U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Student Financial Assistance Policy - 2002

Goal 8: To help ensure access to high-quality postsecondary education by providing financial aid in the form of grants, loans, and work-study in an efficient, financially sound and customer-responsive manner.
Objective 8.1 of 3: Ensure that low and middle income students will have the same access to postsecondary education that high income students do.
Indicator 8.1.1 of 4: Percentage of unmet need: Considering all sources of financial aid, the percentage of unmet need, especially for low-income students, will continuously decrease.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Total for Undergraduates
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1995
23
 
1996
23
 
1997
22
 
1998
21.20
 
1999
20.80
 
2000
21.20
 

Low Income Undergraduates
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Dependent Independent With kids Independent Without kids
Dependent Independent With kids Independent Without kids
1996
46.30 54.70 52.50
     
1997
44.50 51.60 49
     
1998
42.90 51.10 49
     
1999
41.80 50.20 48.50
     
2000
43.10 60.60 46.20
     
Status: Target not met

Progress: No 2001 or 2002 data.

Explanation: Unmet need as a percentage of total cost of attendance was estimated to decrease slightly in each year with somewhat larger decreases for low-income students. Since 1995-96, unmet need is estimated to have decreased 2 percentage points for undergraduates overall and 4 or more percentage points for low-income undergraduates.   		Source: Other
Other: Record/File.
Sponsor: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.


Data Available: January 2005
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Limitations: NPSAS data are collected only every four years.

 
Indicator 8.1.2 of 4: College enrollment rates: Postsecondary education enrollment rates will increase each year for all students, while the enrollment gap between low- and high-income and minority and nonminority high school graduates will decrease each year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The percentage of high school graduates ages 16-24 enrolling immediately in college - Total
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1994
61.90
 
1995
61.90
 
1996
65
 
1997
67
 
1998
65.60
 
1999
62.90
 
2000
63.30
 
2001
61.70
 

Income
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Low High Difference
Low High Difference
1994
44 78.40 42.20
     
1995
41.20 83.40 36.50
     
1996
41.50 78 35.10
     
1997
47.10 82 26.60
     
1998
50.60 77.30 25.10
     
1999
50.90 76 28.70
     
2000
48.50 77.10 32
     
2001
47.80 79.80 32
     

Race
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Black White Hispanic Difference between Black and White Difference between White and Hispanic
Black White Hispanic Difference between Black and White Difference between White and Hispanic
1994
51.30 64.50 55.70 13.20 8.90
         
1995
52.40 64.30 55 11.90 9.30
         
1996
52.90 67.40 51.60 14.50 15.90
         
1997
55.40 68.20 57.60 12.80 10.50
         
1998
58.80 68.50 55.30 9.80 13.30
         
1999
59.80 66.30 51.90 6.50 14.40
         
2000
58.60 65.70 47.40 7.10 18.30
         
2001
56.30 64.20 48.60 7.90 15.60
         
Status: Unable to judge

Progress: No 2002 data. Some progress is being made in reducing the enrollment gap between low- and high- income students but progress is not being made in increasing the overall enrollment rate or reducing the gap between minority and nonminority students.

Explanation: There was a statistically significant increase in the overall enrollment rate from the 1994-95 period to the 1997-98 period. However, since then enrollment rates have fallen significantly (back to the 1994-95 levels), indicating a lack of overall progress. Prior year data has been updated from previous reports to reflect more complete information.   		Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002
Data Available: April 2003
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Limitations: Small subgroup sample sizes for low-income and minority students lead to large yearly fluctuations in enrollment rates. Three-year weighted averages are used to smooth out these fluctuations.

 
Indicator 8.1.3 of 4: Targeting of Pell Grants: Pell Grant funds will continue to be targeted to those students with the greatest financial need: at least 75 percent of Pell Grant funds will go to students below 150 percent of poverty level.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The percentage of Pell Grant funds going to students below 150 percent of the poverty line.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1997
82
 
1998
80
 
1999
78
75
2000
78
75
2001
 
75
2002
 
75
Status: Unable to judge

Explanation: Increases in the maximum award without other changes in the formulas used to award Pell grants will tend to lower the percentage of funds going to the neediest students.   		Source: Other
Other: Record/File.
Sponsor: Pell Grant Applicant/Recipient File.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Data Available: March 2003
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

 
Indicator 8.1.4 of 4: Federal debt burden: The median Federal debt burden (yearly scheduled payments as a percentage of annual income) of borrowers in their first full year of prepayment will be less than 10 percent.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The median federal debt burden of students in their first full year of repayment.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
7.10
 
1999
6.48
 
2000
6.38
 
Status: Unable to judge

Explanation: As a general rule, it is believed that an educational debt burden of 10 percent or greater will negatively affect a borrower's ability to repay his or her student loan and to obtain other credit such as a home mortgage. We expect the 2001 and 2002 median debt burden rate to remain well below 10 percent.   		Additional Source Information: National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) records.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2000 - 2001
Data Available: August 2003
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Limitations: To overcome limitations with the data from the Social Security Administration (SSA) that were previously used, we switched to IRS data on household income for 1998 and future years. The IRS data may slightly understate debt burden for married borrowers where both individuals have student loans.

 

Objective 8.2 of 3: Ensure that more students will persist in postsecondary education and attain degrees and certificates.
Indicator 8.2.1 of 1: Completion rate: Completion rates for all full-time, degree-seeking students in 4-year and less than 4-year programs will improve, while the gap in completion rates between minority and non-minority students will decrease.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The percentage of full-time degree seeking students completing a 4-year degree within 150% of the normal time required.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Total Black White Hispanic Difference between Black and White Difference between White and Hispanic
Total Black White Hispanic Difference between Black and White Difference between White and Hispanic
1997
52.50 35.50 55.50 39.10 20 16.40
           
1998
52.60 34.50 55.80 39.10 21.30 16.70
           
1999
53 35.80 56 40.90 20.20 15.10
           
2000
52.40 35.70 55.40 41.50 19.70 13.90
           

The percentage of full-time degree seeking students completing a less than 4-year program within 150% of the normal time required.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Total Black White Hispanic Difference between Black and White Difference between White and Hispanic
Total Black White Hispanic Difference between Black and White Difference between White and Hispanic
1997
30.90 22.80 32.60 26.20 9.80 6.40
           
1998
32.20 25.10 33.80 29.90 8.70 3.90
           
1999
34.40 29.50 35.30 32.50 5.80 2.80
           
2000
32.70 26.50 34 30.10 7.50 3.90
           
Status: Unable to judge

Explanation: There was a decrease in degree of completion rates in both 4-year and less than 4-year programs between 1999 and 2000. The decrease in completion of 4-year programs was the result of a reduction of almost one percentage point in the degree completion rate for white students because both Black and Hispanic students showed slight increases in the completion of 4-year degrees. Prior year data has been updated from previous reports to reflect more complete information.   		Additional Source Information: Graduation Rate Survey (GRS)

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Data Available: March 2003
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Limitations: Postsecondary institutions are not required to report graduation rates until 2002. However, data were voluntarily submitted by institutions representing 87 percent of 4-year students and 77 percent of 2-year students. Investigating whether a proxy for graduation rates for student aid recipients can be obtained from administrative records.

 

Objective 8.3 of 3: Ensure that taxpayers will have a positive return on investment in the federal student financial assistance programs.
Indicator 8.3.1 of 1: Return on investment: The benefits of the student aid programs, in terms of increased tax revenues, will continue to exceed their costs.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Return on Investment
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Low Best High
Low Best High
1996
1.30 2.90 6.70
     
1997
1.30 2.80 6.50
     
1998
1.30 2.90 6.70
     
1999
1.40 3.10 7.10
     
2000
1.50 3.30 7.70
     
2001
1.60 3.40 8
     
Status: Unable to judge

Progress: Low: A pessimistic set of assumptions leading to a low-end estimate of the return on investment. Best: The set of assumptions that we believe best captures the return on investment. High: An optimistic set of assumptions leading to a high-end estimate of the return on investment.

Explanation: The estimated return on investment is calculated in the following manner: 1) The discounted present value of tax revenue and welfare benefits is calculated for different educational attainment levels. 2) Under the ?best? scenario, 90 percent of the revenue differential calculated in step 1 is assumed to be caused by obtaining more education.   		Source: Non-NCES Survey/Research

Additional Source Information: March Current Population Survey (CPS) and Beginning Post Secondary (BPS) study with imputations from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) and High School and Beyond (HS&B). Behavioral assumptions were derived, where feasible, from meta-analyses conducted by Leslie and Brinkman in their 1988 book, The Economic Value of Higher Education.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: March 2003
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Limitations: A number of assumptions and imputations are required to estimate the return on investment. By providing high and low estimates, one can assess the sensitivity of the results to the assumptions used. Prior year data has been updated from previous reports to reflect more complete information.

 

Return to table of contents