Search

The purpose of this audit was to determine whether Federal Student Aid (FSA) was effectively implementing the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act and the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Simplification Act's provisions pertaining to Federal taxpayer information (FTI) through the Student Aid and Borrower Eligibility Reform (SABER) initiative. The audit covered activities FSA conducted to implement the four FTI systems that FSA utilized, developed, or modified to adhere to the aspects of the FUTURE Act and FAFSA Simplification Act that primarily relate to FSA's ability to use and protect FTI received directly from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The FTI is then used to automatically populate a portion of applicants' FAFSAs. The audit covered December 19, 2019 (when the FUTURE Act was enacted) through May 31, 2023.

This quasi-experimental study examined the effectiveness of a one-time emergency financial relief program among Pell Grant eligible undergraduate students in Spring 2015 pursuing their first bachelor's degree across academic and financial outcomes. The academic outcomes included retention to the next semester, degree completion, attempted credit hours, and grade point average. The financial outcome captured whether students received a stop registration hold due to an unpaid financial balance in the semester after receiving the emergency relief. The results reveal that financial relief applied to low-income students' accounts can improve their retention and graduation rates. The financial relief was most effective among first-generation college students, resulting in a complete elimination of the retention gap for first-generation students. The emergency relief did not improve GPA or substantially change the number of credits earned. A concerning finding was that students receiving this emergency support were more likely to receive a financial hold in a subsequent semester and that effect was stronger among students of color (Black/African American, Hispanic/Latine, Asian, Multiracial, American Indian/Alaska Native), males, and first-generation college students.

An ongoing debate in K-12 education policy has been between the "reform" agenda, including charter schools and school vouchers, and advocates of traditional public schools, led by educator unions. A similar split has emerged in higher education, particularly community colleges. Using California as an example, this paper: 1) summarizes the evolution of the current political divide between advocates of the "completion and success" agenda and faculty-led opponents, including the major reforms involved, 2) discusses the claims that leading organizations on each side have made, including their policy priorities, and 3) argues that the two sides share do share some areas of mutual agreement. The paper concludes by noting future policy considerations that could complicate reform efforts.

Veterans' educational assistance programs provide benefits or services to eligible service members and veterans and their family members, as applicable, to help such individuals pursue education or training. The GI Bills provide financial assistance while recipients are enrolled in approved education or training programs. Eligibility is based on a qualifying individual's service in the uniformed services. This report provides brief descriptions of the various veterans' educational assistance programs, including the GI Bills, that are currently available to veterans and other eligible individuals through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The first sections of this report describe the active GI Bills and other veterans' educational assistance programs, in descending order based on the number of current beneficiaries. The subsequent section highlights eligibility interactions between the veterans' educational assistance programs and other relevant benefit programs. The final section provides information on benefit recipients and expenditures for the educational assistance programs. A summary of selected characteristics of the various active GI Bills is presented in Appendix A. A description of the GI Bills that are no longer paying benefits and some lessons learned when they were in operation is provided in the subsequent appendices.

In order to assist higher education institutions and their students during the pandemic, the federal government established the Higher Education Emergency Relief (HEER) Fund, which directed over $75 billion to institutions of higher education--including nearly $25 billion to community colleges--over a three-year period. The U.S. Department of Education worked on a rapid timeline to distribute these funds to institutions, which they could use to provide direct aid to students facing financial challenges and cover institutional costs related to the pandemic. Drawing on a survey of community colleges in six states--California, Michigan, New York (State University of New York [SUNY] colleges), Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas--this report provides insight into the specific pandemic recovery activities colleges implemented, colleges' perceptions of how successful HEER funds were in addressing student and institutional needs during the pandemic, and colleges' views of unmet needs. The institutional survey was completed by 170 out of a total of 265 community colleges in the six states. Key findings from the report: (1) Colleges spent nearly all the HEER funds they received. Given the large amount of HEER funding and the fact that colleges did not need to submit a proposal and budget for how they would use the funds, it should not be assumed that colleges would have spent all the money they received. Yet colleges spent nearly all the funds they received by the time the HEER program ended in June 2023; (2) HEER funds met a variety of student and institutional needs during the pandemic. Colleges had relatively few problems using the funds and felt that the aid was successful in mitigating student and institutional hardships; (3) Colleges focused on retaining existing students; they employed a variety of methods to support students in need. Colleges used HEER funds to support and retain existing (pre-pandemic) students rather than to recruit new students. They focused on supporting students with financial exigencies, including those experiencing food and housing insecurity. They used institutional aid to forgive debt owed to the college and to provide food, housing, and childcare assistance; (4) Spending patterns suggest that colleges experienced similar challenges during the pandemic and often prioritized the same objectives. Despite differences in state contexts and institutional settings, colleges tended to allocate funds in similar ways. For example, most colleges used aid for campus safety and technology hardware. Expenditure patterns also shifted over time in similar ways, indicating that colleges were responsive to evolving needs; (5) Expenditures related to campus safety and technology remained strong but decreased in frequency over time; expenditures to support students' mental health increased in frequency. Mental health services was the only expenditure category that increased in frequency in each of the three years of funding, likely reflecting the toll the pandemic took on students' mental health; (6) Comparing pre- and post-pandemic spending, HEER funds had the most impact on increasing support for technology hardware, high-speed internet, and housing assistance. Colleges used HEER funds both to fund existing services and to begin offering new ones. Fewer than a third of colleges had services in place to provide technology hardware, high-speed internet, and housing assistance before the pandemic; many more did so afterward; (7) Concerns about the end of HEER funding and priorities for future funding expose a need for continued flexible resources to address students' financial needs. Colleges' main concern about the end of HEER funding was that it would limit their ability to support students during an emergency. Their top priority for using future funding was additional student aid; and (8) Rural and vocational/technical colleges (as defined by the Carnegie Classification) may have had fewer resources prior to the pandemic and may be in greater need of additional support. Colleges in towns and rural areas and colleges focused on technical training were less likely to offer a number of supports both pre- and post-pandemic. Rural colleges were also less likely to report having received additional funding for pandemic recovery from sources other than HEER funds. Overall, while the survey findings suggest that HEER largely met the goals for which it was intended, they also point to the importance of addressing systemic challenges facing community college students and the institutions that serve them. Now that the immediate crisis of the pandemic has passed and HEER funding has ended, there is an opportunity to think strategically about the investments that are needed to promote student success over the long term, particularly for underserved and financially vulnerable students who are the most at risk of stopping out or not enrolling in the first place.

Promise programs are discussed as a policy movement that began with the 2005 launch of the Kalamazoo Promise. Since then, programs bearing the Promise label or sharing similar features have spread across the higher educational landscape, appearing in most states and across postsecondary sectors. Simultaneously, scholarly literature discussing these programs has burgeoned. And yet, scholars and others are unable to formulate a clear conception of what a Promise program is and what if anything sets such a program apart from other scholarship programs (e.g., state need-based grants). In this paper, we examine how scholars have discussed these programs over time. We begin with the initial theorization of the Kalamazoo Promise as a case and observe its use as a prototype in the formulation of a general model once "Promise program" was established as a category. We follow how the spread and transformation of "Promise programs" was reflected in repeated partial reconceptualization. We find three competing conceptual models emerging in sequence: 1) a thick, place-based causal model derived as a generalization of the Kalamazoo Promise, 2) a thin empirical model crafted in the aftermath of the launch of the Tennessee Promise, and 3) a partially acknowledged minimal or symbolic model advanced haltingly in response to critiques of last-dollar community college state programs. Scholarly conceptualization is largely reactive to empirical program diffusion and transformation, though scholarly idealization may have played a role in this diffusion itself.

"Free college" (sometimes called Promise) programs are common in U.S. higher education. Reviewing 88 studies of 25 state and local programs, I provide a nuanced picture of the mechanisms through which these programs may work and their likely effects on students, communities, and colleges. Some commonly-claimed mechanisms for these effects--e.g., improving secondary school environments or impacting residential decisions--lack empirical support or are implausible for most existing programs. Programs are consistently found to shift college-bound students to colleges where they can use more scholarship dollars, increase enrollment at eligible colleges, and (for generous local programs only) increase community school district enrollment. Less consistently, programs boost college participation and thereby degree attainment, but evidence for direct effects on college performance, persistence or completion net of enrollment is weak. There is insufficient or inconsistent evidence for program effects on secondary school performance and graduation, post-college income and debt, community population or property values, and inequality reduction according to gender, race, or socioeconomic status.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), previously named the Veterans Administration, has been providing veterans educational assistance benefits, including GI Bill benefits, since 1944. The benefits have been intended, at various times, to compensate for compulsory service, encourage voluntary service, prevent unemployment, provide equitable benefits to all who served, and promote military retention. In general, the benefits provide grant aid to eligible individuals enrolled in approved educational and training programs. The newest GI Bill was enacted on June 30, 2008, as the Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill), Title V of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252). This report provides a detailed description of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The first section introduces the concept of entitlement. The second section describes participant eligibility criteria. The third section discloses the period during which the benefits must be used. The subsequent section describes the eligible programs of education. This is succeeded by an explanation of the eligible benefit payments. The final section illustrates current data on obligations and participation.

Amid a troubled overhaul of the federal process for applying for student financial aid, the share of Wisconsin high school seniors completing the application so far this year has plummeted. The largest declines have been at schools with greater proportions of marginalized students. While the gap may be narrowing as students near commitment deadlines, such delays could cause lasting impacts for students, colleges, and the workforce. [The publication date on the .pdf (May 2023) is incorrect. The correct publication date is May 2024.]

This report explores the higher education financial aid workforce, including pay and pay equity, staffing, representation, and retention. Taken together, the results in this report suggest the need for colleges and universities to implement strategies to better retain people of color within the financial aid employee pipeline and to ensure equitable pay for people of color and women. Further, to encourage retention, institutions of higher education should consider increasing pay and opportunities for remote and flexible work. Institutions should use these findings to consider whether they have sufficient employees (or combination of employees and outsourcing) to handle the workload required of the financial aid office.

Nontuition expenses--including housing, food, transportation, and miscellaneous expenses, in addition to books and supplies--constitute a significant financial burden for many students pursuing higher education, even if they receive grant aid to help them pay tuition and fees. Well-designed policy interventions at both the federal and state levels could effectively address the hardships some students face. A large increase in the maximum Pell grant to provide students additional funds for living expenses may seem like a straightforward solution, but that approach is not optimal. Doubling the maximum Pell grant would increase the aid most current full-time recipients receive by the same dollar amount, regardless of the size of their current Pell grant. In other words, it would double the grant for the lowest-income students, who currently receive the maximum, but would increase it by much larger proportions for those whose somewhat higher incomes qualify them for smaller grants. The program's cost would more than double. In this report, we propose alternative design options for a need-based basic living stipend. Awarding two Pell grants, with the second grant explicitly for nontuition expenses, would be less expensive and more targeted to the lowest-income students than doubling the maximum. Our preferred option would be a distinct need-based living stipend supplementing an increased Pell grant. The stipend would be standard, not based on individual cost of attendance, which is an inconsistent metric. The maximum stipend could be lower than the maximum Pell grant. The stipend would decline at a chosen rate as incomes increase. This approach would be most flexible and would be less expensive and better targeted than an increase in the maximum Pell grant that would give the same amount of funding to the lowest-income students. A federal matching program providing incentives to states to provide need-based living stipends would be a useful complement to this federal program and could tailor aid to local circumstances.

We provide evidence about college financial aid from an eight-year randomized trial where high school ninth graders received a $12,000 merit-based grant offer. The program was designed to be free of tuition/fees at community colleges and substantially lower the cost of four-year colleges. During high school, it increased students' college expectations and low-cost effort, but not higher-cost effort, such as class attendance. The program likely increased two-year college graduation, perhaps because of the free college framing, but did not affect overall college entry, graduation, employment, incarceration, or teen pregnancy. Additional analysis helps explain these modest effects and variation in results across prior studies.

This First Look report provides selected findings from the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) Postsecondary Education Administrative Records Collection (PEAR). HSLS:09 follows a nationally representative sample of students who were ninth-graders in fall 2009 from high school into postsecondary education and the workforce. The PEAR data collection was conducted in 2021, approximately 8 years after high school graduation for most of the cohort. These data provide information on whether fall 2009 ninth-graders enrolled in postsecondary education by June 2021, and allow researchers to examine enrollment characteristics, degree completion, and financial aid awards for the subset of fall 2009 ninth-graders who enrolled in postsecondary education.

Most Americans today need some education beyond high school to secure a well-paying job, and higher education is a key factor in social and economic mobility. But higher education is not accessible to all students. To further equalize opportunity, states must understand options for improving the way they fund higher education. America's public K-12 system has been grappling with similar funding disparities for decades -- challenges that offer important lessons for postsecondary funding. Bellwether's analysis, "Strengthening State Higher Education Funding: Lessons Learned From K-12," identifies insights and lessons from K-12 finance policy that may be instructive as states rework how they fund higher education. This report explores four topics and associated questions that are also relevant across K-12 education: (1) Equity: How can states distribute funding to students and public IHEs with the greatest needs?; (2) Adequacy: How much funding is enough to achieve the desired outcomes?; (3) Cost Sharing: How can local governments and states share the cost of public higher education?; and (4) Stability: How can public IHEs secure consistent and predictable funding?

The 2024 Nebraska Higher Education Progress Report is the 18th annual progress report designed to provide the Nebraska Legislature with comparative statistics to monitor and evaluate progress toward achieving three key priorities for Nebraska's postsecondary education system. These priorities were developed by the 2003 LR 174 Higher Education Task Force and described in detail in a 2004 report published by the Coordinating Commission. They are: (1) Increase the number of students who enter postsecondary education in Nebraska; (2) Increase the percentage of students who enroll and successfully complete a degree; and (3) Reduce, eliminate and then reverse the net out-migration of Nebraskans with high levels of educational attainment. This report is a comparative analysis that measures and evaluates performance in respect to each priority. [For the "2023 Nebraska Higher Education Progress Report," see ED627820.]

The Higher Education Emergency Relief (HEER) Fund had two main purposes: (1) to ensure that colleges could continue to provide education to students in the wake of the pandemic and (2) to provide emergency financial assistance through colleges directly to students. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, this ARCC Network brief uses college financial data--including data recently released for fiscal year 2022--to look at what happened to college finances and to assess the importance of HEER funding for the financial solvency of community colleges over the course of the pandemic. The authors find that during the peak years of the pandemic (2020-2022), community colleges lost huge numbers of students: On average, colleges lost 580 full-time-equivalent (FTE) students or 15% of pre-pandemic year-on-year enrollment, whereas college enrollments typically fluctuate by +/-2% each year. The authors also find that federal HEER funding saved community colleges from massive losses in tuition revenue during the pandemic. Instead of losing revenue, HEER funding increased total revenue per college from $81 million to $84 million, covering lost tuition and offsetting new costs associated with the pandemic. HEER funding also provided $4 million in student aid per college, on average, making up for lost resources students experienced during the pandemic. The authors--who also wrote an associated blog post that includes an interactive dashboard on this topic--contend that community colleges are confronting new fiscal challenges post-pandemic. As HEER funding has ended, many community colleges are faced with a difficult fiscal outlook, with increased costs due to inflation and decreased overall enrollments relative to pre-pandemic levels. Navigating these new fiscal realities will be extremely challenging for community colleges, raising new concerns about the viability of many colleges in the post-pandemic era. [This report was written with the Accelerating Recovery in Community Colleges (ARCC) Network.]

Earlier this year, Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) introduced the College Cost Reduction Act (CCRA), a bill to reform higher education grant and loan programs and to establish new accountability rules for colleges. A key part of the bill would replace the myriad income-driven repayment (IDR) plans for federal student loans, including the Biden administration's Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, with a new repayment plan. The bill features income-based payments, a cap on total payments, and monthly subsidies that waive unpaid interest and reduce principal balances for certain borrowers. In this brief, the authors compare the CCRA plan with the Biden administration's SAVE plan, the most generous IDR plan. The authors also compare the CCRA plan with another version of IDR, the Pay as You Earn (PAYE) plan.

This brief examines how specific college affordability policies and practices at the federal, state, and institutional levels can be strengthened to close racial equity gaps in college affordability and completion and to support widespread diversity and representation in higher education. By increasing access to financial aid and shifting the way colleges and universities equitably award and disburse funds, we can leverage financial aid as a marketing, recruitment, enrollment, and retainment tool for both low-income and minoritized students, and to counteract the chilling effect of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision curtailing the use of race-conscious admissions in higher education. Socio-economic status is not a perfect proxy for race, but affordability policies are a critical lever for equity, given that Latinx, Black, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (NHPI), and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) students receive multiple forms of grant aid at higher percentages than their white counterparts. The recommendations made in this paper will help close racial/ethnic and economic equity gaps in higher education without violating the SCOTUS decision. [Eileen and Harold Brown provided additional funding for this series of briefs.]

Families may choose to save for college or elementary and secondary education expenses using tax-advantaged qualified tuition programs (QTPs), also known as 529 plans. This report provides an overview of the mechanics of 529 plans and examines the specific tax advantages of these plans. Specifically, this report is structured to first compare "savings" and "prepaid" 529 plans and, second, to examine the income and gift tax treatment of 529 plans, using a stylized example to illustrate key concepts. The report also examines the tax treatment of rollovers and the interaction of 529 plans with other education tax benefits and looks at how 529 plans are treated in the federal needs analysis for financial aid. Finally, the report summarizes recent legislative changes.

The number and availability of service-contingent loan forgiveness and loan repayment programs have expanded considerably since the establishment of the first major federal loan forgiveness program under the National Defense Education Act of 1958. This report provides information on federally authorized service-contingent student loan forgiveness and repayment programs in two tables. Table 1 lists programs that were operational on or after October 1, 2021. Table 2 lists such programs that were previously operational prior to October 1, 2021; that were never active; or for which program information is unavailable. Both tables contain the following information: (1) program name; (2) statutory citation; (3) administering agency; (4) qualifying service required of program participants; (5) maximum amount of benefits program participants can receive; (6) most recently available data regarding the amount of funds appropriated for the program or the amount of benefits awarded under the program; and (7) resources for additional information.

Starting in 2015, New York State began offering college financial assistance to individuals who have experienced foster care at any point after the age of 13. Recognizing the unique needs of this student population and the desire to provide additional support, the Foster Youth College Success Initiative (FYCSI) was created to encourage and ease the financial burden of college-going for foster care youth, providing awards that can be used to cover costs including tuition and fees; room and board (as well as housing during school recess); books and supplies; transportation to and from campus; academic support services such as advising and tutoring not already covered by the campus; and, certain qualifying personal expenses. An examination of the use and outcomes of FYCSI could provide useful insights about this program. In this study, we look at FYCSI aid recipients since the initiation of the award program in fall 2015 who are attending any of the campuses that make up the State University of New York System (SUNY) and use data from the SUNY Data Warehouse provided by SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics. Demand for FYCSI support continues to grow as more and more students apply for and receive these awards, and early results point to the program's potential positive impacts: FYCSI recipients tend to reenroll after their first year at higher rates than their peers and post higher graduation rates for associate degrees and, after six years, bachelor's degrees.

Over the last 3 decades, the Direct Loan program has grown in size and complexity, with over $1.3 trillion in outstanding loans as of September 2023. This program provides financial assistance to help students and their parents pay for postsecondary education. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to review issues related to Education's Direct Loan program cost estimates. This report examines: (1) the status of Education's planned model for estimating Direct Loan costs; (2) how certain federal and private sector estimation approaches would affect Direct Loan budgetary costs over time; and (3) the extent to which Education provides key information about the performance and risks of the Direct Loan program. GAO reviewed documentation on Education's current student loan model and plans for its new model. GAO analyzed the potential budgetary impact over time of four approaches for estimating the cost of a selected group of loans. GAO identified relevant reports, reviewed reporting guidance for federal loan programs, and interviewed officials from Education, other agency officials, and stakeholders with relevant expertise.

Each year, more than a million young people in the United States experience homelessness; some of these young people, known as unaccompanied homeless youth, will face the challenges of homelessness while living on their own without the support of a caring adult. Unaccompanied homeless youth face the same struggles as other young people: trying to do well in school, "fitting in," and figuring out what their future will look like. Without adult guidance and support, however, they will face these struggles while also working to provide for their own livelihoods. Many of these youth hope to attend college but wonder how they will pay tuition without help from their parents, who will sign important paperwork on their behalf, how they will juggle long work hours and schoolwork, and where they will stay when the dormitories close during holiday and summer breaks. Fortunately, federal laws provide additional support for this vulnerable population. This brief aims to increase the awareness of postsecondary educators and education administrators of the issue of unaccompanied homeless youth by providing: (1) A better understanding of unaccompanied homeless youth and the educational and other challenges they face; (2) A summary of federal legislation, including the McKinney-Vento Act, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, and the FAFSA Simplification Act, which give unaccompanied homeless youth access to critical educational supports; (3) Samples of promising practices implemented by high schools, colleges, and universities to assist unaccompanied homeless youth in succeeding in college; and (4) Additional resources for more information.

Minority-serving institutions (MSIs) are considered models of excellence to support underrepresented racial and ethnic students; however, multiple definitions of MSIs complicate the consumption and production of research on these critical institutions. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) uses set criteria to define MSIs, based primarily on enrollment. However, scholars and practitioners have argued for considering factors beyond enrollment, such as equitable student outcomes and institutional markers of a serving culture. This study used descriptive analyses of IPEDS data to explore the extent to which MSIs served their target population. We use national weighted averages to report results on each MSI category compared to all other institutions. We found that MSIs enrolled higher percentages of MSI-aligned students and employed more-significant percentages of MSI-aligned instructional staff. Most MSIs generally retained higher percentages of MSI-aligned students. Most MSIs showed higher completion proportions, though nearly all MSI categories had lower graduation rates among MSI-aligned students. Some MSIs provided institutional aid to higher proportions of students; others provided lower proportions. Findings confirm that enrollment alone cannot be a proxy for servingness. We encourage researchers, practitioners, and government agencies to use more-holistic definitions. We make recommendations for government agencies to remove burdens to researching MSIs.

The Alaska Performance Scholarship (APS) rewards students who strive to excel in high school and continue their education in degree and certificate programs in Alaska. This report covers the high school, postsecondary, Alaska residency, and workforce outcomes of the APS program between Fall 2011-2023. [This report was prepared by Resource Data, Inc.]

The theme of the Equity Indicators for 2024 is confronting the realities and exploring feasible solutions related to the paradoxical and unequal higher education system. As the figure shows, higher education in the United States is increasingly the major agent of overcoming poverty and of attaining upward mobility toward the so-called "American Dream." At the same time, the higher education system functions to sort and stratify society, leading to increased geo-political divides and the legitimization of large differences in wages and salaries, such that many noncollege jobs increasingly do not pay a living wage. The higher education system functions, paradoxically, as a source for innovation and problem solving at the same time it serves as a primary force to maintain the status quo. Further, higher education often functions to legitimize economic practices that increasingly pose an existential threat to environmental sustainability. This sober look at the historical trends in this Equity Indicators report suggests that overcoming these paradoxes is a major challenge.

In 2013, the Washington Student Achievement Council (WSAC) proposed as the state goal that 70 percent of the state's 25- to 44-year-olds (i.e., early and mid-career residents) should have a credential beyond high school. WSAC's Strategic Action Plan (SAP) provides a framework to organize the policy and practice innovation needed to achieve this goal. The work is framed by four strategic clusters: (1) Affordability; (2) Enrollment; (3) Student Supports; and (4) Completion. The framework is based on the belief that if an affordable and supportive educational environment is built, more Washingtonians will enroll in programs and complete credentials. Ensuring equitable access and success for all students is central to the strategic framework. This SAP discusses the attainment goal, strategic clusters and values, a snapshot of current state policy by cluster, and the work plan for the year. [For "2022 Strategic Action Plan," see ED628851.]

The Independent Transfer Pathways in North Carolina Project served as a catalyst in forging a culture of cooperation between community colleges and independent colleges and universities in North Carolina by creating a unique opportunity to bridge the gap between the two systems. The project focused on developing discipline-specific articulation agreements, exploring financial aid options, and identifying best practices for advising. The partner campuses worked together to create a "culture of transfer" to ensure that students receive the most comprehensive information and are carefully advised from their first year at a two-year college until graduation with a bachelor's degree and to provide transfer students additional opportunities to seamlessly pursue higher education at a small to mid-sized independent college or university. The Independent Transfer Pathways Project highlights the value and effectiveness of collaboration across departments and across sectors to support community college transfer students in enrolling at and earning a bachelor's degree from four-year institutions. By bringing together and forging relationships among an enthusiastic and dedicated community of senior leaders, deans, faculty, and staff from community colleges and independent four-year institutions across North Carolina, the Independent Transfer Pathways Project greatly enhanced efforts to remove obstacles that reduce historical effectiveness with the transfer student population.

Discussions about college affordability often revolve around helping students pay their tuition and fees. But nontuition expenses, including food, housing, and other living expenses, make up a large portion of student budgets and contribute to increased student debt. These expenses can be a barrier to student enrollment and completion. Lack of information about the true full cost of attendance, stringent requirements to qualify for income support benefits, and limited grant aid make it hard for many students to access enough resources to cover their basic needs. In this report, we summarize our findings emerging from research and a convening we hosted on nontuition expenses. Currently, there is no standardized way to measure cost of attendance at institutions, making it difficult for students to compare nontuition costs across schools. Providing students personalized information about what their food, housing, and other living expenses may look like allows them to plan for the school year but is distinct from practical solutions for measuring student need for financial aid purposes. Doubling the Pell grant is a common suggestion when discussing the cost of education, and incorporating some level of basic living expenses, in addition to the costs of books and supplies, into estimates of adequate grant aid would be constructive. But increasing the Pell grant is insufficient, as using it explicitly to cover living expenses could lack political support and may lead to unintended consequences, such as tuition increases. Based on these findings, state and federal policymakers can do more to support students who cannot afford nontuition expenses through changes to federal, state, and institution-level policies. Both enabling students to have access to income support benefits and more generous grant aid are central to policy efforts for addressing financial barriers to student access and success. Increases in need-based financial aid from federal and state governments, as well as institutions, are important. But we should not view low-income students as entirely distinct from other low-income adults, and education policy alone cannot be responsible for meeting students' basic needs.

This report describes the design, methods, and results of the 2016/20 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:16/20) conducted by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). It is the second follow-up with a cohort of bachelor's degree recipients originally identified during the 2015-16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16). The data collected in B&B:16/20 are intended to provide researchers and policymakers with key information on student debt and repayment as well as postbaccalaureate enrollment and employment outcomes 4 years after completion of a bachelor's degree with a special focus on the experiences of elementary and secondary teachers. This data file documentation details the methods used to collect, process, and analyze these data, and it also provides users with guidance on how to analyze these nationally representative data.

The Tuition Opportunity Program for Students (subsequently renamed the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students, also known as TOPS), Louisiana's merit-based student aid program, was created via Act 1375 of the 1997 Regular Legislative Session. The first freshman class to receive TOPS awards entered postsecondary education in the fall of 1998. Act 1202 of the 2001 Regular Legislative Session charged the Board of Regents (BOR) with developing a uniform TOPS reporting system for policy analysis and program evaluation to provide accurate data and statistics relative to the program's impact on the state and students. To satisfy the reporting requirements, BOR staff developed interfaces between the major systems needed to identify and track TOPS students through the postsecondary education enrollment cycle. In addition to mandating the development of a TOPS reporting system, Act 1202 also required the BOR to prepare a report on various aspects of the TOPS Program. This report contains data from public and private institutions, except for graduation rates, retention rates, and time-to-degree. Private institutions are currently not required to report this information to the Board of Regents. In this year's report, several improvements to the granularity of the underlying data. These improved data have allowed us to refine the calculations of retention, graduation, and time-to-degree. These subtle changes in methodology should be taken into account when comparing this report to previous reports.

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) Office of Inspector General (OIG) annual plan identifies the audits, inspections, and other activities that the OIG intends to undertake to assist the Department in fulfilling its responsibilities to America's citizens and students. The FY 2024 Annual Plan details the assignment areas they plan to devote to evaluations of the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of Department programs and operations. It aligns the OIG's work and resources to achieve their mission, meet the goals of their 5-year Strategic Plan (see ED620770), and focuses attention across the management challenges facing the Department. The activities presented in the FY 2024 Work Plan are conducted under the OIG's first Strategic Plan goal. These activities were developed in consideration of factors that include an assessment of risk to the Department's programs and operations, the OIG's mission and goals, stakeholder feedback, FY 2024 management challenges, and resource availability. These activities are outlined in four priority areas: (1) specialized work specific to pandemic relief; (2) student financial assistance programs and operations; (3) elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and vocational education grant programs and operations; and (4) Department management and operations. At the end of the work plan, the authors include a table that correlates the FY 2024 Work Plan projects to the FY 2024 Management Challenges.

The purpose of the U.S. Department of Education's (Department's) fiscal year (FY) 2023 "Agency Financial Report" (AFR) is to inform Congress, the President, other external stakeholders, and the American people on how the Department used the federal resources entrusted to it to advance the mission of the Department to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The Department accomplishes its mission and the related strategic goals and objectives by administering programs that range from preschool education through postdoctoral research; enforcing civil rights laws to provide equal access and treatment; and supporting research that examines ways that states, schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions can improve America's education system. As evidenced by the information contained in this AFR, the Department has demonstrated that it is a good steward of financial resources and has put in place well-controlled and well-managed business and financial management systems, processes, and practices. The AFR also provides high-level financial and performance highlights, assessments of controls, a summary of challenges, and a demonstration of the Department's stewardship. The AFR is divided into four sections. The Management's Discussion and Analysis section provides information about the Department's mission and organizational structure as well as its high-level performance results, financial highlights, management assurances regarding internal controls, and forward-looking information. The Financial Section provides a message from the chief financial officer, the Consolidated Balance Sheet and related notes, and the report from the independent auditors. The Other Information section provides the unaudited financial statements and related notes, required supplementary information, the Office of Inspector General's Management and Performance Challenges for FY 2024, a summary of financial statement audit and management assurances, "Payment Integrity Information Act" reporting details, civil monetary penalty adjustment for inflation, Climate Related Financial Risk, and the "Grants Oversight and New Efficiency Act of 2016" and grant closeout process reporting. The Appendices section provides a listing of selected Department web links, education resources, and a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations.

Rising college prices and student debt, the growth and collapse of online for-profit colleges, and expansions of federal grant, loan, and loan forgiveness policies have increased calls for more accountability in our higher education system. And there is significant consensus among lawmakers that the existing set of quality assurance policies for federal aid programs are not protecting students and taxpayers. But although these conditions have generated many proposals for policies to hold colleges accountable, none have won broad support among lawmakers. To help advance the reform debate, we review and compare recent proposed policies that address accountability and, drawing on interviews we conducted with former congressional staff members and higher education advocates, what factors have prevented policymakers from enacting reforms, and what conditions may be necessary to bring about policy changes. The report reveals that lawmakers, researchers, and advocates have put forth a wide range of reform proposals to strengthen quality assurance rules for federal aid programs. This variety implies that there is considerable disagreement over what reforms are needed and disagreement over the underlying problem. Some proposals focus on graduation rates, while others assess how colleges spend money. The most common approach among the proposals is to judge colleges on how their students fare in repaying their student loans, suggesting a possible place for consensus. The report also shows there are many political and design roadblocks to reform despite broad support for more accountability. The current political environment makes bipartisan policymaking difficult. Additionally, higher education is an open-access and diverse system of institutions, making policymakers reluctant to pass policies that might reduce access, particularly for low-income students and students from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups. Still, the individuals we interviewed all discussed several major design issues that will further frustrate reform efforts, such as whether students who do not receive federal aid should be included in the policies and whether some fields and institutions should be exempt. Regardless, many of the recent reform proposals illustrate the need to improve assurance for aid programs and should ultimately encourage lawmakers to work toward reforms that strengthen our higher education system and federal aid programs.

This Semiannual Report presents the activities and accomplishments of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Inspector General (OIG) from April 1, 2023, through September 30, 2023. The report highlights audits, investigations, and related work issued during this time frame and includes summary tables containing statistical and other data as required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and other statutes. Sections include: (1) Pandemic Relief Oversight; (2) Disaster Recovery Oversight; (3) Federal Student Aid Programs and Operations; (4) Elementary, Secondary, and Special Education Programs; (5) Department Management and Operations; (6) Other OIG Efforts; (7) Required Reporting; and (8) Acronyms and Abbreviations.

In accordance with the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, the OIG reports annually on the most serious management and performance challenges the Department faces. For FY 2024, we identified seven management challenges for the Department: (1) Implementing pandemic relief laws for elementary and secondary education; (2) Implementing pandemic relief laws for higher education; (3) Oversight and monitoring of student financial assistance programs; (4) Oversight and monitoring of grantees; (5) Data quality and reporting; (6) Improper payments, and (7) Information technology security. The report includes a summary of each challenge, a brief assessment of the Department's progress in addressing each challenge, and shares information on further actions that, if properly implemented, could enhance the effectiveness of the Department's programs and operations.

The resources that federal financial aid, state financial aid, and federal public benefits programs provide, when they operate effectively, are critical to older students and students with children. This report seeks to shed light on how these programs are functioning by analyzing data and policies across four states--Colorado, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas. We analyzed the designs of student financial aid programs to see how many state financial aid resources older students and student parents receive. We chose these states as test cases because they had state representative data in the 2018 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, a survey administered by the U.S. Department of Education, and they were geographically, politically, and demographically diverse. In addition to examining financial aid programs, we also looked at states' public benefit program designs and policies and we conducted focus groups with older students and student parents in each state. This additional analysis provides a view of what it is like to rely on the system meant to support students to and through college, where it is falling short, and why. We found that Colorado, while far from perfect, designed its financial aid and safety net programs to provide the most robust support for adult and parenting students to enroll in and attend its institutions of higher education. Missouri and Texas provided the weakest support. North Carolina fell somewhere in the middle. We end this report by suggesting several recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders looking to design or reform state financial aid and safety net programs. Within budget constraints, they should adjust eligibility criteria for state aid programs so older students and student parents have the same access to grant programs as students leaving high school. Where states have flexibility in administering federal public benefit programs, they should use that flexibility to ease eligibility criteria and expand access. And they should communicate opportunities and fund supports to help older students and student parents to go to college and access public benefits.

Implementation of ESA programs will not be easy. The ESA model is novel and foreign to most state education agencies, which have little to no experience with helping families purchase a wide variety of educational goods and services using government funds. Even if agencies had the relevant experience, ESA programs are complex, involving millions of individual transactions as thousands of families make purchases from thousands of schools and other education providers. EdChoice developed this guide to help state agencies succeed as they roll out ESA programs. EdChoice's goal is to ensure that ESA programs achieve their purpose: to empower families to choose the best education for their children.