Tag: Financial

  • 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

  • Financial aid administrators report disruptions since Education Department layoffs

    Financial aid administrators report disruptions since Education Department layoffs

    Dive Brief: 

    • A large majority of financial aid administrators, 72%, say they’ve experienced “noticeable changes” in the Federal Student Aid office’s communications, responsiveness and processing timelines since the U.S. Department of Education’s mass layoffs in March

    • That’s according to a July survey conducted by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. The results also show that “federal support channels for students are breaking down,” including through issues with call centers, NASFAA said. 

    • These disruptions are hampering colleges’ ability to assist students, it said. “Unless federal service channels stabilize, the aid system risks becoming less accessible, less predictable, and less trusted by the very students it is intended to serve,” it added. 

    Dive Insight: 

    When the Education Department moved to lay off roughly half its staff in March, student advocates voiced concerns that the agency wouldn’t have enough workers to carry out core functions, including financial aid services. 

    NASFAA’s survey builds on those concerns. The survey found that higher shares of financial aid administrators surveyed in July said they are experiencing delays and a lack of communication from the Education Department than those polled just two months before. 

    For instance, 59% of officials surveyed in May said they had experienced disruptions in the Federal Student Aid office’s responsiveness, communication and processing timelines — a number that has since jumped to 72%.

    Ellen Keast, deputy press secretary at the Education Department, sharply rebuked the survey. 

    “It is an embarrassment for NASFAA to release a ‘survey’ that blatantly parrots falsehoods and is not representative of the higher education community nor the American people’s overwhelming charge for change,” Keast said in an emailed statement Wednesday. “Clearly, NASFAA is peddling a false narrative to preserve the status quo.”

    An Education Department official accused the survey of having methodological shortcomings. The official pointed to the survey’s response rate — completed by over 549 institutions — saying that represents less than 10% of the roughly 5,800 colleges that work with Federal Student Aid. 

    The official also said questions spurred respondents to report negative experiences and that those polled were overrepresented by administrators working at nonprofit and public four-year colleges, which the agency accused as being the most likely to oppose the Trump administration. 

    Additionally, the official said the mass layoffs did not impact FAFSA staff or Federal Student Aid’s ability to serve customers. 

    Melanie Storey, president and CEO of NASFAA, said in a statement that the survey reflects “the real, everyday experiences of financial aid professionals.”

    “To dismiss these concerns as fabricated or political undermines the expertise of those working directly with students every day, eager to deliver on the promise of postsecondary education, and shows that the administration is not interested in working with experts in the field to achieve the best results for students; instead, it is focused on advancing its own agenda,” Storey said. 

    In the survey, 32% of respondents said they’ve experienced processing delays for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid since May. 

    Earlier this month, the Education Department began beta-testing for the 2026-27 FAFSA form. So far, more than 1,000 students have completed the form, according to a department official. 

    Meanwhile, 49% of financial aid administrators have experienced processing delays with the e-App, the application colleges submit to the Education Department to participate in federal financial aid programs. Among colleges that submitted the e-App, 63% said in July that it still had not been processed. 

    More students are reaching out to their financial aid offices, according to the survey. Sixty percent of administrators said they’ve seen spikes in student questions about the Education Department’s services in the July poll, compared with 45% who said the same in May. 

    While several respondents said students were confused about the FAFSA process or federal aid, not all officials specified whether the inquiries were related to the Education Department’s mass layoffs or other recent federal changes.

    Republicans recently made sweeping changes to the student loan system through their massive domestic policy bill signed into law in July. That includes consolidating the student loan repayment programs into just two options and phasing out Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate and professional students to borrow up to the cost of attendance. 

    Critics have noted that the Education Department will have to carry out the vast policy changes mandated by the bill with about half the workforce it had before President Donald Trump retook office. 

    U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon has framed the layoffs as the first step to Trump’s goal of eliminating the Education Department and shifting its duties elsewhere — a change that would require congressional approval. 

    A federal judge initially blocked the Education Department’s mass layoffs, but the U.S. Supreme Court lifted that order in July while litigation challenging their legality proceeds.

    Source link

  • American Financial Solutions and Borrower Defense to Repayment

    American Financial Solutions and Borrower Defense to Repayment

    [Editor’s Note: The Higher Education Inquirer has submitted a Freedom of Information Request F-2025-02034 for any Federal Trade Commission consumer complaints against American Financial Solutions. We expect student loan relief scams to grow over the next few years as federal government oversight is reduced.]

    American Financial Solutions (AFS) positions itself in social media as a lifeline for student loan borrowers, offering help with programs like Borrower Defense to Repayment (BDR), PSLF, closed-school discharge, teacher loan forgiveness, and income-driven repayment. They advertise a “95 percent success rate,” more than $25 million in loans discharged, and over 10,000 clients helped. AFS promotes a three-step approach: a free consultation, documentation collection, and federal application submission—with implied guarantees of approval. They even suggest that discharges can occur in as little as 12 to 36 months.

    Behind this polished marketing is a disturbing reality. When contacted directly, AFS quoted a $1,500 fee to file a Borrower Defense claim. The Department of Education provides this service for free, which makes the fee an unnecessary financial burden on people already struggling with debt. Worse still, AFS representatives falsely claimed that approval would be “guaranteed” because the borrower’s school was named in the Sweet v. Cardona settlement. That is not how the Sweet settlement worked, and no private company can guarantee outcomes in federal relief programs.

    AFS also collects a troubling amount of data from borrowers. According to its own disclosures, the company asks for names, contact information, educational histories, student loan details, financial information, and documentation of borrowers’ school experiences. It also stores communications and any additional information provided. Beyond that, the company automatically harvests website usage data, including IP addresses, device and operating system information, pages visited, time spent on the site, referring websites, and even search terms. This means that vulnerable borrowers are not only charged excessive fees but also exposed to unnecessary risks regarding their personal and financial data.

    While AFS presents itself as a nonprofit credit counseling agency with A+ BBB accreditation, consumer complaints suggest a lack of transparency and responsiveness. One unresolved 2024 complaint alleged billing issues, with the consumer insisting they were not liable for a debt and had no contract, while the company failed to respond. Independent review platforms show a mix of praise and criticism, with some clients reporting successful debt management experiences, but others raising questions about hidden costs, communication problems, and misleading claims.

    The bigger problem is that AFS fits a well-documented pattern of predatory practices in the student loan relief industry. Over the past decade, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have repeatedly shut down companies that charged for free government services, misrepresented their powers, and lied about forgiveness guarantees. In one case, the CFPB shut down Student Aid Institute, only to see its operator resurface under a new name and steal more than $240,000 from borrowers. In another, Monster Loans and its associates were sued for defrauding over 23,000 borrowers. The FTC has also acted against multiple operations that bilked millions of dollars from borrowers by pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. Even Navient, a major loan servicer, agreed in 2024 to pay $120 million after deceiving borrowers about repayment options.

    The risks to borrowers are increasing as federal oversight weakens. In 2025, reports revealed that the CFPB planned to scale back enforcement of student loan cases, leaving state regulators—who often lack resources—to fill the gap. Critics warned this would create “open season” for scammers. Against that backdrop, companies like AFS are free to charge high fees, collect sensitive data, and make deceptive promises while vulnerable borrowers remain unprotected.

    American Financial Solutions is not a solution. It is part of the problem, a business model that profits by charging people for free services, misrepresenting the law, and exposing them to new risks. Unless stronger oversight and enforcement are restored, borrowers will continue to be victimized first by predatory schools and then by predatory “relief” companies cashing in on their desperation.


    Sources

    American Financial Solutions marketing claims. amerifisolutions.com

    AFS data collection disclosure (website policy provided by user)

    Better Business Bureau profile. bbb.org

    BBB consumer complaint (2024). bbb.org

    Trustpilot reviews. trustpilot.com

    ConsumerAffairs reviews. consumeraffairs.com

    BestCompany review. bestcompany.com

    CuraDebt expert analysis. curadebt.com

    Federal Trade Commission. “American Financial Benefits Center Refunds.” ftc.gov

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “CFPB Seeks Ban Against Operator of Student Loan Debt Relief Scam Reboot.” consumerfinance.gov

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “CFPB Takes Action Against Operators of an Unlawful Student Loan Debt Relief Scheme.” consumerfinance.gov

    Federal Trade Commission. “FTC Acts to Stop Scheme that Bilked Millions out of Student Loan Borrowers.” ftc.gov, December 2024

    Federal Trade Commission. “Student Loan Debt Relief Scam Operators Agree to be Permanently Banned.” ftc.gov, May 2025

    Time Magazine. “Navient Settlement: Student Loan Borrowers to Receive Payments.” time.com, 2024

    The Guardian. “Brad Lander: CFPB Cuts Create Open Season for Fraudsters.” theguardian.com, May 2025

    Source link

  • The hidden cost of learning: how financial strain Is reshaping student life

    The hidden cost of learning: how financial strain Is reshaping student life

    • This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Cheryl Watson, VP of Education, UK at TechnologyOne.

    Rising costs are now a defining feature of the student experience in the UK. What once felt like an educational ‘coming of age’ for young people is, for many, becoming a difficult balancing act between academic ambition and financial survival.

    From housing and transport to food and essential tech, students today face relentless financial pressures just to participate in university life. For institutional leaders, the evidence is clear: the financial landscape is changing, and approaches to student engagement and support must change with it.

    A growing financial gap in UK higher education

    Financial pressures on students are not new but are growing in scale and complexity. The joint Minimum Income Standard for Students (MISS) 2024 research with HEPI and the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) at Loughborough University found that a typical full-time student living away from home needs around £244 per week to maintain a minimum standard of living. Yet, most face a significant shortfall even with part-time work and maintenance support.

    This gap impacts attendance, well-being, debt levels, and student retention. National data shows that 30% of students take on additional debt to cover basic living costs. At the same time, HEPI and Advance HE’s 2025 Student Academic Experience Survey found that more students are working part-time (68%) than not, often juggling jobs alongside demanding timetables.

    One student from the recent MISS focus groups summed up the reality:

    Even [like] knowing that I’m in my overdraft…I know it’s interest-free and stuff, but having to rely on it is not ideal, and I want to work to try and get out of it, but also like I can’t afford to.”

    It’s a cycle, and you constantly max it out every year, and then you’re constantly working to pay it back.

    This financial tightrope is increasingly common.

    How student life is being redefined by cost pressures

    Students are making tough choices daily between travel, food, work, and study. Financial stress is changing not just what students can afford, but also how they experience university life on a day-to-day basis.

    While pressures vary, the underlying theme remains consistent: rising costs are reshaping the student experience in real-time.

    The new commuter reality

    Many universities still operate around the traditional student living on campus, but according to the Sutton Trust, over 50% of UK students go to university where they grew up and students from poorer backgrounds are three times more likely to commute from home.

    For many, this is often because they cannot afford to live near campus. This has real academic consequences, with many students missing classes due to travel costs and disconnected timetables.

    I live in Sheffield but a lot of the people in my class seem to commute and there’ll be times where like most of the class don’t turn up for a certain seminar and it’s because… it just wouldn’t make sense to pay all that money to come for an hour and a half and then just leave again.

    Without more flexible, student-aware scheduling and targeted support, commuter students risk being structurally disadvantaged.

    Technology isn’t optional

    Access to digital tools is now essential for participation in academic life. From lecture recordings to online submissions, students are expected to stay constantly connected and equipped.

    You definitely need a laptop as well because although the University library provides computers, especially during exam season, you have to book them in advance, and they’ve already been taken up.

    For many, the cost of keeping up with technology adds to financial pressures, creating further barriers to participation.

    Living with financial stress

    Financial pressure is a constant presence for many students. Overdrafts are used regularly, part-time work is essential, and mismatches between payment schedules and bills force difficult choices.

    In 2023, HEPI found that more than a quarter of universities operate food banks to support students, while rising rent costs leave little left for essentials.

    The difference between first year and second year is that you have that comfort blanket of it, but by the time you get into second year, you’ve already used it, and you’ve got nothing to help you anymore.”

    These aren’t one-off lapses in budgeting. They’re the result of an unsynchronised system that does not reflect the financial reality students are working within.

    Missing out on student life

    Financial pressures also limit participation in the social and community aspects of university life that are vital for wellbeing and development.

    Especially in the SU, it’s not ideal because lots of societies will do socials there so if you can’t afford that… It might seem silly, but if you’re part of a sports society then there is some sort of expectation to go to Sports Night on a Wednesday most weeks so that obviously adds up if you’re going most weeks.

    MISS24 found that 55% of students missed out on social experiences and 53% skipped extracurricular activities due to financial constraints.[AC1] 

    Opting out is often the only option, but it comes at a cost to confidence and connection

    Why this matters for universities and policymakers

    Financial stress is no longer a fringe issue in UK higher education. When 30% of students are taking on extra debt just to cover essentials, and many are skipping classes or missing out on key experiences, the impacts on retention, well-being, and academic outcomes cannot be ignored.

    The disconnect between what students need and what current funding models assume continues to grow. Part-time work and family contributions are often treated as standard, despite being unrealistic for many students.

    What’s next: Building an evidence base for change

    If the Minimum Income Standard for Students 2024 brought much-needed clarity to the financial pressures facing undergraduates, this year’s follow-up takes that work a step further.

    The upcoming report, Minimum Income Standard for Students 2025 (MISS25), focuses specifically on first-year students living in purpose-built accommodation, offering the most detailed insight yet into the cost of starting university life in the UK.

    The findings are stark. Those on minimum support face a funding gap that must be filled by family or debt. The report also reveals a growing mismatch between student needs and how maintenance systems are designed, particularly for those without access to parental support.

    For institutional leaders, policymakers and student advocates, we encourage you to read closely, and to consider how your planning, funding and engagement strategies can respond to what today’s students are telling us.

    Click the link below to sign up for a copy of the MISS25 report when it’s ready.

    Sign up for a copy of the report 

    TechnologyOne is a partner of HEPI. TechnologyOne is a global Software as a Service (SaaS) company. Their enterprise SaaS solution transforms business and makes life simple for universities by providing powerful, deeply integrated enterprise software that is incredibly easy to use. The company takes complete responsibility to market, sell, implement, support and run solutions for customers, which reduce time, cost and risk. 


    Source link

  • Strong budgeting, revenue flexibility key to weathering K-12 financial storm, says Moody’s

    Strong budgeting, revenue flexibility key to weathering K-12 financial storm, says Moody’s

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • School districts with strong budget management and the ability to raise revenue, in addition to state funding access, will be able to better weather the financial storm exacerbated by recent federal changes in education policy, according to a Moody’s Ratings’ report released last week. 

    • A significant increase in state aid could stave off effects from shrinking federal support under the Trump administration. However, any states’ plans to bolster school funding may be scrapped to adapt to other federal policy changes such as reduced Medicaid or disaster recovery funding. 

    • School districts in most states have an average ability to increase revenue. Districts in Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada and Oklahoma have more limited revenue-raising flexibility than other states, the report said.

    Dive Insight:

    Districts have faced financial turmoil in the past few months, as the Trump administration continues to change course on federal funding that was expected to be available for districts.

    The administration withheld pandemic aid reimbursements, for example — a decision it then walked back. It also recently delayed $6.2 billion in federal K-12 grants, only part of which the administration has said it would release so far

    States with a greater dependence on federal funding “will translate into additional credit pressure if federal funding is reduced,” the report said. Arizona and Oklahoma, for example, rely on federal funding for more than 20% of their K-12 budgets.

    Overall, the federal government provides 13.6% of total K-12 funding, according to the Education Data Initiative.

     Additional changes on the federal level will impact school district budgets such as an expansion in school choice — with the nation’s first federal school voucher program available nationwide established through the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” The major tax and spending package was narrowly passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month. 

    “This shift could result in enrollment being redirected to alternatives outside traditional K-12 districts,” the Moody’s report says. 

    In another Moody’s report released in April, the financial outlook and research organization showed that states are unlikely to fill gaps left by the federal government changes, leaving districts with a “limited menu of options.”

    “While many states have indeed increased their K-12 education funding, whether these efforts will fully offset the impact of reduced federal support remains uncertain,” said Gregory Sobel, senior analyst and vice president at Moody’s Ratings, in an email to K-12 Dive. Sobel said that “while state support is growing, it may not be sufficient to fully counterbalance the combined effects of reduced federal aid and heightened competition.”

    Districts are already feeling the blowback from federal-level changes. 

    About 85% of superintendents said they have existing contracts previously paid with federal funds that are currently being withheld, forcing them to backfill with local dollars, according to a survey released Tuesday of nearly 630 district leaders across 43 states. 

    As a result of these spending changes, nearly three quarters of surveyed districts will have to scrap academic services for students, such as tutoring and before or after-school programming, according to the poll conducted by AASA, the School Superintendents Association. Half of superintendents said they will have to make labor cuts, including in special education.

    “This isn’t a future problem; it’s happening now,” one superintendent said in the survey. “Our budget was set with these funds in mind. Their sudden withholding has thrown us into chaos, forcing drastic measures that will negatively impact every student, classroom, and school in our district.”

    Source link

  • Minnesota Alters Financial Aid Program Formula

    Minnesota Alters Financial Aid Program Formula

    Minnesota lawmakers managed last month not only to close a $239 million deficit in the state’s largest financial aid grant program, but also to increase its funding by $44.5 million over the next two years. But they did so by changing the funding formula, meaning some students may still find themselves with less aid for college, The Minnesota Star Tribune reported Tuesday.

    The Minnesota State Grant program helps middle- and low-income students enrolled at in-state technical schools, colleges or universities pay for educational expenses, such as housing and tuition. While not every student’s financial aid award will decrease this year, many are still waiting to find out how the changes to the formula will change their award.

    The amount each student receives is tied to their family size and income, and during the 2025–26 academic year grant values are expected to range from $100 to $17,717. Last year, average grants awards were cut by anywhere from $175 to $730 to offset the program’s then-$40 million deficit.

    According to The Star Tribune, changes to the formula include:

    • Students can receive the grant for four years of full-time attendance, down from the previous six-year cap.
    • Students who are dependents are responsible for paying an increased total cost of college.
    • There is an earlier application deadline.
    • Students will receive less money for living and miscellaneous expenses, such as room, board and transportation.
    • There is a reduced maximum amount awarded for tuition and fees to match the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities’s rates, plus a 2 percent reduction for each of the next two years, regardless of how much tuition increases there. If a student attends a school that costs less, they are awarded the average cost of tuition and fees at that institution.

    Republican state senator Zach Duckworth said some of the changes are temporary. “I don’t think anybody was entirely happy with the end results, but the fact that we were able to increase some funding [to the State Grant overall] for students and families was a good thing,” he told The Star Tribune.

    The changes come as Congress is also weighing President Donald Trump’s proposal to cut TRIO, federal work-study and other federal programs that support college students.

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : College Financial Aid: How It Really Works

    Higher Education Inquirer : College Financial Aid: How It Really Works

    Crucial Insights: Understanding College Financial Aid Dynamics

    (00:02:56) Variety of College Financial Assistance Options
    (
    00:05:18) Scholarships: Balancing Merit and Financial Need
    (
    00:10:00) Student Selection Strategies in College Admissions
    (
    00:21:40) Financial Aid Strategy at Competitive vs. Smaller Schools
    (
    00:26:29) Major-based Financial Aid Allocation in Colleges

    Source link

  • Financial Pressures Could Have Cascading Effects (opinion)

    Financial Pressures Could Have Cascading Effects (opinion)

    In April, Harvard University, despite its $53.2 billion endowment, announced plans for a $750 million bond issuance to bolster liquidity amid uncertainties over federal funding. Similarly, Brown University concluded its decade-long BrownTogether fundraising campaign, raising more than $4.4 billion, yet soon after secured a $300 million loan in the face of a structural budget deficit and the cancellation of federal grants. And in May, Columbia University announced layoffs of approximately 180 staff members after the federal government revoked $400 million in federal grants and contracts, citing the university’s handling of antisemitic harassment on campus.

    Together, these actions underscore that even the nation’s most selective and well-resourced universities are vulnerable to financial strain and are recalibrating rapidly in response to shifting economic and political forces. By contrast, less well-resourced, tuition-dependent institutions often confront the same headwinds, or their downstream effects, with fewer financial options and diminished capacity to respond.

    Liquidity and the Endowment Misconception

    A common misconception is that universities can freely tap into their endowments to address financial shortfalls. In reality, a significant portion of endowment assets are legally restricted by external donor agreements, regulatory frameworks and board policies. According to the NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments, an average 71.1 percent of endowment funds are restricted by donor agreements alone. These funds are typically earmarked for specific purposes such as scholarships, endowed faculty positions or capital projects.

    Endowments are vital to institutional operations but are not unbounded. In fiscal year 2024, colleges and universities withdrew a total of $30 billion from their endowments, representing a 6.4 percent increase over the prior year, with nearly half of that spending (48.1 percent) dedicated to student financial aid. On average, endowments funded 15.3 percent of institutional operating budgets, underscoring their importance in day-to-day fiscal planning.

    At the same time, most institutions cap annual withdrawals at approximately 4.5 to 5 percent of a rolling three-year average to preserve long-term value. Exceeding these thresholds can jeopardize an endowment’s sustainability and may violate both donor restrictions and regulatory requirements. Consequently, when immediate cash needs surpass allowable draws, universities often turn to bond markets or bank loans, trading short-term liquidity for future debt obligations. According to a Forbes report, U.S. universities issued a record $11.6 billion in municipal bond debt in the first quarter of 2025 to safeguard operations amid federal funding cuts.

    Fiscal and Legal Acumen: A New Leadership Imperative

    In the current climate, effective university leadership requires not only academic vision but also robust financial and legal expertise. Leaders must navigate complex debt covenants, bond rating pressures and donor restrictions while transparently communicating difficult decisions to trustees, faculty, students and the public. These challenges, at least financially, arguably surpass those faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, when federal relief funds temporarily masked underlying vulnerabilities.

    Rising Insolvency Risk Beyond Public Campuses

    Recent announcements by private Research-1 universities suggest several well-known institutions—among them Duke and Northwestern Universities—could encounter significant fiscal strain if current federal research funding trends persist. While nonselective public research universities are often viewed as the most vulnerable to federal funding cuts, some prominent private institutions also face rising risk. High fixed costs, tuition and/or research dependency, and limited unrestricted endowment income create financial fragility as grants plateau.

    Enrollment Shocks: A Cascade in Waiting

    An often-overlooked but potentially destabilizing factor is the cascading effect on enrollment should elite institutions expand freshman classes and nonresearch focused graduate programs by aggressively tapping wait lists to compensate for financial shortfalls. While larger cohorts can spread overhead costs and generate additional tuition revenue, rapid expansion without strategic planning can strain housing, advising and support services, potentially degrading the student experience and affecting retention.

    For example, if the top 50 universities each increase enrollment by even 5 percent, thousands of well-qualified students may shift upward, siphoning tuition dollars from regional publics, tuition-dependent privates and community colleges. For institutions already operating on thin margins, this loss of yield could prove existential.

    This scenario recalls the 2008 financial crisis: a shock at the top reverberated across sectors. Here, if highly selective colleges “catch a cold,” more vulnerable campuses may suffer a deeper freeze.

    Equity and Access Under Pressure

    The most severe consequences are likely to impact lower-income students. Potential elimination of federal support programs like federal TRIO programs and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, coupled with the potential cascading effects outlined above, risk widening the affordability gap. To shore up budgets, financially stressed institutions may tighten aid packages and prioritize full-pay applicants. Simultaneously, regional institutions that disproportionately serve these populations face their own budget constraints, compounding threats to access and social mobility. Conversely, other financially stressed colleges may opt to elevate unfunded tuition discount rates to unsustainable levels in order to meet enrollment targets, an action we have witnessed during less stressful periods.

    Summer Melt: An Immediate Barometer

    The impending summer melt period—when students who have submitted deposits ultimately decide not to enroll—may serve as a real-time stress indicator. Historically, national melt rates hover around 10 to 20 percent, but even a two- to three-percentage-point uptick for small, tuition-driven colleges can force emergency cuts. If selective universities reach deeper into their wait lists this summer, downstream institutions could experience sudden enrollment gaps as fall semesters are about to begin.

    Toward Long-Term Resilience: Strategic Levers

    As the financial headwinds intensify, universities must couple urgency with discipline. Ensuring alignment among institutional leaders, preserving trust and activating institutional flexibility will be key. The following strategic levers offer a practical framework for leaders aiming to build resilience without losing sight of mission.

    1. Ensure board and leadership alignment: Any misalignment between governing boards and executive teams can slow decision-making and erode credibility. Clear alignment around scenario planning, liquidity thresholds and contingency triggers is paramount.
    2. Embrace shared governance: Genuine engagement with faculty, staff and students in fiscal deliberations can enhance adaptability and morale. Institutions that bypass shared governance risk midcareer talent attrition, as well as diminishing instructional quality and grant productivity.
    3. Rethink spending policies: Regular reassessment of endowment draw methodologies, debt covenants and liquidity lines is essential. Short-term borrowing can bridge operational gaps but should be paired with disciplined multiyear plans that include potential program realignment and other austerity measures.
    4. Diversify revenue streams: Institutions must increase nontraditional tuition income, such as from online certificates, executive education and micro-credentials. Commercializing research can generate revenue, however, safeguards are necessary to prevent a slide into “University Inc.” cynicism—the sense that institutions are prioritizing profit over scholarship.
    5. Strengthen financial transparency: Open dashboards tracking liquidity ratios, debt service coverage ratios and aid spending cultivate trust and temper rumor-driven resistance. Responsible transparency should extend to explaining why certain programs may face review in the name of institutional sustainability.

    The Faculty and Staff Dimension

    Financial pressures inevitably affect human capital. Institutions that announce austerity plans without clear road maps invite uncertainty and, ultimately, attrition among faculty and staff. Retention of human capital is crucial not only for educational quality but also for grant productivity and student success. Engaging employees in strategic trade-offs—such as phased retirement options, the cross-training of staff to handle multiple roles as part of new revenue initiatives or shared services efficiencies—can transform potential resistance into collaborative resilience. But these strategic trade-offs also impact human capital.

    What About Academic Mission?

    Some argue that larger entering classes could enhance diversity or increase institutional reach. Others worry that an aggressive growth mindset dilutes faculty engagement and student mentorship. Both perspectives merit consideration. Growth for growth’s sake, particularly when propelled by crisis rather than strategy, risks eroding the very qualities that make a campus distinctive.

    A Crucible Moment

    Higher education has weathered wars, recessions and a global pandemic, but today’s convergence of shrinking research support, demographic shifts and rising debt costs presents a challenge not witnessed in recent history. Liquidity stress is reaching even elite campuses.

    The lessons from recent bond issuances, emergency loans and layoffs are clear: Action must come before distress spreads further. Institutions that act now by aligning leadership, engaging stakeholders, adjusting spending, diversifying revenue and communicating clearly will emerge stronger and more mission‑focused.

    Those that delay risk letting early warning signs become full‑blown alarms.

    As summer melt data arrives and fiscal year budgets close, we will soon learn whether these echoes from the Ivies were just noise—or the first tremors of something more.

    Joseph E. Nyre served as president of Seton Hall University from 2019 to 2023 and of Iona University from 2011 to 2019. He is the founder and managing director of Veritas Solutions Advisors, a higher education and nonprofit consulting company.

    Source link

  • Increased ID Verification for Financial Aid Raises Questions

    Increased ID Verification for Financial Aid Raises Questions

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | michaeljung and robas/iStock/Getty Images

    College financial aid offices and students’ advocates say that a Trump administration plan to crack down on fraud in the federal aid system could burden university staff and hinder access to college programs.

    Although they support fighting fraud as a concept, they particularly worry that real, eligible Pell Grant recipients will get caught up in the detection system and won’t be able to jump through the extra hoops to verify their identity.

    “In general, verification is a little bit of threading the needle between making sure that the right dollars are going to the right students, but also not putting up an inordinate number of barriers, particularly to low-income students, that are insurmountable,” said Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy and federal relations at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. “You have to walk a fine line between those two things.”

    Department of Education officials, however, say their plan, announced June 9, is necessary to protect American taxpayers from theft and won’t become a burden for colleges. They aren’t worried about students losing access, either.

    Ultimately, the Trump administration plans to verify the identity of each financial aid applicant with the help of a new system that should be up and running “this fall,” according to the department’s announcement. Before then, the department is planning to screen more first-time applicants for verification—a process that could affect 125,000 students this summer and will be handled by financial aid offices. (About 40,000 students were checked last year, according to a department spokesperson.)

    McCarthy, however, is concerned that if the new system isn’t ready by the fall, “institutions will be assuming this larger burden for a longer, indeterminate amount of time.” The department’s botched launch of the 2024–25 Free Application for Federal Student Aid showed the challenges of standing up new systems quickly, she noted.

    A senior official at the Department of Education told Inside Higher Ed that the Office of Federal Student Aid and the department procurement team are in the process of purchasing an identity-validation product similar to the ones used by financial services companies like banks. The product would be incorporated into the online FAFSA portal.

    If an individual is flagged for potential fraud at any point while filling out the form, a pop-up box would appear with a live staff member on the other side, the official explained. The applicant would then be asked to display a government-issued ID. If that ID is deemed valid, the person could then continue.

    “Once that’s done, the process is over,” the official said. “That’s really as simple as that effort is. I believe rental car companies are using it, too.”

    The official was optimistic that the department could have the system up and running by early September, though that won’t be soon enough to get aid disbursed in time for the fall semester. The official also acknowledged that the timeline means that colleges may have to do some verification in person even in the fall, but that process should not be too much of a burden for the college or the student. Similar to the online process, a student would just need to show a valid ID to a college financial aid administrator, either in person or over a video call. Previously, when identity verifications were conducted, students had to present a Statement of Educational Purpose and submit a notarized copy of their identification document.

    But advocacy groups that work with low-income students worry that even requiring a government-issued ID could give some students a leg up over others when it comes to accessing financial aid and affording to enroll in college.

    “We want to see fraud eliminated as much as anyone else … We just need to make sure that gets balanced with a reasonable process for students,” said MorraLee Keller, a senior consultant for the National College Attainment Network. “A lot of low-economic kids may not have secured, for example, a driver’s license. If they don’t drive, they may not have a driver’s license, and that is probably the primary form of a government-issued valid ID that most people would be able to present.”

    Keller noted that some states may have alternate IDs available for those who do not drive, but even that may take time to obtain if a student doesn’t already possess it.

    “We want to make sure that timing doesn’t interrupt the aid getting credited to their account to pay their bills on time so that they could start classes, get refunds to go get their books and all those kinds of things,” she said. “So one of the questions that we still need answered is, what else would be considered a valid ID?”

    The California Community College system, which has grappled with increasing financial aid fraud, recently considered an application fee to help screen legitimate students from fraudsters. A spokesperson for the system said they are waiting on additional guidance from the department before they can know how big a deal this shift will be.

    “We wouldn’t be able to speculate on the level of concern among students and institutions until the federal guidance is known,” she wrote. But “financial aid fraud is a nationwide trend and additional identification verification processes will help in the fight against it.”

    Source link

  • Colleges Support Student Financial Literacy Education

    Colleges Support Student Financial Literacy Education

    Students often consider the return on investment of their degree when deciding whether and where to enroll in college, but not every student receives financial education from their institution on how to turn a college education into a life-sustaining career. A 2022 survey by Inside Higher Ed found that 67 percent of students are not sure if their college or university offers personal financial education; an additional 9 percent said no programs or classes are offered regarding financial literacy.

    To rectify that, colleges and universities are implementing programs that promote students’ money management skills, increase their awareness of financial planning and help them understand the debts they may acquire while in school.

    What’s the need: Student debt has skyrocketed over the past 20 years, with 42.7 million student borrowers holding nearly $1.7 trillion in federal loans. The average student who takes out loans to attend a public university borrows $31,960 to attain a bachelor’s degree, and over half of graduates use federal loans at some point. Loan debt can limit students’ earnings after college and hinder their socioeconomic advancement.

    Even while students are in college, financial challenges can impact their persistence and outcomes. A 2024 survey by Trellis Research found that 71 percent of students experienced financial trouble while enrolled, and nearly half said their current financial situation made it difficult to concentrate on schoolwork.

    A lack of financial education can also exacerbate equity concerns. An April 2025 report from Education Northwest found that only 25 percent of students were able to answer three financial questions correctly, with students from low-income families and those younger than 21 even less likely to answer correctly. Similarly, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic or Latino, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander students were less likely to answer financial literacy questions correctly.

    Inside Higher Ed highlights six institutions that have introduced innovative programs to combat financial illiteracy.

    1. Florida State University: Unconquered by Debt

    Housed within the university’s Gus. A Stavros Center for Advancement of Free Enterprise and Economic Education, FSU’s Unconquered by Debt program enhances student financial literacy to ensure graduates leave with the ability to advance their socioeconomic standing.

    The program walks students through crucial areas of financial planning including selecting a career, establishing healthy spending habits, investing, managing credit, ensuring assets and planning for retirement.

    Students can attend workshops on campus and enjoy free food and drinks while they learn more about money management and how to plan for their futures beyond college.

    The center recently hired an assistant director as part of a program expansion funded by the Office of the Provost.

    1. University of Miami: Money Management

    In 2019, the University of Miami created the Money Management Program to help build students’ short- and long-term financial well-being. The program has proven so successful in increasing student persistence that it has also received external grant funding, a university spokesperson said.

    Through workshops called Money Talks, the program addresses budgeting, credit and credit cards, loans, and debt repayment, as well as saving and investing. Students can also participate in half-day personal finance workshops on Saturdays throughout the academic year. The university hires peer coaches to provide confidential one-on-one coaching, to help prepare students for future careers in the finance world as well as bridge knowledge gaps for those who may need support.

    During the 2022–23 academic year, the university hosted over 240 Money Management events for more than 2,500 attendees, according to the spokesperson.

    1. East Carolina University: Financial Wellness Hub

    The Financial Wellness Hub at East Carolina University offers regular workshops on how to mitigate financial challenges while enrolled and helps students understand credit reports, debt management and student loan repayment strategies. The Hub caters services to various seasonal holidays, hosting a “Falling in Love With Credit” workshop for Valentine’s Day and “Spooky Credit Scores” for Halloween, as well as a budgeting workshop for gift giving during the winter holiday season.

    The Hub relies on relationship building and partnerships across the university to generate an audience for programs, director Kevin Sutton told Inside Higher Ed. Services are also available to alumni and staff, who in turn can better advise students or elect to contribute financially to the program’s budget.

    1. Penn State: Sokolov-Miller Family Financial and Life Skills Center

    Penn State established a center dedicated to managing financial wellness in college and beyond, which offers one-on-one coaching and workshops. In addition, the center provides students with access to a course on Canvas called MoneyCounts, which gives them a self-paced opportunity to engage in 28 modules on financial wellness.

    Other resources include live webinars, offered on the first and third Tuesday of each month at noon, which are recorded for those who can’t make it synchronously, and a free bookshelf stocked with financial wellness books— topics range from simple money skills to insurance—that is supported by Barnes & Noble.

    1. Babson College: The Babson Financial Literacy Project

    In addition to supporting current students, the BFLP is a nonprofit organization the ensures all community members can receive quality financial education. The program was developed by faculty at Babson and coaches lead online and in-person workshops, as well as train staff to deliver content on their own.

    Between its launch in fall 2018 and March of this year, the program has supported 418 workshops with 17,189 participants, according to the program webpage.

    In addition, participants can engage with various student organizations on campus to learn more about the world of finance, including the Babson Finance Association, Babson Scholars of Finance and Women in Finance.

    1. Western Washington University: Financial Wellness Badges

    At WWU, students can engage with the Merriman Financial Literacy program through workshops, online courses delivered via iGrad, peer mentorship and digital badging.

    Students can earn badges in such areas as financial mindfulness, investment, savings and credit, as well as budgeting and spending.

    To earn the financial mindfulness starter badge, for example, students must complete a financial wellness checkup and a money meditation on iGrad, then write a financial wellness journal entry. Each badge has three levels, from foundations to expert, building on students’ knowledge and signaling deep understanding of the topic.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link