Search

All people deserve the opportunity to earn a better living and build a better life for themselves, their families, and their communities through a postsecondary education. But that opportunity is not available equally to all in the United States, and current postsecondary data sets and collection practices at the federal, state, and institutional levels can both lack information on or inadvertently mask disparities in college access and success for different student populations--particularly those from Indigenous communities. This brief focuses on individuals categorized as American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) in federal data sets and highlights the complexities of collecting data about this community, including how AI/AN students are counted and categorized in data collections and how those collections fall short in engaging and representing Indigenous communities. Because of current data collection practices, educators, researchers, and policymakers lack the information needed to challenge the barriers Native students face and to ensure that Indigenous students are well served in higher education. This brief proposes strategies for federal agencies, states, institutions, and researchers to use to improve the collection, reporting, and analysis of AI/AN student data.

This brief is part of the Affirming Equity, Ensuring Inclusion, and Empowering Action initiative. This brief--which draws on a thorough review of existing research, original data analysis, and conversations with institutional leaders and experts--urges college leaders and admissions officials to address longstanding inequities in college access by rethinking four policies and practices: (1) recruitment strategies; (2) demonstrated interest policies; (3) early admission deadlines; and (4) legacy admission policies. These practices too often are barriers to the economic mobility a college degree can offer. For all Americans to have access to a valuable college education, there must be a thorough review of current admissions practices and, most importantly, the courage to change them in ways that prioritize equity. [Eileen and Harold Brown provided additional funding for this series of briefs.]

TransferBOOST (Bachelor's Opportunity Options that are Straightforward and Transparent) is a multi-year state-level initiative developed to provide students with affordable, quality, well-supported two- to four-year pathways. Affordability matters a great deal for transfer students, but it has typically not been understood or prioritized. The IHEP and HCM teams joined forces with rpk GROUP to offer technical assistance to TransferBOOST institutions and state partners to make strategic finance and college affordability a signature feature of the initiative. The second brief in the series outlines the steps partnerships took and offers guidance on how institutions can use the Transfer Affordability Financial Tool. It also provides clear steps for how states can support institutions in improving transfer affordability. [This report was written with contributions from Katie Hagan. For "BOOSTing Student Success through Equitable and Affordable Transfer Pathways: Lessons Learned for Higher Education Policymakers and Practitioners from the TransferBOOST Initiative," see ED628654. For "BOOSTing Transfer Partnerships to Promote Equitable and Affordable Transfer Pathways," see ED628655.]

TransferBOOST (Bachelor's Opportunity Options that are Straightforward and Transparent) is a multi-year state-level initiative developed to provide students with affordable, quality, well-supported two- to four-year pathways. For every 100 students who enroll in community colleges, 31 students transfer to a four-year institution. Of those, only 15 complete a bachelor's degree within six years. Too many students are derailed from their higher education goals by unexpected, unaffordable, and untenable--yet solvable--challenges along their transfer journey. A key element of TransferBOOST was the student-centered, data-informed, and equity-driven partnership between community colleges and four-year institutions. The first brief in the series showcases key policy and practice takeaways from the initiative. [For "BOOSTing Transfer Pathways through Strategic Finance and Affordability," see ED628751. For "BOOSTing Student Success through Equitable and Affordable Transfer Pathways: Lessons Learned for Higher Education Policymakers and Practitioners from the TransferBOOST Initiative," see ED628654.]

TransferBOOST (Bachelor's Opportunity Options that are Straightforward and Transparent) is a multi-year state-level initiative developed to provide students with affordable, quality, well-supported two- to four-year pathways. On average, 43 percent of credits are lost nationwide through the transfer process. Recognizing that today's students strive to make good use of their time and money, the TransferBOOST initiative worked to ensure that credits transfer and apply seamlessly from a two-year to four-year institution. The third brief in the series shares lessons learned for higher education policymakers and practioners from the TransferBOOST initiative. The 24 institutions that worked to improve equitable transfer student outcomes during the TransferBOOST initiative have helped formulate lessons that other community college and four-year institutions, state partners for higher education, and leaders might use to increase prospective and current student trust in higher education as well as increase enrollment, retention, and completion. [This report was written with contributions from Katie Hagan and Christine Flanagan. For "BOOSTing Transfer Partnerships to Promote Equitable and Affordable Transfer Pathways," see ED628655. For "BOOSTing Transfer Pathways through Strategic Finance and Affordability," see ED628751.]

Based on polling data collected by New America and Third Way, "Online Isn't Optional: Student Polling on Access to Internet and Devices" outlines which students are facing the gravest technological challenges, including the lack of reliable internet connection and the need to share devices with others in their household, both of which limit their ability to consistently participate in higher education. As one example of the inequities in barriers internet accessibility can pose, approximately 60 percent of Black and Latinx students, and students with a reported household income of less than $50,000 face significant cost in affording internet, while only 50 percent of White students or 47 percent of students with reported income of $50,000-$100,000 so report. "Online Isn't Optional: Student Polling on Access to Internet and Devices" provides recommendations for institutional leaders and policymakers to ensure that students are able to connect, continue, and complete their education. Recommendations for institutions and the U.S. Department of Education include accounting for technology costs in financial aid and cost of attendance, collecting and publishing disaggregated data regarding student access to reliable internet and technology, and strengthening broadband and technology support for students.

Data-informed decision-making has always been -- and always will be -- a smart approach to policy, including at institutions of higher education. Just over one year since the COVID-19 pandemic radically and abruptly shifted every aspect of higher education, states and institutions are tackling the same student success goals as before, but with smaller budgets, uncertainties around enrollment, and the potential for a prolonged recession. In the face of such challenges, the need to consult and apply data has never been greater. Students continue to face challenges of online or hybrid models while also navigating life in a pandemic that has disproportionately impacted Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and Asian American and Pacific Islander students and students from low-income backgrounds. To understand -- and overcome -- current obstacles in higher education, campuses across the country who have not yet cultivated a culture of data usage need to do so -- stat. This report outlines how to create and strengthen such a culture from top to bottom and across postsecondary institutions in order to support students most in need of the social mobility and economic security that higher education can provide. Drawn from a wide array of institutional experts on developing data-informed interventions that close gaps in access and completion, these approaches promote the collaborative use of data while also accounting for the capacity of an individual institution.

Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities are growing at a faster rate than any other racial group in the United States. The opportunity to address significant inequities impacting this community is hiding in our country's postsecondary data. Collections of data at the U.S. Department of Education and our institutions of higher education aggregate AAPI communities under the umbrella categories of "Asian" or "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander." As a result, the data mask inequities and decrease efforts to provide intentional student supports. To address this missed opportunity, the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) and the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) released "Everyone Deserves to be Seen. Recommendations for Improved Federal Data on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders." The report sets forth clear policy recommendations for Congress, federal, state, and local agencies, and institutions of higher education. The actionable recommendations look to the race and ethnicity categories used by the U.S. Census Bureau, which are informed by empirical research, collaboration between statistical agencies across the federal government, and engagement of diverse communities. This report is part of IHEP's call for quality data to support evidence-based policymaking and close equity gaps in access to and success in postsecondary education. [Edited by Amanda Janice Roberson. This publication is jointly authored by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) and the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC).]

Nearly 41 million American adults live 25 miles or more from the nearest university or college, or in areas where only a single community college offers accessible public higher education. This physical isolation leads to stark economic inequities, where the wealthiest 10 percent of the nation's zip codes are considered "college-rich" metro areas while a majority of the poorest zip codes are classified as rural. As employers across the country continue to struggle to fill vacancies with a workforce that does not have the postsecondary training required for the majority of the nation's future jobs, rural residents in particular face significant challenges in achieving upward economic mobility. Furthermore, the restricted access to educational opportunity impacts rural communities' economic development as they lack the business and cultural amenities that higher education institutions often generate in more densely-populated areas. Fortunately, there are several rural communities across the nation that have more recently committed to expanding postsecondary opportunities for their residents and are seeing early and exciting success due to their innovative strategies. This guidebook outlines three leading strategies that have yielded promise in four such communities--Columbus, IN; Elkhart County, IN; Rio Grande Valley, TX; Shasta County, CA--that have been designated as "Talent Hub" Communities primarily for their ability to truly work across different sectors to significantly increase college-level learning among residents of all backgrounds. Each community emphasized: (1) the importance of understanding the specific postsecondary barriers their respective populations faced; (2) the critical need for higher education to be creative in challenging its traditional methods of recruiting and serving students; and (3) needing to intentionally form partnerships between education and workforce stakeholders to lead to more positive outcomes for not only students but the community at large. This guidebook outlines these three strategies, with excerpts from in-depth conversations with each community, and concludes by sharing key recommendations and advice from these four Talent Hubs for likeminded rural communities who are interested in raising their attainment rates and revving their engines of economic growth.

Public flagship universities are often the most selective, rigorous, and well-resourced public schools in each state, and their important status and name recognition play an important role in raising the college-going aspirations of state residents. Flagships are well-positioned to promote social and economic mobility. However, increasingly high costs of attendance, declining state investment, and inadequate and poorly-targeted financial aid policies mean that too few low-income students have meaningful access to these elite institutions. Opportunity Lost: Net Price and Equity at Public Flagship Institutions draws on data from each university's net price calculator to assess their affordability for five prototypical college students from different socioeconomic backgrounds. While state flagships promise a high-quality, affordable path to a college degree for state residents, this analysis finds that these institutions are too expensive for most aspiring and enrolled low-income college students. Key findings include: (1) Most flagships are not affordable for most students: Only six universities are affordable for students from low- or middle-income families, while students from high-income families can easily afford flagship prices in all fifty states; (2) Low-income students are asked to pay far more than they can afford: At some flagships, low-income students may need to cover over $80,000 beyond what they can afford over four years; (3) Many states and institutions provide financial aid to students who can already afford the cost of college: At 34 flagships, the state or institution provides financial aid to a typical high-income students who comes from a household earning over $167,000 per year; and (4) At the most affordable institutions, access remains a problem: Of the most affordable institutions for low-income students, many enroll very few low-income students. The report offers actionable recommendations for institutional and state leaders to promote affordability and equity at state flagship institutions. This report builds on IHEP's 2017 report, "Limited Means, Limited Options: College Remains Unaffordable for Many Americans", which assessed the affordability of over 2,000 American colleges and universities and found that only one to five percent of institutions were affordable for low-income, working-class, and middle-income students. [To view the 2017 report, "Limited Means, Limited Options: College Remains Unaffordable for Many Americans," see ED591563.]

Public flagship universities were established to provide an excellent education to their states' residents and are therefore well-positioned to enhance social and economic mobility within their states. Yet in many cases, too few low-income students and students of color have access to these elite colleges and the opportunities they provide. This analysis of racial and socioeconomic equity at the University of Michigan -- Ann Arbor (U-M Ann Arbor) finds large and growing gaps in college access, as well as troubling gaps in college completion, by race and socioeconomic status. To serve as a catalyst for mobility and equity in the state of Michigan, U-M Ann Arbor must do a better job enrolling and graduating low-income students and students of color. [For "Inequities Persist: Access and Completion Gaps at Public Flagships in the Great Lakes Region," see ED591567.]

Public flagship universities were established with a mission to provide an excellent education to their states' residents and are therefore well-positioned to enhance social and economic mobility within their states. Yet in many cases, too few low-income students and students of color have access to these elite colleges and the opportunities they provide. This analysis of racial and socioeconomic equity at The Ohio State University -- Main Campus (OSU-Main Campus) finds large and growing gaps in college access, as well as gaps in college completion, by race and socioeconomic status. To serve as a catalyst for mobility and equity in Ohio, OSU-Main Campus must do a better job enrolling and graduating low-income students and students of color. [For "Inequities Persist: Access and Completion Gaps at Public Flagships in the Great Lakes Region," see ED591567.]

Public flagship universities were established to provide an excellent education to their states' residents and are therefore well-positioned to enhance social and economic mobility within their states. Yet in many cases, too few low-income students and students of color have access to these elite colleges and the opportunities they provide. This analysis of racial and socioeconomic equity at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) finds large and growing gaps in college access, as well as gaps in college completion, by race and socioeconomic status. To serve as a catalyst for mobility and equity in Illinois, UIUC must do a better job enrolling and graduating low-income students and students of color. [For "Inequities Persist: Access and Completion Gaps at Public Flagships in the Great Lakes Region," see ED591567.]

Public flagship universities were established with a mission to provide an excellent education to their states' residents and are therefore well-positioned to enhance social and economic mobility within their states. Yet in many cases, too few low-income students and students of color have access to these elite colleges and the opportunities they provide. This analysis of racial and socioeconomic equity at the University of Wisconsin -- Madison (UW Madison) finds large and growing gaps in college access, as well as troubling gaps in college completion, by race and socioeconomic status. To serve as a catalyst for mobility and equity in Wisconsin, UW Madison must to a better job enrolling and graduating low-income students and students of color. [For "Inequities Persist: Access and Completion Gaps at Public Flagships in the Great Lakes Region," see ED591567.]

Public flagship universities were established with a mission to provide an excellent education to their states' residents and are therefore well-positioned to enhance social and economic mobility within their states. Yet in many cases, too few low-income students and students of color have access to these elite colleges and the opportunities they provide. This analysis of racial and socioeconomic equity at the University of Minnesota -- Twin Cities (U of M Twin Cities) finds large and growing gaps in college access and completion by race and socioeconomic status. To serve as a catalyst for mobility and equity for the state of Minnesota, the U of M Twin Cities must do a better job enrolling and graduating low-income students and students of color. [For "Inequities Persist: Access and Completion Gaps at Public Flagships in the Great Lakes Region," see ED591567.]

Public flagship universities were established to provide an excellent education to state residents. These premier, well-resourced institutions are therefore ideally positioned to address the longstanding inequities in college access and completion. With proven histories of tackling societal challenges head-on, such as combating climate change and researching cures for cancer, public flagships should be working to advance social and economic mobility for students in their state. This analysis of equity at public flagship universities in the Great Lakes region reveals persistent equity gaps in access and completion for students of color and low-income students. The equity snapshots included herein present trends in enrollment and graduation rates over time at six Great Lakes flagships: (1) Indiana University -- Bloomington; (2) Ohio State University -- Main Campus; (3) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; (4) University of Michigan -- Ann Arbor; (5) University of Minnesota -- Twin Cities; and (6) University of Wisconsin -- Madison.

Public flagship universities were established to provide an excellent education to their states' residents and are therefore well-positioned to enhance social and economic mobility within their states. Yet in many cases, too few low-income students and students of color have access to these elite colleges and the opportunities they provide. This analysis of racial and socioeconomic equity at Indiana University -- Bloomington (IU Bloomington) finds large and growing gaps in college access, as well as troubling gaps in college completion, by race and socioeconomic status. To serve as a catalyst for mobility and equity for the state of Indiana, IU Bloomington must do a better job enrolling and graduating low-income students and students of color.

Tennessee is at the vanguard of the free-college movement. Launched in 2015, Tennessee Promise makes technical and community colleges tuition-free for recent high school graduates in the state. With the addition of Tennessee Reconnect in 2018, adult students can attend tuition-free as well. The efforts of the state's leadership, especially its willingness to re-examine the program and expand it to support adult learners, is commendable. But program details matter. This analysis of Tennessee Promise and Reconnect examines the effects of the program's design and recommends enhancements that will redirect program resources to help low-income students pay for college.

Children's Savings Accounts (CSAs) are tools designed to help low- and moderate-income families save for college and build students' expectations for attendance. But for many low-income families who can benefit most from these tools, the challenge to save and pay for college is underscored by systemic barriers connected to income and wealth inequality. This makes it difficult for many to set aside even modest amounts of money for future education after covering more immediate expenses. The report details how policymakers and CSA program leaders who are seeking equity-minded strategies can support low-income families save and pay for college by: (1) Integrating CSAs with broader college affordability initiatives, such as well-designed college promise programs; and (2) Integrating CSAs with social services that address families' holistic financial needs; and Implementing CSA programs alongside robust community engagement efforts to build trust and encourage participation. CSAs can help bridge college access and affordability divides between low-income and higher-income families. By adopting these equity-minded strategies, policymakers and program leaders can help more families improve wealth building, increase postsecondary attainment, and support intergenerational mobility for students.

Higher education offers people from all walks of life the opportunity to achieve a more secure future for themselves and their families. The country was built in part on the idea that, with hard work and a good education, any American should be able to climb the ladder of social and economic mobility. The very notion of the American Dream is based on that concept of freedom--that people are not condemned to a particular social or economic class. Unfortunately, high college costs are stymieing progress for Americans of limited financial means, undermining basic ideals of opportunity and fairness. Data show wide variation in affordability between students with different income backgrounds. In fact, although the student from the highest income quintile in these analyses could afford to attend 90 percent of colleges in the sample, the low- and moderate-income students with fewer financial resources could only afford 1 to 5 percent of colleges. While it is clear that very few colleges meet a reasonable threshold of affordability for students of modest means, federal, state, and institutional policymakers can help level the playing field. This is the technical appendix for the report. Contents of the appendix include: (1) Research Concept; (2) Student Profiles; (3) Net Price Calculators; (4) Sample Colleges; (5) Additional Affordability Models; and (6) Glossary of Key Terms. [To view the report, "Limited Means, Limited Options: College Remains Unaffordable for Many Americans," see ED591563.]

Higher education offers people from all walks of life the opportunity to achieve a more secure future for themselves and their families. The country was built in part on the idea that, with hard work and a good education, any American should be able to climb the ladder of social and economic mobility. The very notion of the American Dream is based on that concept of freedom--that people are not condemned to a particular social or economic class. Unfortunately, high college costs are stymieing progress for Americans of limited financial means, undermining basic ideals of opportunity and fairness. Data show wide variation in affordability between students with different income backgrounds. In fact, although the student from the highest income quintile in these analyses could afford to attend 90 percent of colleges in the sample, the low- and moderate-income students with fewer financial resources could only afford 1 to 5 percent of colleges. While it is clear that very few colleges meet a reasonable threshold of affordability for students of modest means, federal, state, and institutional policymakers can help level the playing field. This paper offers five recommendations to address issues of affordability that negatively affect college access and completion: (1) Federal policymakers should protect and strengthen the Pell Grant; (2) States should strengthen direct investment in public colleges and need-based aid programs; (3) Colleges should manage institutional costs to concentrate expenditures on students; (4) Colleges with wealth at their disposal--either in the form of large endowments or company profits--should keep prices low for needy students; and (5) Congress should pass legislation to improve consumer information and transparency, giving students the information they need to make affordable choices. [For the technical appendix to this report "Limited Means, Limited Options: College Remains Unaffordable for Many Americans. Technical Appendix," see ED591726.]

The overarching goal of the "Supporting Best Practices in Student Success Project" is to create, enhance, or expand successful programs that are replicable and can be scaled to greatly improve the percentage of underserved students who complete postsecondary education. In doing so, National College Access Network (NCAN) aimed to build its capacity and expertise to serve as a key resource for organizations seeking to engage in college success work going forward. To accomplish this goal, NCAN worked with four member organizations to create, enhance, or expand their student persistence, retention, and college success programs. The four organizations were selected through a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process. In their proposals, applicants articulated their vision for creating or enhancing/expanding their student success programs and outlined work to be done over the course of the project, which included both a planning and an implementation phase. This report offers an overview of the grantee organizations that participated in this project, a summary of the success work they implemented, and the outcomes they achieved. Subsequent sections describe common themes among grantee organizations, the specific practices and strategies they used to increase student retention, the success and challenges they experienced, and recommendations for organizations in the access and success field to consider as they endeavor similar programmatic work. [Co-written with Sara Melnick.]

Low-income, first-generation, and minority students often face a range of challenges in the college choice process that prevent them from attending colleges and universities that are a good fit and match for their needs. As a result, such students are less likely to persist and graduate after enrolling in college. This "Research to Practice" brief synthesizes scholarly research on college choice, fit and match, features an interview with the "National College Advising Corps," and serves as a tangible resource to practitioners working to improve student success and retention in college. [The practitioner interview was conducted by Carrie Warick.]

Passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) represented a landmark effort by the federal government to minimize the cost of college as a barrier to postsecondary access for low-income students and their families. Since then, a myriad of financial aid programs have been designed to equalize educational opportunity. Most recently, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act highlighted this long-term commitment of the nation's leaders. The legislation strengthens the Pell Grant program, enhances student loan repayment options, and invests in community colleges and minority-serving institutions. This "Research to Practice brief" is the first in a series from the Pathways to College Network and National College Access Network seeking to bridge the gap between scholarly research and effective practice. This brief highlights research on the role of "cost perceptions" on low-income students' college-going and features tangible advice from ACCESS College Foundation experts. [The research synthesis for this brief was written by Shannon Calderone, doctoral candidate, University of California, Los Angeles. The practitioner interview was conducted by Jennifer Johnson, a doctorate student at the University of Maryland, College Park. Additional contributions were provided by Kladé Hare, policy intern at the Institute for Higher Education Policy.]