ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
UPDATE AND PLANS FOR THE 2011 SURVEY OF INSTITUTIONS
Anthony Jones
Senior Policy Analyst and
Director of the Higher Education Regulations Study
NCASFAA Spring Conference–
Wilmington, NC – April 2011

2
Session Overview
•
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance
•
Introduction and Background for the Higher Education
Regulations Study
•
First Phase of Study
•
List of Suggested Regulations
•
Final Phase of Study
•
Contact Information

The Advisory Committee
•
Higher Education Amendments of 1986 established
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance
(ACSFA); reauthorized in each subsequent set of amendments
•
Serves as an independent and bipartisan source of advice and counsel on student financial aid matters to both Congress and the Secretary of Education
•
11 appointed members serve terms of 4 years
3

Introduction and Background
•
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA) charged ACSFA with conducting a review and analysis of all regulations issued by federal agencies and that apply to all sectors of higher education institutions
–
Final report due November 2011
•
Goal is to recommend regulations in need of streamlining , improvement , or elimination
4

Introduction and Background
•
Review and analysis includes determination whether the regulation is:
–
Duplicative ,
–
No longer necessary ,
–
Inconsistent with other federal requirements , or
–
Overly burdensome .
5

Introduction and Background
•
HEOA required for the study:
–
Establishing at least two review panels of experts;
–
A public website to provide information and collect suggestions of burdensome regulations;
–
Consult with higher education administrators, experts on regulations, ED officials, and others; and
–
To include a review of the regulations in effect at the time of the study.
6

Introduction and Background
•
Three prior large-scale regulatory reviews:
–
1995 Regulatory Reinvention Initiative
–
1998 Student Financial Assistance Review
–
2001 FED UP Initiative
•
Higher Education Regulations Study (HERS) is first large-scale regulatory review conducted by independent, impartial entity
7

Introduction and Background
•
Focus is on only those regulations emanating from the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)
–
Will not cover regulations issued under other laws or from other federal agencies, unless designated under HEA
–
Will not cover state or other non-federal regulations
–
Will address changes to regulatory and statutory language
•
First phase of study concentrated on Title IV regulations, because they comprise bulk of the regulations stemming from HEA
8

9
First Phase of Study
•
Established Title IV Review Panel
•
Created and maintained website for public to submit suggestions of burdensome regulations
•
Conducted telephone and in-person conferences with several experts on HEA regulations, including ED staff

10
First Phase of Study
•
Fielded further Feedback and Suggestions Through
Additional Meetings and at Conferences
–
ACE, NASFAA, NACUBO, NACUA, NASSGAP, & many others
•
Created a preliminary list of the most cited burdensome regulatory areas
•
Reviewed academic literature and past regulatory reform efforts

First Phase of Study: Review Panel
•
Consisted of 6 representatives from various sectors in higher education
•
Convened April 9, 2009 in Washington DC
•
Advised on the development of the public comment website, an outreach strategy, and the scope of the study
•
Publicized first phase of the study
•
Helped gather research, information, and data
•
Connected committee staff with regulatory experts
•
Provided advice on the direction of the study
11

First Phase of Study: Website
•
Developed by Review Panelists and ACSFA Staff
•
Launched May 2009
•
Users submitted comments on overly-burdensome regulations directly to the ACSFA staff through the website
•
Staff reviewed and aggregated all submissions
•
Website received more than 110 comments
12

List of Suggested Regulations
•
Most of the comments and recommendations grouped into the following broad areas:
–
Grant and Loan Programs
–
Cash Management
–
Institutional & Student Eligibility
–
Reporting & Disclosure Requirements
–
Miscellaneous
13

Preliminary List
•
Grant and Loan Programs:
–
Two Pell Grants in an Award Year
–
FSEOG Priority Awarding Criteria
–
ACG and National SMART Grant programs
• mandatory participation
• determining eligibility
–
TEACH Grant eligibility rules
14

Preliminary List
•
Grant and Loan Programs
(cont ’ d)
:
–
Self-Certification of Private Student Loans
–
Preferred Lending Arrangements
–
Cohort Default Rate Issues
•
Exemptions of low cohort default rates
•
Penalty for consecutive high cohort default rates
–
Proration of Annual Loan Limits
–
Entrance & Exit Counseling for Student Loan
Borrowers
15

Preliminary List
•
Grant and Loan Programs
(cont ’ d)
:
–
Loan Repayment Issues
•
TPD, TLF, Rehabilitation, Repayment Schedules
–
Receiving Loan Funds at Multiple Schools
–
Refunding parent PLUS loan funds
–
Parent PLUS overawards
–
Delayed Loan Disbursements
–
Processing loan proceeds during temporary cessation of enrollment
16

Preliminary List
•
Cash Management:
–
Written authorizations
• open bank account on behalf of a student
• apply Title IV aid to prior year charges
• deliver parent PLUS funds to student
–
Crediting Title IV aid to non-allowable institutional charges
–
Return of funds for uncashed credit balance checks
–
Late disbursements of Title IV aid
17

Preliminary List
•
Institutional & Student Eligibility:
–
Return of Title IV Funds
–
Conflicting Information
–
Satisfactory Academic Progress
–
Verification
–
Short-term programs completion and placement rates
–
Overaward and overpayment tolerances
–
Independent student definition
–
90/10 rule
–
Loan fees in cost of attendance
18

Preliminary List
–
Volume and scope of reporting and consumer disclosure requirements
•
Campus Crime, Athletics, and other numerous consumer information requirements
–
Overlapping and inconsistent timeframes for reporting and consumer disclosure requirements
•
IPEDS, FISAP, NCAA, state requirements, etc.
19

Preliminary List
–
Administrative cost allowances
–
Constitution Day
–
Accommodating non-traditional program structures
(across all regulations)
–
Notification of changes to institutional information
–
Reporting of foreign gifts and contracts
–
Requiring I-9 for Federal Work Study
20

Final Phase of Study
•
Following Phase I, Committee recognized three critical issues:
1.
Composing single list is task of moving targets
2.
No usable data exists on level of burden associated with each regulation
3.
Not feasible to conduct census of all regulations
•
Initially pursued case study concept to develop template for assessing regulatory burden
21

22
Final Phase of Study
•
Studied alternatives to case study methods. Developed concepts for survey of institutions.
•
Convened second review panel in Dec. 2010
–
Regulations beyond Title IV and additional Title IV
–
Methodology
•
Confirmed use of survey as best method
–
Survey items and questions
–
Direction of final phase of study
•
No single voice can represent an institution regarding regulatory burden

23
Final Phase of Study
•
Designed web-based survey to seek feedback on attitudes and perceptions on campus toward regulatory burden and the regulatory development process.
•
Survey is not about regulatory compliance or administrative capability.
•
Two tracks to survey:
•
Campus office administrators
•
Senior executives

24
Final Phase of Study
•
Goal is for any campus employee involved with HEA regulations to complete survey.
–
All institutional employees who have any role in administering or implementing regulations under the HEA;
–
All institutional employees who are familiar with the range of regulations applicable to colleges and universities; and
– All institutional employees who are familiar with the scope of regulations impacting higher education and the regulatory development process, including negotiated rulemaking conducted by the U.S. Department of Education

Final Phase of Study
•
Survey seeks to gauge:
–
How campus administrators in key offices perceive and rank certain regulations in terms of regulatory burden, and
–
The attitudes of campus employees, including administrators and senior leaders, toward:
•
The process and framework used by Congress and ED for developing and disseminating HEA rules;
•
The effort required to interpret and administer those rules;
•
The need for any changes; and
•
Preferred methods for continued efforts of regulatory reform in higher education.
25

Final Phase of Study
•
Survey questions fall into three categories:
–
Demographic/Organizational
–
Perception on Level of Burden for Select Regulations
•
Campus office administrators asked about perceptions of level of burden for set of HEA regulations, and any need for modification to those regulations
–
Attitudes toward the Regulatory System
•
Administrators and senior leaders asked about attitudes toward overall system of regulation, possible alternative approaches, and preferences for next steps in regulatory reform efforts
26

Final Phase of Study
•
Partnering with national, regional, and state professional associations to disseminate survey
–
Follow up with state sector executives
•
Survey administered by independent contractor
–
Anonymous and confidential
•
•
Currently field testing survey instrument
27

28
Final Phase of Study
•
Following survey, ACSFA will conduct interviews with volunteers from representative sample of institutions
–
Probe survey questions at deeper level
–
Gauge reactions to survey results
•
Goal is to release final report by December
2011

29
Contact Information
Anthony Jones
Email: Anthony.Jones@ed.gov
Phone: 202-219-2246
Fax: 202-219-3032