Which Strings Will States Attach to Free College Programs?

There is plenty of uncertainty about exactly how the upcoming midterm elections (enough nasty campaign ads already, everyone!) will shake out at the state and federal levels. Regardless of the outcomes, the idea of tuition-free college will continue to be discussed across both conservative and liberal states. But one thing is becoming clear: states are exploring a range of restrictions as they begin to adopt programs. In this post, I discuss some of the restrictions in today’s programs (see this Education Trust report for a more thorough treatment from an advocacy perspective) and some of the restrictions that I would not be surprised to see going forward.

Currently, there are four types of restrictions that exist across many current and proposed programs. The first one is the type of institution that students can attend. Most tuition-free college programs cover community colleges only due to the higher price tag of covering four-year colleges. (New York’s Excelsior program skirts this somewhat by not covering fees, which are substantial in the state.)

The second restriction is based on family income, since the last-dollar nature of tuition-free college programs means that programs become much more expensive up the income distribution. New Jersey’s new program, which covers tuition and fees at 13 of the state’s 19 community colleges, set an income cutoff of $45,000 per year to stretch limited state funds. But the state set up an income cap that low to allow for two other common restrictions (the age of the student and enrollment intensity) not to apply there. Other states, however, limit their programs to full-time students straight out of high school (and this is also common for standard grant aid programs).

Two other restrictions have popped up in a small number of states, and I would not be surprised to see them expand to other states that are considering tuition-free college programs. The programs in New York and Rhode Island require students to stay in state after college for a number of years or the grant converts into a loan (the dreaded “groan” in financial aid lingo). A few other states, such as Kentucky, have discussed limiting tuition-free programs to certain high-demand majors to better meet state workforce needs. This is similar to how some states provide additional money in their performance-based funding systems for each STEM major who graduates.

The intersection of the power of the phrase “free college” and concerns about the state’s return on investment is likely to result in even more restrictions appearing in states’ new programs. West Virginia saw a proposed program pass the state Senate (but see no action in the House) in 2018 that would have included both a residency requirement and a drug test requirement—something that does not apply to other types of financial aid the state gives. Students would have had to pay for the drug test, which would have kept down the price tag.

While I was on a panel on free college at the Brookings Institution earlier this fall, one idea came to my mind during the discussion. I said that I would not be surprised to see legislators propose that free college come with a clawback provision that pulls the money back if a student does not graduate within a certain number of years. This would be an incredibly painful provision for students who do not finish college for a variety of reasons, but it would be popular among budget hawks. States are also likely to set high initial academic requirements in the future (such as high school grades and ACT/SAT scores), essentially turning existing merit aid programs into new “free college” programs.

The 2019 legislative season is likely to bring dozens of free college proposals of various types across states, even as higher education policy gridlock remains likely in Washington. My request for states is that they be open to having their programs, particularly those with new restrictions, be evaluated by researchers so they can be improved going forward as needed.

New Experimental Evidence on the Effectiveness of Need-Based Financial Aid

My first experience doing higher education research began in the spring 2008, when I (then a graduate student in economics) responded to an e-mail from an education professor at the University of Wisconsin who was looking for students to help her with an interesting new study. Sara Goldrick-Rab was co-leading an evaluation of the Wisconsin Scholars Grant (WSG)—a rare case of need-based financial aid being given to students from low-income families via random assignment. Over the past decade, the Wisconsin Hope Lab team published articles on the effectiveness of the WSG in improving on-time graduation rates among university students and on changing students’ work patterns.

A decade later, we were able to conduct a follow-up study to examine the outcomes of treatment and control group students who started college between 2008 and 2011. This sort of long-term analysis of financial aid programs has rarely been conducted—and the two best existing evaluations (of the Cal Grant and the West Virginia PROMISE program) are on programs with substantial merit-based components. Eligibility for the WSG was solely based on financial need (conditional on being a first-time, full-time student), providing the first long-term experimental evaluation of a need-based program.

Along with longtime collaborators from our days in Wisconsin (Drew Anderson of the RAND Corporation, Katharine Broton of the University of Iowa, and Sara Goldrick-Rab of Temple University), I am pleased to announce the release of our new working paper on the long-term effects of the WSG to kick off the opening of the new Hope Center for College, Community and Justice at Temple University. We found some evidence that students who began at four-year colleges who were assigned to receive the WSG had improved academic outcomes. The positive impacts on degree completion for the initial cohort of students in 2008 did fade out over a period of up to nine years, but the grant still helped students complete their degrees more quickly than the comparison group. Additionally, there was a positive impact on six-year graduation rates in later cohorts, with treatment students in the 2011 cohort being 5.4 percentage points more likely to graduate than the control group.

The grant generated clear increases in the percentage of students who both declared and completed STEM majors, even though the grant made no mentions whatsoever of STEM and had no major requirements. A second new paper by Katharine Broton and David Monaghan of Shippensburg University found that university students assigned to treatment were eight percentage points more likely to declare a STEM major, while our paper estimated a 3.6 percentage point increase in the likelihood of graduating with a STEM major. This strongly suggests that additional need-based financial aid can free students to pursue a wider range of majors, including ones that may require more expensive textbooks and additional hours spent in laboratory sessions.

However, the WSG did not generate across-the-board positive impacts. Impacts on persistence, degree completion, and transfer for students who began at two-year colleges were generally null, which could be due to the smaller size of the grant ($1,800 per year at two-year colleges versus $3,500 at four-year colleges) or the rather unusual population of first-time, full-time students attending mainly transfer-focused two-year colleges. We also found no effects of the grant on graduate school enrollment among students who started at four-year colleges, although this trend is worth re-examining in the future as people may choose to enroll after several years of work experience.

It has been an absolute delight to reunite with my longstanding group of colleagues to conduct this long-term evaluation of the WSG. We welcome any comments on our working paper and look forward to continuing our work in this area through the Hope Center.

Trends in Zero EFC Receipt

In my third blog post using newly-released data from the 2015-16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), I turn my attention away from graduate and professional students and toward undergraduate students. Here, I update a 2015 article that I wrote for the Journal of Student Financial Aid examining trends in the share and types of students who have an expected family contribution of zero—the students who have the least financial ability to pay for college and thus qualify for the maximum Pell Grant.

Using the handy TrendStats tool on the National Center for Education Statistics’s DataLab website, I looked at six NPSAS waves from the 1995-96 to 2015-16 and pulled data for all students and then by student and institutional characteristics. The full spreadsheet can be downloaded here (including data by gender and age that I do not cover in this post), and I go through some of the highlights below.

Overall, the percentage of students with a zero EFC has steadily increased every four years since the 1999-2000 academic year in spite of ebbs and flows in the economy. Part of this is likely due to changes in the rules of who automatically qualifies for a zero EFC based on family income and means-tested benefit receipt (currently, the income limit is $25,000 per year), but increased student diversity in American higher education also plays a role. The percentages in each year are as follows:

1995-96: 18.6%

1999-2000: 17.7%

2003-04: 20.7%

2007-08: 25.4%

2011-12: 37.9%

2015-16: 39.1%

There are stark differences in the percentage of students with a zero EFC by dependency status that have grown larger over time. Independent students with dependents of their own have always been the most likely to have a zero EFC, especially because childcare obligations often limit work hours (resulting in a lower household income). The percentage of students in this category with a zero EFC remained between 35 and 40 percent through 2007-08 before spiking to 61% in 2011-12 and 67.3% in 2015-16. Dependents and independent students with no dependents had generally similar zero EFC rates in the teens through 2003-04, but then independent students started to qualify for zero EFCs at much higher rates. By 2015-16, the gap grew to 18 percentage points (42.2% versus 24.2%).

Turning next to institutional type, for-profit colleges (which tend to enroll more independent students with families of their own) have traditionally had higher zero EFC rates than other sectors. 62.2% of students at for-profits had a zero EFC in 2015-16, up from 56.8% in the last NPSAS wave and around 40% before the Great Recession. In the 1990s, community colleges, public 4-year colleges, and private nonprofit 4-year colleges all had zero EFC rates of around 15%. Community colleges’ rates passed 40% in 2011-12, while four-year public and nonprofit colleges’ rates exceeded 30% in 2015-16. Notably, the percentage of zero EFC students at four-year private nonprofit colleges jumped from 25.7% to 30.5% in this NPSAS wave, a much larger increase than among public 4-year colleges.

Readers of my last two blog posts should not be terribly surprised to see that African-American students have been the most likely to have a zero EFC across the last six NPSAS administrations, although there was a slight decrease between 2011-12 and 2015-16 (60.0% to 58.2%). American Indian/Alaska Native students had the next highest zero EFC percentage (51.2%), followed by Hispanic/Latino students (47.6%), Asian students (39.2%), and white students (29.8%). Multiracial students saw an increase in zero EFC rates from 39.1% to 41.8%, but this group is not shown in the chart due to changes in how the Department of Education has classified race and ethnicity over time.

Finally, I examine zero EFC receipt trends by parental education—beginning in the 1999-2000 academic year due to changes in the survey question following the 1995-96 NPSAS. There is a clear relationship between parental education and zero EFC rates, with more than half of all students whose parents never attended college having a zero EFC in 2015-16 and progressively lower rates for students with highly-educated parents. However, two trends stand out among non-first-generation students. The largest increase in zero EFC rates by parental education in the last two NPSAS waves was among families with some college experience or an associate degree (rising from 37.9% to 42.6%). Meanwhile, even among students who had at least one parent with a graduate degree, 27.5% still qualified for a zero EFC.

Readers, if there are any pieces of the new NPSAS data that you would like me to examine in a future blog post, leave me a note in the comments section or send me a tweet. I’m happy to dig into other pieces of the dataset!

The Potential Role of States in Setting Living Allowance Estimates

For most American college students, the non-tuition portions of the cost of attendance (room and board, books and supplies, and a miscellaneous expenses category) are larger than tuition and fees. Colleges can set these estimates as they deem fit, and previous research by me, Sara Goldrick-Rab of Temple University, and Braden Hosch of Stony Brook University shows a large amount of variation in living allowances among colleges in the same geographic area. This means that similar students can access different amounts of financial aid—and that colleges with the same tuition price can look much different in a range of accountability measures.

As the U.S. Department of Education currently does not provide guidance for colleges in setting these allowances (and Higher Education Act reauthorization looks increasingly unlikely in 2018), it is worth exploring whether states should step in and provide some assistance for their public colleges and universities. In the two blog posts below, I teamed up with David Tandberg of the State Higher Executive Officers Association and Sarah Pingel of Education Commission of the States to further examine the topic.

Detailed post (with data on variations within and across states)

Summary post

We would love to hear your thoughts on this issue, so send them along!

Key Takeaways from the House Higher Education Act Reauthorization Bill

Majority Republicans on the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce unveiled their draft legislation today to reauthorize the Higher Education Act—the most important piece of legislation affecting American higher education. The Promoting Real Opportunity, Success, and Prosperity through Education Reform (PROSPER) Act checks in at a hefty 542 pages and touches many important aspects of higher education. I live-tweeted my first read through the bill (read the thread here), and in this blog post I am sharing some thoughts on the key themes of the legislation.

Takeaway 1: This bill would undo many Obama-era regulations and salt the earth on future regulations. It’s no secret that Republicans didn’t care for regulations such as gainful employment, borrower defense to repayment, or providing a federal definition of the credit hour. The PROSPER Act would not only undo the regulations, but prohibit the Secretary of Education from promulgating any future regulations (meaning that Congress would have to pass legislation to create any new rules). The Secretary of Education would also be prohibited from creating a federal college ratings system, even though the Obama-era effort to do so was unsuccessful.

Takeaway 2: The federal student loan system would be radically overhauled. Instead of the array of loans that are now available, there would be three flavors of a federal ONE Loan—for undergraduates, parents, and graduate students. The key details are below.

 

  Undergrad (dependent) Undergrad (independent) Parent Grad student
Annual limit (current) $5,500-$7,500 $9,500-$12,500 Cost of attendance Cost of attendance
Annual limit (PROSPER) $7,500-$11,500 $11,500-$14,500 $12,500 $28,500
Lifetime limit (current) $31,000 $57,500 Cost of attendance Cost of attendance
Lifetime limit (PROSPER) $39,000 $60,250 $56,250 $150,000

Note: Medical students have higher loan limits than what is listed above.

Undergraduate students actually have higher loan limits, but the PROSPER Act would also allow colleges to limit borrowing by student major if they feel students are unlikely to repay their obligations. Financial aid administrators have sought this authority for years, which means that students could actually see lower loan limits. Graduate students, on the other hand, would be limited to $28,500 per year and $150,000 overall in federal loans. Given that tuition alone often exceeds this number, expect students to turn to the private market (when possible) to finance their education.

The PROSPER Act also drastically changes income-driven repayment programs. Instead of the range of programs available now, future borrowers could choose between the standard ten-year payment plan or an income-driven plan that would allow them to pay 15% of their discretionary income (over 150% of the federal poverty line) for as long as necessary to repay the loan. There would be no ending date to payments, and payments for married couples would be based on both spouses’ incomes even if they file their taxes separately. (Both of these provisions differ from current law.) The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which was only mentioned once in passing in the entire bill, would also end. However, people in the program now would be grandfathered in.

Takeaway 3: Colleges would be held accountable for their outcomes in new ways. The cohort default rate metric (which I’m no fan of) would be replaced by a repayment rate metric. If a program (not a college) had more than 45% of its borrowers at least 90 days delinquent or in certain types of deferment for three consecutive years, it would lose access to all federal financial aid. This is a more generous definition of repayment for colleges than the College Scorecard’s definition (repaying at least $1 in principal), so I can’t say how many colleges would actually be affected.

Another interesting piece is that colleges would have to repay at least a portion of federal financial aid dollars given to students who left college during a semester. Right now, colleges can try to claw back those funds, but this proposal would limit colleges to trying to collect 10% of the amount owed back from students. This is similar to what Matt Chingos and Kristin Blagg have proposed in a policy brief.

There are so many other interesting points in this legislation, but I think these are the three most important ones that I can speak to based on my experience and research. Keep in mind that the Senate will also introduce a Higher Education Act reauthorization bill sometime in 2018, and that the two bills may differ significantly from each other.

Not-so-Free College and the Disappointment Effect

One of the most appealing aspects of tuition-free higher education proposals is that they convey a simple message about higher education affordability. Although students will need to come up with a substantial amount of money to cover textbooks, fees, and living expenses, one key expense will be covered if students hold up their end of the bargain. That is why the results of existing private-sector college promise programs are generally promising, as shown in this policy brief that I wrote for my friends at the Midwestern Higher Education Compact.

But free college programs in the public sector often come with a key limitation—the amount of money that the state has to fund the program in a given year. Tennessee largely avoided this concern by endowing the Tennessee Promise program through lottery funds, and the program appears to be in good financial shape at this point. However, two other states are finding that available funds are insufficient to meet program demand.

  • Oregon will provide only $40 million of the $48 million needed to fund its nearly tuition-free community college program (which requires a $50 student copay). As a result, the state will eliminate grants to the 15% to 20% of students with the highest expected family contributions (a very rough proxy for ability to pay).
  • New York received 75,000 completed applications for its tuition-free public college program, yet still only expects to give out 23,000 scholarships. Some of this dropoff may be due to students attending other colleges, but other students are probably still counting on the money.

In both states, a number of students who expected to get state grant aid will not receive any money. While rationing of state aid dollars is nothing new (many states’ aid programs are first-come, first-served), advertising tuition-free college and then telling students they won’t receive grant aid close to the beginning of the academic year may have negative effects such as choosing not to attend college at all or diminished academic performance if they do attend. There is a sizable body of literature documenting the “disappointment effect” in other areas, but relatively little in financial aid. There is evidence that losing grant aid can hurt continuing students, yet this does not separate out the potential effect of not having money from the potential disappointment effect.

The Oregon and New York experiences provide for a great opportunity to test the disappointment effect. Both states could compare students who applied for but did not receive the grant in 2017-18 to similar students in years prior to the free college programs. This would allow for a reasonably clean test of whether the disappointment effect had any implications for college choice and eventual persistence.

My 2017 Higher Education Finance Reading List

The middle of July marks the two-thirds point in my academic summer, so I’m spending time getting ready for the fall semester in addition to packing in as much research and fun into this wonderful time of year. I am teaching a higher education finance class at Seton Hall University for the fourth time this fall semester and just posted my syllabus for my students to look at before the semester begins.

Here is the reading list I am assigning my students for the course, which is my best effort to capture the current state of knowledge in higher education finance. I teach students who are primarily administrators and practitioners, so I especially value articles that are clearly-written and explain research methods in a concise manner. I link to the final versions of the articles whenever possible, but those without access to an academic library should note that earlier versions of many of these articles are available online via a quick Google search.

I hope you enjoy the list!

 

Introduction to higher education finance

Lumina Foundation video on how the federal government distributes financial aid to students: https://www.luminafoundation.org/looking-back-to-move-forward-4

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility. Working paper. (Also, look at their website for data on how your favorite college fares: http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/college/.)

Ehrenberg, R. G. (2012). American higher education in transition. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 193-216. (link)

Madzelan, D. (2013). The politics of student aid. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. (link)

Schanzenbach, D. W., Bauer, L., & Breitwieser, A. (2017). Eight economic facts on higher education. Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project. (link)

National Center for Education Statistics (2015). IPEDS data center user manual. Washington, DC: Author. (skim as a reference) (link)

 

Institutional budgeting

Barr, M.J., & McClellan, G.S. (2010). Understanding budgets. In Budgets and financial management in higher education (pp. 55-85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (link)

Varlotta, L.E. (2010). Becoming a leader in university budgeting. New Directions for Student Services, 129, 5-20. (link)

Seton Hall’s FY 2016 Forms 990 and 990-T to the Internal Revenue Service: https://www13.shu.edu/offices/finance/index.cfm

The College of New Jersey’s FY 2016 audited financial statements: https://treasurer.tcnj.edu/files/2016/02/FY2016-Audited-Financials-and-Schedules-of-Federal-State-Awards.pdf

Moody’s credit rating report for The College of New Jersey: https://treasurer.tcnj.edu/files/2016/09/Moodys-TCNJ-Final-Report-8.15.2016.pdf

Information on The College of New Jersey’s budgeting cycle: https://treasurer.tcnj.edu/files/2012/06/FY2018-TCNJ-Strategic-Budget-Planning-Cycle.pdf

 

Policy analysis and higher education finance

DesJardins, S.L. (2001). Understanding and using efficiency and equity criteria in the study of higher education policy. In J.C. Smart & W.G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Vol. 17 (pp. 173-220). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (link)

Ness, E. C. (2010). The role of information in the policy process: Implications for the examination of research utilization in higher education policy. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Vol. 25 (pp. 1-49). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. (link)

Weimer, D.L., & Vining, A.R. (1999). Thinking strategically about adoption and implementation. In Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (3rd Ed.) (pp. 382-416). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (link)

Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 13-36. (link)

 

Higher education expenditures

Altonji, J. G., & Zimmerman, S. D. (2017). The costs of and net returns to college major. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 23029. (link)

Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2008). Explaining increases in higher education costs. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 268-295.

Cheslock, J. J., & Knight, D. B. (2015). Diverging revenues, cascading expenditures, and ensuing subsidies: The unbalanced and growing financial strain of intercollegiate athletics on universities and their students. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(3), 417-447. (link)

Hurlburt, S., & McGarrah, M. (2016). Cost savings or cost shifting? The relationship between part-time contingent faculty and institutional spending. New York, NY: TIAA Institute. (link)

Commonfund Institute (2015). 2015 higher education price index. Wilton, CT: Author. (skim) (link)

Desrochers, D. M., & Hurlburt, S. (2016). Trends in college spending: 2003-2013. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. (skim) (link)

 

Federal sources of revenue

Cellini, S. R. (2010). Financial aid and for-profit colleges: Does aid encourage entry? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(3), 526-552. (link)

Kirshstein, R. J., & Hurlburt, S. (2012). Revenues: Where does the money come from? Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. (link)

Pew Charitable Trusts (2015). Federal and state funding of higher education. Washington, DC: Author. (link)

Pew Charitable Trusts (2017). How governments support higher education through the tax code. Washington, DC: Author. (link)

(Note: I will add a draft paper I’m working on looking at whether law, medical, and business schools responded to a 2006 increase in Grad PLUS loan limits by raising tuition later in the semester. I’ll have a public draft of the paper to share in early November, but I think it’s good that students see a really rough draft to see how the research process works.)

 

State sources of revenue

Chatterji, A. K., Kim, J., & McDevitt, R. C. (2016). School spirit: Legislator school ties and state funding for higher education. Working paper. (link)

Doyle, W., & Zumeta, W. (2014). State-level responses to the access and completion challenge in the new era of austerity. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655, 79-98. (link)

Fitzpatrick, M. D., & Jones, D. (2016). Post-baccalaureate migration and merit-based scholarships. Economics of Education Review, 54, 155-172. (link)

Hillman, N. W. (2016). Why performance-based funding doesn’t work. New York, NY: The Century Foundation. (link)

State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (2017). State higher education finance: FY 2017. Boulder, CO: Author. (skim) (link)

 

College pricing, tuition revenue, and endowments

Goldrick-Rab, S., & Kendall, N. (2016). The real price of college. New York, NY: The Century Foundation. (link)

Jaquette, O., Curs, B. R., & Posselt, J. R. (2016). Tuition rich, mission poor: Nonresident enrollment growth and the socioeconomic and racial composition of public research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 87(5), 635-673. (link)

Kelchen, R. (2016). An analysis of student fees: The roles of states and institutions. The Review of Higher Education, 39(4), 597-619. (link)

Levin, T., Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2016). A glimpse into the world of high capacity givers: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 22099. (link)

Yau, L., & Rosen, H. S. (2016). Are universities becoming more unequal? The Review of Higher Education, 39(4), 479-514. (link)

Ma, J., Baum, S., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Trends in college pricing 2016. Washington, DC: The College Board. (skim) (link)

National Association of College and University Budget Offices (2017). 2016 NACUBO-Commonfund study of endowment results. http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-Commonfund_Study_of_Endowments/Public_NCSE_Tables.html (skim)

 

Student debt and financing college

Akers, B., & Chingos, M. M. (2016). Game of loans: The rhetoric and reality of student debt (p. 13-37). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (link)

Boatman, A., Evans, B. J., & Soliz, A. (2017). Understanding loan aversion in education: Evidence from high school seniors, community college students, and adults. AERA Open, 3(1), 1-16. (link)

Chakrabarti, R., Haughwout, A., Lee, D., Scally, J., & van der Klaauw, W. (2017). Press briefing on household debt, with focus on student debt. New York, NY: Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (link)

Houle, J. N., & Warner, C. (2017). Into the red and back to the nest? Student debt, college completion, and returning to the parental home among young adults. Sociology of Education, 90(1), 89-108. (link)

Kelchen, R., & Li. A. Y. (2017). Institutional accountability: A comparison of the predictors of student loan repayment and default rates. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 671, 202-223. (link)

 

Financial aid practices, policies, and impacts

Watch the Lumina Foundation’s video on the history of the Pell Grant: https://www.luminafoundation.org/looking-back-to-move-forward-3

Bird, K., & Castleman, B. L. (2016). Here today, gone tomorrow? Investigating rates and patterns of financial aid renewal among college freshmen. Research in Higher Education, 57(4), 395-422. (link)

Carruthers, C. K., & Ozek, U. (2016). Losing HOPE: Financial aid and the line between college and work. Economics of Education Review, 53, 1-15. (link)

Goldrick-Rab, S., Kelchen, R., Harris, D. N., & Benson, J. (2016). Reducing income inequality in educational attainment: Experimental evidence on the impact of financial aid on college completion. American Journal of Sociology, 121(6), 1762-1817. (link)

Schudde, L., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2016). Pell Grants as performance-based scholarships? An examination of satisfactory academic progress requirements in the nation’s largest need-based aid program. Research in Higher Education, 57(8), 943-967. (link)

Baum, S., Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Trends in student aid 2016. Washington, DC: The College Board. (skim) (link)

 

Free college programs/proposals

Deming, D. J. (2017). Increasing college completion with a federal higher education matching grant. Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project. (link)

Goldrick-Rab, S., & Kelly, A. P. (2016). Should community college be free? Education Next, 16(1), 54-60. (link)

Harnisch, T. L., & Lebioda, K. (2016). The promises and pitfalls of state free community college plans. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (link)

Murphy, R., Scott-Clayton, J., & Wyness, G. (2017). Lessons from the end of free college in England. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. (link)

Map of college promise/free college programs: https://ahead-penn.org/creating-knowledge/college-promise

 

Returns to education

Deterding, N. M., & Pedulla, D. S. (2016). Educational authority in the “open door” marketplace: Labor market consequences of for-profit, nonprofit, and fictional educational credentials. Sociology of Education, 89(3), 155-170. (link)

Doyle, W. R., & Skinner, B. T. (2017). Does postsecondary education result in civic benefits? The Journal of Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2017.1291258. (link)

Giani, M. S. (2016). Are all colleges equally equalizing? How institutional selectivity impacts socioeconomic disparities in graduates’ labor outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 431-461. (link)

Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education pays 2016: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Washington, DC: The College Board. (link)

Webber, D. A. (2016). Are college costs worth it? How ability, major, and debt affect the returns to schooling. Economics of Education Review, 53, 296-310. (link)

Examining Trends in the Pell Grant Program

The U.S. Department of Education recently released its annual report on the federal Pell Grant program, which provides detailed information about the program’s finances and who is receiving grants. The most recent report includes data from the 2015-16 academic year, and I summarize the data and trends over the last two decades in this annual post on the status of the Pell program. (Very preliminary data on Pell receipt for the first two quarters of the 2016-17 academic year can be found in the Title IV program volume reports on the Office of Federal Student Aid’s website.)

The number of Pell recipients fell for the fourth year in a row in 2015-16 to 7.66 million. This represents a 7.9% decline in the last year and an 18.9% drop since the peak in 2011-12. The decline is steepest in the for-profit sector (down 13.9% in one year and 36.7% since 2011-12) and among community colleges (down 13.3% and 28.3%, respectively), while private nonprofit and public four-year colleges stayed relatively constant. For the first time since at least 1993, more students at public four-year colleges received Pell Grants than community college students. While most of this change is likely due to a drop in community college enrollment, some could be due to community colleges offering a small number of bachelor’s degrees being counted as four-year colleges. (Thanks for Ben Miller of the Center for American Progress for pointing that out!)

Pell Grant expenditures fell to $28.6 billion in 2015-16, down from $35.7 billion in 2010-11. After adjusting for inflation, program expenditures are down 26% since the peak. This has allowed the Pell program to develop a surplus of $10.6 billion, $1.3 billion of which was taken to use for other programs in the 2017 budget deal. This surplus also allowed for the Pell Grant to be available for more than two semesters per year as of July 1, which was allowed between 2008 and 2011 before being cut due to budgetary concerns.

Most of the decline in Pell enrollment and expenditures can be attributed to a drop in the number of students who are considered independent for financial aid purposes (typically students who are at least 24 years of age, are married, or have a child). The number of independent Pell recipients fell by 28% in the last four years (to 4.05 million), while the number of dependent Pell recipients fell by just 6.4% (to 3.61 million), as shown in the chart below. However, independent students still make up the majority of Pell recipients, as they have every year since 1993.

There has been an even larger drop in the number of students with an automatic zero expected family contribution, who automatically qualify for the maximum Pell Grant based on family income and receiving means-tested benefits. (For more on these students, check out this article I wrote in the Journal of Student Financial Aid in 2015.) The number of independent students with dependents who received an automatic zero EFC fell by 50% since 2011-12, while the number of dependent students in this category fell by 29%. (Independent students without any dependents are not eligible to receive an automatic zero EFC.) Part of this decline was due to a decrease in the maximum income limit that automatically qualified students for an automatic zero EFC, while the rest can be attributed to an improving economy that has both induced adult students to return to the labor market and raised some incomes beyond the threshold for qualifying for an automatic zero EFC.

Which States Search for FAFSA Information the Most?

In advance of this week’s National Spelling Bee finals, Google released data on the word that people located in each state searched “how to spell” on a regular basis. (Kudos to South Dakota for being so interested in how to spell “college!”) I used the Google Trends tool to search for how often people in each state searched for information on the FAFSA over the last five years and one year, as well as how often they searched for the “FASFA”—a pronunciation that is like fingernails on the chalkboard for many folks in higher education.

Between 2012 and 2016, interest in both the FAFSA (in blue) and the FASFA (in red) followed a pretty typical pattern, as shown in the first graph below. Searches picked up in frequency on January 1 (the first day to file for the new application year) before peaking around March 1 (when many state aid deadlines occur) and falling off dramatically in September. But in the 2016-17 application cycle (the second graph), searches spiked near October 1 (the new first date for filing the FAFSA) with a smaller peak around January 1 and an equal peak around March 1. This shows how the early FAFSA changes did reach students and their families.

Note: The “FAFSA” is in blue and the “FASFA” is in red.

I also looked at search intensity by state over the last year, with the most intense state receiving a value of 100. Mississippi had the highest intensity of FAFSA searches, while Oregon’s value of 42 was less than half of Mississippi’s value. Louisiana and Arkansas tied for the highest FASFA value (30), while Minnesota (7) had the lowest value. Looking at FAFSA-to-FASFA search ratios (a proxy for how commonly people searched for the wrong term), Louisiana had the lowest ratio of 3.07—indicating the highest frequency of incorrect searches. Meanwhile, Minnesotans were the least likely to type “FASFA” relative to “FAFSA,” with a ratio of 10.

FAFSA and FASFA search intensity, May 31, 2016 to May 31, 2017.

State FAFSA FASFA Ratio
Mississippi 100 28 3.57
Arkansas 95 30 3.17
Oklahoma 93 25 3.72
Louisiana 92 30 3.07
New Mexico 89 26 3.42
West Virginia 88 23 3.83
Idaho 87 18 4.83
Kentucky 87 23 3.78
Alabama 84 22 3.82
Tennessee 82 20 4.10
Indiana 80 22 3.64
Vermont 79 13 6.08
Maryland 79 18 4.39
Hawaii 78 9 8.67
South Dakota 78 14 5.57
Alaska 77 15 5.13
California 77 14 5.50
Wyoming 77 23 3.35
Utah 77 15 5.13
Montana 77 11 7.00
Arizona 76 18 4.22
Delaware 75 25 3.00
Rhode Island 74 18 4.11
Iowa 74 18 4.11
North Dakota 74 9 8.22
South Carolina 73 19 3.84
North Carolina 72 18 4.00
Virginia 72 15 4.80
Connecticut 72 16 4.50
Florida 72 18 4.00
Nebraska 72 13 5.54
Ohio 71 18 3.94
Missouri 71 20 3.55
Nevada 71 16 4.44
New Jersey 71 15 4.73
Maine 71 17 4.18
Pennsylvania 70 17 4.12
Minnesota 70 7 10.00
New Hampshire 68 15 4.53
Michigan 67 17 3.94
Washington 66 12 5.50
New York 66 15 4.40
Wisconsin 66 10 6.60
Georgia 65 18 3.61
Illinois 63 13 4.85
Massachusetts 60 12 5.00
Colorado 60 15 4.00
Texas 56 14 4.00
Kansas 54 14 3.86
District of Columbia 45 11 4.09
Oregon 42 8 5.25

Source: Google

Google search data can have the potential to provide some interesting insights about public perceptions and awareness of higher education, yet they have been used relatively infrequently. If there are any terms you would like me to dig into, let me know in the comments section!

Comments on the Trump Higher Education Budget Proposal

The Trump administration released its first full budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2018 today, and it is safe to say that it represents a sharp break from the Obama administration’s budget proposals. The proposed discretionary budget for the Department of Education is about $69 billion, $10 billion less than the Fiscal Year 2017 budget. Below, I offer brief comments on three of the key higher education proposals within the budget, as well as my take on whether the proposals are likely to be enacted in some form by a Republican-controlled Congress that seems fairly skeptical of the Trump administration’s higher education policy ideas.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness would no longer be available for new borrowers. Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) was first made available in 2007 in an effort to encourage individuals to work in lower-paying nonprofit or government jobs. This plan allows students enrolled in income-driven repayment plans who annually certified their income and employment status to have any remaining balances forgiven after ten years of payments of 10% of discretionary income. However, the plan has been criticized due to its likely high price tag to taxpayers and because it provides far larger subsidies to graduate students than undergraduate students.

The Trump administration’s budget proposal would end PSLF for new borrowers as of July 1, 2018—and require all people currently on PSLF to maintain continuous enrollment in the program to remain eligible. This is likely to be a difficult hurdle for many people to clear, as a large number of students have been tripped up by annual recertification in the past. I’m glad to see that the Trump administration didn’t completely end PSLF for current students (as people reasonably relied on the program to make important life choices), but otherwise saving PSLF in the current form isn’t at the top of my priority list because of how most of the subsidy goes to reasonably well-off people with graduate degrees instead of low-paid individuals with a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education.

Prognosis of happening: Low to medium. This will generate howls of outrage in The New York Times and The Washington Post from groups such as the American Bar Association and the National Education Association, but there is a reasonable argument for at least curtailing the amount of money that can be forgiven under PSLF. A full-fledged ending of the program may not happen, but some changes are quite possible as quite a few members of Congress are upset with rising costs of loan forgiveness programs.

Subsidized loans for undergraduates would be eliminated, and income-driven loan repayment periods would change. Undergraduate students can qualify for between $3,500 and $5,500 per year in subsidized student loans (meaning interest is not charged while they are in school), with the remainder of their federal loans being unsubsidized (with interest accumulating immediately). The Trump administration would end subsidized loans, with the likely rationale that the interest subsidy is not an efficient use of resources (something that is hard to empirically confirm or deny, but is quite plausible).

The federal government currently offers students a menu of income-driven loan repayment options, and the Trump administration proposed to simplify these into one option.  Undergraduates would pay up to 12.5% of the income over 15 years (from 10% over 20 years for the most popular current plan), while grad students would pay up to 12.5% for 30 years. Undergraduate students probably benefit from this change, while graduate students decidedly do not. This plan hits master’s degree programs hard, as any graduate debt would either trigger a 30-year repayment period for a potentially small amount of additional debt or push people back into a standard (non-income-driven) plan.

Prognosis of happening: Medium. There has been a great deal of support for streamlining income-driven repayment plans, but the much less-generous terms for graduate students (along with ending PSLF) would significantly affect graduate student enrollment. This will mobilize the higher education community against the proposal, particularly as many four-year colleges are seeking to grow graduate enrollment as a new revenue source. But potentially moving to a 20-year repayment period for graduate students or tying repayment length to loan debt are more politically feasible. The elimination of subsidized loans for undergraduates hits low-income students, but a more generous income-driven repayment program mainly offsets that and makes that change more realistic.

Federal work-study funds would be cut in half and the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant would be eliminated. The federal government provides funds for these two programs to individual colleges instead of directly to students, and colleges are required to provide matching funds. The SEOG is an additional grant available to needy undergraduates at participating colleges, while federal work-study funds can go to undergraduate or graduate students with financial need. Together, these programs provide about $1.7 billion of funding each year, with funds disproportionately going to students at selective and expensive colleges due to an antiquated funding formula. Rather than fixing the formula, the Trump administration proposed to get rid of SEOG (as being duplicative of Pell) and halve work-study funding.

Prognosis of happening: Slim to none. Because funds disproportionately go to wealthier colleges (and go to colleges instead of students), the lobbying backlash against cutting these programs will be intense. (There is also research evidence showing that work-study funds do benefit students, which is important to note as well.) Congressional Republicans are likely to give up on changing these two programs in an effort to focus on higher-stakes changes to student loan programs.

In summary, the Trump administration is proposing some substantial changes to how students and colleges are funded. But don’t necessarily expect these changes to be implemented as proposed, even if there are plenty of concerns among conservatives about the price tag and inefficient targeting of current federal financial aid programs. It will be crucial to see the budget bill that will go up for a vote in the House of Representatives, as that is more likely to be passed into law than the president’s proposed budget.