SHEEO Prof. Dev. Conference THECB August 13, 2004 Philadelphia 1 Affordability Strategies in the States Moderator: Laura King (Minnesota) Presenter: Deborah

SHEEO Prof. Dev. ConfereSHEEO Prof. Dev. Conference nce

THECB August 13, 2004 PhiladelphiaTHECB August 13, 2004 Philadelphia 11

Affordability Strategies in the StatesAffordability Strategies in the States

Moderator: Laura King (Minnesota)Moderator: Laura King (Minnesota)

Presenter: Deborah Greene (Texas)Presenter: Deborah Greene (Texas)

Presenter: Sandra Woodley (Kentucky)Presenter: Sandra Woodley (Kentucky)



BackgroundBackground

April 2004 SurveyApril 2004 Survey

9 responses (18% response rate)9 responses (18% response rate)– 8 have affordability policies8 have affordability policies– Delaware has no statewide policy for setting Delaware has no statewide policy for setting

tuition at its collegestuition at its colleges

(Plus Kentucky and Minnesota) (22% (Plus Kentucky and Minnesota) (22% response rate)response rate)



FloridaFlorida

Financial aid fee for community colleges, Financial aid fee for community colleges, technical centers, and universities since technical centers, and universities since early 1980s that is indexed to tuitionearly 1980s that is indexed to tuition– Up to 5% for colleges and universitiesUp to 5% for colleges and universities– Up to 10% for the technical centersUp to 10% for the technical centers– Majority of the aid provided is need basedMajority of the aid provided is need based



Florida - continuedFlorida - continued

Prior to 1984, universities charged two Prior to 1984, universities charged two financial aid feesfinancial aid fees– For distribution to own university studentsFor distribution to own university students– For need-based distribution statewideFor need-based distribution statewide

Late 1980s through early 1990sLate 1980s through early 1990s

Early 1990sEarly 1990s– State policy targets charges to in-state State policy targets charges to in-state

undergraduates at 25% of cost of HE undergraduates at 25% of cost of HE



Florida -continuedFlorida -continued

Florida Council of 100 recommendationsFlorida Council of 100 recommendations– Indexing need-based aid to 19% of tuition Indexing need-based aid to 19% of tuition

revenues (January 2004)revenues (January 2004)– Tying authority to increase tuition to Tying authority to increase tuition to

performance on accountability measures performance on accountability measures related to maintaining accessrelated to maintaining access



IllinoisIllinois

IBHE Committee to Study Affordability IBHE Committee to Study Affordability (1994)(1994)– High priority of making college affordableHigh priority of making college affordable– Affordability includes institutional ability to Affordability includes institutional ability to

control costs as well as student & family ability control costs as well as student & family ability to payto pay

– Affordability is inextricably linked to academic Affordability is inextricably linked to academic preparation and college academic progresspreparation and college academic progress



Illinois - continuedIllinois - continued

1994 study – continued1994 study – continued– Lack of financial resources should not be a Lack of financial resources should not be a

barrier to higher education; aid should be barrier to higher education; aid should be need based and student focused need based and student focused

– College education should be affordable & College education should be affordable & accessible to all students; students & their accessible to all students; students & their families should not be asked to assume a families should not be asked to assume a greater share of education costs than they are greater share of education costs than they are currently payingcurrently paying



Illinois - continuedIllinois - continued

““Final Report & Recommendations of the Final Report & Recommendations of the Committee on Affordability” (August 2003)Committee on Affordability” (August 2003)– 20 recommendations20 recommendations

Enhancing academic preparation and progressEnhancing academic preparation and progress

Assisting needy studentsAssisting needy students

Keeping core costs affordable Keeping core costs affordable

– Builds on the 1994 studyBuilds on the 1994 study

The Illinois Commitment – Goal 3The Illinois Commitment – Goal 3– No Illinois citizen will be denied an opportunity for a No Illinois citizen will be denied an opportunity for a

college education because of financial need.college education because of financial need.



IowaIowa

Intense tuition and financial aid study Intense tuition and financial aid study completed in mid-May (11 categories of completed in mid-May (11 categories of tuition-related policies covered)tuition-related policies covered)

Tuition set-asides: 15% of gross tuition Tuition set-asides: 15% of gross tuition revenues continuedrevenues continued– No less than half to undergraduates, of which No less than half to undergraduates, of which

no less than half is need basedno less than half is need based– Authority to use up to additional 10% for Authority to use up to additional 10% for

strategic enrollment goals, without restrictionstrategic enrollment goals, without restriction



MissouriMissouri

Bills introduced but not passed by the Bills introduced but not passed by the Missouri General Assembly in their recent Missouri General Assembly in their recent session, which ended in May 2004session, which ended in May 2004– HB 1674 (Smith)/SB 780 (Caskey) – would HB 1674 (Smith)/SB 780 (Caskey) – would

have frozen tuition rates from the time have frozen tuition rates from the time Missouri undergraduates enter college until Missouri undergraduates enter college until they graduate they graduate



OhioOhio

6% cap on in-state undergraduate instructional 6% cap on in-state undergraduate instructional and general fees (FY 2004 and FY 2005)and general fees (FY 2004 and FY 2005)– Additional 3.9% per year permitted if revenues are Additional 3.9% per year permitted if revenues are

used to fund scholarships for low-income students or used to fund scholarships for low-income students or to provide additional or improved technology services to provide additional or improved technology services to studentsto students

OSU permitted 9% cap plus 3.9% add onOSU permitted 9% cap plus 3.9% add on

Miami University was permitted a pilot fee Miami University was permitted a pilot fee schedule similar to an independent universityschedule similar to an independent university



TexasTexas

Affordability Strategy in Affordability Strategy in Closing the Gaps by Closing the Gaps by 20152015 (October 2000) (October 2000)– Providing grants & scholarships to cover tuition, fees, Providing grants & scholarships to cover tuition, fees,

& books for every student with financial need& books for every student with financial need– Setting tuition & fees in a manner that closes gaps in Setting tuition & fees in a manner that closes gaps in

participation & successparticipation & success– Establishing incentives that increase affordability Establishing incentives that increase affordability

through academic & administrative efficiencies in the through academic & administrative efficiencies in the higher education systemhigher education system



Texas - continuedTexas - continued

The amount of grants and scholarships The amount of grants and scholarships must be increased.must be increased.Economically disadvantaged students Economically disadvantaged students should be considered a high priority for gift should be considered a high priority for gift aid.aid.Colleges and universities should also Colleges and universities should also monitor the cost of higher education as monitor the cost of higher education as compared to what a family can pay based compared to what a family can pay based upon its effective family contribution.upon its effective family contribution.



Texas - continuedTexas - continued

Tuition Deregulation (Fall 2003)Tuition Deregulation (Fall 2003)– Boards of Regents given the authority to set Boards of Regents given the authority to set

“designated tuition” at any level to allow “designated tuition” at any level to allow institutions of higher education to operate institutions of higher education to operate efficientlyefficiently

– 20% of amount above the then current cap of 20% of amount above the then current cap of $46/SCH required to be set aside for financial $46/SCH required to be set aside for financial aidaid

– This is above the 15% required for “statutory This is above the 15% required for “statutory tuition” tuition”



UtahUtah

Regents’ policy on tuition and feesRegents’ policy on tuition and fees– Addresses marginal percentage increases Addresses marginal percentage increases

rather than affordabilityrather than affordability““First tier” rate increases – uniform for all First tier” rate increases – uniform for all institutionsinstitutions

““Second tier” rate increases – optional, to meet Second tier” rate increases – optional, to meet institutional needs, may be program specificinstitutional needs, may be program specific

– Identified factors that should be reviewed Identified factors that should be reviewed annually for “fairness and price annually for “fairness and price competitiveness” competitiveness”



Utah - continuedUtah - continued

– Explicitly states the Board should consider Explicitly states the Board should consider requesting state appropriation increases for requesting state appropriation increases for Utah Centennial Opportunity Program for Utah Centennial Opportunity Program for Education when tuition is increasedEducation when tuition is increased

Board usually requested an increase but the Board usually requested an increase but the Legislature has not regularly appropriated Legislature has not regularly appropriated increasesincreases



VirginiaVirginia

Limited tuition increases through 3% cap Limited tuition increases through 3% cap for in-state students (1994)for in-state students (1994)

Tuition freeze (1996)Tuition freeze (1996)

20% reduction in tuition (2000-2002)20% reduction in tuition (2000-2002)

Tuition increases (avg. 15% per year) to Tuition increases (avg. 15% per year) to offset state budget cuts (2003-2004)offset state budget cuts (2003-2004)

Tuition set-asides for financial aid (2002-Tuition set-asides for financial aid (2002-2004 Biennium)2004 Biennium)



Virginia - continuedVirginia - continued

Joint Legislative Subcommittee on Higher Joint Legislative Subcommittee on Higher Education Funding Guidelines approved Education Funding Guidelines approved cost-sharing policy for all in-state students cost-sharing policy for all in-state students (2004-2006 Biennium)(2004-2006 Biennium)– 67% general fund support67% general fund support– 33% tuition revenue33% tuition revenue



More IdeasMore Ideas

Tuition as a portion of median family or Tuition as a portion of median family or household incomehousehold income– E.G., VA: total charges to students (tuition, E.G., VA: total charges to students (tuition,

fees, room & board) = 36.6% of per capita fees, room & board) = 36.6% of per capita disposable income disposable income

Inverse relationship between state Inverse relationship between state appropriations for higher education and appropriations for higher education and tuition rates (national Center for Public tuition rates (national Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, February Policy and Higher Education, February 2002)2002)



More Ideas - continuedMore Ideas - continued

Prepaid College Tuition ProgramsPrepaid College Tuition Programs

College Savings Programs College Savings Programs

Need-Based versus Merit-Based State AidNeed-Based versus Merit-Based State Aid

Others?Others?

Documents

SHEEO Prof. Dev. Conference THECB August 13, 2004 Philadelphia 1 Affordability Strategies in the States Moderator: Laura King (Minnesota) Presenter: Deborah