Tag: Aid

  • Federal Aid Conference Delayed, University Employees Lament

    Federal Aid Conference Delayed, University Employees Lament

    The Education Department and its Office of Federal Student Aid typically hold a conference the first week of December each year.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Caiaimage/Chris Ryan/iStock/Getty Images

    Each year during the first week of December, the Department of Education has historically hosted the Federal Student Aid Training Conference to provide university administrators with updated education on regulations and technical systems. That hasn’t happened this year.

    Now, many financial aid experts are expressing their frustrations on social media, attributing the lapse to the Trump administration’s major reductions in force and calling it a shortsighted mistake.

    “There is no conference. That’s what happens when you fire many of the staff who organized and conducted the training,” Byron Scott, a retired FSA staff member, wrote on LinkedIn. “Perhaps in ‘returning’ this Department of Education function to the states—where [it] never was—the Department forgot to tell the states about this new responsibility.”

    Department officials have neither announced the event’s cancellation nor clarified whether and when it might take place. The conference website, where logistical information is traditionally posted, only says, “Information coming soon.”

    One senior department official who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity said the conference is slated to occur in person in March.

    “The announcement was queued up but the shutdown got in the way,” the source wrote in a text message. “I think the plan [will be released] in the coming days.”

    An Education Department spokesperson did not respond to questions about the March date but blamed any delay on the government shutdown.

    “The Democrats shut down the government for 43 days, and as you can imagine, planning a conference is not an exempted activity,” the spokesperson said. “We’ll have more updates on this in the coming weeks.”

    If the conference is eventually held in person, it would be the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2020.

    The senior department official said they hope that “returning the conference to in-person will make the wait worth it.”

    But Heidi Kovalick, director of financial aid at Rowan University, responded to Scott’s LinkedIn post saying that right now is “a critical time.”

    Financial aid officers have a lot to adapt to; the One Big Beautiful Bill Act mandated major changes to the student loan system, and the department issued regulations outlining new standards for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, among other significant shifts since Trump took office.

    “Fin[ancial] aid administrators really need to hear from the experts,” Kovalick wrote. “Of course as others have mentioned, [it’s] kind of hard when they have been forced out. We miss you all.”

    Regardless of whether staffing shortages or the government shutdown played a role in the delay, Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said one of her greatest concerns is the tight timeline financial aid officers will face if the department does reschedule the conference for spring.

    “Truthfully, March is pretty soon—three months away. Institutional budgets are tight. People are going to have to book flights and hotels, and you know that that can be expensive,” she said. Still, the NASFAA president applauded the department for its effort to return the conference to an in-person event.

    “The last few were virtual, which had mixed reviews. The sessions had to be prerecorded. They weren’t always as timely. And there wasn’t an opportunity for interaction. But those are all the things that financial aid professionals prioritize,” she said. “If March is when they can do it, well, we’ll be happy to see it in March.”

    Source link

  • States Should Step Up on Graduate School Aid (opinion)

    States Should Step Up on Graduate School Aid (opinion)

    Two decades ago, Uncle Sam offered a helping hand for college graduates who desired careers that required advanced degrees by establishing a loan program known as Grad PLUS. That hand has now been withdrawn. Also known as Direct PLUS loans, this program allowed students to borrow beyond the $20,500 limit available through direct unsubsidized loans to cover their full cost of attendance. With the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law last summer, Grad PLUS loans will no longer be an option for prospective graduate students after July 2026.

    The question of whether colleges and universities raise their tuition prices as the availability of federal aid increases has been a hotly debated topic for more than four decades, with contradictory findings. One recent study found that institutions increased their tuition prices after the creation of Grad PLUS, and determined that the funds did not increase access (or completion) for graduate education in general or for underrepresented groups in particular. These findings echo previous studies that also support a positive relationship between government aid and college prices. In contrast, other studies and analyses at the undergraduate level, as well as for graduate business, medical and law programs, have found little evidence of nonprofit institutions increasing tuition in relation to government subsidies. (The for-profit sector is another story.)

    In any case, the elimination of Grad PLUS is a new reality that incoming graduate students will have to face. Now, students in master’s and doctoral programs will only be able to borrow up to $20,500 annually (with a maximum of $100,000). Students in professional degree programs, like law and medicine, will have a higher cap of $50,000 annually (up to $200,000 total). Additionally, the maximum amount students can borrow from the federal government for their undergraduate and graduate studies combined is $257,500. Students who borrow beyond any of these limits annually will have to turn to private loans to finance the remaining costs, which are less accessible for low-income students (who have less credit) and often come with higher interest rates.

    The specific impact of these new limits on students is not yet known, but if we look at data for borrowers from previous years, we see potential impacts. In 2019–20, approximately 38 percent of all graduate borrowers borrowed beyond these caps, according to an analysis by Jobs for the Future. When disaggregated by degree type, 41 percent of graduate borrowers pursuing master’s degrees, 37 percent pursuing Ph.D. degrees and 25 percent pursuing professional degrees borrowed beyond the loan caps set by OBBBA.

    A recent analysis published by American University’s Postsecondary Education & Economics Research Center shows potential impacts not just by graduate degree type but also by specific field of study. For professional degrees (with the higher loan cap), more than half of borrowers for chiropractic, medicine, osteopathy and dentistry programs borrowed more than $200,000 for their degrees in recent years. Among the master’s programs reviewed, half or more of borrowers in programs including audiology/speech pathology, public health, nursing and school and mental health counseling, to name a few, borrowed beyond the new limits.

    Based on these analyses, it is clear that many prospective graduate students will be impacted by the new loan caps, at least in the short term. The rationale for these loan caps is that graduate programs will lower their costs to make graduate education more affordable, although it is doubtful that colleges will decrease the costs of graduate programs within just a year. It should be noted that many students do not borrow at all to obtain their degrees. In 2019–20, approximately 40 percent of full-time domestic students enrolled in master’s degrees did not borrow.

    For programs that attract students from high-income backgrounds (usually selective elite institutions), what incentive is there to decrease costs if enough students can pay out of pocket? For instance, between 2014 and 2019, medical school matriculants from high-income backgrounds (over $200,000) increased substantially. The number of students attending law schools from wealthy backgrounds has also increased in the past couple of decades, particularly at selective elite institutions. Graduate education, at least at elite schools, has become less accessible for many low-income students.

    Without financial support, options for low-income students will become even more limited. These students will largely be relegated to less selective public universities, and the more elite private schools will become even less economically diverse than they already are. Financial aid offices will become the de facto second admissions office. Using Massachusetts as an example, our analysis found that the annual cost of attendance exceeded the annual loan limit of $50,000 in the case of every accredited law and medical school in the state, with the gap between the cost of attendance and the limit ranging from about $5,600 in the case of the lone public law school (the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth), and $33,000 in the case of the only public medical school option (University of Massachusetts Chan), to as high as $71,000 for Harvard Law School and $64,000 for Harvard Medical School.

    Law School (J.D.) Institution Type 2025 Estimated Cost of Attendance Annual COA Above/ Below Cap
    Boston College Private, nonprofit $99,991 $49,991
    Boston University Private, nonprofit $92,914 $42,914
    Harvard University Private, nonprofit $121,250 $71,250
    New England Law Private, nonprofit $113,279 $63,279
    Northeastern University Private, nonprofit $88,926 $38,926
    Suffolk University Private, nonprofit $96,190 $46,190
    Western New England University Private, nonprofit $74,176 $24,176
    University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Public $55,648 (in-state) $5,648
    Amounts calculated based on current advertised rates for first-time (entering), full-time students enrolled in daytime, nine-month and on-campus programs.
    Medical School (M.D.) Institution Type 2025 Cost of Attendance Annual COA Above/Below Cap
    Boston University Private, nonprofit $100,927 $50,927
    Harvard University Private, nonprofit $113,746 $63,746
    Tufts University Private, nonprofit $99,884 $49,884
    University of Massachusetts Chan Public $83,247 (in-state) $33,247
    Amounts calculated based on advertised rates for first-time (entering), full-time students enrolled in daytime, 10-month and on-campus programs.

    This simple analysis, of course, does not take into account any institutional grants or scholarships students may be awarded, but those funds vary by institutional budgets.

    What happens when a deserving medical school applicant gains admission and a financial aid offer, only to realize that they still have a balance of $40,000 after institutional and federal aid is applied? For students to turn to private lenders, they will likely need either good credit and a substantial income or a cosigner, which may not be an option for many students from underresourced backgrounds. Almost 93 percent of private student loans given last year had a cosigner. Almost 51 percent of individuals from low/moderate incomes have limited or poor to fair credit. Even if they are lucky to be offered loans, the interest rates will likely be much higher.

    With Washington Out, States May Have to Intervene

    With the recent federal cuts to Medicaid likely to lead to decreases in state funding for postsecondary education, states may be hesitant to award funds to support students pursuing graduate education—but there are frameworks to help states determine which graduate programs deserve state funding and which type of funding to provide students. Third Way recently produced a framework that categorizes programs by personal return on investment and social value. One possible solution would be to offer accessible loans and state subsidies based on how a state places certain programs in this model.

    For programs that lead to high ROI and social value—for example, dentistry—states that are facing a shortage of dentists could offer accessible (and lower than market rate) loans in exchange for working in certain geographic areas in that state. Providing low-interest loans instead of grants would make sense for this category because dentists are more likely to have high enough earnings (postresidency) that they can repay their loans. Certain localities have set up zero-interest loans for students pursuing specific industries, such as a San Diego County program for aspiring behavioral health professionals (a type of pay-it-forward program).

    Some states, such as Pennsylvania, do have loan repayment programs for certain health occupations in exchange for working in specific areas of their states. Offering this solution without providing accessible loans will only benefit students who come from wealthier families, as they are more likely to have good enough credit or relationships with creditworthy cosigners to access private loans in the first place.

    For programs that are high in social value but low in personal ROI, such as teaching or social work, if a state determines this is an area of need, they can offer grants to lower the cost of attending these programs and minimize the amount of loans students will have to take out, in exchange for service in these fields for a specific period of time. Offering accessible, low-interest loans to students pursuing these careers could still be an option, but should be secondary, or supplemental to, grants.

    In line with recommendations from a jointly authored report from the American Enterprise Institute, EducationCounsel and the Century Foundation, states can offer grants to graduate students who demonstrate financial need, in addition to targeted grant aid for certain programs. Already, certain states, such as Maryland, New Mexico, Virginia and Washington, offer grant aid to graduate students in specific fields or based on financial need. Massachusetts also offers a tuition waiver to incentivize students to enroll in graduate programs at its public universities.

    Unfortunately, I was unable to find a single repository of state aid specifically for graduate students from various states. The closest I could find was a report released by the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs for the 2023–24 academic year with data on state-funded expenditures for both undergraduate and graduate student aid. The report shows that only a handful of states allocated more than a million dollars to need-based graduate aid (Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Texas and Virginia), but does not specify for which programs, nor does it detail how aid is awarded and to which institutions.

    The Education Finance Council also maintains a list of nonprofit loan providers in different states that offer lower-interest or more accessible loans, many of which are state-administered, such as the Massachusetts Educational Financing Authority. States that already administer conditional loans, scholarships, grants or loan forgiveness programs at the undergraduate level should consider expanding these programs to high- demand industries that require postbaccalaureate credentials if they have not already.

    What Can Institutions Do?

    Institutions are the closest to students, and they can play a role as well. Beyond offering need-based grants/scholarships to lower the cost of attendance, institutions can also guide students in the lending process, such as by publishing preferred lenders on financial aid websites. These lenders should have a good reputation with borrowers and offer low interest rates. Examples of institutions that advertise preferred lenders include Baylor University, the University of Iowa and the University of Central Missouri.

    Institutions with more financial resources can either directly partner with lenders to offer lower fixed interest rates through risk sharing or provide loans themselves. Harvard Law School makes loans available to graduate students through a partnership with the Harvard Federal Credit Union. Some private loan providers looking to get into the graduate lending space are now in conversations with institutions about developing new risk-sharing models.

    Many occupations that typically require graduate degrees, such as teaching, nursing and medicine, will face steep shortages in the coming years. States should align aid programs with current and future workforce shortages, determine which graduate programs will exceed federal loan caps and by how much, offer targeted grants for high-social-value but low-earning fields where costs exceed caps, and provide below-market or zero-interest (and accessible) loans for high-social-value, high-earning fields.

    Institutions must act urgently by partnering with accessible, ethical lenders; increasing need-based aid for students who need it most; and protecting students from predatory options. At the very least, institutions can advertise the upcoming student loan changes on their websites. With OBBBA loan caps, Washington is stepping back. Will states and institutions be able to step forward and lead the way in preserving access and promoting economic mobility? Only 2026 will tell.

    Josh Farris is research and policy specialist and Derrick Young Jr. is cofounder and executive director at Leadership Brainery, a nonprofit organization focused on improving access to graduate education for students from limited-access backgrounds.

    Source link

  • Increasing Awareness and Access to Emergency Aid

    Increasing Awareness and Access to Emergency Aid

    Many college students struggle to pay for college and living expenses, which can threaten their ability to remain enrolled and graduate.

    A 2025 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 42 percent of students identified financial constraints as the biggest challenge to their academic success, followed by the need to work while attending school. This was particularly true for students over 25 and those attending a two-year or public institution.

    An unexpected cost can be detrimental to a student’s retention; one-third of Student Voice respondents indicated that an unplanned expense of $1,000 or less would threaten their ability to stay in college. A Trellis Strategies survey found that 56 percent of students would have trouble obtaining $500 in cash or credit to meet an unexpected expense.

    However, nearly two in three Student Voice respondents indicated they’re unsure whether their college offers emergency aid, and only 5 percent said they had access to emergency aid.

    During a session at Student Success US 2025, hosted last week by Inside Higher Ed and Times Higher Education in Atlanta, Georgia, Bryan Ashton, Trellis’s chief strategy and growth officer, outlined some of the challenges colleges and universities face in building awareness and capacity regarding emergency aid resources for students.

    What it is: Emergency aid can be administered in four different ways: a one-time disbursement, completion aid, emergency support resources and cash transfers, Ashton said.

    The first is the most traditional understanding of emergency aid, in which a student needs financial assistance to meet an unexpected cost such as a flat tire, medical bill or broken laptop.

    Completion aid is delivered most often to students a few credits shy of graduating to ensure they’re able to finish their credential, with the understanding that it provides incremental revenue to the institution.

    In some cases, institutions don’t provide funding directly to the student but help address financial insecurity through just-in-time resources, including housing vouchers or partnerships with social services.

    And, increasingly, emergency aid comes in the form of regular cash transfers. One example is for student caregivers or parenting students who may be paying for childcare. “We transfer an amount of money to them every month that isn’t necessarily for childcare, but it’s earmarked to help offset expenses related to increased cost of attendance that a student’s having [to pay],” Ashton explained.

    During the COVID-19 pandemic, many campuses distributed emergency aid to students using dollars from the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF), which proved largely successful in promoting student persistence.

    Analysis of HEERF distribution showed the dollars helped over 18 million students remain enrolled, with 90 percent of institutions crediting the funding for aiding at-risk students in making progress toward their degree. A review of HEERF distributions at Southern New Hampshire University found that students were statistically more likely to stay enrolled if they received HEERF dollars, compared to their peers who didn’t.

    Pandemic aid for colleges and universities has since ended, but many campuses continue to provide small grants to address students’ immediate financial needs, often relying on philanthropic donations.

    Best practices: Ashton offered some practical insights and takeaways for colleges and universities looking to improve their emergency aid practices on campus.

    • Create a clearly defined approval process. One of the challenges with HEERF was that colleges had various implementation models for how the money was dispersed, where it was housed and when students would become eligible for funds, Ashton said. As a result, some colleges dispersed aid within days of getting the funds, whereas others waited until the last second. Colleges should establish clear and consistent policies for fund distribution and eligibility to ensure maximum reach and impact, he said.
    • Build a support network. Staff should connect emergency aid to other available resources, which can create a more holistic look at student financial well-being. “It shouldn’t just be that the student gets $500 but it also should be, are we looking at that student for public benefit eligibility?” Ashton said. “Are we looking at that student for housing and security risks? Are we looking at other things that we can try to match and mirror as part of that process?” Creating a centralized physical hub on campus can be one way to do this.
    • Quickly disperse funds. If the student is in a true emergency, providing funding before they leave higher education should be a top priority. “We don’t want that student talking to two or three committees, regurgitating a story, reliving trauma … that they’re not waiting a week for someone to make the payment,” Ashton said. One way to do this is for the institution to directly pay the claim, such as for a healthcare cost.
    • Leverage student stories. HEERF established a clear precedent for the role emergency aid plays in student retention, and colleges and universities should amplify that fact to advance fundraising, Ashton said. “There’s a really strong narrative around the desire to keep that student in school.”
    • Empower faculty and staff. Student Voice data shows that a majority of college students are unaware of emergency aid resources available on campus. Increasing awareness among student-facing campus members, including faculty and staff, can help close this gap.

    Source link

  • Billions of Aid Dollars Go to High-Income Students

    Billions of Aid Dollars Go to High-Income Students

    A new report from the Century Foundation found that state and institutional grant aid too often flows to higher-income students who don’t need it, while low-income students continue to struggle with unmet need.

    The analysis, released Thursday, shows that more than half of students from the top income quartile, 56 percent, receive grants that surpass their financial need, compared to a mere 0.2 percent of students from the bottom income quartile. That means that top income quartile students were 280 times more likely to receive grants that exceeded their level of need than their lowest income peers. The share of white students that receive grants beyond their needs (19 percent) far exceeds the share of Black of Hispanic students who receive such grants (5 percent).

    Part of the issue is that the share of state grants that are merit-based jumped 17 percentage points between 1982 and now, according to the report. Over all, about 10 percent of grant aid—at least $10 billion annually in state and institutional aid—exceeds students’ financial need.

    The analysis also found that state grants disproportionately go to students at highly selective public colleges versus students at open-admission public four-year institutions—$3,693 and $842 on average, respectively. And at four-year public colleges over all, students with an Expected Family Contribution of zero were less likely than students with higher EFCs to receive aid from their institution.

    “What people think about as a pillar of the financial aid system in higher education has become a windfall for wealthy students that leaves working families paying the bill for tuition increases,” Peter Granville, the report’s author and a fellow at the Century Foundation, said in a news release.

    Source link

  • SNAP ends Saturday, mass mutual aid NOW (Debt Collective)

    SNAP ends Saturday, mass mutual aid NOW (Debt Collective)

    One month ago, Republicans chose to shut down the government rather than protect our healthcare. Now, by refusing to process SNAP benefits for November, they’ve put 42 million working families at risk of going hungry or being forced deeper into debt just to put food on the table.

     

    Most of us aren’t in debt because we live beyond our means — we’re in debt because we’ve been denied the means to live. This is especially true for SNAP recipients, most of whom are workers being paid starvation wages by greedy employers, or tenants being squeezed every month by predatory landlords. SNAP is a lifeline for people trapped in an economic system that’s designed to work against us, which is exactly why they’re trying to destroy it. 

     

    Authoritarianism thrives on silence and complicity. We refuse to give in. This weekend, organizers across the country are mobilizing a mass effort to connect people with existing mutual aid networks. If you are on SNAP and are not sure where to look for help, get plugged into your local mutual aid network to get your needs met and organize to help others meet theirs.

    Source link

  • Judges Rule Trump Can’t Completely Stop SNAP Aid – The 74

    Judges Rule Trump Can’t Completely Stop SNAP Aid – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Two federal judges on Friday ruled against President Donald Trump’s move to suspend food stamp benefits starting November 1 amid the month-long government shutdown, with each noting contingency funding is available. 

    It’s unclear if the Trump administration plans an appeal or how quickly food assistance can flow to the 42 million Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Sixteen million of them are children, putting pressure on schools to address their needs.

    U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to distribute the funds in a timely manner using contingency money. 

    “SNAP benefits have never, until now, been terminated,” McConnell said, as reported in The Hill. “And the United States has in fact admitted that the contingency funds are appropriately used during a shutdown, and that occurred in 2019.”

    In a separate ruling, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts gave the Trump administration until Monday to decide whether it will provide at least some food stamp benefits to recipients. She indicated the suspension of SNAP benefits is contrary to law. 

    She found fault with the defendants’ assertion that the U.S Department of Agriculture is prohibited from funding SNAP because Congress has not enacted new appropriations for the current fiscal year.

    “To the contrary, defendants are statutorily mandated to use the previously appropriated SNAP contingency reserve when necessary and also have discretion to use other previously appropriated funds,” she wrote. 

    Despite the judges’ rulings, many advocates say some kids will go hungry in November because the process for obtaining the aid consists of multiple steps — some of which have already been missed for those who receive help at the start of every month. 

    On October 28, more than 20 states, the District of Columbia, and three governors sued the USDA for suspending November’s SNAP benefits. They called the move unprecedented and illegal.

    “SNAP is one of our nation’s most effective tools to fight hunger, and the USDA has the money to keep it running,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, long embroiled in her own legal battle with the president, said in a statement. “There is no excuse for this administration to abandon families who rely on SNAP, or food stamps, as a lifeline. The federal government must do its job to protect families.”

    Gina Plata-Nino, interim director for SNAP at the Food Research & Action Center, said her organization encouraged the USDA to tap into its contingency and reserve funds to save children and families from going hungry. By missing this opportunity, at least some recipients will likely miss their allotment. 

    Plata-Nino said states were directed by federal officials on Oct. 10 to stop reporting critical data — a list of household eligibility and food stamp allocation — information they send directly to electronic benefit transfer contractors, who are key in distributing the aid. 

    “Even in the best-case scenario, if the judge says, ‘We rule in your favor and we demand that this happens right now’, and the Trump administration doesn’t appeal…the process of getting benefits into recipients’ accounts would take time,” she said. 

    Arlen Benjamin-Gomez, executive director of EdTrust New York, a statewide education policy and advocacy organization, said it’s clear that serious damage has already been done to what is an essential program. 

    “We know from what has happened so far with this administration that when they make announcements like this, it does have a direct impact on programs and the ability to sustain them,” she said. “For example, there was an announcement of federal cuts to Head Start very early on in the administration, and the program actually shut down. It’s still recovering. So, we can’t predict the chaos that is spread by this most recent effort to cut benefits.”

    Benjamin-Gomez praised New York for declaring a state of emergency on the matter: Gov. Kathy Hochul is committing an additional $65 million in new state funds for emergency food aid to support state food banks. But not all states will do the same.  

    Ian Coon, spokesperson for Alliance for Education, an independent, local education fund that supports Seattle Public Schools, said his organization has already earmarked funding to bridge the gap for those in need. 

    He said the Alliance decided in late October to fund $150,000 in gift cards to area food stores for families in crisis. He said school staff will help identify children in need and offer the assistance of $25, $50 or $100. The $150,000 comes from a reserve fund.  

    “We are fully aware it’s not a long-term solution, but we needed to do something,” Coon said. 

    Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy analysis for Share Our Strength, which runs No Kid Hungry, said her organization also does not predict an abrupt or smooth end to the suffering of American families who rely on these benefits. 

    “We are not holding our breath for the money to start flowing today,” she said. “Kids can’t wait: Families have to eat every single day. We know from our extensive work with schools that teachers already see kids show up to school hungry on Monday mornings. We can only imagine how much worse that would be if a family came in and were expecting to see benefits on Saturday and they did not. It’s an unbelievable strain for food banks. We know that schools will be an important resource for many families, but they can’t fill in the gap.”

    In fiscal year 2023, nearly 80% of SNAP households included either a child, an elderly person or a nonelderly individual with a disability, according to the USDA. About 39% of SNAP participants were children that year. 

    A statement on the federal agency’s website blames Senate Democrats for the shutdown. 

    “They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance,” the statement read. 

    The department declined to comment on the judges’ rulings.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • States Must Step Up as Federal College Aid Crumbles, New Report Warns

    States Must Step Up as Federal College Aid Crumbles, New Report Warns

    File photoAs the Trump administration moves to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and gut federal financial aid programs, a new analysis released Thursday warns that college is becoming increasingly unaffordable for low-income families — and states may be the last line of defense.

    The report from The Education Trust examines state financial aid programs in Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota, revealing that while some states are making progress, critical gaps remain in helping students who need assistance most.

    “The role of states in ensuring postsecondary access and affordability is essential now,” the report states, citing the Trump administration’s July Supreme Court victory allowing it to proceed with layoffs that cut the Department of Education’s staff in half.

    The staffing cuts, which disproportionately targeted financial aid personnel, come as congressional Republicans passed legislation in July 2025 that restricted Pell Grant eligibility, limited parent borrowing, and made student loan repayment more expensive.

    The report documents a stark affordability crisis. For recent high school graduates in Illinois, the average cost of attending a public four-year college represents 63.2% of annual family income for Black students, compared to 25.8% for white students.

    In Indiana, the gap is similarly wide: 58.8% for Black families versus 22.1% for white families. Minnesota shows comparable disparities at 57.1% and 22.9%, respectively.

    “Despite the benefits of a college degree, most families cannot cover the costs,” according to the report, which notes that the average cost of tuition, room, and board at public four-year colleges rose from $8,984 in 1980 to $22,389 in 2023, adjusted for inflation.

    Meanwhile, the Pell Grant — the nation’s primary need-based aid — has lost purchasing power dramatically. In 1975, it covered more than 75% of college costs; today it covers only about one-third.

    The Education Trust analysis found significant problems with how states allocate financial aid:

    Illinois dedicates 98.8% of its undergraduate aid to need-based programs, primarily through its Monetary Award Program. However, the grant functions as “first dollar” aid, meaning other assistance must be applied to tuition before MAP funds, potentially leaving low-income students with little support for non-tuition costs.

    Indiana splits funding more evenly: 40% goes to its need-based Frank O’Bannon Grant, while 44% supports combination need-and-merit programs like the 21st Century Scholars Program. The O’Bannon Grant provides larger awards to students at private colleges than public institutions — a policy that researchers say “privileges students from higher-income and higher-asset families.”

    Minnesota allocates 72% of aid to its need-based State Grant program. The state recently launched the North Star Promise Scholarship, which provides tuition-free education to families earning under $80,000, though as a “last-dollar” program, it may provide minimal assistance to the lowest-income students already receiving Pell Grants.

    The report identifies numerous eligibility requirements that exclude vulnerable students:

    • Neither Indiana nor Minnesota provides aid to undocumented students, despite those residents paying state and local taxes
    • None of the three states allow currently incarcerated students to receive aid, even though Congress restored Pell Grant eligibility for this population in 2023
    • Minnesota excludes students in default on federal loans, making it harder for those experiencing financial hardship to complete degrees
    • Part-time students — often working parents or adult learners — face reduced aid or exclusion in many programs

    The Education Trust urges states to redesign financial aid systems with ten key features:

    1. Prioritize need-based aid over merit-based programs
    2. Cover costs beyond tuition, including housing, food, transportation, and childcare
    3. Serve part-time students, adult learners, and returning students
    4. Include undocumented and justice-impacted individuals
    5. Never convert grants to loans
    6. Serve students at all public colleges equally
    7. Allow access for those in loan default
    8. Consolidate programs into streamlined, need-based grants
    9. Use negative Student Aid Index numbers to direct more aid to the neediest
    10. Implement college access policies like direct admissions and FAFSA completion requirements

    “What’s more, policies that promote college attendance are crucial for reducing barriers to higher education,” the report states, highlighting that both Illinois and Indiana have FAFSA completion requirements and direct admission programs, while all three states offer dual enrollment opportunities.

    The report highlights the economic benefits of state investment in higher education. Each college graduate in Illinois increases the state’s annual GDP by approximately $155,566 and generates 6.8 jobs. The state recoups its education investment in just 4.1 years of the graduate’s working life.

    Bachelor’s degree holders earn $1.2 million more over their lifetimes than those with only high school diplomas, are 24% more likely to be employed, and are nearly five times less likely to be incarcerated.

    “State policymakers have a vested interest in ensuring that recent high school graduates pursue higher education and stay in state to complete their education,” the report concludes.

    The analysis comes as education advocates warn that the federal retreat from college affordability could reverse decades of progress in expanding access to higher education, particularly for students of color and those from low-income backgrounds.

    Source link

  • State Financial Aid Increased 12% in 2023–24

    State Financial Aid Increased 12% in 2023–24

    Most funding from the states was in the form of grants.

    PamelaJoeMcFarlane/iStockphoto.com

    States awarded $18.6 billion in aid to students during the 2023–24 academic year, a 12 percent increase from the previous academic year, according to the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs’ annual report.

    “The robust 12% increase from the prior year is further evidence that states understand the importance of postsecondary education and of ensuring every student is able to acquire the 21st century skills needed to drive their state’s economy,” said NASSGAP president Elizabeth McCloud in a news release.

    About 86 percent of that funding came in the form of grants—three-quarters of which were need-based. More than two-thirds of all need-based grants came from eight states—California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

    The remaining $2.5 billion of nongrant aid included loans, loan assumptions, conditional grants, work-study and tuition waivers, with tuition waivers comprising 44 percent of nongrant aid.

    Source link

  • UI Bans Considering Race, Sex in Hiring, Tenure, Student Aid

    UI Bans Considering Race, Sex in Hiring, Tenure, Student Aid

    A UIC official said the system made the decision after “considering the increased risk to our faculty and to the University that these criteria present in the current climate.”

    Just_Super/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    The University of Illinois system is telling its institutions they can’t consider race, color, national origin or sex in hiring, tenure, promotion and student financial aid decisions—a move that’s drawn opposition from a faculty union at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

    Aaron Krall, president of UIC United Faculty, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers and the American Association of University Professors, said the UI system circumvented shared governance.

    “This was a directive that came down and surprised everyone,” Krall said.

    The system implemented a policy saying it and its universities don’t consider race or the other factors in determining eligibility for need- or merit-based financial aid. In a statement, the system further said it “issued guidance to its universities to ensure that hiring, promotion, and tenure processes follow the same standards.”

    The statement said, “There may be some variation in how and when changes are fully operationalized” across its three universities: UIC, Springfield and Urbana-Champaign. The system didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed an interview Tuesday about why it’s making this change now.

    Krall shared communications that he said UIC officials sent out last week. One, from Chancellor Marie Lynn Miranda and others, suggested the student aid change would apply to “donor-funded, college-determined and institutionally funded scholarships” and said “UIC will replace its Affirmative Action Plan with a Nondiscrimination and Merit-Based Hiring Plan.”

    In another message Krall provided, a UIC official wrote that “faculty may no longer submit a Statement on Efforts to Promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the dossier, nor may faculty members be evaluated on norms related to” DEI. The official wrote that the system “made this decision after carefully considering the increased risk to our faculty and to the University that these criteria present in the current climate.”

    Krall said. “The most shocking thing to me, really, is they want to change the policy and make it retroactive—so we have [affected] faculty members going up for promotion right now who have already submitted their promotion materials.” He said the union has demanded the right to bargain over these changes.

    Source link

  • Financial Aid Advisers Question Trump’s ID Verification Efforts

    Financial Aid Advisers Question Trump’s ID Verification Efforts

    Many financial aid advisers are worried that the Trump administration’s latest effort to bolster identity verification in the student aid system could have unintended consequences. Instead of simply catching fraudulent grant applicants and borrowers, some fear that the verification process could also prevent real, eligible students from accessing public benefits.

    Education Department officials, however, assure aid advisers that one of their top priorities is to distribute aid smoothly to the students who have a right to it, even as they protect the integrity of the taxpayer-funded programs.

    In an electronic announcement published Aug. 12, Federal Student Aid officials said they would be checking the identities of an additional 300,000 aid applicants, on top of the 125,000 students already flagged in June. Some college advisers said they were alarmed by the sheer scale of the requests—especially given what they describe as a very tight timeline.

    While aid officers generally support the concept of catching identity thieves, they fear that requiring students to complete the verification process so quickly could delay or even block aid access for some legitimate students, putting them in a financial hole. FSA says the program will eventually be automated, limited to first-time students and managed by agency officials. But at the moment, it’s a manual process that can affect students midway through their program; financial aid officers say it is becoming increasingly complicated and burdensome.

    “Schools have been asking for help on how to find these people and prevent fraudulent identities from obtaining Title IV aid, so we’re very supportive of the Department of Ed’s attempts to assume responsibility,” said Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy and federal relations at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. “Unfortunately, the timing and how long it took ED to get this off the ground means that it’s August … We are entering, if not already in, the season of really large-scale disbursement. If verification is outstanding, schools may have to hold disbursements for those students.”

    The largest unknown seems to be what the consequences of an incomplete or overdue identity verification will be.

    The majority of students in the latest wave of verification requests are returning to college and need to verify their identity for the 2024–25 academic year as well as secure their awards for 2025–26. But some were flagged solely for last academic year and in most instances have already graduated or stopped out, making it harder to track them down and complete the process.

    Verification results for 2025–26 can be submitted up to 60 days after the data portal opens Aug. 31. At the same time, according to a Federal Register notice, verifications and any other changes to aid applications for 2024–25 must be completed by Sept. 13, making for a busy two weeks for students and aid officers.

    Experts have raised a number of questions about whether missing this tight deadline for 2024 could have repercussions. Some fear it could block students from completing future identity verifications or receiving upcoming disbursements; others worry that aid already disbursed in 2024–25 will need to be retracted. Either way, they say, it could have a crippling effect on low-income students.

    “There’s going to be a variety of impact,” one financial aid adviser said. “The monetary impact could be anything from a few hundred dollars to 10-, 15- or 20,000.”

    However, the Office of Federal Student Aid told Inside Higher Ed that missing that deadline shouldn’t be a problem—except in rare situations.

    Verifications for 2024 don’t have to be reported through the portal the same way upcoming 2025 ones do, one agency official said on background. Rather, aid officers just need to verify the student’s identity and determine internally whether a student’s 2024 aid should be awarded; therefore, “there’s no deadline that people are going to hit and fall afoul of,” he added.

    And in the “rare” scenario where an institution discovers inaccuracies on a 2024 FAFSA form, the department said, colleges can reach out to FSA to ensure a student’s eligibility is not impacted.

    ‘We Are Not Blocking Students’

    “If anyone has any examples of that Sept. 13 deadline actually being a blocker for students, we can move the deadline back, because we are here to make sure we are not blocking students,” the FSA adviser said. “There is no reason” a 2024 verification delay should affect a student’s ability to complete the 2025 process and have their award disbursed.

    Department officials also noted that they have streamlined the process to reduce the administrative burden, cutting steps such as making students provide a statement of purpose or notarizing the verification.

    And of the 300,000 aid applicants flagged in the most recent set of verification requests, the external vendor that helped identify them says that at least 50,000 are examples of fraud. The vendor is “very confident” that the other 250,000 are as well, the FSA official said, but the agency is playing it safe and having colleges check each case for good measure before stripping those recipients of aid.

    Ellen Keast, the department’s deputy press secretary, said it’s all part of the agency’s “student- and taxpayer-first mentality.”

    “We are committed to ensuring that every single dollar is spent on eligible students, not fraudsters,” she said. “This is not about putting a burden on postsecondary institutions; it’s about warning them, before they disburse both taxpayer money and their own, that the ‘student’ in front of them is most likely not a real person.”

    But representatives from NASFAA and college financial aid officers are still not clear on how the process will play out.

    Caleb Williams, director of enrollment management at Northern Arizona University, said that in addition to the typical verifications that occurred before the Trump administration’s new campaign was announced, selection rates for 2024–25 verification at his institution rose by 54 percent in June and another 13 percent in August. As he understands it, he added, a student “flagged for Identity verification cannot receive aid in any year until the process is completed.”

    Meanwhile, Charles Mayfield, the director of financial assistance at Northwest Missouri State University, believes that if an institution misses the September deadline for 2024 verifications, it will not be able to reinstate any of last year’s aid. But it would still be able to complete the 2025 verification and process that year’s aid.

    Mayfield hopes that the department will put out clarified guidance to relieve aid advisers’ confusion and explain exactly what the September deadline means, how it will be enforced and what the consequences will be for students. But like the staff at NASFAA, he said his greatest frustration is not the general need for clarification but its timing at the end of an academic year.

    “These students have received financial aid for the whole academic year, and now it’s all going to be taken away, and they’re at risk of not being able to enroll for the next academic year,” he said. “In the industry, we all know that students who stop out are much less likely to finish their degree.”

    It would be one thing if these concerns and challenges were specific to one college, Mayfair said, but when there are 15 or 20 colleges expressing the same confusion on a Listserv on the same day, the department should be more responsive.

    “It feels like when something doesn’t go right, we have to prove to the FSA that it didn’t work the way it was supposed to,” he said. “And until we can outright prove that—using data that’s on their system, that they should already have access to—they won’t acknowledge it.”

    McCarthy from NASFAA said that what the department told Inside Higher Ed about 2024 and 2025 verification being handled separately “sounds promising,” but as of Aug. 22 she hadn’t received the same notification from FSA.

    Other smaller concerns, such as whether the system for flagging fraud is accurate and if the new portal is functional, also have yet to be addressed, she added.

    “It’s an awful lot of work being pushed onto schools,” she explained. “So we want to make sure that it’s useful, beneficial work and that these are actual, really concerning applications, not sloppy work on the Department of Ed which then leads to delays for students.”

    Source link