Trinity Christian College outside Chicago will close at the end of the current 2025–26 academic year due to insurmountable financial pressures.
The college announced the move Tuesday, citing a litany of challenges, which include “post-Covid financial losses; persistent operating deficits; a decline in college enrollment and increased competition for students; and a shift in donor giving and financial circumstances,” according to a statement from officials posted on a frequently asked questions webpage.
Acting President Jeanine Mozie said in a video message that the Board of Trustees considered multiple options to address “significant and rapidly evolving financial challenges,” but ultimately, there was “no sustainable path forward for our beloved institution.”
The FAQ page noted that the Board of Trustees considered “significant programmatic changes, strategic partnerships, and the like” but “determined that these and other alternatives were insufficient to overcome the college’s deficit” and sustain Trinity’s mission over the long term.
The closure announcement follows a recent leadership change at the college. Former president Aaron Kuecker resigned in August after less than two years in the top job but nearly 14 at Trinity altogether. Multiple staff members were also reportedly laid off in August.
A review of the college’s finances shows that Trinity operated at a loss in eight of the last 10 fiscal years and relied significantly on a small pool of donors. An estimated 76 percent of all financial contributions came from just three donors in 2024, according to Trinity’s latest audit.
Trinity also had less and less cash on hand. According to the audit, “cash and cash equivalents” fell from nearly $7.2 million in fiscal year 2023 to just under $5 million—a drop of nearly 31 percent. Trinity also had a meager endowment, valued at $11 million at the end of the 2024 fiscal year. (A recent study found the median endowment across the sector is $243 million.)
Bondholders warned the college in June that Trinity was at risk of violating its financial covenants because of its limited liquidity, according to publicly available documents.
Both faculty numbers and student head count had dropped in recent years, bond documents show. Both of those numbers have been in decline in recent years with total faculty falling from 145 to 126 and enrollment dropping from a total head count of 1,068 in fall 2019 to 872 last year, despite a recent tuition reset to attract students. Trinity aimed to hit 1,081 students by the 2027–28 academic year, financial documents show.
Trinity was founded by Chicago businessmen in 1959 and is located on a 56-acre campus in Palos Heights, Ill., outside Chicago, which was recently estimated to be worth $25 million.
College officials announced teach-out and transfer agreements with Calvin University in Michigan as well as Olivet Nazarene University and Saint Xavier University, both of which are in Illinois.
Trinity follows several other small, cash-strapped Christian colleges that have announced closures this year, some of which have shut down abruptly, such as Limestone University and St. Andrews University. Siena Heights University, a Roman Catholic institution, also announced plans to close. On the secular side, Northland College in Wisconsin closed earlier this year, and Pennsylvania State University announced plans to shut down seven rural campuses by 2027 after years of shrinking enrollment.
Amanda Fuchs Miller On this Election Day, it is critical to think about how we as a country want to ensure that more young people vote and get involved in public service. As a democracy, we should all be striving to make it easier for new voters to register, get to the polls, and have their vote count. However, what we are seeing instead are efforts to make it harder for college students to be engaged in our electoral process – through restrictions on supports and language designed to have a chilling effect on voting instead of encouraging it.
Right before college students returned to campuses, the U.S. Department of Education issued new guidance designed to make it harder for college students to vote. Every school year, students receive an email with information about how to register to vote. This is because it is required in law. The Higher Education Act requires institutions of higher education to “make a good faith effort to distribute a mail voter registration form…to each student enrolled in a degree or certificate program and physically in attendance at the institution, and to make such forms widely available to students at the institution.”
Contrary to statute, the Trump Administration is now encouraging schools to limit who they send this information to – saying that if a school doesn’t send it to students who they have “reason to believe” are ineligible to vote, that’s okay. In addition to this being contrary to law, which requires all students to receive this information, this will increase the likelihood of students who are eligible not receiving information about how to register to vote (thus suppressing their votes) – and is likely to most impact students of color. The Department is also encouraging the voter registration information to include language reminding students of the list of ways that voting may be fraudulent – another tactic that may have a chilling effect on students going to the polls.
The same Department guidance prohibits students from being paid with federal work-study funds for any voting-related activities. A press release from the Department says that they are making a change to this longstanding policy because “Federal Work-Study is meant to provide students opportunities to gain real-world experience that prepares them to succeed in the workforce, not as a way to fund political activism on our college and university campuses.”
As we prepare our next generation of leaders to play a role in our democracy, in government, and in public service, it is hard to see how allowing students to participate in nonpartisan voting engagement is not aligned with experience they will benefit from in the workplace. By engaging in nonpartisan voter registration efforts using work-study positions, college students are able to increase the number of their peers who are registered to vote while learning and participating fully in our democratic system – all while earning the funds they are entitled to so that they can afford a college degree. It can’t go without saying that this restriction is also counter to statute and regulations which do not limit the types of on-campus work study positions to those that are in the “public interest,” as the guidance suggests. That limitation is only linked to off-campus work-study positions.
In a survey by CIRCLE following the 2024 elections about why young people didn’t register to vote, more than one in 10 – 12 percent – of people aged 18-34 said they did not know how to register or had problems with voter registration forms. Nearly a third of young people – 31 percent – said they were too busy, ran out of time, or missed the registration deadline. Without receiving voter registration information, in an objective way, from their college or university or their peers on campus, these numbers are likely to go up as more students will lack the information they need about voter registration.
Ensuring college students are able to vote shouldn’t be a partisan issue. In 2024, there were disparities by both gender and race in youth voter turnout. We all benefit from a democracy where everyone’s voice is heard and every vote is counted – for whomever the ballot is cast.
_________
Amanda Fuchs Miller is president of Seventh Street Strategies and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs at the U.S. Department of Education in the Biden-Harris Administration.
November 2, 2025, By Dean Hoke — When Sweet Briar College’s trustees voted to close in 2015, they framed the decision as a financial necessity. Alumnae mounted an extraordinary campaign—raising $28.5 million in 110 days—and, through a state-brokered settlement, the college reopened under new governance. By 2023, donors had contributed well over $133 million since the crisis. What looked like an inevitable failure became one of higher education’s most remarkable turnarounds.
Sweet Briar is not only a story of crisis response; it exposes a recurring miscalculation in today’s merger conversations: the assumption that boardroom consensus equals donor legitimacy. Trustees speak for donors in a fiduciary sense—they hold legal responsibility for institutional assets—but not in the communal sense that captures sentiment, legacy, and trust. When colleges announce merger talks, headlines dwell on enrollment curves and debt ratios. Yet behind every deal stands a quieter, decisive constituency: major donors, family foundations, and planned-giving benefactors whose confidence (or loss of it) can determine whether the combined institution thrives—or limps forward under the weight of broken relationships.
This article reframes mergers as philanthropic integration projects. The legal mechanics matter, but durable success is won in the design phase: early engagement with philanthropic stakeholders, explicit safeguards for identity and donor intent, transparent transition planning, and a mission-first case that invites continued—and new—investment. When leaders bring donors and alumni into the architecture of the merger rather than the press release, they convert anxiety into commitment and preserve the institutional DNA that constituents care about most.
We’ll see this principle in contrasting cases: mission-advancing acquisitions that attracted significant philanthropic support, integrations that prioritized identity and donor intent from the outset, and lessons from failed or contested processes. The throughline is simple: treat philanthropy as a core workstream—not an afterthought—and the odds of a credible, sustainable merger rise dramatically.
The stakes have never been higher. Survey data from Ruffalo Noel Levitz’s 2025 National Alumni Survey, which surveyed more than 50,000 alumni, reveals that donor relationships with higher education are already strained. While 81% of alumni report that being philanthropic is important to them personally and 77% make charitable donations, their connection to their alma mater has weakened dramatically. Only 31% of alumni who donate to any charity gave to their alma mater last year, dropping to just 19% among Millennials and 10% among Gen Z graduates.
Even more troubling: 59% of alumni who never donate to their alma mater actively support other causes, as do 83% of lapsed donors. They have not stopped giving—they have simply redirected their philanthropy elsewhere. This suggests that alumni disengagement reflects institutional failure rather than generational selfishness.
Satisfaction drives everything. Alumni who report being ‘very satisfied’ with their student experience are 18 times more likely to donate than neutral respondents and 73 times more likely than dissatisfied graduates. Yet only 42% of Gen Z alumni report feeling ‘very satisfied’ with their experience, compared to 72% of Silent Generation graduates.
Mergers test already-fragile relationships. When institutions announce consolidation, donors who felt lukewarm about their undergraduate experience see confirmation that their alma mater is failing. A merger framed solely as a financial necessity will not inspire them. But a merger presented as advancing mission-driven impact—expanding access, strengthening programs that address social challenges, or preserving an educational model under threat—can mobilize support from the very alumni who have drifted away.
As Millett (1976) noted, successful integrations often ‘show structure, not just sentiment’—for example, Case Western Reserve kept a distinct Case Institute identity, and Carnegie Mellon created a Carnegie Institute of Engineering and a Mellon Institute of Science to carry legacies forward.
A half-century ago, John D. Millett’s 1976 analysis of U.S. college mergers examined a range of cases—from research institutes to liberal arts colleges—and distilled lessons that remain strikingly current. Four observations deserve renewed attention today:
1. Endowments transfer; relationships do not. In many mergers, endowments and restricted funds move to successor institutions through standard legal pathways. The mechanics are manageable. The harder work is relational: ensuring donors can see how their original intent will be honored in the new configuration, and that the program or ethos they loved will not be erased.
2. Alumni skepticism is predictable—and manageable. Leaders should not assume alumni approval, especially when the smaller institution is absorbed. Visible steps to cultivate and retain legacy alumni—keeping familiar staff contacts for a transitional period, acknowledging a distinct identity, and offering tangible ways to shape the merged future—go a long way.
3. Governance approval is not donor legitimacy. Even when boards vote, state bodies concur, and presidents sign, philanthropic legitimacy remains a separate test. Communities expect to be consulted; they often oppose mergers if they learn about them too late. Participation must be planned early, not added later.
4. Language and structure matter more than sentiment. Labels and explanations—federation versus absorption, mission expansion versus rescue—shape how alumni and donors interpret the outcome. Leaders who explain clear educational benefits and who visibly protect identity through formal structures earn trust faster.
Historical Examples: Structure, Not Just Sentiment
After the Case Institute of Technology and Western Reserve University merger, the successor Case Western Reserve University continued the designation of Case Institute of Technology as an organizational component. At Carnegie Mellon University, leaders created a Carnegie Institute of Engineering and a Mellon Institute of Science—formal structures that carried legacy identities forward within the new entity.
The Bellarmine-Ursuline (Louisville) merger (1968-1971) offers another instructive example. The combined institution briefly used the Bellarmine-Ursuline name before reverting to Bellarmine College in 1971, but Bellarmine has continued to honor Ursuline identity through durable structures—explicitly including Ursuline alumnae in alumni awards and honors and recognizing the Ursuline legacy through commemorations and alumni programming. These are structural signals that preserve identity even when the combined name does not persist.
Millett also notes that successor institutions often made special effort to cultivate and retain alumni of the absorbed college, including keeping an alumni-relations officer from the legacy institution and providing a special alumni designation or status—practical ways to keep traditions and community intact during transition.
Crisis-Reactive: What Not to Do
Planning is done privately, the announcement is abrupt, and donors are asked to accept a fait accompli. Mills College’s merger with Northeastern University proceeded despite alumni resistance, prompting legal challenges over donor intent. The Alumnae Association spent hundreds of thousands in legal fees opposing the merger, and a class action lawsuit resulted in a $1.25 million settlement. The litigation divided alumnae and consumed resources that could have been invested in the merged institution’s success.
Even when the legal mechanics are sound, the community verdict is that identity has been erased. The result: backlash, donor-intent disputes, and years of costly trust repair.
Compliance-Only: Necessary but Insufficient
Teams carefully inventory restricted funds, ensure transfers align with donor intent, and communicate the basics. This prevents disasters but rarely generates enthusiasm or new investment. Survey data reveals that 70% of alumni need to believe their gift amount matters, and 66% rate the ability to see how their gift is used as critical. When a college merges, donors worry their legacy has been erased—regardless of legal assurances that funds will be protected.
The compliance model maintains existing donors but does not mobilize new support for the merged institution’s expanded mission. The message is ‘We will comply,’ not ‘Here is a better future you can help build.’
Strategic Partnership: The Target State
Donors and foundations are treated as co-creators from Day 0. Leaders conduct quiet briefings with major benefactors pre-announcement, frame the merger as mission expansion, and embed structural commitments to legacy preservation. This model doesn’t eliminate hard feelings, but it channels energy toward shared outcomes.
Delaware State University–Wesley College (2020–21). DSU—an HBCU—acquired Wesley and framed the move as mission advancement, launching the Wesley College of Health & Behavioral Sciences to expand pathways in nursing and allied health for underserved students. Financing combined philanthropy and prudence: a $20M unrestricted gift from MacKenzie Scott (with a portion—reported as roughly one-third of the $15M total—applied to transition costs) and a $1M Longwood Foundation grant for the acquisition. The case shows how a mission-first narrative can catalyze major-donor and foundation support.
By tying dollars to a new health‑workforce pipeline—rather than balance‑sheet triage—leaders converted donor anxiety into visible, restricted impact.
Ursuline College–Gannon University (ongoing). From the outset, both institutions engaged stakeholders publicly and affirmed philanthropy principles: “Honoring donor intent is important to Gannon University,” and donors will be able to designate gifts to the Pepper Pike campus. Ursuline will retain its identity as the Ursuline College Campus of Gannon University after the transition, and the Ursuline Sisters of Cleveland have voiced support for the merger—signals aimed at preserving community trust and legacy while the integration proceeds through 2026. These commitments, paired with the HLC’s Change-of-Control approval, frame the merger as continuity-minded rather than absorptive.
University of Tennessee Southern (formerly Martin Methodist College).
University of Tennessee Southern (formerly Martin Methodist College) When Martin Methodist joined the University of Tennessee System in 2021, leaders prioritized transparent, compassionate communication—“a liminal space” requiring a strong plan, as President Mark La Branche put it. They also set aside portions of the legacy endowment (via the Martin Methodist College Foundation) to protect signature programs, showing that integration need not erase institutional identity.
Public commitments to donor intent and the campus naming convention did early legitimacy work that legal filings can’t.
When a stronger institution absorbs a struggling one, leaders often assume donor concerns belong primarily to the acquired institution. This is a strategic error. The acquiring institution’s donors also have a stake in the outcome—and their continued support is essential to merger success.
Major donors to the acquiring institution may question why resources should be directed toward absorbing another college. They may worry that the acquired institution’s struggles will tarnish their alma mater’s reputation, or that merger costs will compete with planned campus improvements. These concerns are legitimate and require proactive engagement.
Frame the Merger as a Strategic Opportunity
The narrative for acquiring institution donors must emphasize strategic opportunity rather than charitable rescue. Several frames can be effective:
Geographic expansion: The merger creates a presence in a new market, expanding the institution’s reach and visibility.
Program complementarity: The acquired institution brings academic strengths that fill gaps in the acquiring institution’s portfolio.
Mission advancement: The merger expands capacity to serve students and fulfill the educational mission on a greater scale.
Competitive positioning: In an era of consolidation, the merger strengthens the institution’s competitive position and long-term sustainability.
Rather than waiting for resistance to emerge, acquiring institution leaders should brief major donors before public announcement. These confidential conversations acknowledge donors’ legitimate interest in institutional strategy, allow leaders to address concerns directly, and create opportunities for donors to become merger advocates.
Legal clarity: When restricted funds cannot be used as originally intended post‑merger, pursue a cy‑près modification early—advancement and counsel should partner on donor communication before any filing to preserve trust.
You can brief a small set of major donors pre‑announcement under strict NDAs without privileging them over faculty governance or regulators. Use a defined rubric for who is briefed (e.g., top 10% of lifetime commitments and active pledgors), disclose no nonpublic counterparties’ terms, and limit to mission rationale, identity safeguards, and timeline. Record each briefing in counsel’s log.
Before Announcement (Day 0 Work)
Philanthropic due diligence—parallel to financial. Inventory endowed and restricted funds, bequests in the pipeline, and active foundation grants. Identify potential cy-près risks and draft stewardship language now. Treat this as a distinct workstream with advancement, finance, and counsel at the table from the start.
Quiet briefings with top donors and foundations on both sides. Under confidentiality, preview the rationale, surface donor-intent questions, and invite advice. Ask for early champions willing to speak publicly when the time comes.
Identity protections by design, not promise. Prepare a naming plan (e.g., ‘[Legacy] College at [Acquirer]’), preserve scholarship and reporting lines, and keep alumni-relations continuity for 12-24 months. Publish a short ‘Identity & Intent’ brief on day one that shows, in plain language, how donor purposes are carried forward.
At Announcement
Mission-driven case for support. Lead with the educational value only possible together: new academic pathways, access expansions, regional partnerships, research synergies. Avoid rescue framing. Make the case specific and concrete, tied to programs and outcomes donors care about.
Dedicated ‘Legacy to Impact’ funds with challenge matches. Create visible vehicles that convert anxiety into investment—restricted funds for scholarships, program launches, and student success tied to the integrated entity.
Community-benefit specificity. Spell out local benefits and stakeholder wins (clinics, teacher pipelines, innovation hubs). When people can ‘see’ the upside, they are likelier to invest in it.
First 12-24 Months
Quarterly transparency. Report enrollment in merged programs, first scholarship cohorts, renewed or new foundation grants, and capital milestones. Transparency reduces rumors and builds credibility.
Recognition symmetry. Offer parity for legacy and acquirer donors—naming walls, digital honor rolls, endowed-fund dashboards, and joint stewardship events.
Two-sided cultivation. Brief the acquirer’s major donors so they see strategic growth rather than a charitable drain. Ask two or three to seed a matching pool restricted to merger priorities; matches signal confidence and reduce perceived risk.
Because reliable analytics on donor behavior in mergers are sparse, leaders should build their own lightweight evidence base. For each merger, track three years pre- and post-integration for: total private support; alumni participation (where available); number of $1M+ gifts; and the mix of restricted versus unrestricted giving.
Pair quantitative metrics with a qualitative log: Was identity preserved in naming? Did a Legacy Alumni structure exist? Were there donor-intent disputes? Did the acquirer launch dedicated legacy funds? How soon were KPIs reported?
Even a simple dashboard, updated quarterly, changes the conversation with trustees and donors. It shows momentum (or lack thereof), prompts targeted stewardship, and gives leaders permission to make mid-course corrections. It also validates the core claim of this article: philanthropy works best when it is built into planning, not bolted on after the fact.
The most fundamental error in merger planning is treating donors as communications targets rather than strategic partners. Donors are not merely sources of revenue to be managed; they are partners whose investments reflect belief in institutional mission and values.
Mergers that succeed treat donors, foundations, and alumni as planning inputs, not a downstream audience for PR. Millett’s 1976 study reminds us that while the legal mechanics of endowment transfers are straightforward, the human mechanics are not. Alumni skepticism is predictable; identity needs visible protection through formal structures, not just promises; language and framing carry unusual weight.
When leaders internalize those lessons—and create structures that honor donor intent, invite co-creation, and make the mission upside measurable—legacy becomes leverage rather than liability. Higher education’s financial pressures are real, but so is the reservoir of goodwill that donors and alumni hold for institutions that respect them.
The Sweet Briar alumnae who raised $133 million did not do so because they were told the college would comply with donor intent. They did so because they were invited to co-create a future worth investing in. That is the lesson for every merger: bring philanthropic stakeholders into the room early, build identity protections into the design, launch vehicles that convert anxiety into investment, and report steadily and transparently on what their support makes possible.
That is how two proud legacies become one stronger future—and how the ‘silent stakeholders’ find their voice in shaping it.
Sources (selected): institutional FAQs and press releases (Ursuline–Gannon; DSU–Wesley; UT Southern), RNL Alumni Giving Data 2025 (for participation/attitudes), and Millett, J.D. (1976) ED134105 on college mergers.
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). Dean has worked with higher education institutions worldwide. With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
President Donald Trump extended the invitation to all colleges after initial rejections from institutions that objected to provisions in the compact that would limit academic freedom.
The compact would require universities to suppress criticism of conservatives on campus, cap international enrollment at 15 percent, freeze tuition, overhaul admissions and hiring practices, and make various other changes in return for preferential treatment on federal research funding.
Now Valley Forge, a private two-year college in Pennsylvania, wants in on the compact.
“Participation in the Compact would provide valuable opportunities for collaboration, shared learning, and continuous improvement. We are particularly eager to contribute to discussions on leadership education, student resilience, and pathways from two-year programs to four-year institutions,” officials wrote to the Education Department. “These are areas in which Valley Forge has developed effective practices and measurable outcomes that could benefit peer institutions.”
Universities in the initial invitation were all research-focused, and the appeal from U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon emphasized the benefits of signing on, which would include “allowance for increased overhead payments where feasible, substantial and meaningful federal grants, and other federal partnerships.”
It is unclear how Valley Forge, which does not have a research focus, would benefit. The college is also much smaller than the first invitees, enrolling 86 students in fall 2023, according to federal data.
Valley Forge is now the third institution to publicly express interest in signing the compact since the invitation was expanded, following Grand Canyon University and New College of Florida.
Perception of cost has a major impact on college choice.
Choosing a college is rarely just about academics, location, or prestige. For most families, it comes down to the question of cost. The numbers on a price tag do not just suggest affordability; they shape what feels possible. Sticker shock alone can quietly close a door before a student even fills out an application, while clear, honest information can keep dreams in play. In this moment of rising costs and growing financial anxiety, understanding how families navigate affordability has never mattered more.
Before examining what RNL’s latest research shows, it helps to step back and see where the broader conversation is heading. Recent studies highlight how affordability, family background, and perceptions of cost steer the college search. Again and again, the evidence points to a simple truth: for families, financial reality and perception are tightly linked (Stabler-Havener, 2024). This context is essential for understanding the RNL findings and considering how colleges can truly meet families where they are.
What research tells us
The research is clear: affordability, family income, and perceptions of cost are among the strongest forces shaping college choices. In one recent study, only three in ten students who believed college was unaffordable planned to enroll, showing how perception alone can narrow opportunities (Stabler-Havener, 2024).
Policy leaders are responding. State priorities now center on boosting affordability and families’ sense of value (Harnisch, Burns, Heckert, Kunkle, & Weeden, 2024). As families weigh cost and worth, the call for reform grows louder.
Family perspective lies at the heart of these decisions. Financial worries shape the choices parents and students make, often shrinking the list of options for those with fewer resources (Chuong-Nguyen, 2025). Parental guidance and support are deeply shaped by income and stress, sometimes as early as elementary school, when children first start to believe in what is possible (Keeling, 2025). For many out-of-state students, aid and affordability matter more than distance or campus life (Stansell, 2025). While the campus experience may guide the final decision, cost remains the gatekeeper. Together, these studies send a clear message: real and perceived affordability remain central to college access.
Policy changes with big impact
Federal policy changes are reshaping the landscape of affordability as well. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act keeps undergraduate loan limits intact but introduces two significant changes: a $65,000 lifetime cap on Parent PLUS loans, and a rule eliminating Pell Grant eligibility if scholarships already cover the full cost of attendance. While these details may sound technical, their impact is deeply personal. Middle- and low-income families, and first-generation students, are most likely to feel squeezed by these new limits (American Council on Education, 2025; National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, 2025). These changes may become the tipping point for families already sensitive to sticker price.
What this means for colleges
The research suggests several practical steps:
Make affordability unmistakably clear. Families often overestimate cost and underestimate available aid. Tools like net price calculators and plain-language award letters can help (Chuong-Nguyen, 2025; Stabler-Havener, 2024).
Reach parents early. Parents start shaping their child’s college expectations years before high school. Outreach in middle school can expand what families believe is possible (Keeling, 2025).
Highlight value as well as cost. Families want to know if college is worth the investment. Colleges can tell stories of career outcomes, alum success, and community, not just numbers (Harnisch et al., 2024; Stansell, 2025).
Connect finances to student experience. Students care about campus feel as much as aid. Affordability should be shown alongside housing, safety, clubs, and social life (Stansell, 2025).
Prioritize equity. First-generation and lower-income families face more information gaps and greater stress. Targeted advising, financial literacy programs, and direct communication can help bridge that divide (Chuong-Nguyen, 2025; Keeling, 2025).
What RNL research tells us
While these studies offer a broad view of how cost and perception shape college decisions, the lived experience of families comes into even sharper focus when we look at recent data from the 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report. The findings from RNL, Ardeo, and CampusESP provide a window into what families are navigating right now: the confusion, the questions, and sometimes, the sense of being overwhelmed by the college search. Examining this data helps us move from general trends to the specific realities facing families today, and shows where institutions can make the most meaningful difference.
The bottom line
For families, cost is never just a number. It is tangled up with their hopes, sense of security, and vision for the future: sticker price, net cost, debt, and perception; all of these shape what feels possible. For colleges, the work goes beyond lowering costs. The real challenge is helping families understand those costs, connect them to real outcomes, and expand what each student believes is within reach.
Families’ need for clear information
The 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025) found that 99% of nearly 10,000 families surveyed believe clear cost, tuition, and academic information is essential. Yet almost one in four families cannot find it. The gap is even larger for first-generation families (37 percent) and those earning under $60,000 (43%). These gaps are not just inconvenient; they are real barriers.
Faces behind the data
Consider the single parent in rural Ohio, working two jobs and searching late at night for financial aid information. She finds buried calculators and confusing language and assumes the sticker price is final. The dream quietly shrinks.
Alternatively, think of the middle-income family in suburban Atlanta. They make too much for much-needed aid but still feel stretched thin. They cross colleges off their list without ever seeing the actual net cost.
Income-level differences in cost perception
The study shows clear patterns (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025):
Families under $60,000 have the lowest awareness of cost tools, face the most difficulty finding aid information, and are most likely to rule out schools early due to sticker price.
Those earning $60,000–$149,000 have moderate awareness, but three in four have eliminated colleges based on sticker price alone.
Families earning $150,000 or more have the highest awareness and least trouble finding information, but even among them, almost three in four have ruled out colleges due to price.
Financial aid and scholarships: The deciding factor
Four out of five families list aid and scholarships among their top five decision factors; for almost two in five, it is the most important factor. The urgency is even greater for first-generation families (54%) and low-income households (68%).
38% say aid and scholarships top the list.
43% place them in the top five.
Even among the highest-income families, more than a quarter cite aid as their top factor, and nearly half put it in their top five.
Sticker shock and final cost
72% of families have ruled out colleges because of sticker price. Middle-income families lead (76%), followed by high-income (74%) and low-income families (66%).
65% say the final cost after aid is the biggest dealbreaker, consistent across first-generation (66%), continuing generation (65%), and especially middle-income families (73%).
Financing difficulty and loan anxiety
Paying for college feels “very difficult” for 28% of families, and “difficult” for another 27%. The challenge is sharpest for low-income families (47% “very difficult”) and first-generation families (40%). Even among households earning over $150,000, one in five reports that paying for college will be “very difficult.” Anxiety about borrowing is widespread; 61% of families feel uneasy about loans, regardless of income (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025).
Implications for colleges
Clarity is currency. A trust gap grows when nearly every family values clear cost information, but the most price-sensitive families cannot find it. Make cost information unmistakable, on websites, in print, in portals, and through personal outreach.
Lead with your aid story. Aid and scholarships top the list for most families. Burying this information wastes a key point of connection. Use real examples and plain language.
Defuse sticker shock early. With nearly three-quarters of families eliminating schools based on sticker price, net price calculators should be prominent, easy to use, and personalized.
Do not forget middle-income families. They often miss out on need-based aid but are just as price-sensitive. They deserve targeted outreach and clear explanations of their options.
Address financing challenges directly. Offer flexible payment plans, start conversations about the total cost early, and provide tools for first-generation and low-income families. Even high-income families appreciate empathy and honesty.
Reframe borrowing. With 61 percent anxious about loans, transparency about repayment timelines, graduate earnings, and debt-to-income ratios is critical.
The emotional weight of cost
Cost is never just a number; it is an emotional flashpoint. Families weigh college prices as figures on a spreadsheet and as symbols of opportunity, security, and trust. Information gaps hit first-generation and low-income families hardest, but financial pressure is universal:
Aid matters.
Sticker price stings.
Financing feels difficult for almost everyone.
Borrowing brings real anxiety.
The colleges that thrive will treat cost not only as a financial challenge but as a moment to build trust and expand possibilities for every family they serve.
Revolutionize your financial aid offers with video
References
American Council on Education. (2025, July 29). Summary: One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1). Division of Government Relations and National Engagement.
Chuong-Nguyen, M. Q. (2025). College application experience: Personal and institutional factors affecting high school seniors’ college-going decision-making process and college choice (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University Irvine).
Harnisch, T., Burns, R., Heckert, K., Kunkle, K., & Weeden, D. (2024). State priorities for higher education in 2024. State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO).
Keeling, C. (2025). Perceptions of parents regarding their participation in decision-making related to the academic and technical education preparation of their children’s career pathways (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. (2025, July). Frequently asked questions about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. NAICU.
Stabler-Havener, J. M. (2024). Interactions between quality, affordability, and income groups at private colleges and universities (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University).
Stansell, L. J. (2025). Driving enrollment amidst change: Exploring college choice of out-of-state students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville). TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/12424
Every family’s college search tells a story, one built on hopes, questions, and the quiet moments when a parent whispers, “This feels right.” Over the past year, I have immersed myself in both research and real voices to understand what drives that feeling.
This blog brings those insights together. I begin with what the research shows, how campus visits, family engagement, and equity intersect, and then layer in fresh data from the 2025 RNL, Ardeo, and CampusESP Prospective Family Engagement Report.
Together, they reveal a simple truth that feels anything but small: families want to feel seen, informed, and included in the journey. For me, this work is not just about enrollment; it is about belonging, trust, and designing experiences that make families confident in saying, “Yes, this is our place.”
The research story: Why families and visits matter
Across K–12 and higher education, families and campus visits consistently emerge as pivotal mechanisms shaping students’ aspirations, access, and belonging. In A Review of the Effectiveness of College Campus Visits on Higher Education Enrollment, Case (2024) shows that campus visits not only help students assess academic and cultural fit but also allow parents and guardians to evaluate safety, hospitality, and organizational factors that directly influence trust and enrollment decisions.
Amaro-Jiménez, Pant, Hungerford-Kresser, and den Hartog (2020) reinforce that family-centered outreach, such as Latina/o Parent Leadership Conferences that combine campus tours with financial aid and admissions workshops, increases parents’ College Preparedness Knowledge (CPK) and confidence in guiding their children. These immersive experiences turn visits into learning opportunities that demystify college processes and affirm parental agency.
From an operational lens, Kornowa and Philopoulos (2023) emphasize that admissions and facilities management share responsibility for the campus visit, describing it as “a quintessential part of the college search process for many students and families” (p. 96). Every detail, from signage to staff warmth, shapes families’ perceptions of authenticity and belonging, making visits both emotional and informational experiences.
In K–12 contexts, Robertson, Nguyen, and Salehi (2022) find that underserved families, particularly those with limited income, face barriers such as inflexible schedules and unwelcoming environments when attending school tours. They call for trust-based, personalized engagement, often led by parent advocates, to turn visits into equitable opportunities rather than exclusive events.
Similarly, Byrne and Kibort-Crocker (2022) frame college planning through Family Systems Theory, viewing the college search as a shared family transition. Families’ involvement in campus visits, financial planning, and orientation sessions fosters understanding and belonging, especially when institutions provide multilingual materials and parent panels. Even when parents lack “college knowledge,” their emotional support and presence remain vital assets.
Finally, Wilson and McGuire (2021) expose how stigma and class-based power dynamics shape family engagement in schools. Working-class parents often feel judged or dismissed in institutional spaces, leading to withdrawal rather than disinterest. The authors urge empathetic, flexible communication to dismantle these barriers and create welcoming, inclusive climates for all families.
Taken together, these six studies show that family engagement and visits are deeply intertwined acts of trust, access, and belonging. Whether evaluating campus safety, building college knowledge, or navigating inequities, families who feel welcomed, informed, and respected become co-authors in their children’s educational journeys.
The research paints a clear picture: families want to feel informed, included, and welcomed. Our latest data with RNL, Ardeo, and CampusESP shows exactly where those feelings take root, and which experiences most influence their decision to say, “Yes, this is the right college for my student.”
What families told us: Insights from the 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report
Families are not passive bystanders; they are active partners in the college search, weighing what they see, hear, and feel. Their feedback reveals a clear pattern: human connection and real-world experiences matter far more than abstract or digital tools.
Campus visits and human touchpoints build trust
The most powerful influences on family support are on-campus visits (97%) and face-to-face interactions with admissions staff (93%), faculty (92%), and coaches (88%).
For first-generation (98%) and lower-income families (96%), these experiences are even more critical. Seeing the campus, meeting people, and feeling welcomed helps them imagine their student thriving there.
Key insight: Families decide with both heart and head. A warm, well-organized visit remains the single most persuasive factor in earning their support.
Virtual engagement expands access
Two-thirds of families (67%) value virtual visits, but that rises to 75% for first-generation and 80% for lower-income families, groups often limited by cost or travel. Virtual experiences can level the playing field when they feel personal and guided, not automated.
Key insight: Virtual visits are equity tools, not extras. They must be designed with care, warmth, and a human presence.
Counselors and college fairs still count
About 73% of families see college fairs and high school counselors as meaningful sources, especially first-generation (81%) and lower-income (84%) families. These trusted guides help families translate options and make sense of complex processes.
Key insight: Families lean on human interpreters, counselors, fairs, and coaches to navigate choices with confidence.
AI tools spark curiosity, not confidence
Fewer than half of families find AI tools, such as chatbots, program matchers, or demos, meaningful (40–43%). Interest is higher among first-generation (53–56%) and lower-income (55%) families, who may see AI as a learning aid. Still, most want human reassurance alongside it.
Key insight: AI works best as a co-pilot, not a replacement. Pair technology with empathy and guidance.
Communication quality matters most
Two experiences top the list:
Information about the program or school (97%)
Quality of communication with parents and families (96%)
For first-generation and lower-income families, both climb to 98%, showing that clear, bilingual, and affirming outreach builds trust and inclusion.
Key insight: Families value how colleges communicate care; clarity and tone matter as much as content.
Equity lens: More support, more belonging
Across nearly every measure, first-generation and lower-income families report higher experiences. They seek more touchpoints, more guidance, and more invitations into the process.
Key insight: Equity is about designing belonging, mixing in-person and virtual options, speaking their language, and centering relationships.
This story does not end with the data; it begins there
Every number and story in this study points to the same truth: families want to feel invited in. They want experiences that inform people who listen, and moments that confirm their student belongs. Our work is to create those moments, to build trust in the details, warmth in the welcome, and clarity in the journey. Because when families feel it, when they walk the campus, meet the people, and think, “This feels right!”, they do not just choose a college. They choose belonging.
Ready to reach your enrollment goals? Let’s talk how
Our enrollment experts are veteran campus enrollment managers who now work with hundreds of colleges and universities each year. Find out how we can help you pinpoint the optimal strategies for creating winning student search campaigns, building your inquiry and applicant pools, and increasing yield.
Amaro-Jiménez, C., Pant, D., Hungerford-Kresser, H., & den Hartog, S. (2020). Identifying the impact of college access efforts on parents’ college preparedness knowledge. Journal of College Access, 6(2), 7–27.
Byrne, R., & Kibort-Crocker, E. (2022). What evidence from research tells us: Family engagement in college pathway decisions. Washington Student Achievement Council.
Case, R. D. (2024). A review of the effectiveness of college campus visits on higher education enrollment. International Journal of Science and Research, 13(9), 716–718. https://doi.org/10.21275/SR24911223658
Kornowa, L., & Philopoulos, A. (2023). The importance of a strong campus visit: A practice brief outlining collaboration between admissions and facilities management. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 11(1), 54–74.
Robertson, M., Nguyen, T., & Salehi, N. (2022). Not another school resource map: Meeting underserved families’ information needs requires trusting relationships and personalized care. Digital Promise Research Brief.
Wilson, S., & McGuire, K. (2021). ‘They had already made their minds up’: Understanding the impact of stigma on parental engagement. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 42(5–6), 775–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.1908115
Back in 1943 the UK government knew that more school teachers would be needed. The school leaving age was to be raised: this and other planned changes meant that 70,000 extra teachers would be needed over the coming years. The teacher training colleges then in place trained 7,000 a year, so there was a problem.
The solution? Emergency Training Colleges. A compressed curriculum was piloted at Goldsmiths College, and in five years about 50 such colleges produced about 35,000 teachers. But it was a short-term scheme, and many of the colleges were wound up after 1950 or 1951.
Nevertheless, there continued to be a need to grow base capacity to train teachers. The emergency colleges had dealt with the immediate shortfall, but with more children attending schools every year, there was still work to be done. Some of the emergency colleges became regular training colleges, and some local authorities established new colleges of their own. And this is where Totley Hall enters the stage.
Not shown on the card is Totley Hall, built in 1623 and in 1949 passed to Sheffield Council. This was to be the heart of a new training college – the Totley Hall Training College of Housecraft. Its mission: training domestic science teachers.
There’s a wonderful account of the college’s foundation and development, written by Anna Baldry, who was one of the first lecturers at the college. It’s well worth a read. Highlights include her nerves at interview; problems with electricity blackouts; HMI inspections; the admission of men; its opening by Violet Attlee; and some lovely photographs.
More prosaically, the college had by 1963 become the plain Totley Hall Training College, focusing on training primary teachers. In 1967 men were admitted; in 1969 the best students could continue to study for a fourth year to gain a Bachelor of Education (BEd) degree from the University of Sheffield, rather than the Certificate in Education. And in 1972 – there being simultaneous vacancies in the principalships – Totley Hall Training College and the nearby Thornbridge Hall Training College were merged, to form the Totley/Thornbridge College of Education.
In 1976 the College became part of Sheffield Polytechnic, which was renamed Sheffield City Polytechnic – and this in turn became Sheffield Hallam University in 1992, and I’ve written about it here.
The card was posted, but I can’t read the postmark, so don’t know when. The 3p stamp shows it was after decimalisation. If it was in 1971 or 1972 it was sent first class; if it was 1973 it was sent second class. Those are the only options for that stamp.
An engagement? A wedding? A pools win? A baby? What do we think?
A Practical Framework for Admissions Leaders to Reach More Students, More Meaningfully
College fairs and high school visits have long been the bread and butter of admissions outreach. But are they still relevant in a digital age saturated with webinars, virtual tours, and TikTok campus tours?
The answer is a resounding yes! The 2025 E-Expectations survey of college-bound high school students shows they rate these experiences as helpful and impactful, with fairs standing out as one of the most widely used resources in the college search (RNL, Halda, & ModernCampus, 2025).
Here is the catch: just showing up is not enough. The latest research tells us that the true impact of fairs and visits depends on how thoughtfully they are designed, where institutions decide to spend their travel dollars, and, maybe most importantly, whether the students and families who need access the most are actually being reached (Huerta, 2020; Institute for Higher Education Policy [IHEP], 2021).
This blog brings together three key perspectives, each offering a piece of the puzzle:
The student voice: What the latest E-Expectations data reveals about how students use and value fairs and visits.
Practice-level insights: What enrollment professionals and researchers like Huerta (2020) have learned about structuring these events so they support, rather than overwhelm, students.
Policy and systems view: How institutional budgets, recruitment, travel, and school selection practices shape which communities are included, or left out (IHEP, 2021; Niche, 2023).
By weaving these perspectives together, my goal is simple: to offer admissions leaders a practical framework, a clear and actionable checklist, for designing and delivering college fairs and high school visits that truly serve the full range of students and families you want to reach.
What students say about fairs and visits
In the 2025 E-Expectations survey, 80% of respondents attended a college fair, and 85% of those found it helpful (RNL, Halda, & ModernCampus, 2025). Helpfulness peaks in 10th grade but stays strong from 9th (82%) through 12th (85%). First-generation students also find fairs helpful (86%).
High school visits tell a similar story. Niche (2023) reports that over 70% of students say meeting an admissions representative at their school influenced their decision to consider a college. Campus visits are even more powerful: 85% said a visit nudged them to apply or enroll. The message is clear: students want in-person engagement even in the digital age.
However, college recruiters visit suburban and affluent schools more often, leaving rural, urban, and first-generation students with fewer recruiter visits (Niche, 2023). If your travel schedule seems stuck on the same comfortable zip codes year after year, you are seeing this problem play out firsthand. The right students are not always getting the right opportunities.
Reimagining college fairs for equity
College fairs and campus visits are only helpful when they reach the students who actually need them. Huerta (2020) does not sugarcoat the gaps: “traditional college fairs often disproportionately serve White and affluent students, while low-income, first-generation, and students of color are left out of these critical opportunities for exposure and access” (p. 3).
How can fairs and visits have a greater impact? Preparation is everything, especially for first-generation students. The right support before the fair can make all the difference. Huerta (2020) says it plainly: “Pre-fair activities such as setting up professional emails, preparing questions, or even taking short career tests equip students to maximize the limited time they have with recruiters” (p. 5). With a plan, the fair is less overwhelming and more empowering.
What about addressing affordability questions during these activities? Huerta (2020) is clear: “Workshops on financial aid, scholarships, and affordability should be at the center of college fair programming, not optional add-ons” (p. 6). Put cost and aid front and center, and you not only build trust, you tackle one of the biggest barriers families face. If you have ever watched a parent’s shoulders relax after a frank talk about financial aid, you know this is not just theory—it is practical, high-impact work.
Now picture a fair that feels like a true community event, a place where everyone belongs. Huerta (2020) recommends an equity checklist: multilingual resources, childcare, transportation, and intentional outreach. Suddenly, the fair is not just another recruitment event; it is a space where families actually feel welcome (p. 7). You are not just handing out brochures, you are opening doors.
Enrollment and admissions implications
Go beyond the usual feeder and affluent schools and make a conscious effort to reach overlooked students.
Prepare students and families with guides and resources before the visit.
Strengthen access with multilingual support, childcare, and transportation options.
Measure success by engagement of underserved groups of students, not just attendance.
Rethinking recruitment policies through the institutional lens
Zooming out, let us talk about how big-picture policies and budgets shape everything from your team’s travel routes to who gets a seat at the table.
Travel budgets shape access
Recruitment travel is costly and eats up a large chunk of resources. Public institutions report spending a median of $536 per recruited student and close to $600,000 a year on enrollment management vendors (IHEP, 2021). Almost one-fifth of recruitment budgets go toward travel for high school visits and college fairs (p. 9). Every travel dollar is a map, deciding which schools and communities get face time with colleges.
Over-investment in feeder and affluent schools
IHEP (2021) does not mince words: colleges target suburban and affluent schools, reinforcing privilege, while rural, low-income, Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and AAPI students are left seeing fewer recruiters (p. 11). Nearly nine million students live in rural areas, but cost and assumptions about mobility keep colleges away (IHEP, 2021, p. 11). If you have ever skipped a rural or urban school because “it is too far” or “students from there do not enroll anyway,” you are not alone, but the pattern has real consequences.
The “iron triangle” of prestige, revenue, and access
IHEP (2021) calls the balancing of academic profile, revenue, and access the “iron triangle” of recruitment. Too often, access gets squeezed out by prestige or dollars. One example? The out-of-state recruitment push for higher tuition, which can crowd out in-state, low-income, and racially diverse students—the very populations public institutions were built to serve (IHEP, 2021, p. 10). There is a real tension here: the pressure to chase rankings and revenue versus the public mission to expand access.
Enrollment and admissions implications
Audit travel strategies so you don’t overlook rural, urban, and high first-generation schools. Resist the urge to chase rankings or revenue at the cost of access. Measure equity ROI to look at who you reached and not just enrollment numbers. Honor the public mission—for public institutions, especially, recruitment travel should put in-state, underrepresented, and transfer students first.
The “Comprehensive Equity Checklist” for college fairs and high school visits
(Adapted from Huerta, 2020; IHEP, 2021; Niche, 2023)
If you are looking for a place to start, here is a checklist you can use to make sure your next fair or visit is as equitable and impactful as possible:
Access and Inclusion
Provide multilingual materials (flyers, signage, applications, financial aid guides).
Offer live interpretation services for families with limited English proficiency.
Ensure transportation options (buses, metro passes, shuttles) for students and families.
Provide childcare or family-friendly spaces so parents and guardians can attend.
Make fairs and visits physically accessible (ADA-compliant venues, inclusive spaces).
Student and Family Preparation
Equip students with pre-fair tools: professional email setup, question prompts, résumé templates, and career interest surveys.
Offer prep sessions for families on navigating fairs, admissions language, and understanding financial aid.
Provide clear expectations before high school visits (e.g., topics covered, documents to bring).
Financial Aid and Affordability Resources
Make financial aid and scholarship workshops central, not optional, at fairs.
Ensure recruiters can clearly explain the cost of attendance, aid packages, scholarships, and ROI.
Share state aid and local scholarship resources during visits.
Provide simple, multilingual financial aid guides for families to take home.
Recruiter Diversity and Training
Send representatives who reflect racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity.
Train recruiters in cultural competency, equity, and family engagement strategies.
Encourage authentic, student-centered conversations rather than scripted pitches.
Pair senior admissions leaders with feeder schools while ensuring new schools also receive attention.
Event and Visit Design
Avoid overwhelming “information overload” by structuring fairs with breakout sessions (e.g., Paying for College 101, Essay Writing Tips, Navigating Campus Visits).
Set up reflection areas where students can take notes and debrief.
Schedule visits that reach all grade levels, not just seniors, to build early awareness (9th–10th grade especially).
Balance large-scale fairs with smaller, targeted events for first-generation and underserved students.
Travel Strategy and School Selection
Audit recruitment travel annually: which schools are visited and which are left out (rural, urban, high first-generation, under-resourced)?
Intentionally expand beyond feeder and affluent schools to reach underserved communities.
Balance in-state versus out-of-state recruitment to honor institutional missions and equity commitments.
Use hybrid and virtual visits to reach schools where travel is limited.
Data, Metrics and Accountability
Collect and analyze participation data disaggregated by race, income, geography, and first-generation status.
Track equity ROI: not just attendance numbers, but who was reached and how engagement expanded access.
Report back annually to leadership with both quantitative metrics (schools visited, demographics reached) and qualitative feedback (student and counselor satisfaction).
Equitable recruitment means more than showing up. It requires intentional design, inclusive practices, and accountability. This checklist can help you ensure that your fairs and visits open doors, instead of reinforcing barriers.
The bottom line: Opportunity by design
College fairs and high school visits remain powerful entry points for students exploring higher education. The data is clear: students find them helpful, and when done well, these moments spark interest, build trust, and create momentum in the college search process. But as the research shows, the true impact depends on how these events are implemented and who gets to participate. Fairs that overwhelm students or focus only on affluent schools, and travel that bypasses rural or first-generation communities, risk narrowing opportunity rather than expanding it.
Admissions leaders hold both the keys and the responsibility to change this. Rethink what success looks like. Expand your travel map beyond traditional feeder schools. Center on affordability and preparation on every visit. Use a comprehensive checklist to plan. If you do, you will reach more students, more meaningfully. Measure the value of college fairs and high school visits by the quality of the student and family experience, the strength of your partnerships with counselors, and the breadth of the communities you serve. In doing so, you will not just make the most of fairs and visits, you will reaffirm your mission to open doors of opportunity for every student who is ready to walk through them.
Talk with our marketing and recruitment experts
RNL works with colleges and universities across the country to ensure their marketing and recruitment efforts are optimized and aligned with how student search for colleges. Reach out today for a complimentary consultation to discuss:
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:
Prioritize need-based aid over merit-based programs
Cover costs beyond tuition, including housing, food, transportation, and childcare
Serve part-time students, adult learners, and returning students
Include undocumented and justice-impacted individuals
Never convert grants to loans
Serve students at all public colleges equally
Allow access for those in loan default
Consolidate programs into streamlined, need-based grants
Use negative Student Aid Index numbers to direct more aid to the neediest
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.
Just 27 percent of undergraduates describe their mental health as above average or excellent, according to new data from Inside Higher Ed’s main annual Student Voice survey of more than 5,000 undergraduates at two- and four-year institutions.
Another 44 percent of students rate their mental health as average on a five-point scale. The remainder, 29 percent, rate it as below average or poor.
In last year’s main Student Voice survey, 42 percent of respondents rated their mental health as good or excellent, suggesting a year-over-year decline in students feeling positive about their mental health. This doesn’t translate to more students rating their mental health negatively this year, however, as this share stayed about the same. Rather, more students in this year’s sample rate their mental health as average (2025’s 44 percent versus 29 percent in 2024).
About the Survey
Student Voice is an ongoing survey and reporting series that seeks to elevate the student perspective in institutional student success efforts and in broader conversations about college.
Some 5,065 students from 260 two- and four-year institutions, public and private nonprofit, responded to this main annual survey about student success, conducted in August. Explore the data captured by our survey partner Generation Lab here and here. The margin of error is plus or minus one percentage point.
The story is similar regarding ratings of overall well-being. In 2024, 52 percent of students described their overall well-being as good or excellent. This year, 33 percent say it’s above average or excellent. Yet because last year’s survey included slightly different categories (excellent, good, average, fair and poor, instead of excellent, above average, average, below average and poor), it’s impossible to make direct comparisons.
How does this relate to other national data? The 2024-2025 Healthy Minds Study found that students self-reported lower rates of moderate to severe depressive symptoms, anxiety and more for the third year in a row—what one co-investigator described as “a promising counter-narrative to what seems like constant headlines around young people’s struggles with mental health.” However, the same study found that students’ sense of “flourishing,” including self-esteem, purpose and optimism, declined slightly from the previous year. So while fewer students may be experiencing serious mental health problems, others may be moving toward the middle from a space of thriving.
Inside Higher Ed’s leadership surveys this year—including the forthcoming Survey of College and University Student Success Administrators—also documented a gap between how well leaders think their institutions have responded to what’s been called the student mental health crisis and whether they think undergraduate mental health is actually improving. In Inside Higher Ed’s annual survey of provosts with Hanover Research, for example, 69 percent said their institution has been effective in responding to student mental health concerns, but only 40 percent said undergraduate health on their campus is on the upswing.
Provosts also ranked mental health as the No. 1 campus threat to student safety and well-being (80 percent said it’s a top risk), followed by personal stress (66 percent), academic stress (51 percent) and food and housing insecurity (42 percent). Those were all far ahead of risks such as physical security threats (2 percent) or alcohol and substance use issues (13 percent).
Among community college provosts, in particular, food and housing insecurity was the leading concern, with 86 percent naming it a top risk.
Financial insecurity can impact mental health, and both factors can affect academic success. Among 2025 Student Voice respondents who have ever seriously considered stopping out of college (n=1,204), for instance, 43 percent describe their mental health as below average or poor. Among those who have never considered stopping out (n=3,304), the rate is just 23 percent. And among the smaller group of students who have stopped out for a semester or more but re-enrolled (n=557), 40 percent say their mental health is below average or poor, underscoring that returnees remain an at-risk group for completion.
Similarly, 43 percent of students who have seriously considered stopping out rate their financial well-being as below average or poor, versus 23 percent among students who’ve never considered stopping out—the same split as the previous finding on mental health.
The association between students’ confidence in their financial literacy and their risk of dropping out is weaker, supporting the case for tangible basic needs support: Some 25 percent of respondents who have considered stopping out rate their financial literacy as below average or poor, compared to 15 percent of those who have not considered stopping out.
Angela K. Johnson, vice president for enrollment management at Cuyahoga Community College in Ohio, said her institution continuously seeks feedback from students about how their financial stability and other aspects of well-being intersect.
“What students are saying by ‘financial’ is very specific around being unhoused, food insecurity,” she said. “And part of the mental health piece is also not having the medical insurance support to cover some of those ongoing services. We do offer some of them in our counseling and psychological services department, but we only offer so many.”
All this bears on enrollment and persistence, Johnson said, “but it really is a student psychological safety problem, a question of how they’re trying to manage their psychological safety without their basic needs being met.”
A ‘Top-of-Mind Issue’
Tri-C, as Johnson’s college is called, takes a multipronged approach to student wellness, including via an app called Help Is Here, resource awareness efforts that target even dual-enrollment students and comprehensive basic needs support: Think food pantries situated near dining services, housing transition coordination, childcare referrals, utility assistance, emergency funds and more.
Faculty training is another focus. “Sometimes you see a student sleeping in your class, but it’s not because the class is boring. They may have been sleeping in their car last night,” Johnson said. “They may not have had a good meal today.”
Political uncertainty may also be impacting student wellness. The American Council on Education hosted a webinar earlier this year addressing what leaders should be thinking about with respect to “these uncertain times around student well-being,” said Hollie Chessman, a director and principal program officer at ACE. “We talked about identity, different identity-based groups and how the safe spaces and places are not as prevalent on campuses anymore, based on current legislation. So some of that is going to be impacting the mental health and well-being of our students with traditionally underrepresented backgrounds.”
Previously released results from this year’s Student Voice survey indicate that most students, 73 percent, still believe that most or nearly all of their peers feel welcomed, valued and supported on campus. That’s up slightly from last year’s 67 percent. But 32 percent of students in 2025 report that recent federal actions to limit diversity, equity and inclusion efforts have negatively impacted their experience at college. This increases to 37 percent among Asian American and Pacific Islander and Hispanic students, 40 percent among Black students and 41 percent among students of other races. It decreases among white students, to 26 percent. Some 65 percent of nonbinary students (n=209) report negative impacts. For international students (n=203), the rate is 34 percent.
The Student Voice survey doesn’t reveal any key differences among students’ self-ratings of mental health by race. Regarding gender, 63 percent of nonbinary students report below average or poor mental health, more than double the overall rate of 29 percent. In last year’s survey, 59 percent of nonbinary students reported fair or poor mental health.
In a recent ACE pulse survey of senior campus leaders, two in three reported moderate or extreme concern about student mental health and well-being. (Other top concerns were the value of college, long-term financial viability and generative artificial intelligence.)
“This is a top-of-mind issue, and it has been a top-of-mind issue for college and university presidents” since even before the pandemic, Chessman said. “And student health and well-being is a systemic issue, right? It’s not just addressed by a singular program or a counseling session. It’s a systemic issue that permeates.”
In Inside Higher Ed’s provosts’ survey, the top actions these leaders reported taking to promote mental health on their campus in the last year are: emphasizing the importance of social connection and/or creating new opportunities for campus involvement (76 percent) and investing in wellness facilities and/or services to promote overall well-being (59 percent).
Despite the complexity of the issue, Chessman said, many campuses are making strides in supporting student well-being—including by identifying students who aren’t thriving “and then working in interventions to help those students.” Gatekeeper training, or baseline training for faculty and staff to recognize signs of student distress, is another strategy, as is making sure faculty and staff members can connect students to support resources, groups and peers.
“One of the big things that we have to emphasize is that it is a campuswide issue,” Chessman reiterated.
More on Health and Wellness
Other findings on student health and wellness from this newest round of Student Voice results show:
Mental health is just one area of wellness in which many students are struggling.
Asked to rate various dimensions of their health and wellness at college, students are most likely to rate their academic fit as above average or excellent, at 38 percent. Sense of social belonging (among other areas) is weaker, with 27 percent of students rating theirs above average or excellent. One clear opportunity area for colleges: promoting healthy sleep habits, since 44 percent of students describe their own as below average or poor. (Another recent study linked poor sleep among students to loneliness.)
Many students report using unhealthy strategies to cope with stress, and students at risk of stopping out may be most vulnerable.
As for how students deal with stress at college, 56 percent report a mix of healthy strategies (such as exercising, talking to family and friends, and prioritizing sleep) and unhealthy ones (such as substance use, avoidance of responsibilities and social withdrawal). But students who have seriously considered stopping out, and those who have stopped out but re-enrolled, are less likely than those who haven’t considered leaving college to rely on mostly healthy and effective strategies.
Most students approve of their institution’s efforts to make key student services available and accessible.
Despite the persistent wellness challenge, most students rate as good or excellent their institution’s efforts to make health, financial aid, student life and other services accessible and convenient. In good news for community colleges’ efforts, two-year students are a bit more likely than their four-year peers to rate these efforts as good or excellent, at 68 percent versus 62 percent.
‘It’s Easy to Feel Isolated’
The Jed Foundation, which promotes emotional health and suicide prevention among teens and young adults, advocates a comprehensive approach to well-being based on seven domains:
Foster life skills
Promote connectedness and positive culture
Recognize and respond to distress
Reduce barriers to help-seeking
Ensure access to effective mental health care
Establish systems of crisis management
Reduce access to lethal means
At JED’s annual policy summit in Washington, D.C., this month, advocates focused on sustaining the progress that has been made on mental health, as well as on the growing influence of artificial intelligence and the role of local, state and federal legislation on mental health in the digital age. Rohan Satija, a 17-year-old first-year student at the University of Texas at Austin who spoke at the event, told Inside Higher Ed in an interview that his mental health journey began in elementary school, when his family emigrated from New Zealand to Texas.
“Just being in a completely new environment and being surrounded by a completely new group of people, I struggled with my mental health, and because of bullying and isolation at school, I struggled with anxiety and panic attacks,” he said.
Satija found comfort in books and storytelling filled with “characters whom I could relate to. I read about them winning in their stories, and it showed me that I could win in my own story.”
Satija eventually realized these stories were teaching lessons about resilience, courage and empathy—lessons he put into action when he founded a nonprofit to address book deserts in low-income and otherwise marginalized communities in Texas. Later, he founded the Vibrant Voices Project for incarcerated youth, “helping them convert their mental health struggles into powerful monologues they can perform for each other.”
Currently a youth advocacy coalition fellow at JED, Satija said that college so far presents a challenge to student mental health in its “constant pressure to perform in all facets, including academically and socially and personally. I’ve seen many of my peers that have entered college with me, and a lot of us expect freedom and growth but get quickly bogged down with how overwhelming it can be to balance coursework, jobs, living away from your family and still achieving.”
Rohan Satija, center, speaks at JED’s annual policy summit in Washington earlier this month.
He added, “This competitive environment can make small setbacks feel like failures, and I’d say perfectionism can often become kind of like a silent standard.”
Another major challenge? Loneliness and disconnection. “Even though campuses are full of people, it’s easy to feel isolated, especially as a new student, and even further, especially as a first-generation student, an immigrant or anyone far from home.”
While many students are of course excited for the transition to adulthood and “finally being free for the first time,” he explained, “it comes with a lot of invisible losses, including losing the comfort of your family and a stable routine … So I think without intentional efforts to build connection in your new college campus, a lot of students feel that their sense of belonging can erode pretty quickly.”
In this light, Satija praised UT Austin’s club culture, noting that some of the extracurricular groups he’s joined assign a “big,” or student mentor, to each new student, or “little,” driving connection and institutional knowledge-sharing. Faculty members are also good at sharing information about mental health resources, he said, including through the learning management system.
And in terms of proactive approaches to overall wellness, the campus’s Longhorn Wellness Center is effective in that it “doesn’t promote itself as this big, like, crisis response space: ‘Oh, we’re here to improve your mental health. We’re here to make your best self,’ or anything like that,” he said. “It literally just promotes itself as a chill space for student wellness. They’re always talking about their massage chairs.”
“That gets students in the door, yeah?” Satija said.
This independent editorial project is produced with the Generation Lab and supported by the Gates Foundation.
