The Lumina Foundation released a group
of 15 policy papers on 04/14/2014 that examine new models of student financial support in
an effort to increase college affordability, which the Lumina Foundation calls
one of the "biggest barriers” to accessing higher education. The papers
highlight structures currently in place to help students pay higher education
costs; however, they show these structures not set up to efficiently provide
both access and support completion.
Commissioned by the Lumina Foundation, the
papers are intended to promote greater discussion and evaluation around several
key topics in student finance, including affordability of higher education,
student loan repayment, and federal-state-institutional partnerships. They are
aimed at addressing solutions that can be implemented at the institutional,
state and federal levels.
|
A Student Level Analysis of Financial Aid
PDF (410.56 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/16/2014
|
|
Richard Rhoda, Tennessee Higher Education Commission, Russ Deaton, Tennessee Higher Education Commission, David Wright, Tennessee Higher Education Commission, Doug Mennen, Tennessee Higher Education Commission
|
|
Putting Colleges on Notice
PDF (299.87 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/16/2014
|
Putting Colleges on Notice: Crafting Smarter Strategies to Improve Affordability through Curbing Cost Increases
Alisa Hicklin Fryar, University of Oklahoma, Deven Carlson, University of Oklahoma
|
|
Piecing Together the College Affordability Puzzle
PDF (714.37 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/16/2014
|
Piecing Together the College Affordability Puzzle: Student Characteristics and Patterns of (Un)Affordability
Rashida Welbeck, MDRC, John Diamond, MDRC, Alexander Mayer, MDRC, Lashawn Richburg-Hayes, MDRC with Melvin Gutierrez, MDRC & Jessica Gingrich, MDRC
|
|
College Affordability: What Is It?
PDF (1.1 MB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/16/2014
|
College Affordability: What Is It and How Can We Measure It?
Sandy Baum, George Washington University and The Urban Institute Jennifer Ma, The College Board
|
|
College Affordability for Low Income Adults
PDF (954.46 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/16/2014
|
College Affordability for Low Income Adults: Improving Returns on Investment for Families and Society
Barbara Gault, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Lindsey Reichlin, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Meghan Froehner, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Stephanie Roman, Institute for Women’s Policy Research
|
|
Applying the Lessons of Behavioral Economics
PDF (522.66 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/16/2014
|
Applying the Lessons of Behavioral Economics to Improve the Federal Student Loan Programs: Six Policy Recommendations
Angela Boatman, Vanderbilt University, Brent Evans, Vanderbilt University, Adela Soliz, Harvard University
|
|
Advancing Shared Responsibility as a Model
PDF (366.5 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/16/2014
|
Advancing Shared Responsibility as a Model for Contemporary State Grant Aid Programs
Brian T. Prescott, WICHE, David A. Longanecker, WICHE
|
|
Should All Student Loan Payments Be Income-Driven?
PDF (1.26 MB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/16/2014
|
Should All Student Loan Payments Be Income-Driven? Benefits, Trade-offs, and Challenges
Lauren Asher, The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS), Diane Cheng, TICAS, Jessica Thompson, TICAS
TICAS cautions against making all student loan payments based on income alone. For one, it would eliminate consumer choice and it could reduce the pressure on government to make college more affordable. It could also increase the amount of time borrowers are in debt. That could affect borrowers’ access to other forms of credit and in turn, affect other life decisions such as buying a home or saving for retirement. Borrowers could also pay more than they have to under an income-driven repayment plan, the white paper says. "Making lower payments over a longer period of time can cost borrowers more in total due to accrued interest, especially if repayment periods are long or unlimited,” the paper says.
|
|
Income-based Repayment : Income-based Loan System
PDF (381.64 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/16/2014
|
From Income-based Repayment Plans to an Income-based Loan System
Robert G. Sheets, George Washington Institute for Public Policy, George Washington University, Stephen Crawford, George Washington Institute for Public Policy, George Washington University
This paper argues for a more comprehensive and efficient income-based loan system than exists today, and highlights that the current income-based repayment options fail to help students think about their investments in higher education in terms of economic value and risk management. The proposed system would instead promote not only access and completion, but also choices of colleges and programs that aim to enable students to repay their loans without financial hardship.
|
|
Securing America’s Future: Universal 2-Year Option
PDF (2.12 MB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/18/2014
|
Securing America’s Future with a Universal Two-Year College Option
Sara Goldrick-Rab, Education Optimists and University of Wisconsin-Madison, Nancy Kendall, University of Wisconsin-Madison
The paper states that for the last fifty years, the federal government has tried to make the American Dream universally accessible by using need-based financial aid to lower the price of attending college. It then goes on to argue that the effectiveness of this approach in expanding opportunity and investing in America’s future has diminished because of declines in real family income, increases in demand for college enrollment, poor regulation of state funding and institutional costs, insufficient funding for and targeting of grant aid, and a political movement that places the needs of private businesses and banks over those of students and families.
|
|
Moving the Needle: Student Completion Goals
PDF (3.61 MB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/18/2014
|
Moving the Needle: How Financial Aid Policies Can Help States Meet Student Completion Goals
Andy Carlson, SHEEO, Katie Zaback, SHEEO
In this white paper, one in a series of reports funded by Lumina Foundation designed to generate innovative ideas for improving the ways in which postsecondary education is paid for, SHEEO finds that existing grant aid programs do not provide sufficient support to allow students with documented need to cover tuition costs and living expenses, nor do they facilitate full-time enrollment and timely completion. Therefore, many students must work at least part time and are unable to commit to full-time study.
The paper further examines existing policy recommendations that are gaining traction in the national and state-level affordability discussions, namely:
1. Federal/state matching grant program with incorporated maintenance of effort
2. State grant aid programs with incentives for students to enroll full-time
|
|
College Costs: Students Can’t Afford Not to Know
PDF (620.27 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/25/2014
|
College Costs: Students Can’t Afford Not to Know
Brad Hershbein, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kevin Hollenbeck, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research
Brad Hershbein and Kevin Hollenbeck of the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, concluded that regardless of how the costs of attending college are measured, they have risen and continue to rise quickly. Despite the financial aid that students receive, students and families often don’t find out about the net price they will actually pay or whether a certain debt load will be manageable until it is too late. The lack of information results in some students attending a college that is not the right fit for them or not attending at all; others take on overly burdensome debt that they will struggle to pay with their chosen studies.
|
|
A College Considerator
PDF (813.31 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/25/2014
|
Robert Shireman, California Competes, Lande Ajose, California Competes
As part of the Lumina Foundation’s group of 15 expert papers that explore new models of student financial support, Robert Shireman, Executive Director of California Competes, released an analysis entitled, "A College Considerator: Factors to weigh in contemplating college affordability” that creates a calculator-type access tool to help potential students consider college options.
The tool, called a "considerator” in the report, seeks to provide students with useful information about the a¬ffordability of their college choices, incorporating factors such as: likelihood of graduation, years to degree, debt, age, earnings potential and other factors to assist students.
|
|
Estimating the Costs and Benefits of IBR Systems
PDF (342.29 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/30/2014
|
Student Loan Safety Nets: Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Income-Based Student Loan Repayment Systems
Beth Akers, Brookings Institution, Matthew Chingos, Brookings Institution
The study uses data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B), a nationally representative cohort of students who earned bachelor’s degrees in 1993, and were followed up by survey in 1994, 1997, and 2003. B&B contains information on former students such as race/gender and measures of their families’ socioeconomic status, as well as detailed information on college financing, including borrowing. The B&B follow-up surveys gather information on former students’ employment outcomes, including income and sector of the economy in which they were working.
|
|
Can Income-Driven Repayment Policies be Efficient?
PDF (385.68 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/30/2014
|
Can Income-Driven Repayment Policies be Efficient, Effective, and Equitable?
Nicholas Hillman, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Jacob Gross, University of Louisville
The paper recommends strategies for evaluating the federal government’s three income-driven student loan repayment programs (IDR): Income-Contingent Loans, Income-Based Repayment, and Pay As You Earn. It notes that despite advocacy efforts to expand these programs, there is no clear guidance on how to evaluate their efficacy. As a result, the analysis reviews the authorizing legislation and regulations for these programs. It identifies the following areas where federal officials could provide for greater clarity: efficiency, effectiveness, and equity.
|
|
Print Page