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

HEA: Student Financial Assistance Policy - 2004

CFDA Numbers: 84.007 - Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
84.033 - Federal Work-Study Program
84.037 - Perkins Loan Cancellations
84.038 - Federal Perkins Loan Program_Federal Capital Contributions
84.063 - Federal Pell Grant Program
84.069 - Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership
84.268 - Federal Direct Student Loans


Program Goal: 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: The percentage of unmet need considering all sources of financial aid, especially for low-income students.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of Unmet Need for Undergraduates
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1995
23
 
1996
23
 
1997
22
 
1998
21.20
 
1999
20.80
 
2000
21.20
 
2003
 
19.20
2004
 
19.20

Percentage of Unmet Need for 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
     
2003
     
41.10 58.60 44.20
2004
     
41.10 58.60 44.20


Explanation: In the past, data were estimated for years in between National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (NPSAS)--which are conducted approximately every four years. However, upon reconsideration of the estimation methodology, OPE decided in 2001 to discontinue these between survey estimates. Therefore, no data is anticipated for 2001 or 2002.   		Source: Other
Other: Record/File.
Sponsor: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study..
Date Sponsored: 01/31/2005.

Frequency: Other.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: January 2005
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: NPSAS data are collected only every four years.

 
Indicator 8.1.2 of 4: College enrollment rates: Postsecondary education enrollment rates for all students, and the enrollment gap between low- and high-income high school graduates.
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
 
2003
 
65
2004
 
67

The Percentage of high school graduates ages 16-24 enrolling immediately in college by income.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Low High Difference
Low High Difference
1994
44 78.40 34.40
     
1995
41.20 83.40 42.20
     
1996
41.50 78 36.50
     
1997
47.10 82 34.90
     
1998
50.60 77.30 26.70
     
1999
50.90 76 25.10
     
2000
48.50 77.10 28.60
     
2001
47.80 79.80 32
     
2003
     
50 80 30
2004
     
52 81 29


  		Source: NCES Survey/Assessment
Survey/Assessment: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

Additional Source Information: Enrollment data for 2002 and 2003 are currently available. However, these data must be run against Census data (Current Population Survey) to generate immediate transition to college figures by income levels. Due to delays in obtaining census data, it is anticipated that we will have '02 data in late October 2004 and '03 data in December '04.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: December 2004
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Limitations: Small subgroup sample sizes for low-income students lead to large yearly fluctuations in enrollment rates.

 
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
79
75
2002
78
75
2003
76
75
2004
 
75


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. The long term target for 2008 is 75%   		Source: Other
Other: Record/File.
Sponsor: Pell Grant Applicant/Recipient File..
Date Sponsored: 03/31/2004.

Additional Source Information: The latest student-level data comes from the 2002-2003 applicant universe of the Office of Federal Student Aid's Central Processing System and the recipient universe of the Pell Grant Recipient Financial Management System. The poverty levels used in the analysis are the 2002 poverty guidelines issued by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2003 - 2004
Data Available: August 2005
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
 
2001
6.20
 
2003
 
9.90
2004
 
9.90


Progress: The 6.2 % for 2002 is the last time OPE will be collecting this data. In the past, be were able to benchmark our debt burden measurements against lending community debt burden measures. However, now that the lending community has moved to a credit scoring approach, there is no longer an appropriate benchmark. In addition, the complexity of the calculation, involving a long wait for obtaining necessary IRS data, precludes OPE from being able to do this regularly.

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.   		Additional Source Information: National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) records.

Frequency: Annually.

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; and the gap in completion rates between minority and non-minority students.
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
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
           
2002
54.40 38.20 57.20 44.80 19 12.40
           
2003
54.30 38.50 57.30 43.50 18.80 13.80
54          
2004
           
55          

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
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
           
2002
29.30 23.30 30.70 27 7.40 3.70
           
2003
30.60 26.10 31.70 30.10 5.60 1.60
34          
2004
           
35          


  		Additional Source Information: Graduation Rate Survey (GRS)

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2003 - 2004
Data Available: July 2005
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Limitations: Postsecondary institutions were 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.

 

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
     
2003
     
1.60 3.40 8
2004
     
1.60 3.40 8


Progress: This measure has been discontinued. A determination was made that this measure has not been a helpful tool in support of programs' management and policy development.

Explanation: The column titles are defined as follows. 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. 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. It is not expected that data for 2003 or 2004 will be collected, as this measure has been discontinued.   		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.

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