Notice: Function WP_Interactivity_API::_process_directives was called incorrectly. Interactivity directives failed to process in "" due to a missing "A" end tag. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.6.0.) in /home/kusanagi/blog.college-counseling.com/DocumentRoot/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114
Security – About Us

Tag: Security

  • Penn to Lose Security Clearance in Trump Attack

    Penn to Lose Security Clearance in Trump Attack

    President Donald Trump signed a directive Wednesday removing the security clearances of University of Pennsylvania community members, the latest government action to pummel the president’s alma mater.

    In the directive, Trump, a 1968 Wharton School of Business graduate, ordered the Department of Justice to investigate Miles Taylor, a former senior Department of Homeland Security official who has criticized the president, including in a 2018 New York Times op-ed and in a book in which he alleges presidential misconduct during Trump’s first term.

    Taylor taught an undergraduate course at Penn in fall 2023 called The Future of Conservatism and the GOP, according to The Daily Pennsylvanian, and it’s this tie that has put Penn in the crosshairs.

    Trump’s memo asks the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and other relevant department and agency heads to suspend the security clearances held by Taylor “and any individuals at entities associated with Taylor, including the University of Pennsylvania.”

    According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Penn does not conduct classified research and has no security clearance.

    “The University does not possess a government security clearance and cannot as a corporate entity possess classified material,” the website states. “It is the policy of the university not to accept agreements which require access to classified data, require university employees to obtain security clearances, or restrict the dissemination of the results.”

    Penn is also currently facing a $175 million funding freeze from the federal government, announced in March, related to participation of a transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team in 2022. The university was further affected by visa revocations of international students and scholars earlier this week.

    Source link

  • New Food Security Threats 5 Years After COVID-Era Effort to Feed All Kids – The 74

    New Food Security Threats 5 Years After COVID-Era Effort to Feed All Kids – The 74

    A multi-pronged attack on food aid by Republican lawmakers could mean more of the nation’s children will go hungry — both at home and at school.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently cut two federal programs that provided roughly $1 billion in funding for the purchase of food by schools and food banks. 

    And the Community Eligibility Provision, which reimburses tens of thousands of schools that provide free breakfast and lunch to all students, may tighten its requirements, potentially pushing some 12 million kids out of the program.

    These moves come at the same time the House Republican budget plan calls for deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The program fed more than 42 million low-income people per month nationwide in 2023. In 2022, 40% were younger than 18.  

    This recent shift reflects a stark reversal of earlier, nationwide efforts to keep families fed during the pandemic. Many districts, such as Baltimore, organized grab-and-go meals sites days after schools were shuttered in March 2020 with no identification or personal information required. Those initiatives led to the nation’s food insecurity rate dropping to a 20-year low when it reached 10.2% in 2021, down from a 14.9% high a decade earlier, according to the USDA.

    It has since crept back up to 13.5% and now, five years after schools utilized USDA waivers to deliver meals in innovative ways, they are bracing for what could be massive cuts from the federal government.

    Latoya Roberson, manager at Mergenthaler Vocational-Technical High School in Baltimore (Baltimore City Public Schools) 

    Elizabeth A. Marchetta, executive director of food and nutrition services for Baltimore City Public Schools, said 31 campuses — serving 19,000 children — would lose out on free breakfast and lunch if the Community Eligibility Provision changes go through. They are among 393 schools and 251,318 children statewide who would be shut out. 

    “It would be devastating,” Marchetta said. “These are critical funds. If we are not being reimbursed for all of the meals we’re serving … the money has to come from somewhere else in the school district, so that is really not great.”

    Nearly 48,000 schools in more than 7,700 districts benefited from the Community Eligibility Provision in the 2023-24 school year. The program reimburses schools that provide universal free meals based on the percentage of their students who automatically qualify for free and reduced-price lunch because their families receive other types of assistance, like SNAP. 

    In 2023, after the COVID-era policy ended where any student could receive a free school meal regardless of income, President Biden lowered the percentage of high-need students required for a school to qualify from 40% to 25%, greatly expanding participation. 

    House GOP Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington now seeks to raise the rate to 60%. The budget proposal would also require all students applying for free and reduced-price meals to submit documentation verifying their family income.

    School meal debt, a barometer of food insecurity among students, is already on the rise. It will almost certainly increase if universal school meals disappear for students whose families make too much to qualify for free and reduced-price lunch but too little to afford to buy meals at school. At the same time, kids who are eligible for free and reduced-price meals could lose that benefit if the required paperwork becomes harder. 

    In the fall of 2023, across 808 school districts, the median amount of school meal debt was $5,495. By the fall of 2024, that amount reached $6,900 across 766 districts, a 25% increase, according to the School Nutrition Association.

    It was just $2,000 a decade earlier. A trio of Democratic senators is pushing to erase the $262 million annual debt total, with Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman saying in 2023, “‘School lunch debt’ is a term so absurd that it shouldn’t even exist. That’s why I’m proud to introduce this bill to cancel the nation’s student meal debt and stop humiliating kids and penalizing hunger.”

    Research shows students benefit mightily from free meals: those who attend schools that adopted the Community Eligibility Provision saw lower rates of obesity compared to those who did not. Free in-school meals are also credited for boosting attendance among low-income children, improving classroom behavior and lowering suspensions.

    Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America. 

    Joel Berg, the CEO of Hunger Free America, said further cuts will greatly harm the poorest students. 

    “Over the last few years, things have gone from bad to worse,” he said. “We were all raised seeing Frank Capra movies, where, in the end everything works out. But that’s not how the real world works. In the real world, when the economy gets a cold, poor people get cancer.”

    Hunger Free America found the number of Americans who didn’t have enough to eat over two one-week periods increased by 55.2% between August-September 2021 and August-September 2024. The states with the highest rates of food insecure children were Texas at 23.8%, Oklahoma at 23.2% and Nebraska at 22.6%. Georgia and Arkansas both came in at 22.4%. 

    The USDA slashed the $660 million Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program for 2025 — it allowed states to purchase local foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables, for distribution to schools and child care institutions — and $500 million from the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, which supported food banks nationwide. 

    Diane Pratt-Heavner, director of media relations for the School Nutrition Association, said that as families struggle with the high cost of groceries, the government should be doing more — not less — to bolster school meals and other food aid programs. 

    “We’re urging Congress not only to protect the federal Community Eligibility Provision, but to expand it,” Pratt-Heavner said. “Ideally, all students should have access to free school breakfast and lunch as part of their education.” 

    SNAP benefits stood at $4.80 per person per day through 2020 before jumping to more than $6 per person per day after they were adjusted for rising food and other costs. Even then, the higher amount was not enough to cover the cost of a moderately priced meal in most locations. 

    Republicans in Congress seek to cut the program by $230 billion over the next nine years, possibly by returning to the pre-pandemic allotment of $4.80 and/or expanding work-related requirements, said Salaam Bhatti, SNAP director at the Food Research & Action Center

    Another possibility, he said, is that SNAP costs could be pushed onto states — including those that can’t afford them. 

    “This would be an unfunded mandate,” Bhatti said. “States would have to take away from their discretionary spending to offset the cost and if it is not a mandate, then states in rural America and in the South that don’t have the budgets just won’t do it.” 

    Food-related funding decreases come as the child tax credit, created to help parents offset the cost of raising children, is also facing uncertainty, said Megan Curran, the director of policy at the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University.

    The American Rescue Plan increased the amount of the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,600 for qualifying children under age 6, and $3,000 for those under age 18. Many taxpayers received monthly advance payments in the second half of 2021, instead of waiting until tax filing season to receive the full benefits. The move cut child poverty nearly in half. The expanded child tax credit was allowed to lapse post-pandemic and now even the $2,000 credit could revert back to just $1,000

    All food-related and tax benefit cuts — plus the unknowns of Trump-era tariffs — will leave some Americans particularly vulnerable, Curran said. 

    “It’s shaping up to be a very precarious time for families,” she said, “especially families with children.”


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



    Source link

  • BIG CHANGES to SNAP, Medicaid, Social Security & Student Loan Forgiveness – What You NEED to Know! (Low-Income Relief)

    BIG CHANGES to SNAP, Medicaid, Social Security & Student Loan Forgiveness – What You NEED to Know! (Low-Income Relief)

    If you’re worried about losing your benefits, you’re not alone. With new budget resolutions and lawsuits targeting SNAP, Medicaid, and student loan forgiveness, millions of Americans could be impacted.
     

     

    Source link

  • Social Security Offsets and Defaulted Student Loans (CFPB)

    Social Security Offsets and Defaulted Student Loans (CFPB)

    Executive Summary

    When
    borrowers default on their federal student loans, the U.S. Department
    of Education (“Department of Education”) can collect the outstanding
    balance through forced collections, including the offset of tax refunds
    and Social Security benefits and the garnishment of wages. At the
    beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Education paused
    collections on defaulted federal student loans.
    This year, collections are set to resume and almost 6 million student
    loan borrowers with loans in default will again be subject to the
    Department of Education’s forced collection of their tax refunds, wages,
    and Social Security benefits.
    Among the borrowers who are likely to experience forced collections are
    an estimated 452,000 borrowers ages 62 and older with defaulted loans
    who are likely receiving Social Security benefits.

    This
    spotlight describes the circumstances and experiences of student loan
    borrowers affected by the forced collection of Social Security benefits.
    It also describes how forced collections can push older borrowers into
    poverty, undermining the purpose of the Social Security program.

    Key findings

    • The
      number of Social Security beneficiaries experiencing forced collection
      grew by more than 3,000 percent in fewer than 20 years; the count is
      likely to grow as the age of student loan borrowers trends older.

      Between 2001 and 2019, the number of Social Security beneficiaries
      experiencing reduced benefits due to forced collection increased from
      approximately 6,200 to 192,300. This exponential growth is likely driven
      by older borrowers who make up an increasingly large share of the
      federal student loan portfolio. The number of student loan borrowers
      ages 62 and older increased by 59 percent from 1.7 million in 2017 to
      2.7 million in 2023, compared to a 1 percent decline among borrowers
      under the age of 62.
    • The total amount
      of Social Security benefits the Department of Education collected
      between 2001 and 2019 through the offset program increased from $16.2
      million to $429.7 million
      . Despite the exponential increase in
      collections from Social Security, the majority of money the Department
      of Education has collected has been applied to interest and fees and has
      not affected borrowers’ principal amount owed. Furthermore, between
      2016 and 2019, the Department of the Treasury’s fees alone accounted for
      nearly 10 percent of the average borrower’s lost Social Security
      benefits.
    • More than one in three
      Social Security recipients with student loans are reliant on Social
      Security payments, meaning forced collections could significantly
      imperil their financial well-being.
      Approximately 37 percent of the
      1.3 million Social Security beneficiaries with student loans rely on
      modest payments, an average monthly benefit of $1,523, for 90 percent of
      their income. This population is particularly vulnerable to reduction
      in their benefits especially if benefits are offset year-round. In 2019,
      the average annual amount collected from individual beneficiaries was
      $2,232 ($186 per month).
    • The physical well-being of half of Social Security beneficiaries with student loans in default may be at risk.
      Half of Social Security beneficiaries with student loans in default and
      collections skipped a doctor’s visit or did not obtain prescription
      medication due to cost.
    • Existing minimum income protections fail to protect student loan borrowers with Social Security against financial hardship.
      Currently, only $750 per month of Social Security income—an amount that
      is $400 below the monthly poverty threshold for an individual and has
      not been adjusted for inflation since 1996—is protected from forced
      collections by statute. Even if the minimum protected income was
      adjusted for inflation, beneficiaries would likely still experience
      hardship, such as food insecurity and problems paying utility bills. A
      higher threshold could protect borrowers against hardship more
      effectively. The CFPB found that for 87 percent of student loan
      borrowers who receive Social Security, their benefit amount is below 225
      percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), an income level at which
      people are as likely to experience material hardship as those with
      incomes below the federal poverty level.
    • Large
      shares of Social Security beneficiaries affected by forced collections
      may be eligible for relief or outright loan cancellation, yet they are
      unable to access these benefits, possibly due to insufficient
      automation or borrowers’ cognitive and physical decline.
      As many as
      eight in ten Social Security beneficiaries with loans in default may be
      eligible to suspend or reduce forced collections due to financial
      hardship. Moreover, one in five Social Security beneficiaries may be
      eligible for discharge of their loans due to a disability. Yet these
      individuals are not accessing such relief because the Department of
      Education’s data matching process insufficiently identifies those who
      may be eligible.

    Taken together,
    these findings suggest that the Department of Education’s forced
    collections of Social Security benefits increasingly interfere with
    Social Security’s longstanding purpose of protecting its beneficiaries
    from poverty and financial instability.

    Introduction

    When
    borrowers default on their federal student loans, the Department of
    Education can collect the outstanding balance through forced
    collections, including the offset of tax refunds and Social Security
    benefits, and the garnishment of wages. At the beginning of the COVID-19
    pandemic, the Department of Education paused collections on defaulted
    federal student loans. This year, collections are set to resume and
    almost 6 million student loan borrowers with loans in default will again
    be subject to the Department of Education’s forced collection of their
    tax refunds, wages, and Social Security benefits.

    Among
    the borrowers who are likely to experience the Department of
    Education’s renewed forced collections are an estimated 452,000
    borrowers with defaulted loans who are ages 62 and older and who are
    likely receiving Social Security benefits.
    Congress created the Social Security program in 1935 to provide a basic
    level of income that protects insured workers and their families from
    poverty due to situations including old age, widowhood, or disability.
    The Social Security Administration calls the program “one of the most
    successful anti-poverty programs in our nation’s history.”
    In 2022, Social Security lifted over 29 million Americans from poverty,
    including retirees, disabled adults, and their spouses and dependents.
    Congress has recognized the importance of securing the value of Social
    Security benefits and on several occasions has intervened to protect
    them.

    This
    spotlight describes the circumstances and experiences of student loan
    borrowers affected by the forced collection of their Social Security
    benefits.
    It also describes how the purpose of Social Security is being
    increasingly undermined by the limited and deficient options the
    Department of Education has to protect Social Security beneficiaries
    from poverty and hardship.

    The forced collection of Social Security benefits has increased exponentially.

    Federal
    student loans enter default after 270 days of missed payments and
    transfer to the Department of Education’s default collections program
    after 360 days. Borrowers with a loan in default face several
    consequences: (1) their credit is negatively affected; (2) they lose
    eligibility to receive federal student aid while their loans are in
    default; (3) they are unable to change repayment plans and request
    deferment and forbearance; and (4) they face forced collections of tax refunds, Social Security benefits, and wages among other payments.
    To conduct its forced collections of federal payments like tax refunds
    and Social Security benefits, the Department of Education relies on a
    collection service run by the U.S. Department of the Treasury called the
    Treasury Offset Program.

    Between
    2001 and 2019, the number of student loan borrowers facing forced
    collection of their Social Security benefits increased from at least
    6,200 to 192,300.
    That is a more than 3,000 percent increase in fewer than 20 years. By
    comparison, the number of borrowers facing forced collections of their
    tax refunds increased by about 90 percent from 1.17 million to 2.22
    million during the same period.

    This exponential growth of Social Security offsets between 2001 and 2019 is likely driven by multiple factors including:

    • Older
      borrowers accounted for an increasingly large share of the federal
      student loan portfolio due to increasing average age of enrollment and
      length of time in repayment.
      Data from the Department of Education
      (which is only available since 2017), show that the number of student
      loan borrowers ages 62 and older, increased 24 percent from 1.7 million
      in 2017 to 2.1 million in 2019, compared to less than 1 percent among
      borrowers under the age of 62.
    • A larger number of borrowers, especially older borrowers, had loans in default.
      Data from the Department of Education show that the number of student
      loan borrowers with a defaulted loan increased by 230 percent from 3.8
      million in 2006 to 8.8 million in 2019. Compounding these trends is the fact that older borrowers are twice as likely to have a loan in default than younger borrowers.

    Due
    to these factors, the total amount of Social Security benefits the
    Department of Education collected between 2001 and 2019 through the
    offset program increased annually from $16.2 million to $429.7 million
    (when adjusted for inflation).
    This increase occurred even though the average monthly amount the
    Department of Education collected from individual beneficiaries was the
    same for most years, at approximately $180 per month.

    Figure 1: Number of Social Security beneficiaries and total amount collected for student loans (2001-2019)

    Source: CFPB analysis of public data from U.S. Treasury’s Fiscal Data portal. Amounts are presented in 2024 dollars.

    While the total collected from
    Social Security benefits has increased exponentially, the majority of
    money the Department of Education collected has not been applied to
    borrowers’ principal amount owed. Specifically, nearly three-quarters of
    the monies the Department of Education collects through offsets is
    applied to interest and fees, and not towards paying down principal
    balances.
    Between 2016 and 2019, the U.S. Department of the Treasury charged the
    Department of Education between $13.12 and $15.00 per Social Security
    offset, or approximately between $157.44 and $180 for 12 months of
    Social Security offsets per beneficiary with defaulted federal student
    loans. As a matter of practice, the Department of Education often passes these fees on directly to borrowers.
    Furthermore, these fees accounted for nearly 10 percent of the average
    monthly borrower’s lost Social Security benefits which was $183 during
    this time.
    Interest and fees not only reduce beneficiaries’ monthly benefits, but
    also prolong the period that beneficiaries are likely subject to forced
    collections.

    Forced collections are compromising Social Security beneficiaries’ financial well-being.

    Forced
    collection of Social Security benefits affects the financial well-being
    of the most vulnerable borrowers and can exacerbate any financial and
    health challenges they may already be experiencing. The CFPB’s analysis
    of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) pooled data for
    2018 to 2021 finds that Social Security beneficiaries with student
    loans receive an average monthly benefit of $1,524.
    The analysis also indicates that approximately 480,000 (37 percent) of
    the 1.3 million beneficiaries with student loans rely on these modest
    payments for 90 percent or more of their income,
    thereby making them particularly vulnerable to reduction in their
    benefits especially if benefits are offset year-round. In 2019, the
    average annual amount collected from individual beneficiaries was $2,232
    ($186 per month).

    A
    recent survey from The Pew Charitable Trusts found that more than nine
    in ten borrowers who reported experiencing wage garnishment or Social
    Security payment offsets said that these penalties caused them financial
    hardship.
    Consequently, for many, their ability to meet their basic needs,
    including access to healthcare, became more difficult. According to our
    analysis of the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Household Economic and
    Decision-making (SHED), half of Social Security beneficiaries with
    defaulted student loans skipped a doctor’s visit and/or did not obtain
    prescription medication due to cost.
    Moreover, 36 percent of Social Security beneficiaries with loans in
    delinquency or in collections report fair or poor health. Over half of
    them have medical debt.

    Figure 2: Selected financial experiences and hardships among subgroups of loan borrowers

    Bar graph showing that borrowers who receive Social Security benefits and are delinquent or in collections are more likely to report that their spending is same or higher than their income, they are unable to pay some bills, have fair or poor health, and skip medical care than borrowers who receive Social Security benefits and are not delinquent or in collections.

    Source: CFPB analysis of the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Household Economic and Decision-making (2019-2023).

    Social Security recipients
    subject to forced collection may not be able to access key public
    benefits that could help them mitigate the loss of income. This is
    because Social Security beneficiaries must list the unreduced amount of
    their benefits prior to collections when applying for other means-tested
    benefits programs such as Social Security Insurance (SSI), Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Medicare Savings Programs.
    Consequently, beneficiaries subject to forced collections must report
    an inflated income relative to what they are actually receiving. As a
    result, these beneficiaries may be denied public benefits that provide
    food, medical care, prescription drugs, and assistance with paying for
    other daily living costs.

    Consumers’
    complaints submitted to the CFPB describe the hardship caused by forced
    collections on borrowers reliant on Social Security benefits to pay for
    essential expenses.
    Consumers often explain their difficulty paying for such expenses as
    rent and medical bills. In one complaint, a consumer noted that they
    were having difficulty paying their rent since their Social Security
    benefit usually went to paying that expense.
    In another complaint, a caregiver described that the money was being
    withheld from their mother’s Social Security, which was the only source
    of income used to pay for their mother’s care at an assisted living
    facility.
    As forced collections threaten the housing security and health of
    Social Security beneficiaries, they also create a financial burden on
    non-borrowers who help address these hardships, including family members
    and caregivers.

    Existing minimum income protections fail to protect student loan borrowers with Social Security against financial hardship.

    The
    Debt Collection Improvement Act set a minimum floor of income below
    which the federal government cannot offset Social Security benefits and
    subsequent Treasury regulations established a cap on the percentage of
    income above that floor.
    Specifically, these statutory guardrails limit collections to 15
    percent of Social Security benefits above $750. The minimum threshold
    was established in 1996 and has not been updated since. As a result, the
    amount protected by law alone does not adequately protect beneficiaries
    from financial hardship and in fact no longer protects them from
    falling below the federal poverty level (FPL). In 1996, $750 was nearly
    $100 above the monthly poverty threshold for an individual.
    Today that same protection is $400 below the threshold. If the
    protected amount of $750 per month ($9,000 per year) set in 1996 was
    adjusted for inflation, in 2024 dollars, it would total $1,450 per month
    ($17,400 per year).

    Figure
    3: Comparison of monthly FPL threshold with the current protected
    amount established in 1996 and the amount that would be protected with
    inflation adjustment

    Image with a bar graph showing the difference in monthly amounts for different thresholds and protections, from lowest to highest: (a) existing protections ($750), (b) the federal poverty level in 2024 ($1,255), (c) the amount set in 1996 if it had been CPI adjusted ($1,450), and (e) 225% of the FPL under the SAVE Plan ($2,824).

    Source: Calculations by the CFPB. Notes: Inflation adjustments based on the consumer price index (CPI).

    Even if the minimum protected
    income of $750 is adjusted for inflation, beneficiaries will likely
    still experience hardship as a result of their reduced benefits.
    Consumers with incomes above the poverty line also commonly experience
    material hardship. This suggests that a threshold that is higher than the poverty level will more effectively protect against hardship.
    Indeed, in determining an income threshold for $0 payments under the
    SAVE plan, the Department of Education researchers used material
    hardship (defined as being unable to pay utility bills and reporting
    food insecurity) as their primary metric, and found similar levels of
    material hardship among those with incomes below the poverty line and
    those with incomes up to 225 percent of the FPL.
    Similarly, the CFPB’s analysis of a pooled sample of SIPP respondents
    finds the same levels of material hardship for Social Security
    beneficiaries with student loans with incomes below 100 percent of the
    FPL and those with incomes up to 225 percent of the FPL.
    The CFPB found that for 87 percent of student loan borrowers who
    receive Social Security, their benefit amount is below 225 percent of
    the FPL.
    Accordingly, all of those borrowers would be removed from forced
    collections if the Department of Education applied the same income
    metrics it established under the SAVE program to an automatic hardship
    exemption program.

    Existing options for relief from forced collections fail to reach older borrowers.

    Borrowers
    with loans in default remain eligible for certain types of loan
    cancellation and relief from forced collections. However, our analysis
    suggests that these programs may not be reaching many eligible
    consumers. When borrowers do not benefit from these programs, their
    hardship includes, but is not limited to, unnecessary losses to their
    Social Security benefits and negative credit reporting.

    Borrowers who become disabled after reaching full retirement age may miss out on Total and Permanent Disability

    The
    Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) discharge program cancels federal
    student loans and effectively stops all forced collections for disabled
    borrowers who meet certain requirements. After recent revisions to the
    program, this form of cancelation has become common for those borrowers
    with Social Security who became disabled prior to full retirement age. In 2016, a GAO study documented the significant barriers to TPD that Social Security beneficiaries faced.
    To address GAO’s concerns, the Department of Education in 2021 took a
    series of mitigating actions, including entering into a data-matching
    agreement with the Social Security Administration (SSA) to automate the
    TPD eligibility determination and discharge process.
    This process was expanded further with new final rules being
    implemented July 1, 2023 that expanded the categories of borrowers
    eligible for automatic TPD cancellation. In total, these changes successfully resulted in loan cancelations for approximately 570,000 borrowers.

    However,
    the automation and other regulatory changes did not significantly
    change the application process for consumers who become disabled after
    they reach full retirement age or who have already claimed the Social
    Security retirement benefits. For these beneficiaries, because they are
    already receiving retirement benefits, SSA does not need to determine
    disability status. Likewise, SSA does not track disability status for
    those individuals who become disabled after they start collecting their
    Social Security retirement benefits.

    Consequently,
    SSA does not transfer information on disability to the Department of
    Education once the beneficiary begins collecting Social Security
    retirement.
    These individuals therefore will not automatically get a TPD discharge
    of their student loans, and they must be aware and physically and
    mentally able to proactively apply for the discharge.

    The
    CFPB’s analysis of the Census survey data suggests that the population
    that is excluded from the TPD automation process could be substantial.
    More than one in five (22 percent) Social Security beneficiaries with
    student loans are receiving retirement benefits and report a disability
    such as a limitation with vision, hearing, mobility, or cognition.
    People with dementia and other cognitive disabilities are among those
    with the greatest risk of being excluded, since they are more likely to
    be diagnosed after the age 70, which is the maximum age for claiming
    retirement benefits.

    These
    limitations may also help explain why older borrowers are less likely
    to rehabilitate their defaulted student loans. Specifically, 11 percent
    of student loan borrowers ages 50 to 59 facing forced collections
    successfully rehabilitated their loans, while only five percent of borrowers over the age of 75 do so.

    Figure
    4: Number of student loan borrowers ages 50 and older in forced
    collection, borrowers who signed a rehabilitation agreement, and
    borrowers who successfully rehabilitated a loan by selected age groups

    Age Group Number of Borrowers in Offset Number of Borrowers Who Signed a Rehabilitation Agreement Percent of Borrowers Who Signed a Rehabilitation Agreement Number of Borrowers Successfully Rehabilitated Percent of Borrowers who Successfully Rehabilitated
    50 to 59 265,200 50,800 14% 38,400 11%
    60 to 74 184,900 24,100 11% 18,500 8%
    75 and older 15,800 1,000 6% 800 5%

    Source: CFPB analysis of data provided by the Department of Education.

    Shifting demographics of
    student loan borrowers suggest that the current automation process may
    become less effective to protect Social Security benefits from forced
    collections as more and more older adults have student loan debt. The
    fastest growing segment of student loan borrowers are adults ages 62 and
    older. These individuals are generally eligible for retirement
    benefits, not disability benefits, because they cannot receive both
    classifications at the same time. Data from the Department of Education
    reflect that the number of student loan borrowers ages 62 and older
    increased by 59 percent from 1.7 million in 2017 to 2.7 million in 2023.
    In comparison, the number of borrowers under the age of 62 remained
    unchanged at 43 million in both years.
    Furthermore, additional data provided to the CFPB by the Department of
    Education show that nearly 90,000 borrowers ages 81 and older hold an
    average amount of $29,000 in federal student loan debt, a substantial
    amount despite facing an estimated average life expectancy of less than
    nine years.

    Existing exceptions to forced collections fail to protect many Social Security beneficiaries

    In
    addition to TPD discharge, the Department of Education offers reduction
    or suspension of Social Security offset where borrowers demonstrate
    financial hardship.
    To show hardship, borrowers must provide documentation of their income
    and expenses, which the Department of Education then uses to make its
    determination.
    Unlike the Debt Collection Improvement Act’s minimum protections, the
    eligibility for hardship is based on a comparison of an individual’s
    documented income and qualified expenses. If the borrower has eligible
    monthly expenses that exceed or match their income, the Department of
    Education then grants a financial hardship exemption.

    The
    CFPB’s analysis suggests that the vast majority of Social Security
    beneficiaries with student loans would qualify for a hardship
    protection. According to CFPB’s analysis of the Federal Reserve Board’s
    SHED, eight in ten (82 percent) of Social Security beneficiaries with
    student loans in default report that their expenses equal or exceed
    their income.
    Accordingly, these individuals would likely qualify for a full
    suspension of forced collections. Yet the GAO found that in 2015 (when
    the last data was available) less than ten percent of Social Security
    beneficiaries with forced collections applied for a hardship exemption
    or reduction of their offset.
    A possible reason for the low uptake rate is that many beneficiaries or
    their caregivers never learn about the hardship exemption or the
    possibility of a reduction in the offset amount.
    For those that do apply, only a fraction get relief. The GAO study
    found that at the time of their initial offset, only about 20 percent of
    Social Security beneficiaries ages 50 and older with forced collections
    were approved for a financial hardship exemption or a reduction of the
    offset amount if they applied.

    Conclusion

    As
    hundreds of thousands of student loan borrowers with loans in default
    face the resumption of forced collection of their Social Security
    benefits, this spotlight shows that the forced collection of Social
    Security benefits causes significant hardship among affected borrowers.
    The spotlight also shows that the basic income protections aimed at
    preventing poverty and hardship among affected borrowers have become
    increasingly ineffective over time. While the Department of Education
    has made some improvements to expand access to relief options,
    especially for those who initially receive Social Security due to a
    disability, these improvements are insufficient to protect older adults
    from the forced collection of their Social Security benefits.

    Taken
    together, these findings suggest that forced collections of Social
    Security benefits increasingly interfere with Social Security’s
    longstanding purpose of protecting its beneficiaries from poverty and
    financial instability. These findings also suggest that alternative
    approaches are needed to address the harm that forced collections cause
    on beneficiaries and to compensate for the declining effectiveness of
    existing remedies. One potential solution may be found in the Debt
    Collection Improvement Act, which provides that when forced collections
    “interfere substantially with or defeat the purposes of the payment
    certifying agency’s program” the head of an agency may request from the
    Secretary of the Treasury an exemption from forced collections.
    Given the data findings above, such a request for relief from the
    Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on behalf of Social
    Security beneficiaries who have defaulted student loans could be
    justified. Unless the toll of forced collections on Social Security
    beneficiaries is considered alongside the program’s stated goals, the
    number of older adults facing these challenges is only set to grow.

    Data and Methodology

    To
    develop this report, the CFPB relied primarily upon original analysis
    of public-use data from the U.S. Census Bureau Survey of Income and
    Program Participation (SIPP), the Federal Reserve Board Board’s Survey
    of Household Economics and Decision-making (SHED), U.S. Department of
    the Treasury, Fiscal Data portal, consumer complaints received by the
    Bureau, and administrative data on borrowers in default provided by the
    Department of Education. The report also leverages data and findings
    from other reports, studies, and sources, and cites to these sources
    accordingly. Readers should note that estimates drawn from survey data
    are subject to measurement error resulting, among other things, from
    reporting biases and question wording.

    Survey of Income and Program Participation

    The
    Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) is a nationally
    representative survey of U.S. households conducted by the U.S. Census
    Bureau. The SIPP collects data from about 20,000 households (40,000
    people) per wave. The survey captures a wide range of characteristics
    and information about these households and their members. The CFPB
    relied on a pooled sample of responses from 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021
    waves for a total number of 17,607 responses from student loan borrowers
    across all waves, including 920 respondents with student loans
    receiving Social Security benefits. The CFPB’s analysis relied on the
    public use data. To capture student loan debt, the survey asked to all
    respondents (variable EOEDDEBT): Owed any money for student loans or
    educational expenses in own name only during the reference period. To
    capture receipt of Social Security benefits, the survey asked to all
    respondents (variable ESSSANY): “Did … receive Social Security
    benefits for himself/herself at any time during the reference period?”
    To capture amount of Social Security benefits, the survey asked to all
    respondents (variable TSSSAMT): “How much did … receive in Social
    Security benefit payment in this month (1-12), prior to any deductions
    for Medicare premiums?”

    The public-use version of the survey dataset, and the survey documentation can be found at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp.html

    Survey of Household Economics and Decision-making

    The
    Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Household Economics and
    Decision-making (SHED) is an annual web-based survey of households. The
    survey captures information about respondents’ financial situations. The
    CFPB relied on a pooled sample of responses from 2019 through 2023
    waves for a total number of 1,376 responses from student loan borrowers
    in collection across all waves. The CFPB analysis relied on the public
    use data. To capture default and collection, the survey asked all
    respondents with student loans (variable SL6): “Are you behind on
    payments or in collections for one or more of the student loans from
    your own education?” To capture receipt of Social Security benefits, the
    survey asked to all respondents (variable I0_c): “In the past 12
    months, did you (and/or your spouse or partner) receive any income from
    the following sources: Social Security (including old age and DI)?”

    The public-use version of the survey dataset, and the survey documentation can be found at https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/shed_data.htm  

    Appendix
    A: Number of student loan borrowers ages 60 and older, total
    outstanding balance, and average balance by age group, August 2024

    Age Group Borrower Count (in thousands) Balance (in billions) Average balance

    60 to 65

    1,951.4

    $87.49

    $44,834

    66 to 70

    909.8

    $39.47

    $43,383

    71 to 75

    457.5

    $18.95

    $41,421

    76 to 80

    179.0

    $6.80

    $37,989

    81 to 85

    59.9

    $1.90

    $31,720

    86 to 90

    20.1

    $0.51

    $25,373

    91 to 95

    7.0

    $0.14

    $20,000

    96+

    2.8

    $0.05

    $17,857

    Source: Data provided by the Department of Education.

    The endnotes for this report are available here

    Source link

  • Top 5 Strategies to Enhance Cloud Security in Higher Education

    Top 5 Strategies to Enhance Cloud Security in Higher Education

    The transition to cloud computing has revolutionized higher education by enabling enhanced collaboration, scalability, and flexibility. On the other hand, the cloud’s ability to improve data security is a substantial advantage that is often overlooked. Securing a cloud environment necessitates a proactive approach, rather than solely implementing cloud-based technologies. Here We have collated the top are five strategies to optimize cloud security in higher education:

     

    Cloud security in higher education: Importance of data protection for HEIs

    Higher education institutions have a great deal of sensitive student and institutional data to handle, hence data security and cloud security in higher education is a top issue. Safeguarding sensitive data depends on strong adherence to laws including FERPA and GDPR, therefore guaranteeing ethical usage, limited access, and safe storage. According to surveys, giving transparency and strong data protection a top priority and opting for solutions to protecting student data in the cloud not only helps to prevent breaches but also fosters staff and student confidence, hence improving engagement and institutional reputation.

     

    5 Clever Strategies for Secure Cloud Adoption in Universities

     

     

    1. Emphasize control rather than location

    The belief that on-premises data storage is intrinsically more secure may be deceptive. Although server rooms appear concrete, they remain susceptible to breaches, natural calamities, and maintenance issues. Cloud solutions offer superior security features, like powerful firewalls, automatic backups across many sites, and multi-site processing to reduce risks and enhance recovery efficiency. Institutions may be confident that their data is secured by superior infrastructure.

     

    2. Adopt the paradigm of shared responsibility.

    Cloud security is not the responsibility of a single individual; it requires collaboration. The vendor is able to manage hardware maintenance, patching, and enhancements in physical infrastructure security by collaborating with a reliable cloud provider. This enables your internal IT staff to concentrate on strategic data governance, institutional policies, and user access control. By coordinating activities, academic institutions can enhance their security and facilitate more effective departmental decision-making.

     

    3. Employ sophisticated security features

    Cloud platforms offer a diverse array of integrated security features, including identity management systems, multifactor authentication (MFA), and advanced encryption. These features guarantee that only authorized individuals can access sensitive information. Moreover, cloud providers consistently enhance their security protocols to address emerging attacks, enabling your organization to remain proactive against potential hazards.

     

    4. Make scaling easier without putting security at risk

    Higher education needs are changing quickly, and old IT systems often can’t keep up. But the cloud lets you grow without sacrificing protection. Institutions can increase or decrease storage space, processing power, and entry controls without affecting the security of academic institutions and their data. For instance, access can be tailored to each role, so administrators, faculty, and students will only see data that is important to them.

     

    5. Invite everyone to be conscious of cloud security in higher education

    Usually, people are the weakest component in data security. As you migrate to the cloud, for instance, teach your employees and children about best practices include using secure passwords, turning on multifactor authentication, and identifying phishing efforts. Successful usage of the security features of the cloud reduces user error-related risks by means of informed communities.

     

    Cloud technology in campus management – Creatrix Campus higher education cloud suite

    The move to cloud technology in higher education is more than just a trend; it’s a huge chance to make data safer. Despite early concerns, institutions that follow these criteria can fully utilize the cloud’s data protection capabilities.

    Higher education institutions can adapt to this new reality with Creatrix Campus’s robust, secure cloud-based technologies. Can you commit to data security? Secure cloud solutions for academic institutions may help your institution.Get in touch for details.

     

    Source link