Search

This First Look publication provides the first results of the 2019-20 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20), the most comprehensive national study of student financing of postsecondary education in the United States. This report includes information for about 80,800 undergraduate students and 19,700 graduate students attending 2,200 postsecondary institutions in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This report describes the percentages of students receiving various types of financial aid and average amounts received, by type of institution attended, gender, race/ethnicity, attendance pattern, and income level. Percentages and average amounts are additionally described by dependency status for undergraduate students and by graduate program for graduate students. Supplemental tables feature state-level percentages of students receiving aid and average amounts received by undergraduate students. [For the summary, see ED629548. For the supplemental tables, see ED629549.]

This First Look report presents selected findings about student financial aid during the 2019-20 academic year. These findings are based on data from the 2019-20 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20). NPSAS:20 is a national study of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled any time between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, in institutions that can participate in federal financial aid programs. The main purpose of NPSAS:20 is to measure how students and their families pay for postsecondary education and, particularly, their receipt of federal student aid given through Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Data used in this report are from about 80,800 undergraduate and 19,700 graduate student survey respondents attending approximately 2,200 institutions in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This report classifies financial aid by type (grants, loans, work-study, and other) and source (federal, state, institution, employer, and other private sources). [For the full report, see ED629547. For the supplemental tables, see ED629549.]

Student-parents face unique postsecondary persistence and completion challenges as they balance raising children with the demands of coursework and possibly employment. In order to help lowincome student-parents earn degrees and credentials, the federal government provides Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) grants to institutions of higher educations (IHEs). CCAMPIS grants support or establish campus-based child care services that primarily serve the needs of low-income students. This report briefly describes the postsecondary undergraduate student-parent population and their dependent care costs. It then provides an explanation of CCAMPIS eligibility and program requirements. This is followed by a summary of program appropriations trends, program outcome data, and recent congressional proposals to reauthorize and modify the program.

This report describes the need analysis formulas used to calculate the Expected Family Contribution (EFC) for federal student aid applicants. The formulas are codified in Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended. The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is the data collection instrument through which students submit the information that is used to calculate the EFC. The FAFSA Simplification Act of 2021 (FSA; part of P.L. 116-260) makes significant changes to the formulas used to determine need for the purposes of student aid and is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2023, coinciding with the beginning of the 2023-2024 award year. This report describes the EFC formulas prior to the FSA taking effect. The first section of the report will discuss how Department of Education (ED) collects and processes information from prospective students using the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The following section discusses how the information from the FAFSA is used to determine the student's dependency status and applicable EFC formula. The subsequent sections describe how each of these formulas translates the financial characteristics of a student's family into an EFC.

This report sets out the findings of a survey of Universities UK's (UUK) membership and is intended to support the sector's efforts to achieve both sustainable growth and diversity in international student recruitment, alongside high levels of compliance with the immigration rules. The survey was completed by 60 of UUK's members, including a broad mix in terms of geography, size, and mission. This work was also informed and supported by attendees of a roundtable on international recruitment and compliance, made up primarily of Pro-Vice-Chancellors for International from across UUK's membership as well as wider conversations with our members.

This paper examines topics of equity and access to post-secondary education through exploration of barriers and other dimensions that serve to identify underrepresented groups in BC post-secondary education. The key purpose of the research project is to assess the policies and practices at the BC Transfer System institutions for admitting underrepresented (equity) groups of students, as well as to summarize the data sources available on the underrepresented groups. A review of the (largely Canadian) literature of the last 20-25 years explores the causes and correlates that restrict equity of access to post-secondary education. The literature review clearly reveals aspects and correlates of each groups' participation; and that barriers and participation are rarely singular, but often contextual and conditioned (e.g., ethnic or gender underrepresentation is specific to certain program areas or types of institution). The literature review identifies the magnitudes of participation overall, and in relation to each of the underrepresented groups. This paper also contains an analysis of policies and practices, which forms the main focus of the paper. This analysis initially involved scanning websites and other digital documentation for the thirty-eight institutions of the BC Transfer System, as well as provincial government webpages and other online material. Lastly, the authors illuminate the availability of data sources that support current and future research on underrepresented groups. These include the many past and current Statistics Canada sources including the Census, and other data sets and surveys available through CANSIM, such as PSIS, NGS and the LFS.

Both the published tuition and fee prices of colleges and universities and the net prices students pay after subtracting grant aid and tax credits and deductions continued to rise between 2016-17 and 2017-18, even after adjusting for inflation. Average net prices in 2017-18 remain lower at public two-year and private nonprofit four-year institutions than they were in 2007-08 (in 2017 dollars). But each year since 2011-12, net prices have risen in these sectors, as well as at public four-year institutions, as the growth in grant aid slowed relative to the growth in tuition and fees. "Trends in College Pricing 2017" reports on the prices charged by colleges and universities in 2017-18, how prices have changed over time, and how they vary within and across types of institutions and states. It also includes estimates of the net prices students and families pay after taking financial aid into consideration, both on average and across income levels. Data on institutional revenues and expenditures and on changing enrollment patterns over time supplement the data on prices to provide a clearer picture of the circumstances of students and the institutions in which they study. [Related reports include: (1) "Trends in Student Aid, 2017. Trends in Higher Education Series," ED586387; and (2) "Education Pays 2016: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. Trends in Higher Education Series," ED572548.]

In 2016-17, published tuition and fee prices rose slightly less than the year before. The rapid price growth observed during the Great Recession has abated, as typically happens when the economy recovers, but the rate of increase in tuition and fees continues to exceed inflation. More notable, however, is the pattern of the net prices students actually pay. Large increases in grant aid and education tax credits cushioned the growth in published prices for a few years, and average net tuition and fee prices declined in the public and private nonprofit sectors in 2008-09 and 2009-10. But net prices have risen since then, as financial aid fails to keep pace with rising published prices. This increase is outpacing growth in incomes, fueling concerns about college affordability. This document reports on the prices charged by colleges and universities in 2016-17, how prices have changed over time, and how they vary within and across types of institutions, states, and regions. It also includes estimates of the net prices students and families pay after taking financial aid into consideration. Data on institutional revenues and expenditures and on changing enrollment patterns over time supplement the data on prices to provide a clearer picture of the circumstances of students and the institutions in which they study. [For the companion report, "Trends in Student Aid, 2016. Trends in Higher Education Series," see ED572538. For the report from the previous year, "Trends in College Pricing, 2015. Trends in Higher Education Series," see ED572540.]

The increases in tuition and fee prices in 2015-16 were, like the increases in the two preceding years, relatively small by historical standards. However, the very low rate of general inflation makes this year's increases in college prices larger in real terms than those of 2014-15 and 2013-14. Significantly, and perhaps counter to public impressions, price increases are not accelerating over time. However, the average published tuition and fee price of a full-time year at a public four-year institution is 40% higher, after adjusting for inflation, in 2015-16 than it was in 2005-06. The average published price is 29% higher in the public two-year sector and 26% higher in the private nonprofit four-year sector than a decade ago. This document reports on the prices charged by colleges and universities in 2015-16, how prices have changed over time, and how they vary within and across types of institutions, states, and regions. Information is also included on the estimated net prices students and families pay after taking financial aid into consideration. Data on institutional revenues and expenditures and on changing enrollment patterns over time supplement the data on prices to provide a clearer picture of the circumstances of students and the institutions in which they study. [For the companion report, "Trends in Student Aid, 2015. Trends in Higher Education Series," ED572541. For the report from the previous year, "Trends in College Pricing, 2014. Trends in Higher Education Series," see ED572551.]

Between 2013-14 and 2014-15, average published tuition and fee prices increased by 2.9% for in-state students in the public four-year sector, by 3.3% for out-of-state students in the public four-year sector and for in-district students at public two-year colleges, and by 3.7% at private nonprofit four-year institutions. These increases are higher than the 2.0% increase in the Consumer Price Index between July 2013 and July 2014, but in all sectors these price increases are lower than the average annual increases in the past five years, the past 10 years, and the past 30 years. This document reports on the prices charged by colleges and universities in 2014-15, how prices have changed over time, and how they vary within and across types of institutions, states, and regions. Also included is information on the estimated net prices students and families pay after taking financial aid into consideration. Data on institutional revenues and expenditures and on changing enrollment patterns over time supplement the data on prices to provide a clearer picture of the circumstances of students and the institutions in which they study. [For the companion report, "Trends in Student Aid, 2014. Trends in Higher Education Series," see ED572552. For the report from the previous year, "Trends in College Pricing, 2013. Trends in Higher Education Series," see ED549554.]

These Web Tables present estimates of tuition and fees, the total price of attendance (tuition and fees plus living expenses), and several types and combinations of financial aid packages that undergraduates received in 2011-12. The price of an undergraduate education varies widely depending on a number of characteristics, including institution type and attendance status (Berkner and Choy 2008). To take these factors into account, estimates are shown by institution type for those enrolled in public 4-year, private non-profit 4-year, private for-profit 4-year, public 2-year, and private for-profit 2-year institutions. Both for all undergraduates and for those within each institution type, estimates are presented by students' attendance status, dependency status, and income. Many institutions charge full-time/full-year undergraduates higher tuition and fees than their part-time counterparts. Further, eligibility for certain financial aid programs is based upon attendance status: to qualify for a federal Direct Loan, a student must be enrolled at least half time. Therefore, these Web Tables present results for full-time/full-year undergraduates as well as all undergraduates. Students' or their families' income level affects the amount of aid for which students are eligible, and the effects of income depend on whether a student is financially dependent on his or her family or is independent. Consequently, estimates are presented by dependency status and income categories for all undergraduates and undergraduates in each type of institution. Tables 1-4 show the percentage of students receiving aid and the average amount of aid received by aided students enrolled in all types of institutions. Tables 5-8 show the same data for those enrolled in public 4-year institutions; tables 9-12 present the data for those enrolled in private nonprofit 4-year institutions; tables 13-16 show the statistics for those attending private for-profit 4-year institutions; tables 17-20 show estimates for those attending public 2-year institutions; and tables 21-24 show the same data for undergraduates enrolled in private for-profit 2-year institutions.

This brief report presents selected findings about student financial aid during the 2011-12 academic year. These findings are based on data from the 2011-12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12), a nationally representative sample survey of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled any time between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012, in institutions eligible to participate in federal financial aid programs. The primary purpose of NPSAS:12 is to measure how students and their families pay for postsecondary education, with particular emphasis on federal student aid provided through Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and subsequent amendments. The NPSAS:12 sample consists of about 95,000 undergraduate and 16,000 graduate students attending approximately 1,500 Title IV eligible postsecondary institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.The sample represents approximately 26 million undergraduate and 4 million graduate students enrolled in postsecondary education at any time between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. This report classifies financial aid by type and source. Eligibility for federal need-based aid is largely determined by the student's family income, which is defined differently for dependent and independent students.The following are appended: (1) Glossary; (2) NPSAS:12 Technical Notes and Methodology; and (3) Revised Student Financial Aid Estimates for the 2007-08 National Postsecondary Study Aid Study (NPSAS:08). (Contains 30 tables and 15 footnotes.)

The Federal Pell Grant End-of-Year Report presents primary aspects of Federal Pell Grant Program activity for the 2012-2013 award year. This presentation is a compilation of quantitative program data assembled to offer insights into the changes to the Title IV applicant universe and the Federal Pell Grant Program. The Federal Pell Grant End-of-Year Report provides factual information and highlights important programmatic issues. [For the previous report, "2011-2012 Federal Pell Grant Program End-of-Year Report," see ED566397.]

The Federal Pell Grant End-of-Year Report presents primary aspects of Federal Pell Grant Program activity for the 2011-2012 award year. This presentation is a compilation of quantitative program data assembled to offer insights into the changes to the Title IV applicant universe and the Federal Pell Grant Program. The Federal Pell Grant End-of-Year Report provides factual information and highlights important programmatic issues. Since 1973, the Office of Postsecondary Education has compiled summary information on Title IV applicants and Federal Pell Grant Program activity. The information provides a basis for program planning and development. The Report can also be used by policy makers to estimate the potential impact of actual or proposed policies on Pell Grant recipients and federal aid applicants. In addition, the End-of-Year Report can assist researchers, students, higher education officials, and financial aid administrators to better understand current patterns of Federal Pell Grant disbursements and Title IV applicant activity. A glossary is provided.

With the passage of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post- 9/11 GI Bill), Congress created a comprehensive education benefit program for veterans, service members, and their dependents pursuing postsecondary education. Since implementation, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has provided just over $5.7 billion for the Post-9/11 GI Bill to fund education expenses for about 381,000 veterans, service members, and their dependents through fiscal year 2010, and estimates it will provide almost $8 billion in fiscal year 2011--an amount that would represent about 71 percent of all expected costs for education benefits. From the passage of the law to August 1, 2009, the start of the first semester in which funds were available, VA had about 13 months to implement the program. The Post-9/11 GI Bill program is substantially different from previously authorized VA education benefits or GI Bill programs that characteristically provide monthly payments to eligible claimants. The Post-9/11 GI Bill, by contrast, includes a more complex payment system that channels funds to both students and schools. GAO and VA have reported on various challenges VA faced when implementing the new program, including claims processing delays. We were asked to review the progress of the program's implementation and answer the following questions: (1) What were VA's implementation challenges, the steps taken to address them, and any unintended consequences? (2) To what extent has VA met its timeliness and accuracy goals for processing Post-9/11 GI Bill claims and been responsive to call center inquiries? (3) What processes, if any, can VA adopt from the Department of Education's administration of student aid programs to improve its administration of Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits? VA faced several challenges in implementing the Post-9/11 GI Bill program, including inadequate information systems, staffing, and program guidance. For instance, some schools told us that a lack of critical program information, such as information about students' eligibility levels and how payments were determined, affected their ability to timely and accurately process program benefits. Although VA took steps to address these challenges, many remain, and VA experienced a number of unintended consequences such as emergency payments made to ineligible recipients, increased use of overtime, and diverting staff from processing other types of benefit claims. VA has met some of its timeliness and accuracy performance goals for processing Post-9/11 GI Bill claims and responding to Education Call Center inquiries, but delays continue to occur during peak processing times. Although VA has met its accuracy targets for education benefit claims, the amount of improper payments for education benefits has significantly increased. VA officials have attributed the increase, in part, to the higher level of education benefit paid under the new program relative to VA's other education benefit programs, as well as the fact that some payments--such as tuition and fees--are paid up front before courses have been completed. Some of Education's practices for administering federal student aid may improve VA's administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill program such as providing program information including eligibility and benefit levels, streamlining how funds are returned, and reconciling payment differences. Leading up to program implementation, VA officials conferred with Education officials on a limited basis to learn more about Education's systems and processes for student aid delivery. However, VA did not continue its coordination with Education because of the limited applicability of Education's systems and processes, according to VA officials. To improve VA's administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill program and address ongoing challenges, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs take the following two actions: (1) Take steps to provide for schools to receive more critical program information such as a student's eligibility for benefits or how payments have been calculated, for example, to enable certifying officials, financial aid officials, and business office administrators to effectively administer the program and deliver benefits; and (2) Collaborate with the Department of Education and the higher education community, leveraging their experiences in administering aid. These collaborations should include assessing the applicability and viability of adopting processes and actions taken by the Department of Education, where practical, such as returning overpayments of program funds or reconciling benefit payments. Claims Processing at RPOs are appended. (Contains 6 tables, 9 figures and 39 footnotes.)

Since the early 1990s, Congress has supplemented the Department of Education's (Education) Impact Aid program by providing funds for the Department of Defense's (DOD) Impact Aid program to compensate school districts with a high number of military dependent students. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 required GAO to review the use of these funds. GAO reviewed (1) what is known about the utilization and effectiveness of DOD Impact Aid funds, (2) the challenges faced by school districts in serving military dependent students, and (3) how DOD and Education have collaborated on their assistance. To address these issues, GAO conducted a Web-based survey of all 154 school districts that received DOD Impact Aid in any year from 2001 to 2009, with a response rate of 77 percent. GAO also interviewed officials from DOD and Education and seven school districts in five states, ranging in school district size, location, and percentage of military dependent students. The findings from these visits cannot be projected nationwide, but illustrate valuable perspectives. GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education determine whether to require school districts to report data on the academic outcomes of military dependent students, and if so, to determine the need for any additional legislative authority. Education agreed with GAO's recommendation, and DOD provided oral concurrence. Appended are: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Information on Additional Mandate Provisions; (3) The 13 Objectives from Education and DOD's MOU; (4) Comments from the Department of Education; and (5) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 2 tables, 7 figures, and 42 footnotes.)

The work-life policies and benefits practices of public universities and the extent to which lesbian and gay (LG) faculty, staff and families receive different work-life benefits than their heterosexual married counterparts are examined. The analysis was conducted by searching university work-life benefits websites. Major benefits for domestic partners and dependent children of LG employees have been extended. Yet there continues to be discrepancies between benefits awarded to married versus LG couples. (Contains 1 table.)

This Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report uses data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (NPSAS:96, NPSAS:2000 and NPSAS:04) to examine trends in Stafford loan borrowing among undergraduates. NPSAS consists of nationally representative survey data that focus on student financial aid and the enrollment and background characteristics of undergraduate and graduate students. Data from the two most recent NPSAS surveys (NPSAS:2000 and NPSAS:04) are used in this report to examine the trends in Stafford loan borrowing among undergraduates since 1995-96, the final year included in the first report. Together the two reports can be used to provide a picture of borrowing trends over the 15-year period, from 1989-90 to 2003-04. This report describes the percentage of students borrowing through the Stafford loan program, the average amount of subsidized, unsubsidized, and total Stafford loans taken out in each of the three NPSAS years, the percentage borrowing the maximum amounts, and the cumulative amounts borrowed through those years. As in the first report, loan amounts are shown in current dollars so that researchers can make adjustments for inflation according to any specific years they would like to compare. Differences over time were tested for statistical significance at p less than 0.05 using standard t-test comparisons. In addition to the figures provided in the text, supplemental tables in appendix A contain undergraduate totals and separate tables for four major sectors (public 2-year, public 4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and private for-profit institutions) and for full-time, full-year students within those sectors. For each type of Stafford loan and within each sector, subtotals are shown by undergraduate class level, dependency status, dependent and independent student family income, attendance pattern, and tuition levels. The following are appended: (1) Supplemental Tables; (2) Glossary; and (3) Technical Notes and Methodology. (Contains 43 tables, 35 figures, and 21 footnotes.)

The Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) originated as a new vision of a welfare system that would encourage work, reduce reliance on public assistance, and reduce poverty. The program began in April 1994 in seven Minnesota counties and differed from the existing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) system in two key ways: It included financial incentives to "make work pay" by allowing families to keep more of their welfare benefit when they worked, and it required longer-term welfare recipients to work or participate in employment services. Both policies are now key elements of most state welfare programs under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the successor to AFDC. This report presents MFIP?s six-year effects on work, income, marriage, childbearing, and children?s school achievement. Overall, the most lasting effects were on children in some of the most disadvantaged families. While the effects on parents? earnings and income faded after six years, children of single-parent long-term recipients were still performing better in school than their control group counterparts. The exception to this pattern is seen for a group of the most disadvantaged parents. For them, MFIP seems to have created a permanent "leg up" in the labor market, increasing their earnings and income through Year 6 and having large positive effects on their children.

This study examines the default behavior of 5,177 undergraduate student borrowers who attended Texas A&M University--Kingsville (TAMUK) and entered repayment of their TG-guaranteed Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans between October 1, 1998 and September 30, 2002 (fiscal years 1999-2002). Using the Department of Education's official cohort default rate formula, 569 borrowers, or 11 percent, were in default. The study uses a statistical technique called multiple logistic regression to analyze the effects of individual student and family characteristics on the probability of default, while controlling for the effects of the other variables in the analysis. For students at TAMUK, persisting in college to graduation, performing well while at the university, and receiving exit counseling are all extremely important in decreasing a student's likelihood of default. These results suggest that expanding campus-wide efforts to increase retention rates and improve academic performance may be the most effective default aversion strategy for TAMUK. The study finds that a student's background characteristics, such as race, gender and family income also have significant relationships to a student's probability of default, even after accounting for the college success variables. Although these relationships are not as strong as the relationships between success in college and default, they still persist. This finding highlights the fact that many students attending TAMUK are first-generation college students and have little or no financial and family support. These students may require additional assistance in order to successfully transition to college life and remain in school when faced with many conflicting priorities. Appended are (1) Sample Definition and Variable Descriptions, and (2) Standard Errors and Confidence Intervals. (Contains 2 tables, 11 footnotes, and a bibliography.)

This pamphlet provides a general description of the Dependents' Educational Assistance program, or DEA (chapter 35 of title 38, U. S. Code). The DEA program provides education and training opportunities to eligible dependents and survivors of certain veterans. It covers the main questions prospective participants may have about DEA benefits, including eligibility rules, types of training available under DEA, how the program works, payment rates, how to apply, how participants receive payments, what participants need to know during their training, and where they can go for more help.

This study examined teachers' attraction to school council service and factors that impacted that attraction. Participants were randomly selected public school teachers enrolled in graduate education courses at three Kentucky state universities. They performed three tasks. First, they completed a biographical form that yielded descriptive statistics and measures of seven teacher personal characteristics. Next, they read one of four content-validated versions of a formal job description for a teacher vacancy on the local school council. Each version emphasized one of two validated sets of school council job attributes (management or instructional leadership). Each of the four versions specified whether the principal was the council chair or a council member with a teacher serving as the chair. Finally, participants completed a two-item instrument that captured the degree of teacher attraction to the school council job depicted in the job description. Results indicated that teachers with greater numbers of dependent children and prior school council experience rated school council positions less favorably than did teachers with fewer dependent children and no experience on school councils. Results also revealed that the combined effects of dependent children and school council experience explained the 6.8 percent variance in teacher rating of a school council position. (Contains 56 references.) (SM)