Scholarship and Fellowship advisers and

applicants to seek out and read this study as I do not believe they will do this. However,

if the National Security Education Program finds value in some of the findings from this

study they may work to incorporate them into their promotional, advising and application

materials.

Finally, there may be some interest on Capitol Hill and within the United States

Department of Defense in the findings of this research study as budget debates continue

to be a significant focus of Congress. Similar to the usefulness of the findings to

Scholarship and Fellowship advisers and prospective applicants I do not foresee

112

Legislators or their staff members seeking out this study. Instead, any stakeholders aware

of this study may find value in citing some of the findings should they support their position

on and value of the National Security Education Program.

Limitations of the Study

There are four primary limitations identified with this research project. The first

of these primary limitations is the very low response rate of 15.34%. While I provide

possible explanations for this response rate and the fact remains that it is quite low and

this should be taken into consideration when reviewing the findings of this study. The

second of these primary limitations is that four of the six cross-tabulations I prepared

were not statistically significant. While these cross-tabulations did provide some

interesting results the fact that they were not statistically significant these findings should

also be questioned while being consumed and potentially quoted in the future. To be

sure, these limitations are very disappointing to report.

Another limitation of this study that is important to report is that there were

several poorly written questions on the online survey instrument. For instance question

#12 asked “How many jobs in the Federal Government or as a Federal Government

contractor have you held since your National Security Education Program award ended?”

This question was included on the survey instrument in an effort to ascertain the number

of jobs National Security Education Program Alumni held in the Federal Government

while completing their service requirement. This question did not yield useful results as

survey respondents may have considered post-service requirement employment in the

Federal Government as possible to include in answer this question. Additionally, as

question #13 asks survey respondents to answer with question #12 in mind the data

113

obtained may also be skewed as respondents may have answered with post-service

requirement federal employment positions and this was not the focus of these questions.

As such, both questions (#12 and #13) were not analyzed for this project and, in a sense,

wasted questions and opportunities. Additionally, question #14 “How many years have

you or did you work in the Federal Government after completion of your service

requirement” was misplaced on the survey instrument and was much more in line with

questions #27 “Beyond fulfilling your service requirement have you had additional jobs

in the Federal Government?” and #28 How many years total did you spend employed in

these federal positions?” Not only did the misplacement of question #14 on the survey

instrument potentially interrupt the flow of completion for the National Security

Education Program Alumni it may have also been confusing as questions #14 and #28

are very similar in nature. Despite the numerous layers of review my online survey

instrument went through there were noticeable problems with certain questions and these

are important limitations to highlight for this research study.

As was discussed earlier in the historical background and literature review

sections of this research project, there are numerous difficulties associated with the

intensive security background checks and clearance policies and procedures that

prospective federal employees seeking certain national security positions must navigate

and endure. Given the impact the intensive and lengthy security background checks have

on National Security Education Program Alumni when applying for positions in order to

complete their service requirement in the Federal Government and/or the impact on these

Alumni when securing federal positions post-service requirement I failed to include

questions pertaining to this variable. Asking several questions about the impact that

114

security background checks, if applicable, had on National Security Education Program

Alumni and their ability to complete their service requirement as well as their ability to

secure federal employment post-service requirement may have provided rich and

valuable data.

A final limitation of my study is that a main part of my research question “In

what areas of government and for what duration (retention) have National Security

Education Program Alumni worked?” is not specifically addressed in this study.

Specifically, the part asking “In what areas of government” is only covered by question

#32 “In what federal agencies or with which federal contactors have you worked since

fulfilling your service requirement? (please be specific)” and this is not addressed in

additional questions. While question #32 did produce interesting information and insight

into the post-service requirement federal employment of National Security Education

Program Alumni (see Table 24), the lack of additional inquiry into federal employment

of Alumni is a significant limitation to my study. Asking additional questions pertaining

to where National Security Education Program Alumni worked in the Federal

Government may shed light on the relevance of Alumni employment towards the

national security of the United States.

It would have also been beneficial to learn more about the career paths of

National Security Education Program Alumni who completed their service requirement

but did not continue employment in the Federal Government. Adding questions to the

survey instrument to learn the motives and reasons as to why they did not continue

employment in the Federal Government would have been very important to this study

and the National Security Education Program Office.

115

Recommendations for Future Research

The following recommendations for future research are not only directed to

fellow scholars and professionals in the fields of international education and

scholarship/fellowship advising but also towards the National Security Education

Program itself should they find some of the findings in this study to be of interest and

worthy of further investigation

The first recommendation for future research is to further investigate and collect

data on the professional paths taken by all National Security Education Program Alumni

upon completion of their service requirement. This data collection effort could most

certainly be a longitudinal investigation that would provide rich and valuable historical

information on the types of employment National Security Education Program Alumni

pursue post-service requirement and where they employed in such positions. Not only

would this provide rich findings for future research but it would provide valuable to the

United States Department of Defense as well as to the elected officials on Capitol Hill

who have budget oversight for the National Security Education Program. If a

longitudinal investigation were not feasible then perhaps a more robust study focusing on

this aspect of the National Security Education Program could be implemented. While a

onetime research project on the post-service requirement employment patterns of

National Security Education Program Alumni would not provide the valuable historical

data that a longitudinal study would provide it would be an important next step to build

on the initial benchmark findings of this study.

Another recommendation for future research directions would be to focus more

on the foreign language and expertise gained during Alumni’s Scholarships or

116

Fellowships abroad. In this study, foreign language knowledge gained and expertise

gained were grouped together in the same questions and while the findings are

interesting they could be much more robust and meaningful if these two variables were

explored independently and in more depth. Focusing on the foreign language skills

gained while abroad on National Security Education Program funding and, more

importantly, how the foreign language skills were used in positions meeting the service

requirement as well as employment post-service requirement would be extremely

valuable. The same can be said for more rigorous and focused research on the expertise

gained by Alumni while abroad on National Security Education Program funding and

how this knowledge is employed during their service requirement and in their

employment post-service requirement. More understanding on these topics would be a

valuable contribution to the literature base.

It would also be valuable to conduct further research on the value of Schedule A

for National Security Education Program Alumni as they seek federal employment

opportunities to fulfill their service requirement and when securing a position in the

Federal Government post-service requirement. There is no data or research that I am

aware of pertaining to Schedule A and National Security Education Program Alumni and

research in this area is needed. Building upon the questions on my survey instrument

and my initial benchmark findings one can further explore how Schedule A benefits

National

Security Education Program Alumni and where improvements can be made to allow

Alumni to best capitalize on the benefits provided by this legislation.

117

Concluding Remarks

During the twenty year history of the National Security Education Program it has

weathered strong and early opposition and debate within academic community on the

merits and purpose of the program and pockets of opposition remain today, although

rather quiet. The National Security Education Program umbrella has grown substantially

and now encompasses nine critical initiatives focused on the goal of providing

professionals with the necessary language and cultural skills necessary to succeed in

Federal Government service. The National Security Education Program has awarded

Scholarship and Fellowship funding to over 4,500 students across the United States in

order to study and to conduct research abroad to far reaches across the globe. These

National Security Education Program Alumni have brought the knowledge and expertise

gained during these studies abroad into various professional positions as they completed

their mandatory service requirement and for many as they continued their professional

track by working in the Federal Government. It will be interesting to see where the next

twenty years takes the National Security Education Program and it is my hope that this

research study serves as a spring board for future research and data collection initiatives

on the National Security Education Program!

Students also viewed