Search Penny Hill Press

Monday, October 4, 2010

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 $32 billion to  approximately 8.3 million undergraduate students in fiscal year (FY) 2010. For FY2010, 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  FY2008, an estimated 62% of Pell Grant recipients considered to be dependent upon their parents  had a total family income at or below $30,000. Of Pell Grant recipients considered to be  independent of their parents, an estimated 83% 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 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. Prior to the SAFRA Act, 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 a weakened economy, increases in the number of students enrolling in college and applying for  Pell Grant aid, and legislative changes that have led to increased benefits for more students. The  combination of these factors has led to relatively large funding shortfalls in the program over  recent years. 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, additional discretionary funding for the Pell Grant program may be required in  order 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  for funding the program, one option Congress could consider is reclassifying the program as an  entitlement, and thus providing only mandatory funding for the program each year. Such action  would preclude annual funding shortfalls and surpluses in the program, but the initial costs of  reclassification could be substantial under congressional budgetary rules.

Congress might also choose to focus on the quality of institutions that receive Pell Grant aid, or  examine the role proprietary (for-profit) institutions play in the disbursement of Pell Grant aid to  students.  
.


Date of Report: September 28, 2010
Number of Pages: 45
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.

Friday, October 1, 2010

Unauthorized Alien Students, Higher Education, and In-State Tuition Rates: A Legal Analysis


Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney

Currently, federal law prohibits states from granting unauthorized aliens certain postsecondary educational benefits on the basis of state residence, unless equal benefits are made available to all U.S. citizens. This prohibition is commonly understood to apply to the granting of “in-state” residency status for tuition purposes. Legislation to amend this federal law has routinely been introduced in previous Congresses, and several similar bills have been introduced in the 111th Congress, including H.R. 1751, S. 729, and H.R. 4321. Meanwhile, some states have passed laws aimed at making unauthorized state residents eligible for in-state tuition without violating this provision. This report provides a legal overview of cases involving immigrant access to higher education, as well as an analysis of the legality of state laws that make in-state tuition rates available to illegal aliens. For a policy analysis of this issue, see CRS Report RL33863, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation, by Andorra Bruno.


Date of Report: September 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS22500
Price: $19.95

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.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Saving for College Through Qualified Tuition (Section 529) Programs


Linda Levine
Specialist in Labor Economics

Congress has tried to make higher education more affordable by providing favorable tax treatment to savings accumulated in qualified tuition programs (QTPs), also called Section 529 programs after their citation in the Internal Revenue Code. QTPs initially allowed individuals to save for qualified higher education expenses (QHEEs) on a tax-deferred basis. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) made permanent the temporary enhancements to the Section 529 program contained in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, including making qualified withdrawals from QTPs tax-free. Most recently, a provision expanding Section 529 qualified expenses in 2009 and 2010 to computer technology or equipment or internet access and related services was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).

One type of QTP, prepaid tuition plans, enables account owners to make payments on behalf of student beneficiaries for a specified number of academic periods/course units at current prices thereby providing a hedge against tuition inflation. States were the only sponsors of prepaid plans until Congress extended sponsorship to eligible higher education (private) institutions effective in 2002.

States remain the sole sponsor of the more popular type of Section 529 program, college savings plans, which account for most of the assets in QTPs. College savings plans can be used toward a variety of QHEEs at any eligible institution regardless of which state sponsors the plan or where the beneficiary attends school. In contrast, if beneficiaries of state-sponsored prepaid plans attend out-of-state or private schools, the programs typically pay the same tuition that would have been paid to an eligible in-state public school. Also unlike prepaid plans, in which the state plan invests the pooled contributions with the intent of at least matching tuition inflation, college savings account owners can select from a range of investment portfolios. College savings plans thus offer the chance of greater returns than prepaid plans, but they also could prove more risky. Additionally, college savings plans charge fees (e.g., enrollment fees and underlying mutual fund fees) that lower returns—more so for accounts opened through investment advisors (e.g., sales charges).

Both types of Section 529 programs have several features in common beyond qualified withdrawals being tax-free. Earnings not applied toward QHEEs (e.g., the beneficiary forgoes college) generally are taxable and subject to a penalty. The tax and penalty can be avoided if account owners designate a new beneficiary who is an eligible relative of the original beneficiary. Account owners, rather than beneficiaries, maintain control over the funds. Contributions are not deductible on federal income tax returns.



Date of Report: September 13, 2010
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RL31214
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.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Department of Education Proposed Rules for Postsecondary Education Programs that Prepare Students for Gainful Employment in a Recognized Occupation

David P. Smole
Specialist in Education Policy


Among the types of postsecondary education programs eligible for participation in the federal student aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), are those that, as a condition for eligibility, must prepare students for gainful employment in recognized occupations. These programs are offered by public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education and postsecondary vocational institutions, and by for-profit, proprietary institutions of higher education. A large proportion of these programs, however, are offered by proprietary institutions of higher education. 

The U.S. Department of Education has issued proposed rules on programs that must prepare students for gainful employment in an attempt to address concerns about the quality of the programs and the amount of student loan debt that students who attend such programs incur. The proposed rules would apply to certificate and other non-degree programs offered by public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education and postsecondary vocational institutions, and to nearly all programs offered by proprietary institutions. 

The proposed rules establish a series of reporting and disclosure requirements and a set of three performance measures tied to student loans. The performance measures appear to be designed to assess program effectiveness on the basis that if a program's students have sufficient earnings from employment to be able to repay their student loans, the program has prepared its students for gainful employment. A loan repayment rate measure would assess how effectively program attendees repay the student loans they borrow to attend these programs. Two debt-to-earnings measures would assess the relationship between the student loan debt of program completers and their earnings. A more stringent and a less stringent performance threshold would be established for each of the three measures. 

Programs that meet the more stringent performance threshold for at least one of the three measures would remain fully eligible to participate in HEA, Title IV programs. Programs that do not meet the more stringent threshold for any of the measures but do meet the less stringent performance threshold for at least one of the measures would remain eligible to participate in HEA, Title IV programs, but they would become subject to sanctions, including having their enrollment of students who receive Title IV federal student aid restricted. Programs that do not meet at least the less stringent criteria on any of the three measures would lose their Title IV eligibility. 

This report explains and provides observations on the Department of Education's proposed rules on gainful employment. 
.


Date of Report: September 9, 2010
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: R41397
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.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Education Jobs Fund Proposals in the 111th Congress

Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy

Steven Maguire
Specialist in Public Finance


During the 111th Congress, both the House and Senate have considered various pieces of legislation that would provide funds to prevent teacher layoffs. These proposals have generally been referred to as proposals to create an Education Jobs Fund. The first Education Jobs Fund was included by the House in H.R. 2847, the Jobs for Main Street Act. It was not retained in the final bill. More recently, the Education Jobs Fund was included in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 4899) by the House, but the domestic spending provisions added by the House through amendment were not agreed to by the Senate. Ultimately, the FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations bill did not include funding for an Education Jobs Fund. 

On July 29, 2010, Senator Reid proposed an amendment (S.Amdt. 4567), on behalf of Senator Murray, to add the Education Jobs Fund and a state Medicaid package as a substitute amendment to the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act (H.R. 1586). The substitute amendment was scheduled for a cloture vote on August 2, 2010. The vote was tabled after the Congressional Budget Office determined that the amendment would increase the deficit over both the five-year and 10-year budget intervals. Subsequently, Senator Reid filed a cloture motion on August 2, 2010, to consider S.Amdt. 4575 as a substitute amendment to H.R. 1586. The cloture motion passed by a vote of 61-38 on August 4, 2010. The Senate also voted 61-38 to waive a budgetary point of order brought against the amendment by Senator Gregg. On August 5, 2010, the Senate passed S.Amdt. 4575 by a vote of 61-38. The House agreed to H.R. 1586, as amended by S.Amdt. 4575, on August 10, 2010. H.R. 1586 was signed into law by the President later that day (P.L. 111-226). 

Under H.R. 1586, the Education Jobs Fund will be administered generally under the terms and conditions that applied to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5, Sections 14001 through 14013). For example, funds will be distributed to states using the same formula used to distribute funds under the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds. States are required to distribute funds to local educational agencies (LEAs). Under H.R. 1586, LEAs can only use funds for compensation and benefits and other expenses (e.g., support services) necessary to retain existing employees, to recall or rehire former employees, and to hire new employees in order to provide early childhood, elementary, and secondary educational and related services. 

This report includes a summary of key provisions contained in H.R. 1586 related to the Education Jobs Fund. Estimated state grants based on the amendment's provisions are also included. It also discusses two issues related to the proposed amendment with respect to the timing of the funds and reporting requirements regarding the use of the funds. The report concludes with a brief discussion of the legislative history of Education Jobs Fund proposals during the 111th Congress.



Date of Report: August 20, 2010
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R41353
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.