Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher Education Act: Background, Recent Changes, and Current Legislative Issues

Shannon M. Mahan
Specialist in Education Policy

The Federal Pell Grant program, authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA; P.L. 89-329), is the single largest source of federal grant aid supporting postsecondary education students. The program is estimated to have provided over $36.5 billion to approximately 8.9 million undergraduate students in FY2010. For FY2011, the total maximum Pell Grant was funded at $5,550. The program is funded primarily through annual appropriations, although mandatory appropriations play a smaller, yet increasing, role in the program.

Pell Grants are need-based aid that is intended to be the foundation for all federal student aid awarded to undergraduates. There is no absolute income threshold that determines who is eligible or ineligible for Pell Grants. Nevertheless, Pell Grant recipients are primarily low-income. In FY2009, an estimated 76% of all Pell Grant recipients had a total family income at or below $30,000.

The Pell Grant program has garnered considerable attention over the past several years in Congress. Most recently, the Department of Defense Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-10) provided $23 billion in discretionary appropriations for the program to effectively maintain a $5,550 total maximum award in the upcoming award year (AY) 2011-2012. In addition, P.L. 112-10 also amended the HEA by eliminating a provision that allowed for a student to receive two Pell Grant awards in the same award year. The estimated savings in mandatory spending related to the elimination of this provision were redirected for future general use in the program as specified annual mandatory appropriations beginning in FY2012 and continuing in all subsequent years. In March 2010, the SAFRA Act, passed as part of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA; P.L. 111-152), established indefinite mandatory appropriations beginning in FY2010 to provide for increases to the maximum award amount funded with annual discretionary appropriations. The program also received substantial discretionary and mandatory supplemental funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5). The statutory authority for the Pell Grant program was most recently reauthorized by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA; P.L. 110-315).

The Pell Grant program recently experienced substantial increases in program costs—largely due to legislative changes that have led to increased benefits for more students, increases in the number of students enrolling in college and applying for Pell Grant aid, and a weakened economy. Consequently, these factors contributed to annual funding shortfalls in four of the last five years from FY2007 to FY2011. Despite a substantial funding increase in FY2011, the program is expected to face a discretionary funding shortfall of $2.5 billion through FY2011.

Many of the issues concerning the Pell Grant program that confront Congress include potential challenges associated with funding the program, both in the short term and the long term. In the short-term, substantial discretionary appropriations may be required in FY2012 to ensure current award levels are maintained, leading to the program comprising an increasingly larger share of the discretionary funding allocated for programs that are funded in Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education appropriations. As a long-term strategy, Congress could also consider ways to change the distribution of overall benefits by targeting aid to the most needy students or by revising the program’s award rules and eligibility parameters.


Date of Report: May 12, 2011
Number of Pages: 49
Order Number: R41437
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Selected Judicial Developments Following the 2004 Reauthorization

Nancy Lee Jones
Legislative Attorney

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the major federal statute for the education of children with disabilities. IDEA both authorizes federal funding for special education and related services and, for states that accept these funds, sets out principles under which special education and related services are to be provided. The cornerstone of IDEA is the principle that states and school districts make available a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children with disabilities. IDEA has been the subject of numerous reauthorizations; the most recent reauthorization was P.L. 108-446 in 2004. Congress is currently beginning the process of identifying potential issues for the next reauthorization. Some of the issues raised by judicial decisions include the following: 

• What amount of educational progress is required to meet FAPE standards? 
• What educational benefits are required to be put in an individualized education program (IEP)? 
• What use of seclusion and restraints is allowed (if any) under IDEA? 
• Are all settlement agreements enforceable in federal court or only those reached through dispute resolution or mediation? 
• Is information disclosed in a resolution session confidential? 
• What are the specific rights of a parent of a child with a disability? 
• What are the rights of a noncustodial parent of a child with a disability? 
• Does the Supreme Court’s decision in Schaffer v. Weast correctly allocate the burden of proof in IDEA cases? 
• Are compensatory educational services required for the same amount of time that the appropriate services were withheld? 
• Does the Supreme Court’s decision in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy correctly deny reimbursement for expert witness fees? 
• Does there need to be more detailed guidance on systemic compliance complaints? 

This report examines the Supreme Court decisions, and selected lower court decisions since July 1, 2005, the effective date of P.L. 108-446.


Date of Report: May 4, 2011
Number of Pages: 34
Order Number: R40521
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.