Search

For decades, assessing income has served as the tried-and-true method for creating financial aid packages--scholarships, grants, and loans--for the nation's college students. Each year, students and families living with low and moderate incomes submit income documentation to colleges, states, and the federal government in hopes of qualifying for financial aid to defray college costs. But what if a student's wealth status revealed more about their ability to cover college costs than their income did? Income is an important measure, but it provides only a snapshot of the full resources available to students and their families. Wealth, too, impacts a student's access and ability to pay for college as well as their chances of graduating and turning career aspirations into a well-paying job and fulfilling life. Examining income alone masks deep and persistent inequities in wealth by race or ethnicity. This gap, which is rooted in generations of discrimination and systemic barriers to opportunity, affects the college dreams of countless people, particularly those from historically marginalized communities. Limitations in available data mean researchers and policymakers know relatively little about how wealth impacts higher education, with far more attention focused on understanding and addressing the effects of income. This paper seeks to address that missing piece by exploring the impact of wealth on students' experiences in higher education and how these experiences, in turn, influence wealth-building.

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.

Informed by interviews with administrators, faculty, and students at LaGuardia Community College, this case study explores how a vibrant two-year institution and designated Minority-Serving Institution (MSI), centers the needs of a diverse student body to achieve their academic and professional goals. The case study delves into LaGuardia's innovative practices to create an inclusive and supportive learning environment for all students. These insights offer key strategies for institutions nationwide dedicated to equitable access, success, and postsecondary value: (1) Prioritize a student-centered culture: Building and maintaining a student-centered culture requires leaders who explicitly commit to and embody this mindset in every facet of their work. Where an institution invests its money, time, and energy shapes students' experiences. Leaders at LaGuardia encourage collaboration between administrators, faculty, and staff to explore the impact of policies and practices through a student lens. (2) Leverage data to drive change and innovation: LaGuardia utilizes data analytics to identify areas for improvement and implement targeted interventions. As one example, data on enrollment trends helped pinpoint students in nondegree programs who were potential candidates for degree programs and provide the students with additional support. (3) Proactively identify barriers and take opportunities to smooth student pathways: At LaGuardia, this includes establishing connections between nondegree and academic programs, developing articulation agreements with four-year institutions, and ensuring that students have targeted supports before, during, and after transition points.

Informed by interviews with administrators, faculty, and students at the University of North Texas (UNT) this case study explores how a public four-year institution and designated Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI), sets a powerful example for leveraging data to improve student outcomes for all. This research shares insights from UNT's efforts to revamp its data infrastructure and foster a culture of data use across campus that can inform student success efforts at institutions of all types and sizes. UNT's success hinges on three key pillars: (1) Use disaggregated data to inform outcome-driven decision-making; (2) Consider everyone on campus a data user and design systems to meet their needs; and (3) Invest in culture as well as data tools and systems. This case study draws on insights gleaned from conversations during the summer and fall of 2023 with administrators, staff, faculty, and students at UNT.

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.]

There is overwhelming evidence that pursuing a college education provides substantial economic and non-economic benefits to students. But how much a degree is worth depends heavily on the institution a student attends. Unfortunately, value also is still influenced by a student's race, income, and gender, due to inequities in our higher education and workforce systems. Institutional leaders, federal and state policymakers, and other stakeholders all have a role to play in delivering equitable value: the economic and non-economic benefits that accrue to students, their families, their communities, and society. This report assesses economic value for students by using publicly available data to estimate the number of colleges that provide a minimum economic return for students and explores policy interventions that would increase equitable value. This analysis builds on the work of the Postsecondary Value Commission, which sought to define postsecondary value, measure postsecondary value, and develop an action agenda to expand and improve value, all while centering equity in postsecondary policymaking. The Commission focused on equitable value for Black, Latinx and/or Hispanic, Indigenous, underrepresented Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) students, students from low-income backgrounds, and women--as well as the intersectional identities within and across these groups (e.g., low-income White students and men of color). Evidence shows that the postsecondary education system currently fails to ensure that these students receive returns on their investments through equitable access, completion, affordability, and workforce outcomes. As part of its work, the Commission developed a framework that conceptualizes the economic and non-economic benefits that postsecondary education can provide to students, their families, our workforce, and society. That framework includes six economic value thresholds that measure individual outcomes and return on investment. This paper focuses on students' minimum economic return as measured by the lowest threshold.

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.]

Students, families, colleges, and lawmakers need clearer information on postsecondary outcomes to make informed decisions. By leveraging data available at institutions and federal agencies, a nationwide student-level data network (SLDN) would close information gaps that persist in our higher education landscape to answer critical questions about students' outcomes. The brief we released today shares lessons learned from a series of conversations with higher education experts aimed at developing a modernized SLDN to ensure stakeholders have the information they need to maximize our collective return on investment in higher education. "Implementing a Student-Level Data Network?(Part IV):?Exploring Design Options" examines high-level conceptual plans for the design and implementation of a federal SLDN developed by three teams of experts. By deliberately engaging experts with a range of perspectives and knowledge, RTI International and IHEP identified potential pain points and solutions related to data submission, data governance, information security, and data usage. Through the considerations presented in the designs and robust discussion at the forum, the authors examined how a well-implemented SLDN could improve data collection and count all students. The brief also highlights ways to reduce the burden on institutions and the National Center for Education Statistics. In our next steps, RTI and IHEP plan to continue to engage experts and gather intelligence, supporting the brainstorming around SLDN design in preparation for future passage of the College Transparency Act or a similar bill creating an SLDN. [For Part III, "Insights from Financial Aid Experts," see ED620389.]

As support continues to grow across the country and across the political spectrum for the federal student-level data network (SLDN) proposed in the College Transparency Act (CTA), IHEP partnered with AEM Education Services, with input from RTI International, to further build out a roadmap to support the implementation of the SLDN. "Frameworks for a Federal Student-Level Data Network: Considerations for Using the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS)" examines how the vocabulary, data models, and more than 550 postsecondary-specific elements already in the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) can streamline implementation of an SLDN, which would bridge the current gaps in data that currently exclude countless students and their outcomes from higher education decision-making. This brief builds on other research to facilitate the implementation of an SLDN that would finally deliver accurate, complete, and timely data on enrollment, completion, and post-college outcomes while staunchly protecting student privacy. The findings in this brief align with a series of convenings that RTI and IHEP have hosted over the past two years with experts across the field of higher education to support the modernization of the nation's postsecondary data system. Recommendations from those convenings have addressed measures and underlying data elements addressed in proposed legislation, institutional views on data submission, and financial aid. [This report was written with contributions from RTI International.]

Higher education is the surest pathway to a better living and a better life. Yet, the goal of a valuable college credential goes unrealized for too many students, especially students of color and students from low-income backgrounds. Today, more than 36 million Americans have some college credit, but no awarded degree and, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the studies of even more students, deepening inequities that already are pervasive. "Lighting the Path" shares key findings from Degrees When Due, a nationwide completion initiative to reengage students and build institutional capacity. Over the course of more than three years, with support from the research team at the University of Utah, IHEP built institutional capacity at nearly 200 institutions from 23 states to award degrees to students who have earned them, reengage former students who have stopped out, and equip students with credentials that help them realize their postsecondary goals. The report sets forth key findings on barriers to reenrollment, persistence, and completion; outlines strategies to best support returning students; and offers recommendations for policymakers at every level--institutional, state, and federal--to promote equitable degree completion.

Situated in the northwestern corner of Ohio, Bowling Green State University (BGSU) is reengaging adult students with "some college, but no degree" (SCND), promoting equitable attainment, and improving students' workforce outcomes. BGSU is a residential four-year university with a vibrant campus culture, NCAA Athletics, and over 200 undergraduate and graduate programs across eight academic colleges. The university has also distinguished itself through the creation of programs and policies that serve veterans and active-duty service members as well as the surrounding community. After joining the second cohort of IHEP's?Degree When Due, BGSU has aligned degree reclamation with existing institutional goals and secured and used data to support credit flexibility. This case study about BGSU, offers insights into how, even with limited resources amidst a global pandemic, an institution of higher education can integrate a data-informed degree completion effort.

We cannot continue to ask students -- and their families -- to make one of the largest and most important investments of their lives without clearer information about what their time and money will yield. Fortunately, support is broad across the country and across the political spectrum for a federal student-level data network (SLDN), which would streamline data reporting and answer key questions about students' postsecondary outcomes. Anticipating the questions that would fall to the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to answer in building and maintaining an SLDN, RTI International (RTI), a nonprofit research institute, joined IHEP, the leader of the Postsecondary Data Collaborative, both acting in an independent capacity to host a series of expert convenings to outline issues surrounding the SLDN's construction and implementation. "Implementing a Student-Level Data Network (Part III): Insights from Financial Aid Experts" is the third brief in the series emerging from those convenings to support the modernization of our postsecondary data infrastructure. The is based on individual conversations with 20 experts and a convening of 9 expert panelists from diverse institutional backgrounds, all with extensive experience in financial aid data and policy. Today's brief shares expert insights on data elements, institutional burden, timing of reporting, and use of data. [For Part II, "Insights from Institutional Representatives," see ED612952.]

Postsecondary education has the potential to transform lives by providing economic and non-economic benefits to students, their families, communities, the workforce, and ultimately the entire world--but only if the policies that shape that system are themselves equitable. To support more inclusive and deliberate policymaking processes at every level of government and within institutions of higher education, IHEP convened an Advisory Committee for Equitable Policymaking Processes and, on the one-year anniversary of Executive Order 13985, released "Opening The Promise: The Five Principles of Equitable Policymaking." This report sets forth an actionable framework informed by insights from more than two dozen experts across the field of higher education. The framework's five interrelated principles are designed to inform every aspect of the policymaking process, from the creation of new policy and amending of existing policy, to determining priorities and setting the course of action for a policymaking body. The current system yields inequitable outcomes. For example, while 48 percent of White adults have an associate's degree or higher, this is true for 32 percent of Black adults, 24 percent of Latinx adults, 25 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native adults, and 28 percent of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander adults. These five principles are designed to address inequities like the growing racial college completion gap, and build a fair, inclusive, and just system of higher education that serves all students--Black and White, Indigenous and Latinx, Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AANHPI), and all other identities, backgrounds, and circumstances.

As the economy struggles to recover amidst ongoing uncertainty, adults across the country could benefit from earning a degree and opening the door to new careers. Colleges and universities recognize the importance--but also the challenge--of getting "some college no degree" (SCND) students back on track and supporting them, along with currently enrolled students, across the degree finish line. Degree reclamation is a proven strategy to capture the momentum of existing credits and put SCND students back on track to a degree. To identify best practices and areas of potential to improve student outcomes through degree audits, researchers from the University of Utah and the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) examined transcript data from Oakland Community College (OCC), a community college in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan that implemented degree reclamation strategies for several years' worth of transcripts with a focus on the potential of expanding auditing efforts to include technical and applied associate's degrees, which can yield more immediate employment gains after graduation. As outlined in this brief, targeting resources and efforts toward reviewing transcripts against the technical field in which each student began his or her studies, combined with auditing for transfer-oriented credentials, can maximize the return on institutional degree reclamation efforts. [Edited by Leanna Davis.]

Informed by interviews with campus administrators and Northern Arizona University (NAU) students, the "Student Success is the DNA of NAU" case study outlines strategies this public, four-year, Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) is employing to build NAU into an engine of opportunity for students and the communities they represent. The case study shares four key lessons that other institutions seeking to undertake similar work can glean from NAU's intentional, authentic, and data-informed approach. As part of the nationwide Equitable Value Movement, the growing momentum toward ensuring everyone can enjoy the better living and better life that higher education can provide is clearly visible on the NAU campus.

Located in Minnesota, Anoka-Ramsey Community College (ARCC) is an inspiring example of what a suburban community college can do to expand its ability to serve and reengage students with "some college, but no degree." As a finalist for the prestigious Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence in 2017, ARCC fulfills many roles common to community colleges in the U.S. The college has two campuses in the suburbs of the Twin Cities, that together offer over 100 degree, certificate, and transfer programs across its two campuses and also partners with area high schools to provide an extensive program for high school students that offers opportunities to take college-level courses in their secondary schools. ARCC joined the first cohort of IHEP's Degrees When Due (DWD) based on three factors: internal evaluation of student success and completion; alignment with state and system-wide initiatives; and pilot program alignment. This case study about ARCC, offers insights into how a suburban community college develops and adopts an initiative to reach students with some college, but no degree in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Located in Redding, California, Shasta College is an inspiring example of why serving students with "some college, but no degree" is critical to supporting the local community. Most residents in the area, which is one of the state's northernmost counties, live and work in the immediate area and serve the community through local businesses, hospitals, schools, and government agencies. College leadership knew that improving degree attainment was critical for the prosperity of Shasta and the surrounding region. Three key factors prompted Shasta College to join the first cohort of IHEP's Degrees When Due (DWD) completion initiative: an institutional awareness of the need to serve the some college, but no degree (SCND) population to improve the local community's social and economic conditions; strong institutional leadership support for DWD strategies; and momentum from existing completion programs. This case study about Shasta College, offers insights into how a higher education institution can better support its students and the surrounding community by identifying institutionally driven barriers to completion and supporting the successful return of formerly enrolled students.

In signing the Higher Education Act of 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson described education as "the most important door that will ever open." Earning a college credential can mean a better living and a better life for students and their families. But to earn that credential, students must first navigate the admissions process. Education is indeed a door, but recruitment, admissions, and enrollment policies and practices dictate how wide that door is open. This report demonstrates how these policies and practices limit opportunities for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and underrepresented Asian American Pacific Islander students and students from low-income backgrounds. As Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) has done for nearly 30 years, this report provides research-backed, data-informed, student-centered solutions to disrupt these inequities and promote opportunities for underrepresented students.

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.

Across the country, students are unwittingly leaving postsecondary credentials on the table without institutions awarding the associate degrees they have earned. A disproportionate number of those students are from populations that have been historically excluded from or overlooked in higher education, including Black, Latinx, Indigenous students, and students from low-income backgrounds. Recognizing these missed opportunities for students--as well as for their families, potential employers, and communities--colleges across the country are institutionalizing a practice called "reverse transfer" (or "reverse credit transfer") that eliminates a needless impediment to postsecondary attainment. "Reclaiming Earned Degrees through Reverse Transfer" shares how equity-centered reverse transfer initiatives in Los Angeles and Richmond ensure that students are awarded the degrees they earned. When a student transfers from a two-year institution to a four-year institution and earns the credits required of an associate degree, the two institutions employ "reverse transfer" to apply credits from the four-year institution back to the two-year institution for the purpose of awarding that associate degree. Early studies suggest reverse transfer recovers a significant number of associate degrees, particularly for students from populations that historically have been marginalized by the nation's higher education system. Drawing from in-depth interviews with Adam Gottlieb, Senior Manager of Postsecondary Initiatives at UNITE-LA, and Stephanie Odera, former Director of Adult and Non-Traditional Student Services at Virginia Commonwealth University, the guidebook outlines the process of reverse transfer, the role of strong partnerships between institutions, the need for data sharing to inform better advising pathways, and the hope for expanding to other institutions. To that end, the guidebook also includes recommendations for other communities interested in closing attainment gaps by helping students in their regions reclaim earned degrees. "Reclaiming Earned Degrees through Reverse Transfer" is the sixth in IHEP's Innovative Strategies to Close Postsecondary Attainment Gaps series, a component of IHEP's work with communities that have shown the ability and commitment to significantly increase college-level learning among students of all backgrounds. Designated by Lumina Foundation, with support from The Kresge Foundation, Talent Hub Communities work across business, education, and civic sectors to attract cultivate, and retain skilled and knowledgeable workers.

We cannot continue to ask students -- and their families -- to make one of the largest and most important investments of their lives without clearer information about what their time and money will yield. In partnership with RTI International (RTI), operating in an independent capacity, IHEP is gathering expert insights needed to support making that critically needed information available through a student-level data network (SLDN). "Implementing a Student-Level Data Network (Part II): Insights from Institutional Representatives" is the second brief in a series to support the modernization of our postsecondary data infrastructure. Building the SLDN outlined in pending federal legislation will require the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to make key decisions around design, construction, and implementation. "Implementing a Student-Level Data Network (Part II): Insights from Institutional Representatives" shares perspectives from 12 experts from diverse institutional backgrounds, including public two-year, private nonprofit four-year, and private for-profit four-year institutions, as well as individuals who work in public system and association offices. The representatives reflected on example file layouts and data collection models with an eye to what data are available for all students, when data are available for reporting, and other key factors that could streamline data submission or reduce reporting burdens. [For Part I, "Implementing a Federal Student-Level Data Network: Advice from Experts," see ED609423.]

There is steadily growing consensus around a critical issue in our nation's higher education system: the need to modernize our postsecondary data infrastructure. Recognizing that building the Student-Level Data Network (SLDN) outlined in pending federal legislation will require the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to make key decisions around design, construction, and implementation, the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) partnered with RTI International (RTI), operating in an independent capacity, to gather insights to inform the network's implementation. "Implementing a Student-Level Data Network: Advice from Experts," shares the insights from that conversation with 15 experts from institutions, state systems, think tanks, and higher education associations. This brief outlines the data elements and definitional options needed to meet pending legislative requirements, maximize the quality and utility of the data, and minimize the burden on institutions. The data elements fit in five categories: enrollment and completion; financial aid; demographics; post-completion outcomes; and institutional characteristics. The brief also highlights areas that need further investigation and identifies the most pressing near-term topics in order to provide NCES and the legislatively-mandated Advisory Committee a foundation from which to start.

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).]

Accurately evaluating what works -- and what doesn't -- to improve student progression through higher education requires the robust use of reliable data. States play a pivotal role in compiling and using data to empower student choice, spur continuous institutional and system improvement, and develop evidence-based solutions that promote college access and success for all students in their state. However, certain challenges have prevented states from fully leveraging education and workforce data, including difficulty matching and sharing data across agencies and states, and legal and regulatory compliance barriers. "Better Data, Better Outcomes: Promoting Evidence, Equity, and Student Success through the Framework for State Postsecondary Data Solutions" introduces a new framework that highlights the barriers to effective data use by states and identifies approaches to eliminating those barriers, with solutions at the federal, state, and regional levels. The Framework identifies opportunities to build innovative partnerships and develop messaging and advocacy strategies to champion a culture of data use. Together, approaches outlined in the Framework help states advocate for resources and promote change.

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.]

As the higher education landscape has expanded beyond issues of access and affordability to include an emphasis on student completion and employment outcomes, accreditors can play a leadership role in advancing this important change. A shift to student success that rightfully centers in part on closing equity gaps between low-income students and students of color and their peers ensures that students from all backgrounds have a genuine opportunity to thrive in and after college. The institutions that have progressed the most have done so through concerted, systemic, and equity-minded use of data to shine a light on those areas where focus and resources are most needed. For institutions today, data-use is a prerequisite to making institutional improvement, especially in unpacking and addressing the systemic racial and economic inequities that continue to undermine justice and opportunity within our higher education system. Accreditors, who hold primary responsibility for assuring quality and continuous institutional improvement, possess enormous power in the drive to improve student success at more institutions by using data to shape their conversations with and evaluations of colleges and universities. Based on a review of accreditor materials and interviews with 10 high-level commission staff from regional, national, and programmatic accreditors, this report seeks to identify current practices, challenges, and opportunities with respect to data-use in accreditation. Three recommendations are offered for proactive steps that accreditors can take to incorporate outcomes-focused, equity-minded data into the entire review cycle to spur more evidence-driven institutional improvement: (1) Embed data-use into routine practice; (2) Emphasize equity; and (3) Increase transparency about data-use practices. In discussions with accreditors, many voiced an interest in using data, and this paper profiles promising ways that four accreditors have incorporated data into their work. Building on such examples, accreditors could embed data more thoroughly into continuous institutional improvement efforts to demonstrate their collective commitment to evidence-based decision making. A more thorough focus on data also would demonstrate to policymakers and policy experts that both accreditors and institutions are willing and able to identify and address many of the shortcomings within our higher education system.

Our current federal postsecondary data system is incomplete and fails to provide today's students with the accurate, timely information that they need to inform their college choices and promote their success. As policymakers consider proposals to improve this federal data system, they should model best practices of responsible data-use to ensure that all postsecondary data is secure and student privacy is protected. This paper, authored by Amy O'Hara, Research Professor at the Georgetown University Massive Data Institute, highlights promising examples of data systems that are prioritizing privacy and security. These examples span from government agencies to academia and cover sectors ranging from healthcare to national defense. In this analysis, O'Hara uses a "Five Safes" framework as an approach for guiding secure data practices: (1) Safe projects require governance protocols to control project requests, review, and approval processes; (2) Safe people ensure that data users are screened and appropriately trained; (3) Safe settings and safe data restrict what data an analyst is authorized to use, how they access it, their computing environment, and their physical location; and (4) Safe outputs protect the privacy of data subjects by reducing the risk of individuals being re-identified. [This paper is part of the larger series "Protecting Students, Advancing Data: A Series on Data Privacy and Security in Higher Education." For "The Emergence of Data Privacy Conversations and State Responses," see ED595109. For "Protecting Privacy and Information Security in a Federal Postsecondary Student Data System," see ED595136.]

Student debt is a major barrier to adult student reengagement and degree completion. Institutional debt forgiveness is one approach to addressing the affordability barrier for returning students. This guidebook features an interview with leaders at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, who share details about the innovative debt-forgiveness program they implemented as a reenrollment strategy for students who stopped out of their university without completing a degree. In its first seven months, this program produced a net gain of $200,000 in revenue for the institution. Following the interview, a Reengagement Investment Calculator is provided to help those to help those interested in replicating this program assess their institution's own potential "Return on Investment (ROI)" for serving this population of students. For those interested in learning more about debt-forgiveness strategies, a list of additional resources to explore is provided at the end of this guidebook.

Our current federal postsecondary data system is incomplete and fails to provide today's students with the accurate, timely information that they need to inform their college choices and promote their success. As policymakers consider proposals to improve this federal data system, it is critical that they work in tandem to protect students' privacy and ensure that their information is secure. This paper, authored by Joanna Grama, Senior Consultant at Vantage Technology Consulting Group, provides an in-depth look at the current landscape for postsecondary data privacy and security at the federal level. These laws include: (1) The Privacy Act of 1974; (2) The E-Government Act of 2002; (3) The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002; (4) The Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; and (5) The Office of Management and Budget Breach Notification System. The brief explains the existing regulatory framework and explores how these laws and practices would interact with proposed changes to the federal postsecondary data system. [This report is based on research with support from Arnold Ventures.]

State longitudinal data systems can be a powerful tool to support student success and spur equity-minded improvement throughout state education systems, but state policymakers must ensure that students' information is safe and secure. In a case study looking at Louisiana's efforts to secure student data, this profile illuminates some of the unintended consequences of well-intentioned privacy policies that fail to appropriately account for the complexity of state longitudinal data systems. The paper, authored by Rachel Anderson, Director of Policy and Practice at the Data Quality Campaign, offers recommendations for state policymakers to pursue student privacy and security measures in a way that strengthens the goals of student data systems and promotes student success, including: (1) Framing data privacy holistically as a component of data use; (2) Understanding the legislative landscape and engaging diverse stakeholders to understand needs and the likely impact of legislation; and (3) Providing clarify and supports for implementation.

This report shares the perspectives and aspirations of 17 low-income and working-class students based on interviews the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) conducted over two semesters of their college journeys. The report identifies opportunities for policymakers and institutional leaders to support all students through completion, grounded in students' experiences and the affordability challenges that they face. The students featured in the report represent the diversity of today's college-goers. Among them are Pell Grant recipients, Black, Hispanic, and multiracial students, adult students, student parents, and a veteran student. They represent different pathways to higher education and a range of educational and professional goals and ambitions. They have all made?enormous sacrifices?on their path to reach these goals, including working multiple jobs, working anywhere from four to over 40 hours a week, and accumulating both student loan and credit card debt. While the featured students are located across the country, attend different types of institutions, and represent a range of life circumstances, the?report?reveals?that many experienced similar challenges in navigating an uncertain and confusing financial aid process; paying for both the tuition and non-tuition costs associated with college; balancing the demands of school, family, and employment; making important decisions about college and program choice; and successfully transferring between institutions. The report offers concrete, actionable steps that institutions and policymakers can take to more equitably support students, including: (1) strengthening need-based aid; (2) targeting financial aid funding toward the students with the greatest need; and (3) providing greater transparency to low-income and working-class students navigating a complex higher education system.

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.

Launched in 2017, New York's Excelsior Scholarship makes the state's public colleges tuition-free for low- and middle-income state residents who meet several conditions. The program, championed by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, is billed as a middle-class program that aims to make City University of New York (CUNY) and State University of New York (SUNY) colleges more accessible while requiring beneficiaries to stay in the state after graduation. But program details matter. This analysis of Excelsior examines the effects of the program's design and recommends further enhancements that will redirect program resources to help low-income students pay for college.

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.