Blog

After a budget season with unprecedented focus on financial aid, the 2017-18 California State budget agreement now on Governor Brown’s desk includes several important policy gains.

Most critically, the budget includes welcome and long-overdue increases to financial aid for full-time community college students to help cover total college costs that can exceed $20,000 a year.  Due to an increase to the Full-Time Student Success Grant (FTSSG), a program championed by the Assembly two years ago, Cal Grant recipients taking 12 or more credits per term will see an increase of up to $400 per year (for a maximum award size of $1,000). Since its creation, the FTSSG program has received broad support with even the Brown Administration proposing to increase student eligibility and the maximum award size.  And the creation of a new financial aid program, the Community College Completion Grant championed by Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León, will provide eligible students who take additional credits (at least 30 in total per year) during the fall, spring, and/or summer terms with up to $2,000 more per year. While both of these programs are only available to students who receive Cal Grant awards, and hundreds of thousands of community college students who are eligible for Cal Grants are turned away each year due to insufficient funding, these increases add up to substantial new aid availability for those who can access it.  The additional aid will enable students to spend more time in class and studying, rather than working to cover total college costs, increasing their odds of graduating and graduating faster. (Critically, the budget also includes $150 million to support community colleges’ development of ‘guided pathways,’ so that students who want to take 15 or more credits per term can be assured that the specific credits they need for their program are available to them.) 

The budget also includes other key financial aid improvements: 

  • As proposed by the Brown Administration, the California Student Aid Commission will get greater authority to make competitive Cal Grant award offers to students at the time students are making decisions about whether and where to enroll in college. There are only 25,750 competitive Cal Grants (i.e., grants for students who are not recent high school graduates) available each year for more than 300,000 eligible applicants, and the need to stay under that strict cap leads to long delays before many of the awards are received by students. The budget agreement will allow CSAC to make more offers early on, without risking exceeding their authority.
  • Community college students who receive Cal Grant C awards (designated for students in certain career technical programs) will see their grant double, from $547 to $1,094.
  • The maximum Cal Grant B access award, which helps low-income students cover non-tuition college costs, will see a small increase (thanks to 2014 legislation, SB 174 and SB 798, from Senator De León), from $1,670 to $1,672.

In addition to these changes, the budget once again postpones the scheduled reduction to the Cal Grant received by students at private WASC-accredited colleges, and maintains the Middle Class Scholarship program that Governor Brown had proposed phasing out.

We are grateful for the Legislature’s actions to strengthen financial aid and enable more California community college students – whose out-of-pocket costs, despite low tuition and fees, can exceed those of their peers at public four-year schools – to attend full time.  Yet even while recognizing the importance of these budget gains, in a recent op-ed Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon acknowledged “we haven’t done everything we can for students in need.” We concur, and look forward to continuing to work together with the Legislature and Administration to bring college costs within reach for low-income Californians. 

Posted in

| Tagged

The gainful employment rule data the Education Department released in January make clear that some federally funded career education programs are consistently leaving students worse off – drowning in debt they cannot repay – while many other programs are not. We’ve previously blogged about how bad some of these programs are.

We just put together examples of schools located near each other offering the same program with very different results. The examples illustrate that location and type of program don’t explain abysmal outcomes. They also underscore the continued need for the gainful employment regulation to provide key cost and outcome information to students, warn students about failing programs that may lose eligibility for federal funding, and ensure that failing and zone programs improve.    

Amazingly, the for-profit college industry continues to defend programs that failed the gainful employment rule’s modest standards. The cosmetology trade association, for example, recently argued in federal court that a cosmetology program with a 14% job placement rate and a 100% borrowing rate should continue to receive unlimited federal funding. Why should taxpayers keep subsidizing such a program?

The gainful employment rule is based on the premise that students deserve basic information when deciding where to enroll, and that taxpayers should not subsidize programs that consistently underperform and leave students worse off than when they enrolled. This is just common sense, which is why so many student, veterans, consumer, civil rights, and other organizations, as well as state attorneys general, support the rule and oppose any effort to delay, repeal, or weaken it.

Posted in

| Tagged

State-by-state analysis looks at the share of family income needed to cover net price of public two- and four-year colleges, as well as number of work hours needed for the lowest income students.

This post originally appeared on the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT) blog

By Lindsay Ahlman and Debbie Cochrane, The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS)

Students, schools, and policymakers are increasingly concerned about college affordability, and with good reason. Yet many conversations about college affordability focus on dollar figures of the price of college, as opposed to putting that cost into context to determine whether that price is affordable. Lower income students generally face lower net prices, but even a very low cost might be unrealistic for a family with extremely limited resources. Looking at both the cost and available family resources provides a useful picture of how manageable different prices are for families with different resources.

In a new research brief, College Costs in Context: A State-by-State Look at College (Un)Affordability, we looked at the share of family income that is needed to cover that net price to explore the degree to which net prices[1] reported by colleges are manageable for families. Using a state-by-state analysis of public four- and two-year colleges, we find striking inequities in both two- and four-year public college affordability both within and across states, with the lowest income students facing the most extreme and unrealistic financial expectations.

With lower tuition costs than four-year public colleges, community colleges are frequently assumed to be the most affordable college option for students. Yet our analysis shows that community colleges are far from affordable for many students: students from families earning $30,000 or less must spend 50 percent of their total income to cover the net price of public two-year colleges. As shown below, this is a far greater burden than is placed on any other group.

The share of income required to pay for college costs varies by state. At community colleges, the lowest income students in New Hampshire would need to spend 120 percent of their income to cover net costs, while those in Michigan would need to spend 35 percent. In 31 states, the net price of community colleges is more than half of the total family income for the lowest income students.

The data presented here underscore the difficult choices many students must make to attend and complete college, including potentially working long hours while enrolled full time and compromising their odds of graduating as a result. When we looked at the number of hours the lowest income students would need to work to cover the net price of community colleges, we find that students in 28 states would need to work more than 20 hours per week at their state’s minimum wage to earn enough to cover their net price. In New Hampshire, community college students from low income families would need to work more than 50 hours per week.

The inequitable burden of college costs on the lowest income students not only contributes to wide college enrollment and completion gaps by income, but also disproportionately affects underrepresented minority students. Among undergraduates, more than half of Latino students (52%), about three in five Native-American students (59%), and almost two-thirds of African-American students (64%) have family incomes under $30,000.

These are sobering findings, documenting an affordability problem that demands attention and underscoring the need to focus resources where the problems are most severe. TICAS recommends strengthening Pell Grants, which currently cover the smallest share of college cost in more than 40 years, improving and increasing state grant aid, and promoting state investment in higher education through a new federal/state partnership aimed at maintaining or lowering the net price of public college for low- and moderate-income students.

Read the full brief, and also download a sortable spreadsheet with state and sector level data: http://ticas.org/content/pub/college-costs-context


[1] Net price is the total cost of college – including not only tuition but also textbooks, transportation, and living expenses – minus any state, federal, and institutional grants or scholarships the student receives.

Posted in

| Tagged

For the first time since it was taken down due to security concerns in March, millions of student loan borrowers can once again use the IRS Data Retrieval Tool (DRT) to electronically transfer their tax information into the online application for income-driven repayment (IDR) plans. Using the DRT, borrowers will be able to apply for IDR and update their income online at StudentLoans.gov, without needing to separately provide their tax returns.

We thank the Department of Education and IRS for working together to restore secure access to this critical tool, and for doing so without creating burdensome new requirements that would make it difficult for low-income students to use the DRT. We look forward to a full restoration of the DRT by October 1st, when it will become available for students completing the FAFSA to qualify for financial aid in the 2018-19 year.

For more information about the DRT outage, see our previous blog posts:

Posted in

| Tagged

The Washington Post reports that the Trump Administration’s FY2018 budget proposal would eliminate subsidized Stafford loans that go to students with financial need. With subsidized loans, interest does not accrue while students are in school, for six months after they leave school, during active-duty military service, and for up to three years of unemployment or other economic hardship. The billions of dollars in savings from ending subsidized loans for new students would not be used to make college more affordable. Instead, this proposed rollback would be exacerbated by other dramatic cuts to programs that help students afford college and repay their loans.

Eliminating subsidized loans would increase the cost of college by thousands of dollars for many of the six million undergraduates who receive those loans each year. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that eliminating subsidized loans would add $26.8 billion in costs to students over 10 years.

The charts below illustrate how much more a student would have to pay if subsidized loans are eliminated and the student borrows the same amount in unsubsidized loans instead. The calculations assume the student starts school in 2018-19, borrows the maximum subsidized student loan amount ($23,000), and graduates in five years.

Using current CBO interest rate projections, eliminating subsidized loans would cause this student to enter repayment with $3,400 in additional debt due to accrued interest charges. As a result, she would end up paying $4,350 (15%) more over 10 years and $5,950 (15%) more if she repaid over 25 years.

The added costs to students would be even higher if interest rates increase faster than current projections. If the undergraduate Stafford loan interest rate hits the statutory cap of 8.25%, eliminating subsidized loans would cause this student to enter repayment with $5,700 in additional debt due to accrued interest charges. As a result, she would end up paying $8,350 (25%) more over 10 years and $13,450 (25%) more if she repaid over 25 years.

At a time where there is growing public concern about rising student debt and broad consensus on the importance of higher education and postsecondary training to the US economy, we need to be doing more, not less, to keep college within reach for all Americans.  For more information on TICAS’ proposals to streamline and improve federal student loans, see our summary of recommendations and our new report, Make it Simple, Keep it Fair: A Proposal to Streamline and Improve Income-Driven Repayment of Federal Student Loans.


Note: This borrower would only be eligible for a 25-year repayment plan if she borrowed unsubsidized Stafford loans in addition to subsidized Stafford loans and entered repayment with more than $30,000 in debt. The most recent data show that almost four in five (79%) undergraduates with subsidized loans also have unsubsidized loans. 

Posted in

| Tagged

Statement of Jessica Thompson, policy and research director, TICAS:

"Today, Representatives Susan Davis (D-CA) and Bobby C. Scott (D-VA), and Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Patty Murray (D-WA), introduced the Pell Grant Preservation and Expansion Act. The bill would increase college affordability and access by securing, improving and expanding the Pell Grant, which is the federal government’s most effective investment in higher education. Congress just cut $1.3B from Pell Grants for FY2017, and the President and House Republicans are proposing to cut billions more in FY2018. In stark contrast, these legislators are providing the leadership we need for students and families struggling to pay for college. 

"Each year, more than 7.5 million students rely on Pell Grants to afford college. Yet, the current maximum grant covers the lowest share of public college costs in over 40 years, and will lose its annual inflation adjustment after this year. Boosting the purchasing power of the grant and permanently indexing it to inflation to prevent additional erosion of its value are investments we know are critical to increasing college access and success. The bill includes these and other important improvements that TICAS has called for, including extending the lifetime eligibility limit for Pell Grants, resetting eligibility for students defrauded by their schools, and making Pell Grants a mandatory program to guarantee sufficient annual funding and eliminate any uncertainty for students.

"We thank Representatives Davis and Scott, and Senators Hirono and Murray for their longstanding and continued leadership on college affordability, and Pell Grants specifically. Pell Grant recipients are already more than twice as likely to borrow to attend and complete college, and leave school with significantly more debt than their higher income peers. As college costs and student debt continue to rise, we urge Congress and the Administration to work together on making the Pell Grant program, the cornerstone of federal financial aid, work even better for America’s students and the American economy rather than debating how to cut it." 

Posted in

| Tagged

This week, the Department of Education shared new information about its plans to restore access to the IRS Data Retrieval Tool (DRT), a tool that helps millions of students and borrowers easily transfer their tax information into the online FAFSA and the online application for income-driven repayment (IDR) plans for federal student loans. The tool has been unavailable for more than two months after being taken offline due to security concerns. Facing pressure from governors, legislators, colleges, financial aid professionals, and student advocates, the Department has committed to getting the tool secured and back online by the end of this month for the over four million borrowers who use it for IDR. However, the Department and IRS will not have the DRT back up for FAFSA use until the next application year starting in October, an extended outage that will continue to affect millions of students.

The DRT will be restored for student loan borrowers by the end of May. We thank the Department for committing to this timeline, since new data show that about 4.5 million borrowers use the DRT to apply for IDR plans or annually update their income information in those plans. As detailed in our earlier blog post and a recent MarketWatch piece, the DRT outage is more than just an inconvenience for borrowers. While the DRT is down, borrowers with taxable income cannot complete the process of applying for IDR or updating their income online at StudentLoans.gov. Borrowers who miss annual deadlines to update their income information can face unaffordable spikes in monthly payment amounts that increase their risk of delinquency and default, as well as interest capitalization that can add substantial costs.

Students still applying for financial aid for the upcoming 2017-18 year will not have access to the DRT at all. This extended outage will impact millions of students, as more than half of all aid applicants (more than 11 million students) applied for aid on or after April 1 in recent years. Many of these applicants used the DRT, and a greater share were expected to use it in 2017-18 due to recent improvements to the FAFSA timeline.  

For students applying for federal financial aid for the 2018-19 year, the Department and IRS are on track to restore access to the DRT by the time the FAFSA opens on October 1, and to do so in a way that protects access for low-income students. This is encouraging news, particularly since new data show that roughly half of all FAFSA filers use the DRT to transfer tax information from the IRS. As discussed in our earlier blog post, the DRT outage is causing millions of students to face a more complicated, daunting, and time-consuming process to apply for aid. Delays in that process can prevent students from getting their financial aid in time to enroll in college.

Given the importance of the DRT in helping students access financial aid and manage their loan payments, we echo the National College Access Network’s statement that the DRT outage “is an emergency, not a mere inconvenience.” It is essential to quickly restore the DRT in a way that balances student access and data security.

Posted in

| Tagged

20 million students complete the FAFSA every year to apply for financial aid from the federal government, states, and colleges. More than six million federal student loan borrowers are currently enrolled in income-driven repayment (IDR) plans to help keep their payments affordable and avoid default. For years, these students and borrowers have been able to use the IRS Data Retrieval Tool (DRT) to easily transfer their tax information into the online FAFSA and the online application for IDR plans. The DRT was abruptly taken down a month ago due to security concerns, and the Department of Education recently announced that it is expected to be offline until the next FAFSA season begins in October 2017.

The DRT is not just a “convenience” (as the IRS has described it), but the centerpiece of major improvements in simplifying essential financial aid processes. It has greatly increased efficiency and accuracy for consumers, colleges, and loan servicers. And its outage will have profound impacts on millions of students and borrowers who still need to apply for aid, complete verification, and submit IDR forms this year. We urge the Department of Education and IRS to work together to restore secure access to the DRT as soon as possible, and to do so in a way that avoids creating barriers to access for low-income students, such as requiring complicated financial or personal information.

We blogged last week about a number of things the Department of Education should be doing to mitigate the effects of the DRT outage. Meanwhile, as long as the DRT is down, students and borrowers are facing a more complicated, daunting, and time-consuming process to apply for aid and keep their student loan payments affordable. Each additional hurdle makes it less likely that people will get all the way through the process and be able to meet crucial deadlines.

How many students and borrowers will be affected by the DRT outage between now and October?

  • More than 8 million students (40% of all aid applicants) applied for aid between April 1 and September 30 in recent years. Many of these applicants used the DRT, and a greater share were expected to use it in 2017-18 due to recent improvements to the FAFSA timeline.  
  • 3.4 million federal student loan borrowers applied for IDR or updated their income information electronically and had access to the DRT in the most recent year.*

How will students and borrowers be affected by the DRT outage?

For the FAFSA:

  • Instead of using the DRT to quickly transfer their tax information and pre-populate the answers to up to 20 high-stakes questions, students will have to get a copy of their 2015 tax return and manually input their data into the FAFSA (both the 2016-17 and 2017-18 FAFSAs require 2015 tax data). If they don’t have a tax return on hand, they can try to retrieve information from their tax software or tax preparer if they used one, or request a tax transcript from the IRS, but getting an official tax transcript can take up to 10 days by mail. It is possible but more difficult to quickly get an electronic transcript: you first need to have a mobile phone under your own name plus a personal credit card, mortgage, home equity loan, or car loan – hurdles that make that process inaccessible for many, particularly low-income families.
  • After submitting the FAFSA, students who don’t use the DRT may be more likely to be selected for an additional process called “verification” and required to get an official tax transcript to confirm their FAFSA information before they can receive their aid. For example, Purdue University reported that the share of aid applications flagged for verification doubled from 10% to 20% after the DRT was taken offline. The Department of Education has touted the DRT as “the fastest, easiest, and most secure method of meeting verification requirements.” Without it, students have to request official tax transcripts, with the hurdles discussed above. We, along with a bipartisan group of 43 lawmakers and national associations of financial aid professionals, college admissions counselors, and college access professionals have asked the Department to also accept signed tax returns while the DRT is not available.
  • The additional delays in getting the necessary documentation to apply for aid or complete verification will affect whether students receive their financial aid in time to enroll in college. Many states and colleges require the FAFSA for their own aid programs, many of which are first-come, first-served. For example, a Buzzfeed article reports that Texas state grants for needy students have already run out for this year, so students backlogged in verification are losing out on $5,000 of grant money. Additionally, more than half of financial aid administrators surveyed said that verification sometimes, often, or almost always results in students being unable to enroll on time. Without the DRT, the delays caused by verification will be even worse.

For IDR plans:

  • Borrowers with taxable income cannot complete the process of applying for IDR or updating their income online at StudentLoans.gov, which took an average of just 10 minutes when the DRT was available. The online application will create a PDF that borrowers will need to send into their loan servicer, along with a copy of their most recent tax return. Depending on their servicer, borrowers may be able to upload the required documents onto the servicer’s website or will need to mail or fax everything.
     
  • The additional hurdles for documenting income without the DRT affect not only borrowers who are applying for IDR, but also borrowers who are already in IDR. They are required to update their income documentation every year, and borrowers who miss those annual deadlines can face unaffordable spikes in monthly payment amounts that increase their risk of delinquency and default, as well as interest capitalization that can add substantial costs. As mentioned in our earlier blog post, we urge loan servicers to give borrowers in IDR more time to submit their updated income documentation while the DRT is down. 

* There are no publicly available data on how many electronic IDR applications were previously submitted between April and October (each borrower is on his or her own timeline), or how many borrowers specifically used the DRT.

Posted in

| Tagged

This post was updated on 4/24/17 to reflect changes from the Department of Education.

The IRS Data Retrieval Tool (DRT) allows students to automatically transfer their tax information into the online FAFSA or application for income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, instead of having to manually enter detailed tax return information. Millions of students each year rely on this streamlined online process to apply for federal student financial aid and to keep student loan payments affordable. Unfortunately, the DRT was abruptly taken down several weeks ago due to security concerns.

This week, a bipartisan group of 43 lawmakers from the House and Senate wrote a joint letter expressing concern about the DRT outage and recommending that the Department of Education and IRS take specific actions to improve communications and reduce the impact on students affected by the outage. Earlier this month, we joined a similar letter with national associations of financial aid professionals, college admissions counselors, and college access professionals.

Just today, the Department of Education announced that the DRT will be offline until the start of the next FAFSA season, which is expected to be October 1, 2017. This extended outage has very troubling implications for students applying for aid and borrowers trying to manage their student debt. The Department must take immediate steps to better communicate with and help students apply for the financial aid they need to get to and through college, as well as help borrowers access affordable loan payments that can keep them out of default. The Department should quickly move to:

  • Improve online communications about the DRT outage on all relevant federal websites and social media accounts, and engage in direct outreach to borrowers. Those communications should make clear that the DRT is currently down and provide specific guidance on what students, families, and borrowers should do in the meantime.
    • For example, prominent notices and guidance should be posted on:
      • The FAFSA homepage: As shown below, the FAFSA homepage includes an outage notice in the announcements, but it is not immediately clear what the outage means for students and users must scroll down for any guidance.

  • StudentAid.gov: On StudentAid.gov, the outage notice is one of several rotating items in the announcements bar at the bottom of the page, which can be easily missed.

  • StudentLoans.gov: There is currently no notice or announcement about the DRT outage on StudentLoans.gov, where borrowers go to apply for IDR plans and annually update their information to keep their payments tied to income.
     
  • The IDR application itself. There is currently no mention of the DRT outage on the online IDR application on StudentLoans.gov. As shown below, there are instructions within the application for how to proceed without the DRT, but borrowers may still start the form thinking that they can use the DRT, as they may have in previous years. Without the DRT, those borrowers cannot complete the application process online, but will have to print out the pre-filled application and mail it to their loan servicer, along with their paper tax return. (Update: The Department of Education has added a notice about the DRT outage to the IDR application.)
  • The Department’s Facebook and Twitter pages: Although it’s helpful that DRT outage notices are “pinned” at the top of both pages, the Department should regularly post those announcements so the public will see them in their feeds.
  • Additionally, the Department should directly email all borrowers in IDR plans who are approaching their annual deadlines to update their income information, informing them about the outage, telling them what they’ll need to do, and encouraging them to submit their paperwork early, since it may take loan servicers extra time to process their documentation without the DRT.
  • If students’ likelihood of being selected for verification is based on their use of the DRT, the Department should revise its verification selection criteria to prevent increases in the number of students who have to go through that complex extra process.
     
  • For FAFSA applicants selected for verification, the Department should allow signed copies of tax returns to satisfy documentation requirements. Students and parents used to be able to use the DRT for this, and the process of requesting an official tax transcript can be very burdensome (as documented by the National College Access Network). (Update: The Department of Education announced on 04/24/17 that it is making this change.)
     
  • The Department should adjust its criteria for requiring colleges to resolve conflicting information between the 2016-17 and 2017-18 FAFSAs, which are both based on income during calendar year 2015. This will help ensure that students get the aid they need and avoid disruptions in the middle of the year.
     
  • The Department should urge loan servicers to give borrowers in IDR more time to turn in their updated income documentation. Borrowers who miss their annual deadlines can face unaffordable spikes in monthly payment amounts that increase their risk of delinquency and default, as well as result in interest capitalization that can add substantial costs. Under current regulations, loan servicers have some flexibility in setting their deadlines; instead of setting deadlines 35 days before the end of the borrower’s annual payment period, they can set them closer to the end of the payment period. As long as borrowers submit documentation before their servicer’s deadline, they are not penalized, even if their paperwork is not fully processed before their next payment period starts. 
     
  • The Department should ensure that its loan servicers and Federal Student Aid Call Center employees are well-equipped to help students, families, and borrowers navigate financial aid processes in the absence of the DRT

It is also crucial that while the Department and IRS work together to restore access to the DRT as soon as possible, they prioritize finding a way to maintain the security of the tool without creating barriers to access. We urge them to avoid requiring complicated financial or personal information that the low-income students who rely on the tool are unlikely to be able to provide.  

Posted in

| Tagged

This post was revised on March 28 to include supplemental mandatory funding that would also be eliminated under the House proposal to cut all mandatory funding

While the Trump administration’s budget raids $3.9 billion in discretionary Pell Grant funding in fiscal year 2018 and remains silent on Pell Grant mandatory funding, House Republicans on the Education and Workforce Committee have made clear their plan to eliminate all $77 billion in mandatory Pell Grant funding over ten years.

This House plan to eliminate mandatory Pell funding would have profoundly harmful effects for students and put college further out of reach for millions of Americans. Mandatory funding currently pays for $1,060 of the current maximum Pell Grant (almost one fifth of the $5,920 grant in school year 2017-18), which already covers the lowest share of the cost of attending college in over 40 years.  

The $7.2 billion in mandatory Pell Grant funding in FY 2018 alone is the equivalent of the average Pell Grant awards for 2.0 million students—one in four students receiving Pell Grants. This is more than all the Pell Grant recipients attending college in Texas, Florida, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio combined (1.9 million students).

Prior harmful cuts to Pell Grants, combined with an improving economy, have reduced program costs and created temporary reserve Pell Grant funding. Student advocates and more than 100 members of Congress have called for using this reserve to restore some of the lost purchasing power of Pell Grants and to reinstate access to grants year round. Rather than invest these reserve funds in Pell Grants for students, the president’s budget simply cuts $3.9 billion in FY 2018. The House plan that would restore grants year round while cutting $77 billion over 10 years means Congress will almost certainly drain the reserve funds, briefly hiding the full magnitude and consequences of eliminating mandatory Pell Grant funding.

The House proposal to eliminate all mandatory funding would cut Pell Grant funding by $7.2 billion in FY 2018 alone. Even if Congress used all the Pell Grant reserve funds to replace the Pell mandatory funding in FY 2018, it would lead to a $2.7 billion Pell Grant funding gap the next year (FY 2019). To close this gap, Congress would have to eliminate grants entirely for more than 700,000 students or cut all students’ grants by an average of almost $350, or both eliminate and cut grants. The funding gap would increase each year, requiring even more severe Pell Grant cuts going forward.

It is unconscionable to create a Pell Grant funding crisis by eliminating all mandatory funding and try to mask it using the program’s temporary reserve. Rather than making deep cuts to Pell Grants, Congress should instead invest existing Pell Grant funding in helping students whose urgent needs include restored access to grants year round, an increase in the maximum award, and an extension of the grant’s inflation adjustments that expire after this year (FY 2017). 

Graphics provided by Young Invincibles.

Posted in

| Tagged

Pages

Subscribe to Blog