Administering Intentions: Law, Theory, and Practice of Postsecondary Residency
Requirements
Author(s): Michael A. Olivas
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 59, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1988), pp. 263-290
Published by: Ohio State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981679 .
Accessed: 31/12/2011 20:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Ohio State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Higher Education.
http://www.jstor.org
+HE Michael A. Olivas
Intentions
Administering
and Practice
Law,Theory,
ofPostsecondary
Residency
Requirements
thereis littleat
To students
inprivate
institutions
or nonresior nottheyare classifiedas residents
stakein whether
tuition
dents,at leastnotforthesakeofdetermining
charges.Public
on thetheresidents
andnonresidents
institutions
between
distinguish
should
at lower
institutions
be
available
that
ory
tax-supported,
public
the
whosemoneysupports
costtothosetaxpayers
(andtheirfamilies)
be
nonstate
nonresidents-or
taxpayers-can
colleges.'As a corollary,
a
of
the
costs.
to
share
required pay higher
as nonresidents
Thechargeto students
attending
publicinstitutions
in
suchas
for
a
institution
can be exceedingly
state
high: instance,
a Michiganresident
paid$1965.00intuiMichiganStateUniversity,
was charged
tion and fees during1986, whereasa nonresident
statesuchas Texas,thetuitionfor
$5025.00. Evenin a low-tuition
nonresidents
is, bylaw,tentimeshigherthanthechargeto Texans,
of courtcases, dated
hour.A variety
$12.00 per semester
currently
back to 1882, has established
thatstatesmaychargenonresidents
who is
stateinstitutions
and maydetermine
extrafeesforattending
'Althoughthereis an obvious stakein beingclassifieda residentforpurposesof
financialaid programeligibility,if thereis a stateprogram.[See AppendixI; 18,
22.1
I would like to acknowledgethe generousassistanceof Carolyn Winter,Janet
Swikard,Sandra Vera, Richard Delgado, PatriciaLines, Rose Kassamali, Robert
Carbone,and PhillipHellmuth.
Michael A. Olivas is professorof law and directorof the Institute
for Higher
Education Law and Governanceat the Universityof Houston, Houston, Texas
77004.
Journalof HigherEducation,Vol. 59, No. 3 (May/June1988)
Copyright? 1988 by the Ohio StateUniversityPress
264
Journalof HigherEducation
to be classifiedas a resident.2
In mostsituations
entitled
thisprocedureworkswellenough,becausestateinstitutions
spelloutthebasic
to
understand
therules.
and
students
seem
requirements
residency
to
this
one
Thereis an intuitive,
appealingsymmetry
arrangement,
thatrecognizes
benefit
availabletothosewhopayforit,
theimportant
andoutWithfullrealization
thata mixofin-state
however
indirectly.
insomestateshavemadeitpossistudents
is a good,officials
of-state
ble forstudents
to crossbordersand to migrate,as long as their
This
tuition
costs
higher
"equalize" thetax burdenuponresidents.
in
with
dea
seems
fair,especially country highly
too,
presumption,
favors
The balanceproperly
centralized
statesystems.
postsecondary
out
who
wish
to
resident
does
not
fence
those
change
yet
taxpayers
to
locations
andattend
schoolswithout
havingmadea taxcontribution
andacts
Thisarrangement
thatstate'scoffers.
also distributes
students
as an incentive
forstatesto establish
sectors.It
strong
postsecondary
a massmigration
to stateswithlowercharges
does so bypreventing
andengenders
bothpoliticaland academic,to stateinstituloyalties,
it can
tions.By meansof compactsand stateconsortia
agreements,
curalso distribute
scarceplacesin highlyspecializedandexpensive
medicine.The
and veterinary
ricula,suchas optometry,
pharmacy,
lackstheeleganceof its theoretical
however,
practiceof residence,
premise.
or students
In a surprisingly
ofsituations,
largenumber
applicants
where
claimsto residency,
havepresented
sophisticated
increasingly
had notenvisioned
residency
practices(eitherlaws or regulations)
thisarticlereviews
suchclaims.By employing
severalapproaches,
and administration
ofresidency
thelaw,theory,
First,
requirements.
ofthelegalandfiscalissuesareoutlined,
basicoperational
definitions
of "domicile"and "residence."This
thevexingproblems
including
will notbe a reviewof courtcases, forsuchreviewsare available
in
elsewhere[6, 9, 14, 24, 27], and becauseI am moreinterested
It
is
estaboccurs.
well
in
which
the
the
manner
process
explaining
canbe legallyadministered.
drafted
lishedthatreasonably
regulations
are fraught
evensuchreasonable
As willbe seen,however,
practices
of thestates
structures
flaws.Second,thegovernance
withsystemic
andlevelofdecisionmaktotheirformality
arecategorized
according
the
to
it
makes
this
possible analyze variousstatepracticesby
ing;
residencerequirements.
situated
Third,theexsimilarly
comparing
2Priestv. Regentsof the Universityof Wisconsin,54 Wis. 159, 11 N.W. 472
(1882).
Intentions 265
Administering
and waiverswill be distensivesystemof exemptions,
exceptions,
notedthe
thatone commentator
cussed. It is such a patchwork
in
and even injustice,to whichsuch dissimilarity
"inconvenience
is
neither
and
that
"this
concluded
rise,"
heterogeneity
practices
gives
ofthestates,norofthenation"[2, p.
intheinterest
ofthestudents,
arediscussed.There
withinstitutional
2]. Fourth,
practices
problems
levelin
discretion
at theinstitutional
is considerable
administrative
of
ofresidential
the
burden
theindicesandcriteria
intent,
persuasion,
and theweightaccordedcriteria.Fitheevidentiary
requirements,
residencewill be
modelsfordetermining
nally,severalalternative
inthisfieldbylegislators
inan attempt
tostimulate
reviewed
thinking
are troubling:
and educators.In manyrespects,theserequirements
are
often
and
theresidency
statutes,
confusing
regulations, practices
"forumshop" and exploittechnical
students
and illogical;potential
to adcriteriaare difficult
loopholes;and manystatement-of-intent
the flawsin thesysteminvite
or verify.
minister
Worse,however,
in
hasbecomethreadbare,
Thissystem
anddishonesty.
circumvention
to
administrators
either
littleconfidence
and inspires
manyrespects,
a radically
or to students.
This articlewill concludeby proposing
onethatwouldincreaseconfidence
revisedapproachto theproblem,
aid infinancial
ofpreferential
intheadministration
benefits,
planning
acrossthe
and
of
and management enrollments, simplify
mobility
systems.
1. TheLegal and Fiscal Consequencesof ResidencyRequirements
Forpersonswholive in a stateformanyyearsand attenda state
it is easy to considersuch students
as residents;
coninstitution,
B
A
for
if
a
to
State
student
moves
from
State
solely the
versely,
B
is
clear
thathe or she
of
it
state
purpose attending
equally
college,
is a nonresident,
at leastat first.The widespacebetweenthesetwo
is therub.As a generalrule,stateswillallowa
occurrences,
however,
as a resident
who
to
"moves"
a stateto becomereclassified
person
of
time
aftera specified
[see AppendixI; 18, 22]. Thistime
period
of Columperiodrangesfromninety
days(forexample,theDistrict
(a periodemployed
bia) totwelvemonths
bynearlyall thestates).No
a waiting
testcurrently
statewitha durational
periodofmore
employs
thantwelvemonths,
andinseveralstates(forexample,NewYorkand
Tennessee),it is possibleto becomereclassified
upon
immediately
timepasses,a
arrival.Absentothercomplications,
whenthespecified
statewitha simpledurational
(eightstates)willallowa
requirement
266
Journalof HigherEducation
as a resident.
student
topaythelowertuition
Thisis usuallyan objectivestandard,
withcertainproofaboutcontinuous
presencerequired
forthereclassification.
To be sure,thisobjectivestandard
is subject
to measurement
as
even
the
standard
of
problems,
seemingly
simple
X periodofdayscanbecomecomplicated:
Do holidays
awayfromthe
statecount?Does the "clock" beginwhenthepersonmovesto the
to vote?
state?Whenshe obtainsemployment?
Whenshe registers
Whenshe buysa house?It is easyto imaginemanypossiblevariais boundto have
tionson thesethemes,andan experienced
registrar
heardthemall.
As difficult
as this"objective"measurement
states
becomes,forty
have complicated
mattersby requiring
morethanmereduration.
Thesestatesalso requirethatresidents
establish
domicile,
byforming
and
thelegal intention
of makingthatstatetheir"true,permanent,
bothconfixedabode" [26]. Thisis a verycomplicated
requirement,
therequisite
and operationally.
Insteadof merelycounting
ceptually
statesthat
noted
as
deceptively
complicated),
waiting
period(already
and evidenceto
employdomicilealso requirea legal declaration
establishment.
considersthestatea principal
provethattheresident
Confusionfrequently
arises because the terms"residence"and
or "residence"is mea"domicile"are oftenused interchangeably,
In law, "domicile"insuredwithlanguagedenoting
intentionality.
cludes "resident,"but has a more specificmeaningthan does
a domicile,twoelements
mustoccur:(1)
"residence."To constitute
to makethatresidencethehomeand
residenceand (2) an intention
butonlyone
abode.Personsmaymaintain
morethanone residence,
maintain
sevdomicile[6, 26]. Forexample,manystudents
plausibly
eral residences,some simultaneously
(summerstate,mothers'and
fathers'
state,thestatein whichtheyliveandvote,theoriginalstate
wheretheymaintain
considerable
ties,andthestatewherethey
family
move),butone domicile(usuallythestatewheretheylive
eventually
voteis notnecessarandvote).Incidentally,
theplacewherestudents
and
brief
their
as
mere
residence
domicile,
waitingperiodsare
ily
for
in
orfederal
elections
local
toregister voting
usuallyrequirements
[1, 14].
student
intenin ascertaining
Giventhehighdegreeof difficulty
of
a
residence?
as
determinant
do
states
domicile
tions,why
employ
as possible,thatstudents
toensure,as strongly
Thelogicis threefold:
andmaintain
establish
genuinetiestothestate;toensurethatstudents
not"forumshop"andpickfromseveralstateswheretheycanmanuofresidence
more
facture
or allegecontacts;to makethedeclaration
Intentions 267
Administering
thanmerepresencerequires.
and seriouslyconsidered
meaningful
addo notalwayssubstantially
theseintentions
Takenindividually,
that
the
attendant
vancethestateinterests,
complexity
exceptthrough
frivolous
claimsandthereby
extent)
(toa limited
protects
discourages
As willbe seenthroughout
thisstudy,
this
thestates'fiscalresources.
behind
several
resiis
a
force
unarticulated
premise
strongdriving
dencypoliciesor practices.
of domicileand a waiting
Fortystatesrequiretheestablishment
twostatesrequiredomicilewithno speciperiod,whilean additional
fieddurational
period.This leavesninestateswithpuredurational
the
absentintention.
however,
Uponcloserexamination,
requirements
of
of
inforthewidespread
declarations
rationales
practice exacting
forestablishment
of
tention
failtoadvanceanysubstantial
guarantees
aldomicilebeyondthoseprovided
bymeredurational
requirements,
is high,bothin dollar
intentions
thoughthecost of administering
termsand in theconsiderable
ill will it exacts.None of thethree
ostensible
reasonsfordomiciliary
loyrequirements
trulyguarantees
In fact,noneofthethreerationales
forstrict
altyortaxcontributions.
nonresassuresstatesthatthenewlyarrived
domiciliary
requirements
intogenuineresidents.
Thatstudents
identshavebeentransformed
that
a legitimate
homeand abodeis no guarantee
establish
principal
to
willremainin thestatebeyondgraduation
or contribute
students
thetax systemwhiletheyare enrolledin school.In all likelihood,
willmovewherever
is possibleorthequalityof
students
employment
lifeandcircumstances
allow.To someextent,
thesecondpurposemay
be met,as students
cannotmaintain
morethanone domicile.Howofpermutations
andmorethan
is possibleforstudents,
ever,a variety
canbe maintained,
evionelegalresidence
whichcan givesufficient
to meetresidency
in
more
than
one
denceforstudents
requirements
to
is
the
that
students
have
state.A greater
may
problem
possibility
or
sufdomicile
in
the
to
establish
residence
"home"
state
relinquish
to
contactsin a newstate.Thishas led, in manyinstances,
ficient
no
in
which
domistudents
claim
a
state
can
they
successfully
having
is
cile. The thirdrationale,
moremeaningful,
makingdeclarations
in
and
to
efficacious
determining
onlyexhortatory unlikely prove
domicile.Thereis no legalwayto ensurethatstudents
remainin the
stateafterconsuming
thepostsecondary
resources.
the
demonstrable
of
defects
Despite
domiciliary
parrequirements,
thosethatalso includewaiting
ticularly
periods,statesandinstitutions
tuition
them.Moreover,
notonlylowerresident
persistin requiring
lies in thebalance,butmanyotherbenefits
mayaccrueto stateresi-
268
Journalof HigherEducation
dentsin publicor privatecolleges.A partiallistofbenefits
includes
or
loan
inclusion
in
admissions,
assistance,
preferential
scholarship
for
consortia
or
and
quotaprograms,
exchangeprograms,
eligibility
in specializedprogramsnegotiated
participation
amongstatesin
Itis thesestakes,notmerely
thetuition
differenlegislative
compacts.
tials(which,in certaininstances,
can be "equalized"byneed-based
aid formulae)
thathavecontributed
to theoverallrise in residency
litigation.
2. StateGovernanceStructures
In orderto understand
howstatesgovernresidency,
itis helpful
to
dividethemaccording
totheirbasicgovernance
of
patterns postseconthatis, whether
is
thelocusofauthority
daryresidency
requirements,
or institutional
itis a specifically
andwhether
legislative,
regulatory,
includedin anotherplenarypower.
assignedpoweror is implicitly
intable1. In TypesI, II, andIII,
Thesevarioustypesareelaborated
statelegislatures
determinatwenty-nine
explicitly
assignedresidency
tionpolicy:inTypeI, twenty
thepowertothemreserved
legislatures
tostate
selves;inTypeII, sevenlegislatures
gavethepowerexplicitly
or
statewide
in
two
states
boards; TypeIII,
agencies
coordinating
In
this
to
institutions.
IV
and
the
state
V,
explicitly
gave
power
Types
the legislationin twenty-two
statesis silenton residency
requirements:in sevenstates(TypeIV), a stateagencyor statewide
board
in fifteen
hasassumedthedetermination;
states(TypeV), stateinstitutions
haveassumedthedetermination.
Thesefivetypesareessential
tounderstand
howresidency
policies
in thevariousstatesandto appreciate
aredetermined
thecomplexity
ofresidency
andanychangesor litigovernance.
TypeI is statutory,
will
with
necessitate
interaction
elected
officials.
gation
TypesII and
IV are regulatory,
or trustees
administered
state
commissioners
by
or elected),andarepartofa state'sadminis(whomaybe appointed
trative
or agencylaw structure.
TypesIII andV are institution-level,
and the seventeen
statesthatemploythisgovernance
pattern
pose
fortheautonomy
allowedeach institution
has
particular
problems,
in
the
for
resulted,
predictably,widelydiscrepant
practices; potential
mischief
andconfusion
is obvious.In TypesI, II, andIV,all students
andapplicants
within
eachofthethirty-four
statesaresubjecttostatewide standards
and procedures.
As has been noted,thisdoes not
ensureuniformity
acrossinstitutions,
butthedesignof thesestructuresis to treatresidency
policyas a statewide
policy,as befitsa
benefit
to stateresidents.
Intentions 269
Administering
TABLE 1
PostsecondaryResidencyRequirements(by GovernancePattern)
States
Type
TypeI
Statelegislaturedeterminesresidency
policies (20)
TypeII
Statelegislatureexplicitlygives residence
determination
to stateagencyor coordinatingboard (7)
TypeIII
Statelegislatureexplicitlygives residency
determination
to stateinstitutions
(2)
IV
Type
Statecode is silent,stateagencyor
board has assumedthe
coordinating
determination
(7)
V
Type
Statecode is silent,stateinstitutions
have assumed thedetermination
(15)
AZ, CA, CO, CT, HI, ID, KS, MS, MT, NE,
NV, NJ,NY, NC, ND, SC, TX, UT, VA, WA
FL, GA, MN, MO, NM, SD, WI
AR, NH
IA, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, WV
AL, AK, DE, DC, IL, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD,
MA, MI, TN, VT, WY
howThe heterogeneous
practicesof TypeIII and V institutions,
In smallstateswithone
ever,cannotpossiblyattainsuchuniformity.
forinstitutional
or fewinstitutions
thismaynotbe a seriousproblem,
within
their
to
establish
and
often
confer
uniformity
attempt
registrars
or
individual
boardpolicies.In stateswithmanypublicinstitutions
invites
thislaissez faireautonomy
systems,
manymultiple-campus
and litigation.
arbitrariness,
confusion,
AppendixI includesinstituDue to theabsenceof
tionalpractices
in TypeIII andV institutions.
institution
or
a
statewide
standards, major
systemwas sampledin
whether
statestodetermine
eachoftheseventeen
domicile,durational
ofthetwowererequired.
or a combination
residence,
statesemployone stanAs can be seen,someinstitutional-practice
nota problem
This
is
another.
others
whereas
dard,
per se,
employ
in
The
their
forTypeI, II, andIV statesalso vary
practices. crucial
statestreatall appliis thatthestatewide-practice
difference,
though,
standard
to
a
statewide
cantswithin
thestatesimilarly,
(tied
according
states
whereasthe institutional-practice
to a statuteor regulation),
boardto adoptindividual
alloweach institution's
criteria,
practices,
to waivetheresidenceor
and eventhechoicewhether
standards,
could moveto
student
domicilerequirement.
Thus, an out-of-state
of
whichcould
each
V
A
to
several
and
State
institutions,
apply
Type
immedi1
could
her
Institution
treatherdifferently.
grant residency
2 and 3 couldrequireninety
daysor oneately,whereasinstitutions
270
Journalof HigherEducation
yearwaitingperiods,and 4 couldinsistshe be domiciledand wait
one year.
This crazyquiltdoes, in fact,occurin theseventeen
states,and
it
is
difficult
to
whether
these
states
encounter
more
although
gauge
or
accrue
more
administrative
costs thando statewidelitigation
practicestates,it is clearthattheplethoraof practicesfailsto put
students
on sufficient
noticeofstaterequirements,
a "comprecludes
monlaw" of statepractices
suchas thosepossiblein stateswherea
of similarexperience
and smoothes
outtrouble
sharing
supplements
thestatefiscalresources.The reversemay
spots,andfailsto protect
also be problematic,
forindividual
institutions
maybe moreopento
out-of-state
students
thanwouldbe legislatures
or agencies.As this
do
not
serve
studyargues,existing
practices
veryclearlyarticulated
and
policygoalsandfailintwoimportant
respects:noticeto students
equal protection
(treating
equals equally). In addition,legislators
often
Thistendency
is mostproguardtheirstateborders
ferociously.
nouncedin legislative
treatment
ofalienage,wherestatesmayexceed
theirconstitutional
and whereforeign
authority
policyimplications
arise.Forexample,ina recentlegislative
sessioninoneTypeI state,
thelegislature
ignoredtheattorney
general'sopinionit had commisand
to
failed
a
correct
statewide
resident
sioned,
practiceconcerning
aliens-eventhough
theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthaddefinitively
ruledon thepracticeand struckit downthreeyearsearlier[21, pp.
51-55]. A recentstudyfoundthatnineteen
TypeI, II, andIV states
werenot in compliancewiththe Court'sruling,and sevenadditionalIII andV stateshadmajorinstitutions
withsimilarly
discredited
practices[21].
3. Exemptions,Exceptions,and Waivers:End Runs aroundResidencyRequirements
In additionto thecomplexrequirements
andgovernance
explored
in parts1 and 2, thereare an extraordinary
numberof exemptions,
and waiversto statepractices.The mostcommonareas
exceptions,
or minors,marital
are dependents
singledoutforspecialtreatments
and alienage,fourareaswherenearlyall
status,military
personnel,
statesmakesomespecialmention
intheirpractice.Statesalso employ
mention
for
a
wide
of
thousands
rangeofcategories,
special
totaling
to residency
Table2 summarizes
statedata
exceptions
requirements.
on specialtreatment,
butas complicated
as thesepractices
are,they
understate
For
the
those
seventeen
states
significantly
exemptions.
withinstitutional
to
own
devise
their
autonomy
residency
require-
Intentions 271
Administering
ments,onlya flagship
systemor campuswas sampled;therequireto institution,
and
mentsin those statesvary frominstitution
are
no
different.
exemptions
TABLE 2
Exemptions,Exceptions,and Waiversto PostsecondaryResidencyRequirements
Category
Alienage
MaritalStatus
Military
Minors/dependents
Othermiscellaneousprovisions(33 categories)
No. ofStateProvisions*
71
81
173
27
173
NOTE:
Forthecomplete
II
list,see 22, Appendix
Therefore
thetotalsarehigher
*Eachstatecould,andmanydidhavemorethanoneprovision
percategory.
than51.
Othergroupsfrequently
include
singledout forspecialtreatment
states),financially
university
needystudents
employees(seventeen
(sixteenstates),graduateassistants
(twelvestates),new employees
and
senior
citizens
are
(elevenstates),
(tenstates).Theseexemptions
than
the
data
to
even
more
due
the
undoubtedly
widespread
suggest,
to treat
TypeIII and V statesand due to themanywaysemployed
or
confer
For
states
use
fiscal
exemption. example,
may
residency
or
to
enact
revenue
bills,
riders,
appropriations
language
exceptions
means
(forone yearor several),and theseor otherquasi-legislative
couldnotbe discovered
in a statute
search.As one example,Texas
bill each sessionto limitout-of-state
enrolluses an appropriations
mentsin publiclaw schoolsto 10 percent
oftheirtotal[20].
The moststriking
feature
is howfewexempamongthesepatterns
tionsor specialtreatment
haveanything
to do withthefundamental
or domicile.In someinstances,
theexceptions
conceptsofduration
are aimedat classesof personswho are mobile(military,
migrant
or forwhomdomicileis difficult
todetermine
workers)
(aliens,Indithelargestclass is thoseforwhomresidency
ans). However,
(or tuitionwaivers)is a conferred
to
duration
without
reference
or
benefit,
intent.
to showeach
thedatain table2 are notarranged
Although
state'sexemptions
in TypesIII
ofexceptions
(duetothewidenumber
andV), somestatesaretrulyspectacular
intheirlegerdemain
around
strictrequirements.
not
the
most
unusual
Texas,although
example,
offers
ofexceptions
or specialtreatment
toa strict
categories
eighteen
witha oneyearwaiting
domiciliary
requirement
period:fromgradu-
272
Journalof HigherEducation
torecipients
of$200.00scholarships,
tocertain
border
ateassistants,
to
In nearlyeveryinstance,thebenefitis conferred
non-residents.
or class ofpersons,suchas graduate
a characteristic
students
reward
meritorious
students
(as an employment
(thosewhoreperquisite),
certainpublicemployees,or good neighbors
ceive scholarships),
on
(certainadjoiningstates).Few can reallylayclaimto exemption
ordurational
as
butall claimstatutory
intentional
grounds,
preference
in
an exception
carvedoutovertimeby thelegislature.
Ironically,
otherrespects,theTexaslegislature
has soughtto makestateresito achieve[20, 21].
dencyevenmoredifficult
Someoftheseexemptions
maynotpose bad results,buttheyare,
forthemostpart,unprincipled,
exceptwhentheyease theevidentiary
for
burden
whom
duration
or domicilegenuinely
placedupongroups
a
students
arepaidwelland
Graduate
poses particular
problem.
rarely
instructional
or researchservicesto institutions.
provideimportant
seemsa modestbenefit
and one wellworthprePayingtheirtuition
but
the
to deemthe students
serving, using
residency
requirement
"residents"
is a curiousbookkeeping
one thatundermines
maneuver,
the residency
determination
are the
system.Particularly
troubling
meansto conferresidency
manydiscretionary
upontheadvantaged,
as in the instanceof scholarship
or employees
of choice
recipients
industries
luredto statesbysuchspecialtreatment
as exemptions
and
tax
the
abatements.
As
weak
a
as
has
been
(for companies)
system
erectedto regulate
ofout-of-state
it is beingunstudents,
migration
ofarbitrary
exdermined
andunprincipled
bythegrowth
exceptions,
and
waivers.
emptions,
The mostobviousproblemswiththe state-sanctioned
exceptions
aretheireffect
andtheirpotential
forabuse
system
upontheresidency
ofdiscretion.
andtheillogicofmany
First,thevagariesofthesystem
as notedpreviously,
confidence
failtoinspire
residency
requirements,
in theefficacy
of thesystem.Surely,thispartially
accountsforthe
riseinlitigation.
willcapitulate
ina borsomeinstitutions
Moreover,
derlinecase ratherthanbe sued by students
and havea published
forotherapplicants
toemulate.As willbe notedinthenext
judgment
breedcontempt
section,institutional
practices
bystudents
frequently
whosegrapevine
information
students
about
to
other
quicklyconveys
bad or unfairadministrative
the "end-runs"
processes.Therefore,
aroundstrictrequirements
cause greatdissatisfaction
amongthe
"have-nots"
whoareforced
tocomplywithwaiting
periodsandintentreatedadvantageously
requirements.
tionality
Seeingotherstudents
Intentions 273
Administering
foridiosyncratic
reasonsdoes not"go downwell" fortheless advanifthebenefit
but
is notdue to students'
"merits,"
taged,particularly
will
as
rise.
instituthe
stake
increase
tuitions
Second,
goodfortune;
as
tionalofficials,
althoughfrequently
desiringas muchdiscretion
fortheyare
exemptions,
possible,do notalwayswantopen-ended
or
criteria
placedin thepositionofhavingtomakedecisionswithout
then
to
defend
decisions
to
those
and
explanation
having
negative
in
whoseclaimsaredenied.In otherwords,theexerciseofdiscretion
demandsforthesame
benefit
awardscan lead to additional
student
treatment.
Evenvaguecriteriasuchas "merit,""need,"and "honon a regular
basisinhighereducation,
can be quantiors,"employed
fiedor tied to a publishablestandardto guide practice,whereas
toduration
or domicilecannotbe so
tuition
waiverswithout
reference
or
defended.
articulated
easily
thatexceptions
wouldoccurand
On one hand,itis understandable
wouldbe availablefortheinstitutions
desirablethatsomeflexibility
strictresidency
thatmustadminister
requirements;
playin thejoints
accommodais alwaysusefulforlargeorganizations,
andreasonable
and unprincitionsseema socialgood. Unfortunately,
theextensive
in thisarea have gone faroverboardfromtheir
pled exemptions
those
practices,particularly
originalpurpose,and the institutional
foundin statutes
and regulations,
suggestthatthebasic residency
orwrongheaded
thatonlyinstitutionalareso outmoded
requirements
can makethe systemwork.This Goldbergian
ized circumvention
rational
norreasonable,
andinstitutional
schemeis neither
practices,
discussedin section4, onlyadd to theconfusion.
Practices
4. ProblemswithInstitutional
bifurcated.
is interestingly
on residency
Theliterature
requirements
One streamof researchis concernedwiththelegal and economic
of student
[6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 24, 27, 29],
migration
consequences
more
and is therefore
is
written
whereastheother
by practitioners
is interesting
[5, 9, 11, 12, 25]. This bifurcation
practice-oriented
andtheimplemenofresidency'requirements
becauseboththetheory
showclearlythatthe systemis badly
tationof the requirements
is
Neitherliterature
muddlethrough.
but
that
flawed,
participants
or showsthe effectof theoryupon practice.
verywell integrated
where
to a bad situation,
thereis a senseofaccommodation
Rather,
thegoals maybe inchoateand therulesunclear,butsomehowtrue
274
Journalof HigherEducation
residents
are sortedfromnonresidents,
andthefolklore
persiststhat
are
a
whereas
nonbenefit,
deserving
taxpayers receiving
undeserving
residents
arenot.
Thebestplacetoobservethefolklore
inactionis inan officewhere
determinations
aremade.Atmostinstitutions,
thistransacresidency
tionoccursin an admissions,
or
financial
aid
where
office,
registrar,
a clerkmakesan assessment
ofstudents'
claims
to
resiself-reported
status.
At
this
the
staff
of
an
institution
their
dency
point,
implement
ofthecomplexresidency
understanding
system,
requirement
bringing
to bearobjectivefacts,someproxymeasures,and certainevidence
ofadministrative
discretion
uponeachcase. In thissection,theforms
willbe reviewed,
the
indices
and
tomake
criteria
including
employed
thedetermination,
theevidentiary
ofproof
andburdens
requirements
intotherecord,andtheweight
entered
accordedthevariouspiecesof
information.
Thisarea is theone mostin needof freshinsights,
as no ethnoor administrative
law studyhas emerged
to shedlight
graphicsurvey
on theimportant
roleadministrators
therulesand
playin interpreting
This gap is considerable,
becausethereare
makingdeterminations.
andreinterpretation
thatoccurbetweentheenactment
of
redefinition
statutes
or promulgation
of regulations
of a
and the determination
status.One knowledgeable
scholarof residency
student's
residency
has noted,"mostclassification
wouldbe likelyto
officers
practices
in indiofmakingeither-or
stressthatthedifficulties
determinations
vidualcases shouldnotbe underestimated"
[3, p. 8].
A first
thediscretionary
is an examstepinunderstanding
practices
reinationof indicesand criteria.As has been noted,domiciliary
evias
well
measurable
entail
as
quirements
subjective
objective,
dence.In thepurestsense,one whohas neverlefta stateand never
and
intends
to leaveincontestably
meetsall thepresence,duration,
intent
criteria;at theotherend, someonewho has neverbeen in a
stateandneverintends
togo thereisjustas clearlynotitsdomiciliary.
Between
thesetwopoints,however,
thereis muchroomforjudgment.
In mostinstances,
thefirstlevelof inquiryis: do thecircumstances
duraindicate
anypresenceinthestate,andifso, was itofsufficient
in
tionto meetthedurational
Some
states,
anticipation
requirement?
allowa set"graceperiod"
ofdifficulties
indetermining
thiscriterion,
thetime
forcounting
time.As simpleas thisappearsto be, counting
When
Whendoestheclockstart?
periodsfrequently
posesproblems:
does it stop?Do absencesfromthestatecount?If briefonesdo not
ones?A reviewofadmissions
count,whataboutprolonged
practices
Intentions 275
Administering
revealedthatnearlyhalfthe sampledinstitutions
requiredthatapplicantsforresidencestatusresidein thestatefortheappropriate
period,
countedbackwardsfromthe date of application,on the theorythat
the
eventscould changebetweenthattimeand thetimeofenrollment;
otherstatespermittedstudentsto run the clock untilenrollment,a
shortenthe waitingperiod[21].
practicethatcan substantially
The measurement
of intentis evenmorecomplexthanthemeasurementof duration,and the fortystateswithdomiciliaryrequirements
and waitingperiods and two stateswith domiciliaryrequirements
withoutwaitingperiodspredictably
employa wide rangeof criteriato
determineintent.Often,othermeasuresof long-termresidenceand
is a lesscommunityties are used: for example, voterregistration
formofresidencewidelyused byinstitutions.
In truth,it is a
stringent
poor proxy,forvotingresidencyperiodsare by law of shortduration,
usually ninetydays to six months[1], and rarelyare probativeof
intent.People mayregularlyvotein theirdomicile,butthey
long-term
to votein a newstate
need notdo so. Conversely,notbeingregistered
is likelyto be interpreted
as not havingestablisheddomicile. In any
event,the extensivelitigationin studentvotingrightscases suggests
in measuringintentionality
the greatdegreeof difficulty
formeeting
However,everystatesampledallowedor reresidencyrequirements.
as a criterionof domiciliaryintent.
quiredvoterregistration
The problemsof evidenceand burdenof proofare important,
for
both
facts
how
have
stu(forexample,
determining
"objective"
long
dentsresided)and subjectiveintent(where is yourtrue,permanent,
and fixed abode), but those statesthathold studentsto durational
standardsappearto exactthe same evidentiary
as those
requirements
stateswheredomicilemustbe proven.Therefore,even wheresubjective intentis not required,similarproof-includingitemsthatcount
towardintentionality-is
exacted. This curious findingsuggeststhat
evennondomiciliary
statesare employing
domiciliarycriteriaand eviofthestatutes
dence,higherstandardsthanthetechnicalrequirements
or regulations.
The kindsof evidenceallowed to proveresidenceor domicileare
summarizedin table3, datagatheredin a surveyofall statepractices.
The data show a remarkableconsistency,fornearlyeverystaterequiredor allowedthefollowingas evidence:IRS receipts;automobile
registration,
propertyownership,or tax records; voterregistration
fromlandlords,employers,or others;
card; paycheckstubs;affidavits
students'swornstatements;transcripts;and otherdocuments,testimony,or proofof residence.
276
Journalof HigherEducation
TABLE 3
DocumentationAllowedor Requiredby Statesas Evidence of Residencyor Domicile
Evidence
IRS returns,W-2, W-4 forms,statetax returns
Voterregistration
Driverslicense
Car or propertypapers
Proofof housing(rentalor owned)
Payrollchecks, stubs
Affidavits
(fromlandlords,employers,others)
Applicants'affidavits
Other
(transcripts)
(immigration
papers)
(militarypapers)
No. ofStates*
51
51
48
48
48
45
44
44
35
30
26
*50 statesandDC, including
flagship
campusin TypesIII andV
Manystatesgrantedwide latitudewiththeevidenceallowedto
butitis thepatterns
oftheevidencethatadministraproveresidence,
a student
torsrelyuponto maketheirdetermination.
For instance,
in
in
all
the
documentation
listed
table
but
3,
holding
voting another
a nonresident;
evenifthestudent
state,willlikelybe classified
registeredto votein thenewstate,manyregistrars
wouldlikelystartthe
clockat thepointof reregistration.
The burdenof proofis always
in
the
student
classification
cases,andcourtswilllikelyuphold
upon
thestatepracticeunlessit includesan irrebuttable
(that
presumption
onceclassified
can neverbecomeresiis, thatstudents,
nonresidents,
to do what
dents)or an unconstitutional
(thatstatesattempt
provision
the
can
federal
only
government do, namely,regulateimmigration)
ofproof,students
willnot
theburden
[14,21, 27]. Thus,toovercome
ofthe
toshowthattheyareresidents
or domiciliaries
onlybe required
elsewhere.These
state,butthattheyare notdomiciledor residents
for
are heavyburdensto overcome,and although
therequirements
durationare less stringent
thanthosefordomicile,the evidence
deemednecessary
forone is no less thanthatrequired
fortheother.
The weightaccordedtheevidencedoes notsubstantially
differ
betweendeterminations
of residenceor domicile.In bothinstances,
ofevidence)andaccord
statesrelyuponsimilarrecords(theportfolio
theevidencethegreatest
when
the
showuninterrupted
records
weight
of domicileelsewhere.As noted
presenceas well as abandonment
haveelements
of
determinations
earlier,evendurational
requirement
into
whole
account
the
and
intentionality, "taking
picture"inevitably
Intentions 277
Administering
considersintentions.
The care withwhichmaterials
are scrutinized
candependona rangeofelements,
or
including
political legalconsiderations.
Forexample,evenin thoseinstitutions
thatenjoyautonomy
in residency
admissions
numbers
andpoliciescan subtlyafmatters,
fectwhether
or notstrictscrutiny
is appliedto residency
petitions.
Forinstance,
whenenrollments
tuition
aredownor whensubstantial
increases
occur(as inTexas,wheretuition
from
1985
chargestripled
forinstitutions
tobe morelenient
in
to 1986),itmayproveefficacious
Ifa school
borderline
thanrisklosingstudents.
casesrather
residency
for
has differential
admissions
transfer
practices
students-requiring
forenrolled
admissions
thanthoserequired
higherGPA'sfortransfer
be
a
to
thequalstudents-such
mayactually way improve
flexibility
Of course,suchpracticescannotbe articulated
as
ityof students.
or students
formalinstitutional
policy,leststateauditorsinvestigate
in thefuture.
beginto expecteasierreclassification
Therearealso occasionswhereinstitutions
statelegislareinterpret
unenforceable
tionor regulations,
as in one state,wherea virtually
ofdubiousconstitutionality
was ignored
provision
bythestateinstituinstateswhere
tionsinan unspoken
Thishasalsohappened
compact.3
theexistingpracticehas been struckdownby a courtdecision.A
alien
recentstudyfounda number
ofstateswhosepractices
regarding
witha UnitedStates
students
intoconformity
had notbeenbrought
had
SupremeCourtdecision,severalyearsafterthe requirements
ofinstitutional
beenfoundunconstitutional
[21]. Nonetheless,
many
ficerswereawareof thecourtcase and had been advisedby legal
counselto ignoretherequirements
andabidebytheCourt'sdecision.
The fluctuations
ofenrollments,
institutional
andlegalcripriorities,
to theaccordion-like
and
teriaall contribute
tightening releasingof
and weightsin residency
theevidence,burdensofproof,standards,
foundin nearlyall
determination.
Like the multipleexemptions
of residency
states,the wide swingsevidentin the administration
notalways
into
one
that
does
the
deterioration
of
the
system
suggest
either
students'
the
institutional
interest
or
the
protect
rights.In the
are refinalsections,themajormodelsof residency
determination
thearbitrarareadvancedforreducing
viewed,andrecommendations
inessso evidentin thecurrent
system.If majorrevisionsare not
was thatresidentsbe "gainfullyemployed."Severaladministra3Therequirement
torsagreed to speak on the subjecton the conditionthattheirremarkswere to be
held confidential.
278
Journalof HigherEducation
in thepracticescurrently
will collapse
made,confidence
employed
like the "one-hoss shay."4
5. Alternative
Modelsfor ResidencyDetermination
In his important
1974 book, Alternative
TuitionSystems[4], Robert
Carboneand severalcolleaguesconsidered
fivedifferent
modelsfor
the
and
drawbacks
of
residency,
determining
weighing advantages
each: thenonresident
student
student
model,theresident
surcharge
fee remission
criteriamodel,the
model,theslidingscale/multiple
criterion
model,and the nationaltuitionbank
slidingscale/single
model(see table4). Carbonewas particularly
aboutthe
enthusiastic
theNationalTuitionBankmodel,becauseitsfederalcharacter
fifth,
obviatedmanyof the intractable
problemsposedby theotherfour
statemodels.In thedozenyearssincethebookappeared,however,
therehas beenno movement
a federalmodel,and indeed,
towards
additionallitigation
thestates'handin
has continued
to strengthen
determination
[14, 22]. The problemsidentified
residency
by Carbone,and thosedetailedin thisarticle,remainan obstaclein state
has somelurein itspromiseforincreasplans,anda nationalsystem
student
incentive
forstudents)
and possibility
for
(an
ing
mobility
federal"equalization"of subsidy(an incentive
forstates).As was
mentioned
earlier,thefederalfinancialaid systemdoes havesome
built-in
fordetermination
ofgreater
needwillgenerate
progressivity,
a formula
ofsomewhat
aid
greater eligibility.
In 1976 two additionalproposalsfora nationalresidency
plan
In
in
a
David
based
more
a
[23].
emerged studyby
Palley
prediction
onhopethanlogic,he concluded,
"As enrollments
declineabsolutely
onparticular
ofclasssector
underutilization
public
campusescausing
it is entirely
roomsand dormitories,
possible-indeedlikely-that
lowerbarriersagainststudents
fromout of
stateswill voluntarily
state. . . enrollmenttrendssuggestthatthe 'nonresidentproblem'
withwhichthispaperis concerned
five
maylargelycureitselfwithin
to tenyears"[23, pp. 16-17]. Although
thedecade sincePalley's
a generaltightening
ofstandards
andincreashaswitnessed
prophecy
in
he was
of
nonresidents
the
claims,
ing sophistication
residency
thatthesystemwas illogicaland, in many
correctin hisjudgment
unfathomable.
he had nottakenintoaccountthe
However,
respects,
in charges,
financial
assistancethatoffsets
someof thedifferences
4With
apologiesto 0. W. Holmesand "The Deacon'sMasterpiece"[10].
Intentions 279
Administering
thatsiphonoff
and he did notnotetheextensivesystemofexemptions
some of thepressure.He did notenvisiontheextentto whichdeclining resourceswould cause state legislatorsto close bordersmore
thanbefore,even withfewerstudentsenrollingin publicinstitightly
has liberalizedits residency
tutions.Almost no stateor institution
at
least
not
withoutlosinga courtcase.
the
last
years,
practicesduring
In bothof his federalproposals,he envisioneda nationalcompactor
paymentplan thatwould share
ledgerwherethereis eithera transfer
and exporterstatesor
the
federal
costdifferentials
among
government
students.The five
a waiverplanthatequalizes chargesforout-of-state
two
models
are summaCarbone
and
reviewed
Palley's
by
approaches
rizedin table4.
more alternativemodels are eitherin operationor
Undoubtedly,
to
and the seven elaboratedin table 4 represent
construct,
possible
elementsand
are possible,borrowing
puretypes.Manypermutations
a hybridapproach.In financialaid packaging,thejerryjerrybuilding
built approachof mixed economies and public purposes is widely
employed[4, 19]. The two puresttypesof residencydetermination
existand
in table4, because theydo notcurrently
are notrepresented
a no-tuition
statewhereno
havea varietyoflegal and fiscalrestraints:
studentpays tuition,whetherresidentor nonresident;or a high
chargestatewhereeverystudentpays the same "full-cost"tuition,
As Carbonecorrectlynotedin 1974,
whetherresidentor nonresident.
a positionout
each of thesetwoextremes"in its own wayrepresents
of stepwithcurrenteconomicconditionsand prevailing
politicalrealyearslater.
ity" [4, p. x]. His assessmentis no less valid fourteen
Each of theseapproacheshas seriousflaws.A and B do notmeet
thetestof Vlandisv. Kline,5the leadingcase on the legalityof resifromever esdencyschemes. Any plan thatprecludesnonresidents
tablishingresidency will be found illegal, whetherit employs
surchargesor rebates.Variantsof A and B are regularlyemployed,
forfee reductionor rebate;
usingdurationor domicileas thecriterion
thesevariants,however,stillpose all the problemsnotedearlierwith
the determination
of domicileand duration.In addition,both plans
would likelycause in-statetuitionsto rise by tyingthemto cost-ofinstruction
formulas.
Plans C and D have morepossibilities,althoughD raisesthesame
Both tie tuitionrates to resiproblemsof residencydetermination.
dencystatus,butinsteadof theall (resident)or nothing(nonresident)
'Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973).
flj
r- 1 <^_1 I *- 4
(4_|
1?l,3
.g2SSS
o^5-3sS-o
-
o
95o
g
,~_
I
3
a~cd^
_
CZ
to
Z
C
v
Q
dZ
C
o
3
ac5'g
?-> a
C
o
^-g
0
-o
=: o
~o
4. C.CZ.I
CZ
cd
~ .~
M
CZ
.=
CZ
E
l
o
.~~,
~ :z
^?^
o
o
E
~~a~~~
:~ .p.l
C
|l bb |^j
-.*a1
ak S4
un o "
":c: V)
sm
3 Y, ,E|iE|!
S "-S-? -3
.S
073^
cn
E
s c,2
^5
w
o
|;i
*-
|
=
Z, S
afi
CZ
r-
i
3
s
po-a
r-~~~n
. s'SO^
S "
E-|. S ^1'
C
c-'
ST3
Fs e1-"
ff
3'^ b)
mi
.
o
|Zg!r
z
^
~
?-~~ b ;,
E
eti
??2^1^ *?*11:C
+^c'
C~~~eo
~~~~~~.o
r-0
I ai^oj
V O
c
~.~=
t)
*5
o c~c
'
3 E
^.^
cdCC
QIC3
CZ.
?
II
~
o
o~
EE~
c^
In
*siu
00 CZO
.4
E
0
'ss.i^
II^~jal0
o
oci~Eo-
o|
a ,,-,le^
E o..c:
'5; CZ
?p
rE!
O'.2-
CZ
I
o SS CC~~
5:
?e
bS
,
"
^
*-
^|^^Is^i
e: w
Ecloq)Po
~~C.=
isT)
,0 Sg
.5
CZCZ..
l.,.,
rm
.I.r
--
Bff-g3
o "
X
-^.p-j
I
^ Q
CZ
.--,E
C-
'r-
is
-S~~~C
c?c
? ?'?
c^
g-^
,e
.3
'*~aa??-o.5
o
fl(_
~o
's
S
l
*
o "^
E
ld
?
o'S
)c
<^c
S
f 3
g
CZ
>
a
Q)
c.
^
iIE =rF cCvl
Za)a
-c
e_
E~;~
~~~c
~
? n
1
^
c3:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
nr O~
'i~~~V L~~~
E
o a~~~~
P' ~~~~~3i
Oo
E
63
al>
E~~
~:~~c
I"
b
EE
la
r:
L^O~~'~'
S~~~~C
^^~~
~ '5
'~D |i~a~~
O
1
o
eP ~~~~~~~~~~~~
2?^
O
Y ~~~nl
rceCZ
r
o
re
E'--
E
o
vlC
c~
o
E.-Io
'c
~~~.
E?
c~~~~
'3 Q) b)
0
U?
U
39~~
.~I,
r,b,
o
8
c
,,
u"
Q) cO U
o
E
,-
'~
,.~
o0
.
Q
.
.
c
~o _
1
4-
(n -B
F!
3 ,Ia
'B
j
^
B
1
0
o
Intentions 281
Administering
categories,theyincorporatedegreesof residence.Thus, underPlan
D, a personwho had been in the stateforone year would pay more
tuitionthanwoulda personwho had been a residentforlonger,and so
on. Under Plan C, a personwithmore contacts(voting,residence,
residentspouse, and so on) would pay a correspondingly
property,
loweramountthanwoulda personwithoutthedomiciliarycriteria.In
bothinstances,theunitarynotionofdomicilewouldbe removedfrom
The legalityof this"degrees of residency"is
itseither-orstructures.
and Andressv.
unclear,althoughthe recentcases Zobel v. Williams6
Both are Alaska cases, and both
Baxter are somewhatinstructive.
to distribute
theState'swealthto itscitiinvolvedlegislativeattempts
zens. In Zobel, the United States Supreme Court struckdown a
benefits-distribution
schemethatwouldhavegivenmoremineralrevenue to longer-term
residentsthanto newerarrivals-quitelike models
C and D. The Courtheld:
of
IftheStatescan maketheamount
ofa cashdividend
dependon length
whatwouldprecludevarying
tuitionon a sliding
residency,
university
accesstofinite
scalebasedon yearsofresidence-orevenlimiting
public
for
civil
service
for
student
loans,
facilities,
jobs, or forgoveligibility
ernment
contracts
bylengthof domicile?CouldStatesimposedifferent
couldopenthe
Alaska'sreasoning
taxesbasedon lengthof residence?
andservicesaccordofotherrights,
benefits
doorto stateapportionment
ofresidency.
It wouldpermit
thestatestodividecitizens
ingtothelength
of permanent
classes. Sucha resultwouldbe
intoexpanding
numbers
clearlyimpermissible.8
It is not clear how far the Court would go in invalidatinga more
carefullycraftedlegislativescheme fortuitionbenefits,and at least
one authorhas predictedthatthecase is sui generisand limitedto its
ratherunusualfacts[24].
In Andressv. Baxter,however,in whichAlaska requireda two-year
theDistrictCourtheldthat
waitingperiodforfinancialaid eligibility,
was allowable. The state
theexceedinglylong durationalrequirement
than
the
usual
that
more
waitingperiodwas necsuccessfullyargued
the
was
because
extremely
generousand themoneycould
essary,
plan
thehigh
be used to attendschools in otherstates.The case represents
6Zobel v. Williams,457 U.S. 55 (1982).
7Andressv. Baxter, No. A82-307 CIV, U.S.D.C.
(Unpublished).
8Zobel v. Williams,457 U.S. 55 (1982), at 64.
(Al.) (September8, 1983)
282
Journalof HigherEducation
watermarkofdurational
anditis unlikely
thata court
requirements,
would countenancemore than a two-yearrequirement
for any
benefits-distribution
based
domicile.9
plan
upon
therewouldhavetobe a
Apartfromthemodel'slegalimplications,
clearand rationalrelationship
drawnamongthevariouscriteria
and
theweights
accordedeach. As has beennoted,thisis theveryprobin domiciledetermination,
leminherent
of several
butthepossibility
tuition
levelspeggedto students'
statushas manyattractive
features,
ifstudents
couldrelyuponreclassification
as their"eligiparticularly
Thismodelmightsurvivea courttestifitscriteria
bility"improved.
wereweighted
towards
durational
evidence,andtherelameaningful
and
student
of
couldbe reacosts
instruction
tionship
among
subsidy
established
Forinstance,
howlongdoesittaketo
sonably
byresearch.
Atwhatpointwoulda nonresident
becomea regular
repaysubsidies?
Whichcriteria
ofintent?
resident?
aredeterminative
ModelsE, F, andG proposenational"compacts,"
wherethebooka
wouldtakeplaceat national
level.In Models
keepingforresidence
E andF, a federal"bank" wouldbe established
to administer
a balance of payments
betweensenderand receiverstates.In Carbone's
ModelE, thisbalancewouldbe thenettotalsubsidiesexpendedfor
eachout-of-state
student
enrolledinthatstate'spublicsystem;in Palley'sModelF, thebalancewouldbe spreadoverthesenderstatesand
thefederalgovernment.
somestart-up
(Model E anticipates
money,
to
the
until
the
possiblyfederal, prime pump
repayments
began.)In
ModelG, Palley'sWaiverPlanenvisionsnotonlya nationalcoordiefforttowardsfinancially
but a redistributive
natingmechanism,
have
"valid"
for
students
who
reasons
schoolsoutof
attending
needy
state.He wouldpay forthesewaiversto average25 to 30 percent
forhalfthenonresident
"discounts"
(with10to 15 percent
population
ofthepopulation
on fulldiscounts)
by substantially
raisingnonresinoteligibleforthewaivers.
dentfeesfortheremaining
nonresidents
federal
Thelastthreemodelswouldrequirea substantial
role,with
to
theattendant
and
Theyresemble, someexregulation financing.
without-of-state
subsidiesborneeitherbythe
tent,a vouchersystem
or othernonresidents.
senderstates,thefederalgovernment,
(For a
criticalreviewof postsecondary
voucherplansand theirregulatory
is thatthefederal
see [17].) Thebiggest
however,
problems,
problem,
9Floridahas a three-year
waitingperiodforone of its financialaid programs(see
butafter
AppendixI). Nevada had a fiveyearwaitingperiodforconsortiaeligibility,
to one year (discussionwith
it was challenged,the stateshortenedthe requirement
stateassistantattorney
general).
Intentions 283
Administering
alreadyequalizesout-of-state
chargesto a largeextent
government
as
to
andgrants
or loansconsiderable
money private
collegestudents
financial
assistance
itsvariety
ofneed-based
wellthrough
programs.
therealvalueoffederalaid has decreasedsince1980-81,
Although
theactualamountincreasedto $12.5 billionin 1983-84 [8]. It is
willshoultoexpectthatthefederalgovernment
unrealistic
probably
financesimplyto accommodate
dera largershareof postsecondary
whowishto studyoutsidetheirstatein another
nonresidents
public
sucha movewould
If earlierexperience
is an indicator,
institution.
andwouldunlikely
a roundofhigherchargesto nonresidents
trigger
Hiscriteria.
ordomiciliary
theirdurational
causestatestoreexamine
and
interests
to
states'
has
deferred
the
federal
torically,
government
of immigration
and withtheexception
on thesematters,
autonomy
determination.
issues,is likelyto remainoutofresidency
Conclusion,Recommendations
of
andlegalunderpinnings
thetheoretical
Thisarticlehasreviewed
the
adand
on
state
data
analyzed
residency
requirements,
presented
themajorapproaches
andcritiqued
ministrative
employed
practices,
It
difficult
tojustify
a strong
is
states
to
preferby
governresidency.
to adencefordomicile,andas was demonstrated,
near-impossible
whenthesystem
is undermined
minister,
byunprincipled
particularly
to
andinstitutional
Bothstructural
changesarerequired
exemptions.'?
offices
institutional
order
to
the
current
state.
Many
residency
bring
viewthesystem
as theweakestlinkintheadmissions
processandas
andimplement.
themostdifficult
to understand
Whatmaybe neededis a meansby whicheither"slidingscale"
ofcourts
to thesatisfaction
determination
is accomplished
residency
The entirenotion
or duration
is completely
divorcedfromintention.
ofestablishing
domicileor a singleresidenceis flawed[6, 24, 27],
withtherequirement
thatthestudent
whenitis combined
particularly
that
ordomiciliarThe
residents
also fulfill
a waiting
period. premise
in manyinstances,
and
is nonsense
ies havepaidintoa statetreasury
as residents
without
havebeenreclassified
millionsof nonresidents
intheirnew"home"state.Exceptthrough
salestax,
anytaxpayment
willhave
or othertransactional
rentals,
taxes,manyofthesestudents
or
time
duration
no
the
their
more
than
do
visitors
by
paid
temporary
them
to
status.
of
entitles
resident
domicile
apparentacquisition
of the recentMassa'IThis articledoes not addressthe clear unconstitutionality
chusettslaw thatproposesto charge"Full fare" to foreignstudents[15].
284
Journalof HigherEducation
themanyexceptions
increasetheabilityof manyadvanMoreover,
to gainthisexaltedstatus,especiallyin stateswith
tagednonresidents
waiver
or
or a student's
generous
exemption
policies.Unlessa student
in
have
it
been
is
thattheirtax
residence, unlikely
parents
longtime
will equal theinstructional
contributions
eitherat inexpenditures,
stateor out-of-state
rates-which
themselves
are imperfect
andrarely
includefacilities,
or othersubsidies.
taxabatements,
Theonlynear-guarantee
a statehasforrecapturing
itsinvestment
is
to recoup taxes or returns
froma studentwho remainsin the state
afterconsumingits resources.If a plan could be devisedto measure
trueintent
to establisha domicile,stateswouldnothaveto tryand
divineintentions;
rathertheycouldmeasuretheamountof subsidy
and amortizeit aftergraduation
(or leavingschool),whenthestuIn otherwords,studentsactuallymanifested
theirdeclaredintent.
dentswholeftthestatewouldpay(actually,
repay)a greater
portion
of their"debt" thanwouldthegenuinedomiciliaries,
thatis, those
whostayed.Thisplanwouldshift
thesubsidyto thosewhoremained
and
schedules
could be administered
residents, repayment
through
stateeducation
loanagencies(or a quasi-federal
existing
agencysuch
as theStudent
Loan Marketing
This "subsidyforgiveAssociation).
ness"approachhas a precedent
in federalloanforgiveness
programs
suchas thosethateraseda certainpercentage
of indebtedness
fora
who
in
I
a
Title
or
school,joinedVISTA, participated
graduate taught
inotherapproved
in thestate
Oncea student
activities.
hadremained
forx periodoftime(a proxyforrepaying
thesubsidy),theindebtednesswouldbe considered
wouldneedtobe
paid. Manytechnicalities
workedout,particularly
to preserve
theconceptof low tuition,
but
thisapproachhas an existing
mechanism,
repayment
parcelsbenefits
andis morelikelyto
established,
afterdomicilehas beendefinitively
recapture
subsidythanis anyothercurrent
approach.It also has the
decidedadvantage
of seeking"repayment"
whena personis at a
workwhilein school,
students
cannot
higher
earning
capacity;many
and theirearningpotential
is fargreateronce theycompletetheir
course of study.Major cautionsare in order so that student
indebtedness-a
seriousproblemformanystudents-does
notreach
unreasonable
the
for
in
nonresident
subsidies
limits;however, charges
publiccollegeswouldlikelybe no greaterthanchargesforprivate
It also has thedisadvantage
institutions.
of involving
the statebuinstead
of
the
in
institutional
deadministrators
reaucracy
residency
terminations.
Intentions 285
Administering
As thetwenty-first
alternatives
nears,itis timeto consider
century
to earlierpresumptions
thatpersonsmaintained
onlyone domicile.
Moderndaymobility
andtheobviousflawsinthecurrent
system
cry
out formorereasonableand equitableapproachesto administering
itexactsa
intentions.
Evenifjudgescontinue
to upholdthepractice,
willplagueinstitutions
andcourts
greattoll.Thecontinuing
problem
untilstatesmorerealistically
and carefully
draftreasonablepreferof
without
out
encesforgenuineresidents
fencing themanythousands
claimsto stateresidency
or
mobilestudents
whocan raiselegitimate
waiverpolito themanyunprincipled
thatcharacterize
exemptions
cies. In thealternative,
itmaybecomenecessary
toabandonnondurationalbenefitsand to lessen the strictness
of domicile,itselfan
archaicconcept,in exchangeforeithera lengthening
of durational
thatwouldrecapture
subsidydifferentials
periodsor a mechanism
is consumed.Debatesaboutfinancing
afterthebenefit
highereducatuition
state"trusts"forprepaying
tion,including
[28], mustinclude
the
fee
However
such
reform
is
structures.
residency
accomplished,
conseto reducelitigation
anditswasteful
stateshavean opportunity
treatintheiradministrative
confidence
student
quencesandtorestore
to govern
itselfhasan excellent
ment.The ability
ofhigher
education
inthisopportunity.
laboratory
References
of the College StudentVote: When a Resi1. Bollhofer,J. "Disenfranchisement
dentis Not a Resident."FordhamUrbanLaw Journal,11 (1983), 489-525.
2. Carbone, R. F Residentor Nonresident?TuitionClassificationin HigherEducation. Denver: EducationCommissionof the States, 1970.
. Studentsand State Borders. Iowa City: AmericanCollege Testing
3.
Program,1973.
. AlternativeTuitionSystems.Iowa City: AmericanCollege Testing
4.
Program,1974.
5. Christal,M. Residence and Migrationof College Students.Boulder, Colo.:
NationalCenterforHigherEducationManagementSystems,1982.
6. Corson, C. "Reformsof Domicile Law forApplicationto Transients,TemporaryResidentsand Multi-BasedPersons." ColumbiaJournalofLaw and Social
Problems,16 (1982), 327-64.
7. Fields, G. "Place-to-Place Migration:Some New Evidence." The Reviewof
Economicsand Statistics,60 (1978), 21-32.
8. Gillespie,D., and N. Carlson. Trendsin StudentAid: 1963-1983. Washington,
D.C.: College Board, 1983.
286
Journalof HigherEducation
9. Hellmuth,P. ResidencyforTuitionPurposes: A StudyoftheRules in Use at the
Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof Wisconsin,1981.
FiftyState Universities,
10. Holmes, O. W. "The Deacon's Masterpiece."In AmericanLiteratureSurvey:
The AmericanRomantics,1800-1860, edited by M. Sternand S. Gross, pp.
618-21. New York: VikingPress, 1969.
11. Ilersic,A. R. "Tax Havens and Residence." Canadian TaxJournal,30 (1982),
52-56.
12. Josephs,G. "A ChecklistforDetermining
Domicile." ThePracticalLawyer,27
(July1981), 55-64.
13. Kehoe, J. "MigrationalChoice Patternsin Financial Aid Policy Making." Research in HigherEducation, 14 (1981), 57-69.
14. Lines, P. "TuitionDiscrimination:Valid and Invalid Uses of TuitionDifferentials." Journalof College and University
Law, 9 (1982-83), 241-61.
15. Mooney,C. "NationwideRepercussionsFeared fromMass. Law LinkingForeign StudentFees to Cost of Education." Chronicleof Higher Education, 12
August1987, pp. 19-20.
16. Morgan, J. "TuitionPolicy and the Interstate
Migrationof College Students."
Researchin HigherEducation, 19 (1983), 183-94.
17. Olivas, M. "InformationAccess Inequitiesin VoucherPlans." Journalof Law
and Education, 10 (1981), 441-65.
18.
. "State ResidencyRequirements:PostsecondaryAuthorizationand
Regulation"College Law Digest, 13 (1983), 157-76.
. "Financial Aid PackagingPolicy: Access and Ideology."Journalof
19.
1985), 463-75.
HigherEducation,56 (July/August
20.
. Invitedtestimony
to Texas House of Representatives,
Committeeon
PostsecondaryEducation,April 1985.
21.
. "Plyler v. Doe, Toll v. Moreno, and PostsecondaryAdmissions:
Adultsand 'EnduringDisability'." Journalof Law and Education, 15 (1986),
19-55.
22.
. "PostsecondaryResidency Requirements:EmpoweringStatutes,
GoverningTypes,and Exemptions."College Law Digest, 16 (1986), 268-99.
23. Palley, D. "Resolving the NonresidentStudentProblem: Two Federal Pro1976), 1-31.
posals." Journalof HigherEducation,47 (January/February
24. Parent,T. "TuitionResidenceRequirements:A Second Look in Lightof Zobel
and Martinez." Indiana Law Journal,61 (1986), 287-314.
25. Patrick,W. "NonresidentStudentPractices." College and University,
(Spring
1976), 291-321.
26. Restatement
(Second) of Conflictof Laws, Section 11 (2) (1971).
27. Schiff,A. "State Discriminatory
ActionagainstNonresidents:Using theOriginal PositionTheoryas a FrameworkforAnalysis."HarvardJournalofLegislation,22 (1985), 583-608.
28. "States Advisedto Be Cautious in Devising Plans to Allow Parentsto Prepay
Tuition."Chronicleof HigherEducation,March 4, 1987, pp. 29, 31.
29. Varat,J. "State 'Citizenship' and InterstateEquality." Universityof Chicago
Law Review,48 (Summer 1981), 487-572.
APPENDIX I
Summaryof Requirementsto Qualifyas ResidentforTuitionPurposes and Listingof EmpoweringStatutes
State
Type
Citation
Requirement
(Institutional
Example)
[StateAgency]
Financial
Aid
AL
V
ALA.CODE Title 16
? 16-5-10
domicile, 12 months
(Univ. of Alabama)
ALA.CODE Title 16
AK
V
ALA.STAT.
residence, 12 months
ALA.STAT.
AZ
I
ARIZ REV.STAT.
domicile, 12
AR
III
ARK.STAT.ANN.
domicile, 12 months
CA
I
CAL.EDUC.CODE
domicile, 12
CO
I
CT
I
DE
V
DC
V
FL
II
FLA.STAT.
GA
II
GA.CODE
HI
I
HI.REV.
STAT.
? 304-4
? 14.40.170a(6)
? 15-1802A
? 80-3301
Part41, ? 68000,
et seq.
COL.REV.STAT.
? 23-7-102(5)
CONN.GEN.STAT.
? 10-329f
DEL.CODE Title 14
? 5106
D.C. Law 1-36
? 31-1711
? 240.203
? 32-169
ANN.
(Univ. of Alaska)
? 16-33A-1(2)
domicile, 12 months
? 14.40.806(4)
domicile,24 months
months
(Univ. of Arkansas)
months
domicile, 12
months
domicile, 6
months
domicile, 12 months
(Univ. of Delaware)
domicile,90 days'
(Univ. of D.C.)
domicile, 12 months
(State Board of EducationRule 6C7.05)
domicile, 12 months
(Board of Regents
of the Univ. System
of GA.) [Manualfor
ResiInterpreting
dence Status]
residence,12
months
Statetuitionvoucher:
residence,24 months
? 240.401
Scholarship:
domicile,
24 months
? 240.402
Statestudent
assistancegrant:
domicile,24 months
? 240.409
StudentFinancialAid
ScholarshipFund
Loan:
residence36 months
? 240.415
StudentLoan
TrustFund Loan:
domicile, 12 months
? 240.439, ? 240.445
APPENDIX I (Continued)
State
Type
Citation
Requirement
(Institutional
Example)
[StateAgency]
ID
I
IDAHO CODE
domicile, 12
IL
V
ILL.ANN.STAT.
residence, 6 months
IN
v
IND.CODE
IA
Iv
IOWA CODE
KS
I
KAN.STAT.
KY
V2
KY. REV.STAT.
LA
V
LA.REV.STAT.ANN.
ME
V
MAINE REV.STAT.
ANN.3 20-A
? 33-3717
Chapter144 ? 190
ANN.
? 20-12-1-1
? 262(9)3
? 76-729
months
(GovernorsState
Univ.)
residence, 12 months
(Indiana University)
domicile, 12 months
[Iowa StateBoard of
Regents.IA AdministrativeCode
720-1.4(1)]
residence,12
months
? 164.030
? 17.3351
? 10902.2.A., 1983
residence,12 months
(SouthernUniversity)
domicile, 12 months
(University of
Maine)
MD
v
MD.EDUC.CODE
ANN.4
domicile, 6 months
(Univ. of Maryland)
MA
V
MASS.GEN. LAWS
ANN.5
domicile, 12 months
(Univer. of Mass.)
MI
v
MICH.COMP. LAWS
ANN. ? 390.3
domicile, 12 months
MN
II
MINN.STAT.
domicile, 12 months
MS
I
MISS.CODE
MO
II
MT
I
NE
NV
? 13-104(b)(i)
Chapter75 ? 1
(Univ. of Michigan)
? 37-103 et seq.
[StateUniv. Board
(CommonPolicy)]
domicile, 12
months
MO.REV.STAT.
residence, 12 months
? 136.11
ANN.
ANN. ? 20-25-501
[CoordinatingBd.
forH. Ed. (ResidencyDetermination
Procedure,6 CSR
10-3.010, 1981)]
domicile, 12
months
I
NEB.REV.STAT.
domicile, 180
I
NEV.REV.STAT.
AppendixB 6-2
(1978)
MON.REV.CODE
? 85-501
? 396-540
Financial
Aid
days
residence, 6
months
residence, 6 months
? 20-12-21.5-7
APPENDIX I (Continued)
Requirement
(Institutional
Example)
[StateAgency]
State
Type
Citation
NH
III
N.H.REV.STAT.ANN.
? 187:29(11)
domicile, 12 months6
(Univ. of NH System)
NJ
I
N.J.STAT.ANN.
domicile, 12
NM
II
N.M.STAT.ANN.
domicile, 12
NY
I
N.Y.EDUC.LAW
NC
? 18A:62-4
? 21-1-4
months
? 302.1 (SUNY)
? 6301.4
(4 yearcolleges)
months,[Board of
EducationalFinance
(Finance Policyon
ResidenceStatus)]
domicile,no time
specified(SUNY)
residence,12 months
(4 yearcolleges)
I
N.C.GEN.STAT.
domicile, 12
ND
I
N.D.CENT.CODE
domicile, 12
OH
IV
OHIO REV.CODE
domicile, 12 months
OK
IV
OKLA.STAT.
Title 70
? 3206(m)
OR
IV
OR.REV.STAT.
? 351.070
PA
IV
PA.STAT.ANN.
Title 24
? 20-2003.2(8)
? 116-143.1
? 15-10-19
? 3333.04(0)
22 ? 46.5 (CommonwealthInstitutions)7
RI
IV
R.I.GEN.LAWS
? 16-31-5
Aid
Financial
domicile, 1 term
? 302.1(6)(b)
months
months
[Ohio Bd. of
Regents
(OBR 333-1-10)]
domicile, 12 months
[Okla. StateRegents
forHigherEducation
(ResidenceStatusof
EnrolledStudentsin
the Okla. State
Systemof Higher
Ed. Sec. 8)]
domicile,6 months
[Board of Higher
Ed. (OAR 580-10)]
domicile, 12 months
[PA. Board of State
Coll. and Univ.
Directors)22
? 153.1
domicile, 12 months
(Commonwealth
Institutions
ex:
Univ. of
Pittsburgh)
domicile, 12 months
[Bd. of Governors
forHigherEd.
(Regulationson Determination
of
Residency)]
domicile, 12
months
24 ? 5154
APPENDIX I (Continued)
State
Type
Citation
sc
I
SD
II
S.C.CODE
? 59-112-20
S.D.COMP.LAWS
ANN.
? 13-49-1
TN
V
TENN.CODE ANN.
TX
I
UT
I
VT
v
TEX.EDUC.CODE
Title 3
? 54.052
UTAHCODE ANN.
? 53-34-2.2
VT.STAT.CODE
? 2282
VA
I
VA.CODE? 23-7
WA
I
WASH.
REV.
CODE
? 28B.15
wv
Iv
W.VA.CODE
? 18-26-8
Wl
II
WIS.STAT.
? 36.27
WY
v
WYO.STAT.
? 27-17-204
? 49-3342
Requirement
(Institutional
Example)
[StateAgency]
FinancialAid
domicile, 12
months
domicile, 12 months
[StateBd. of Regents
(Residentand
nonresident
tuition,1.2.2.)]
domicile, no time
specified(Univ.
of Tennessee)
domicile, 12
months
domicile, 12
months
domicile, 12 months
(VermontState
College)
domicile, 12
months
domicile, 12
months
domicile, 12 months
WV Board of Regents(PolicyBulletinno. 34)]
domicile, 12 months
[Bd. of Regentsof
Univ. of Wis.
System(Wis. Adm.
Code U.W.S. 20)]
domicile, 12 months
(Univ. of Wyoming)8
domicile, 12
months? 2822
withpermission
fromCollegeLaw Digest,Vol. 16,No. 12, 24 July1986.Copyright
SOURCE:
Reprinted
ofCollegeandUniversity
1986bytheNationalAssociation
Attorneys.
time
withtherequisite
itis designated
as residency,
NOTE:If a statehasa durational
requirement,
that
or institutional
catalog.If thereis a requirement
regulation,
periodlistedas itappearsin thestatute,
withany
is listedas domicile,
to makethestatetheirpermanent
students
intend
abode,therequirement
its
own
determines
In TypeIII or V states,wherean institution
durational
periodadditionally
required.
ofTypeII andIV states,
fortheinstances
exampleis given,in parentheses;
policies,an institutional
as is
in brackets,
is
noted
or
the
state
code
wherea stateagencydetermines
regulatory
provision
policy,
forfinancial
aid
ofstateshavedifferent
a number
thetitleofanyagencymanual.Finally,
provisions
theyarenotedinthefinalcolumn.
eligibility;
in D.C.
'Onlypublicseniorinstitution
inKentucky;
KAN.STAT.? 164.020(3).
is followed
2IVpractice
domicile,12 months
ofMaineis
domicile.University
3SeeBlackand Gildardv. Sullivan(561 F.Supp.1050,1983)regarding
intheState.
theonlypublicseniorinstitution
4See Tollv. Moreno(458 U.S. 1, 102 S.CT. 2977,73 L.Ed.2d 563, 1982).
offoreign
see [15].
lawhas changed
thetreatment
5Arecent
students;
in theState
6Onlypublicseniorinstitution
General.Howin practice
areto be promulgated
to22 ? 46.5, regulations
byStateAuditor
7According
theirownresidency
institutions
determine
ever,Commonwealth
requirements.
in theState.
8Onlypublicseniorinstitution