FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education John B. King, Jr. Secretary MARCH 2016 This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Fulfilling the Promise, Serving the Need: Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students, Washington, D.C., 2016. Availability of Alternate Formats On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via e-mail at om_eeos@ed.gov. Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for Department information that is available to the public. These services are available free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), e-mail us at Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov, or write to U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource Center, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202 U.S. Department of Education MARCH 2016 CONTENTS TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 THE FEDERAL ROLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A Brief History of Federal Student Aid and the Pell Grant Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Significant Strides by the Obama Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Growing Recognition of the Importance of Focusing on College Success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ON THE NUMBERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 THE CRITICAL WORK OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN ADVANCING STUDENT OUTCOMES . . . . . . 7 Institutions Excelling in Access and Success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Selective Institutions that Enhance Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Institutions that Are Significantly Expanding Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Institutions with Missions to Serve Economically Disadvantaged Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 State Efforts to Improve Access and Success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 COLLEGE PATHWAYS FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 PROMISING PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING COLLEGE ACCESS AND COMPLETION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Data Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ENDNOTES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students i MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education TABLES TABLE 1. Public 4-year institutions by state, percentage of Pell recipients enrolled, percentage of Pell recipients graduating in 6 years, percentage of all recipients graduating in 6 years, percentage of Pell recipients earning more than $25,000 6 years after enrolling, annual net price for education for low-income students: various years.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 TABLE 2. Private nonprofit 4-year institutions by state, percentage of Pell recipients enrolled, percentage of Pell recipients graduating in 6 years, percentage of all students graduating in 6 years, percentage of Pell recipients earning more than $25,000 6 years after enrolling, annual net price for education for low-income students: various years.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TABLE 3. Selective private nonprofit 4-year institutions by state, percentage of Pell recipients enrolled, percentage of Pell recipients graduating in 6 years, percentage of Pell recipients earning more than $25,000 6 years after enrolling, annual net price of education for low-income students. . . . . . . . . . . . 9 TABLE 4. Public and private nonprofit 4-year institutions by state, percentage of Pell recipients enrolled in 2013, percentage of Pell recipients enrolled in 2008, change in Pell enrollment from 2008 to 2013, percentage of Pell recipients graduating in 6 years, percentage of Pell recipients earning more than $25,000 6 years after enrolling, and annual net price of education for low-income students: Various years.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ii FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education MARCH 2016 INTRODUCTION For our nation’s colleges and universities to serve as gateways to social mobility and economic opportunity, they must succeed in helping all hard-working students — regardless of their income, race, or parents’ education — to enroll in college, graduate, and go on to rewarding careers. The good news is that many institutions are doing impressive and inspiring work by increasing college access for lowincome students, providing them with the aid and support they need, and sending them into the work place with highquality degrees. But too many colleges and universities are missing the mark. Some remain beyond the economic reach of many low-income students, others provide access without doing enough to help students complete their degrees, and still others fail to prepare students for good jobs. It is in America’s interest to advance both access to higher education for low-income students, and success once they enroll. To thrive in today’s global economy, the United States must harness the potential of every person. Taxpayers have a direct stake in student success. With nearly $30 billion in federal dollars paid each year in grants for low-income students to attend college — and billions more in federal student loans — we must ensure a strong return on this critical investment. Disparities in college access and success are stark. Students with high-income parents are nearly three times more likely to attend college than their peers with low-income parents,1 and are more likely to succeed once enrolled. Approximately two-thirds — 68 percent — of non-Pell Grant recipients seeking a bachelor’s degree, the vast majority of whom have incomes above the Pell Grant cut-off, graduate within six years, compared with only half of Pell Grant recipients. These trends tell us there is more work to do to help low-income students pursue their educational goals and earn essential skills and credentials.2 College is the best investment that Americans can make in their future. That’s why the federal government supports both greater access to higher education for low-income students, and their success once enrolled. This report outlines the significant work advanced by this administration and postsecondary institutions and leaders across the country to ensure that more students, especially low-income students, obtain an affordable, high-quality postsecondary education. “The Federal Role” discusses the federal student aid system, along with key administration initiatives designed to expand college access, affordability, and success. “The Critical Work of Colleges and Universities in Advancing Student Outcomes” highlights some of the institutions that are doing remarkable work to promote access and success for low-income students. This report highlights important examples of leadership, with the aim of spurring additional research and discussion around promising strategies to promote student success. Finally, “Room for Improvement” recognizes the opportunities that lie ahead and shines a spotlight on the challenges that cannot be ignored and must be tackled collectively. To enable more low-income students to enroll in and complete college with high-quality degrees, everyone will need to do their part: students, institutions, school districts and communities and organizations, alongside states, accrediting agencies, and the federal government. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students 1 MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education THE FEDERAL ROLE A Brief History of Federal Student Aid and the Pell Grant Program Federal student aid in the U.S. began in 1944 with the implementation of the G.I. Bill,3 which aimed to provide wartime veterans the opportunity to go to college. As veterans’ enrollment in colleges and universities grew, so, too, did the national interest in creating well-qualified graduates. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 4 provided low-interest loans with debt cancellation for college students who became teachers after graduation. The launch of the Sputnik satellite and the decades-long Cold War spurred a strong interest in helping more and more students enroll in higher education as a way to protect national security and increase Americans’ participation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In 1965, amid growing civic participation in the civil rights movement and as a part of his Great Society, President Lyndon B. Johnson worked with Congress to pass the Higher Education Act 5 (HEA). Title IV of the law focused exclusively on the federal priority of equal access for students, especially supporting those students from low-income families. It authorized student support programs to help low-income students enroll in and afford higher education, including the Talent Search6 program and the Federal Work-Study program.7 The 1972 reauthorization of the HEA 8 brought the modern framework for federal student aid. Congress created a formula program to help low-income students afford college in an effort to provide truly equal access to higher education: the Pell Grant program. Significant Strides by the Obama Administration Since President Obama took office, his administration has made higher education a top priority. The Obama administration’s initiatives have resulted in greater access to college, a more affordable education, particularly for low-income students, and a greater focus on improving the success of low-income students. Those accomplishments include the following: • Increasing Pell Grant funding by more than $12 billion from 2008 to 2014. Under the Obama administration, the maximum Pell Grant award has increased by more 2 than $1,000 and, for the first time the aid has been tied to inflation to ensure that its value does not fall. That $12 billion, or 67 percent, increase now provides Pell awards that reduce the cost of college by an average of $3,700 each year for over 8 million students. • Expanding tax-based tuition assistance for students and families. This administration established the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC), which provides a maximum credit of $2,500 per year — or up to $10,000 over four years — to expand and replace the Hope higher education credit. The bipartisan tax and budget agreement signed into law in December 2015 made the AOTC permanent. In 2016, the AOTC will cut taxes by over $1,800, on average, for nearly 10 million families. • Reforming student loans to lower costs and broaden access by ending student loan subsidies for private banks. The move to Direct Lending shifted over $60 billion in savings back to students and taxpayers. • Making it easier to access student aid. The Obama administration has made it simpler than ever to apply for federal aid, reducing the burden on institutions and cutting the time it takes students and families to apply by two-thirds. In September 2015, the administration announced that it will begin to make the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) available in October, rather than January, and will allow students and parents to use their 2015 tax data to complete the FAFSA, rather than requiring them to wait until they have filed their 2016 returns. This will ensure timelier access to the FAFSA, and will better align the process of applying for aid with the effort to select a college. This change presents an opportunity for all colleges and universities to help prospective students understand the aid for which they qualify earlier in their application process — a new tool to help students and families understand the affordable, high-quality college options that are available to them. • Providing clear information about college choices to students and families. The redesigned College Scorecard 9 shares the most comprehensive, reliable data on access for low-income students, including outof-pocket costs and debt, and, especially, outcomes — including comprehensive data on students’ employment outcomes, repayment rate, and debt — of students FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education at over 7,000 institutions. By making this information available, the Scorecard seeks to help students identify affordable, high-quality postsecondary options. The Scorecard, alongside other transparency efforts like the Financial Aid Shopping Sheet, ensures that prospective students have better information about college access, affordability, and outcomes for federal financial aid recipients. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) built these tools to help students, families, and those who advise them make better decisions about one of the most significant financial decisions they will make in their lifetimes — where to go to college. • Ensuring that loan payments are manageable through the establishment and expansion of incomedriven repayment plans, and keeping interest rates low, which saved students an average of $1,500 over the life of their loans. With the administration’s expansion of income-based repayment plans, undergraduate borrowers will never have to pay more than 10 percent of their discretionary income to repay their debt. As of December 2015, nearly 4.6 million Direct Loan borrowers were enrolled in Income-Driven Repayment plans, a 140 percent increase from December 2013, and millions more are expected to enroll. The president’s Student Aid Bill of Rights has helped reduce student default rates and other negative repayment outcomes. • Protecting students and taxpayers from poorly performing or dishonest schools. To protect students enrolled in career training programs from becoming burdened by student loan debt they cannot repay and to hold institutions accountable, the Department is working to implement Gainful Employment regulations for career education programs, which will require these schools to provide information about student outcomes and ultimately deny student aid for programs with persistently poor student outcomes. The Department has also formalized an interagency task force to complement, and build upon, other efforts to address problems at poor-performing institutions of higher education, particularly in the for-profit sector, and established the Student Aid Enforcement Unit to respond more quickly and efficiently to allegations of illegal actions by postsecondary institutions. • Investing in efforts to improve college success. The administration’s First in the World (FITW) program emphasized the foundational goal of higher education: receiving a degree. It provides funding to test new approaches — and scale up proven practices — that improve student outcomes. Though Congress eliminated MARCH 2016 funding for the program in 2016, the administration has proposed restoring the program in the 2017 budget with a request of $100 million, an amount that would help the Department meet the significant unmet demand in this program. • Strengthening community colleges for college opportunity and affordability by ensuring access to affordable coursework. In January 2015, President Obama first proposed America’s College Promise. America’s College Promise proposes a partnership among states, institutions, and the federal government to provide two years of community college free, or the first two years of a four-year degree at a Historically Black College or University (HBCU) or minority-serving institution (MSI) free or nearly free, for responsible students who meet certain requirements. By covering students’ tuition, America’s College Promise affords students the opportunity to apply any additional federal aid like Pell Grants to cover the additional expenses such as books, supplies, and room and board, which make up a high proportion of college costs. America’s College Promise provides critical and affordable pathways to four-year degrees and good jobs, particularly for lowincome students. Inspired by programs in Tennessee and Chicago, America’s College Promise would create a new partnership with states, and would require everyone to do their part: community colleges must strengthen their programs and increase the number of students who graduate, states must invest more in higher education and training, and students must take responsibility for their education, earn good grades, and stay on track to graduate. As of March 2015, over 19 states, communities, and community colleges have launched their own free community college programs modeled after the president’s plan. At least 17 additional states have proposed legislation. Student success is at the heart of many of the Obama administration’s higher education priorities. The administration has worked to highlight the importance of completion on improving students’ long-term outcomes. In a July 2015 speech, then-Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said, “The degree students truly can’t afford is the one they don’t complete, or that employers don’t value.”10 Responding to data that show students who drop out of school are three times more likely to default on their loans, the Department has promoted college completion through multiple programs and policy proposals.11 FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students 3 MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education While these efforts have contributed to significant strides in college access, affordability, and success, true improvement will require the hard work of students, colleges and universities, and Congress. To that end, the Obama administration has put forward important proposals to improve postsecondary education outcomes. Over just the past four years, this administration has invested approximately $2 billion for 700 community colleges to partner with employers to design education and training programs that prepare workers for jobs in demand in their regional economies, such as health care, information technology, and energy. These programs are promising — by the end of 2014, more than 1,900 new or modified training programs had been launched. In addition, 85 percent of the more than 176,000 individuals who had enrolled in these programs either completed a program or continued the program into a second year. The administration also proposed to invest $2.5 billion in a community college partnership tax credit to help job training align with employer needs. A new tax credit to employers would encourage businesses to make upfront investments and deepen partnerships with community colleges to strengthen the education and training programs that they offer and to help meet employment needs with well-educated and trained students. Over the course of five years, this tax credit could help employ half a million students who have accessed rigorous education and training. Additionally, to promote completion by incenting students to accelerate progress towards their degrees, the Obama administration announced two Pell proposals in its fiscal year 2017 budget request. The Pell for Accelerated Completion program would make Pell Grant funds available year-round to students who are taking a full course load and who have exhausted their existing awards; the On-Track Pell Bonus would increase the Pell Grant by $300 each year for students who take at least 15 credit hours per semester, the amount typically needed to complete a two- or four-year degree on time. While each student’s responsibility for his or her own education is important, colleges and universities also bear responsibility for facilitating student success. The administration’s signature FITW program funds colleges to implement and rigorously evaluate promising and evidencebased reforms and practices that improve student outcomes, including college completion. The administration’s fiscal year 2017 budget request proposed restoring and expanding the FITW program to $100 million to support a new round of innovative and evidence-based college completion 4 strategies. In addition, the administration proposed several incentives for institutions of higher education to improve. The College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus would provide institutional grants to colleges that graduate many lowincome students on time. And the HBCU and MSI Innovation for Completion Fund would foster innovative, evidence-based strategies to increase the number of low-income college students and students of color graduating and help reduce the time needed to earn a degree. Affording college is one of the concerns at the forefront of students’ and parents’ minds as they explore the college selection process.12 Families’ out-of-pocket costs have continued to rise, in part because of the economic downturn, which precipitated further declining state investments in public higher education.  Many public colleges and universities — including well-resourced ones — are reacting to budget constraints, contracting enrollment, and college rankings that emphasize spending over outcomes by diverting their institutional aid to attract high-performing students, which can drive up costs without improving quality.13 Growing Recognition of the Importance of Focusing on College Success The administration is not alone in placing a greater focus on outcomes. The concept of coupling access with success — and public concern over institutions that fail on both factors — has garnered greater attention among researchers and colleges in recent years. For instance, New America has published the Undermining Pell, Undermining Pell: Volume II, and Undermining Pell: Volume III reports,14 identifying institutions that do not perform well on access, affordability, or both, as well as highlighting some institutions that exceed expectations on both dimensions. In both 2014 and 2015, the New York Times published college rankings that accounted for the economic diversity of the institution.15 In September 2015, the Times used these rankings to create a College Access Index that ranked institutions by the share of their Pell Grant recipients, the overall costs charged to low- and middle-income students, and the graduation rate of Pell Grant recipients. Recently, several high-profile organizations have identified schools’ capacity to improve their outreach to and success in serving low-income students while identifying some of the colleges and universities already excelling with those populations. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education • The Education Trust published its report, The Pell Partnership: Ensuring a Shared Responsibility for LowIncome Student Success, in September 2015.16 The researchers collected and published for more than 1,000 institutions, representing about 85 percent of first-time, full-time undergraduates, the graduation rates of Pell students, comparable to the overall graduation rates reported to the Department’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Using those Pell completion rates, the report profiles institutions that have implemented policies and supports to ensure low-income and underrepresented students success. This report relies, in part, on the data collected by The Education Trust. • The Institute for Higher Education Policy examined colleges where enrolling a larger population of Pell Grant recipients could generate significant increases in graduates from that background in Serving Their Share: Some College Could Be Doing a Much Better Job Enrolling and Graduating Low-Income Students.17 The report, published in October 2015, highlights opportunities for improvement, as well as the roles of colleges, states, and systems in enrolling and supporting low-income students through to graduation day. • The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation reported that only 23 percent of high-achieving, low-income students even apply to a selective institution, and that those students make up only 3 percent of enrollment at elite colleges — even though low-income students who do enroll have exceptional completion rates. In its January 2016 report, True Merit: Ensuring Our Brightest Students MARCH 2016 Have Access to Our Best Colleges and Universities,18 the Foundation challenged institutions to provide admissions preferences for low-income students to increase the enrollment of Pell Grant recipients. • Lumina Foundation works closely with the field to promote postsecondary attainment through Goal 2025, a call for 60 percent of Americans to hold high-quality postsecondary degrees or credentials by 2025. Lumina’s results-based approach focuses on helping to design and build an equitable, accessible, responsive, and accountable postsecondary education system while fostering a national sense of urgency for action to achieve Goal 2025. Lumina partners with institutions, employers, state agencies, and other policymakers to increase attainment and opportunities for all students. This work has emphasized clearer completion pathways for low-income students, and innovative approaches to working with students, faculty, and administrators to create environments that support postsecondary completion. • In some cases, institutions have worked to increase low-income students’ success. For instance, the City University of New York launched Accelerated Study in Associate Programs, an intervention that provides intensive academic and career counseling; tutoring services; financial aid for books and supplies, transportation, and other expenses; and defined academic pathways to help students complete a twoyear degree and enter a four-year institution or a career. In rigorous evaluations, the intervention has been shown to be very effective.19 FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students 5 MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education ON THE NUMBERS While this report relies heavily on the data on access, affordability, and outcomes published on the College Scorecard, it also incorporates many of the analyses conducted by outside organizations, including The Education Trust, Institute for Higher Education Policy, and the New York Times. We systematically identified institutions with positive outcomes for Pell Grant students, in addition to well-performing institutions at which Pell Grant recipients represent an increasing share of the student body, over the last five years. This report offers a snapshot of institutions making strides to serve students on their campuses and those who need to improve. There are many more institutions that are doing laudable work to help students 6 earn their degrees and succeed beyond college — especially at community colleges — that should be recognized for their service to students and the broader community. Additionally, to identify areas with significant room for improvement in enrolling low-income students, helping them graduate, or both, we explored sectors with both high access and high success; problems of significant gaps within the school between Pell completion rates and overall completion rates; and selective schools that have exceptional outcomes, but which enroll too few low-income students. See Appendix A for information about the methodology. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education MARCH 2016 THE CRITICAL WORK OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN ADVANCING STUDENT OUTCOMES Institutions Excelling in Access and Success Many colleges and universities, including community colleges, are already recruiting, supporting, and graduating low-income students, including some schools that appear to excel in both the enrollment of and completion among Pell Grant recipients. The data available through both the College Scorecard and The Education Trust’s Pell Partnership project make it possible to compare hundreds of institutions and identify some of the exceptional examples among them. Importantly, these institutions span both the public and private sectors of higher education. About half of Pell Grant recipients at public and private nonprofit four-year colleges earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.20 While graduation rates are somewhat lower at public institutions than at private ones, public colleges and universities enroll a far larger number of Pell students, and typically keep costs much lower: In the 2013-14 school year, more than 5.9 million Pell students — about two-thirds of Pell recipients — were enrolled in public two- and four-year colleges. 21 The institutions identified in the table below are some of those cited by many organizations as ones that outperform their peer institutions in enrolling and graduating Pell Grant recipients. The Department is pleased to lend its voice to the others calling for greater recognition of institutions like these. TABLE 1. Public 4-year institutions by state, percentage of Pell recipients enrolled, percentage of Pell recipients graduating in 6 years, percentage of all recipients graduating in 6 years, percentage of Pell recipients earning more than $25,000 6 years after enrolling, annual net price for education for low-income students: various years. Public 4-year Institution1 State1 Percentage of Pell Recipients Enrolled1 Percentage of Pell Recipients Graduating in 6 Years 2 Percentage of All Students Graduating in 6 Years1 Percentage of Pell Recipients Earning More Than $25,000 6 Years After Enrolling 3 Annual Net Price of Education for Low-Income Students1 California State University-Stanislaus CA 58 53 52 58 $5,128 CUNY Bernard M Baruch College NY 45 69 67 72 $5,559 Florida International University FL 58 53 52 68 $9,763 Georgia State University GA 51 53 53 64 $13,718 Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts MA 45 53 57 56 $11,963 Rutgers University-Newark NJ 46 62* 68 74 $8,212 University of California-Irvine CA 43 87 86 69 $8,521 University of California-San Diego CA 43 84 86 71 $9,279 University of Illinois at Chicago IL 49 54 57 71 $9,920 University of Michigan-Dearborn MI 43 56 52 63 $6,908 University of North Carolina at Greensboro NC 44 52 55 61 $7,880 University of Pittsburgh-Bradford PA 45 57 52 74 $13,246 Western Illinois University IL 43 56 56 67 $15,114 SOURCES: 1 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): 2013. 2 The Education Trust: 2013. 3 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, College Scorecard: Calendar years 2011 and 2012. * T he Education Trust Pell completion rate is not available for this school. While The Education Trust Pell graduation rates consider the percentage of first-time, full-time Pell students who complete within six years, the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) completion rates consider the share of students who ever received a Pell Grant at the institution and who completed within six years, regardless of enrollment intensity or transfer-in status. Additionally, some schools may underreport completion to NSLDS. Therefore, the rates are not directly comparable. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students 7 MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education TABLE 2. Private nonprofit 4-year institutions by state, percentage of Pell recipients enrolled, percentage of Pell recipients graduating in 6 years, percentage of all students graduating in 6 years, percentage of Pell recipients earning more than $25,000 6 years after enrolling, annual net price for education for low-income students: various years. State1 Percentage of Pell Recipients Enrolled1 Percentage of Pell Recipients Graduating in 6 Years 2 Percentage of All Students Graduating in 6 Years1 Percentage of Pell Recipients Earning More Than $25,000 6 Years After Enrolling 3 Annual Net Price for Low-Income Students1 Agnes Scott College GA 45 71 72 55 $16,419 Blue Mountain College MS 53 55 51 53 $7,390 California Baptist University CA 48 63 58 62 $21,188 Converse College SC 45 53 62 50 $16,910 Howard University DC 45 54 61 68 $22,273 Mills College CA 47 62 61 59 $19,907 Monmouth College IL 44 59 58 68 $11,512 Salem College NC 56 58 64 66 $12,722 Spelman College GA 52 66 68 65 $27,565 Private Nonprofit 4-year Institution1 Spring Arbor University MI 45 55 57 61 $13,191 The Sage Colleges NY 46 80 58 70 $14,834 University of La Verne CA 46 54 59 73 $16,254 William Carey University MS 66 56 62 60 $16,972 SOURCES: 1 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): 2013. 2 The Education Trust: 2013. 3 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, College Scorecard: Calendar years 2011 and 2012. Selective Institutions that Enhance Access Today’s most selective colleges are often known for their exceptional student outcomes, including high graduation rates and post-college labor market success. Yet the most selective schools may enroll the smallest share — and numbers — of low-income students. Data from the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation show that students from families in the bottom economic quartile make up only 3 percent of the student population at today’s most selective institutions, as defined by Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges 2004, while students from the top economic quartile make up 72 percent.22 In part, this underrepresentation is because low-income students are less likely to apply for admission to selective institutions, compared with students from high-income backgrounds.23 Selective institutions’ sticker prices — the full cost of attendance, excluding any federal, state, or institutional grant aid — are one factor that deters lowincome students from applying. Consider a student whose family earns just $20,000 per year, just under the poverty line for a family of three, and how she and her family may 8 react to a sticker price of three times that amount for tuition at many four-year private institutions, including those in the Ivy League. While she typically would not actually be asked to pay that price, it may still deter her from applying. Additionally, low-income students are the least likely to be aware that financial aid resources — from the federal and state governments and from the institutions themselves — would be available to them if they applied. According to the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, just seven in 10 high achieving, low-income students fill out the FAFSA to find their eligibility for grants and other aid to enroll in college. 24 And in fact, most low-income students would end up paying far less at selective institutions than at less-selective institutions because the former have greater resources to help cover students’ out-of-pocket costs. Institutions with generous aid policies need to do more to convey that information to prospective students in ways that are relatable and accessible; partnerships with nonprofit organizations could be an important component of that. Additionally, admission policies at some four-year institutions — including the most selective ones — disadvantage students from low-income backgrounds because of the great weight placed on college entrance exam scores, grade-point average (GPA), extracurricular FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education activities, and “legacies.” These requirements often favor students whose families can afford tutoring and SAT or ACT preparation classes, and students whose parents are alumni from selective institutions. The biases play out in admission decisions. According to The Education Trust, the institutions with the highest SAT scores enroll Pell Grant recipients as fewer than one in five of their students, compared with 42 percent Pell enrollment at schools with the lowest SAT scores. And at the high-SAT institutions, which offer limited access for low-income students, the graduation rate for Pell recipients is 74 percent, far above the 37 percent at the lowest-SAT schools. 25 Selective institutions have the resources and supports needed to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds succeed in higher education. The vast majority of low-income students who attend highly selective colleges perform as well as their more affluent peers in college persistence and completion and in post-college success. 26 For instance, researchers have found, “highly selective schools could increase the representation of low-income students by 30 percent without compromising SAT or ACT standards and with increased social diversity.”27 To that end, some selective institutions are altering their admissions criteria. For example, in January 2016 a group of presidents and deans from selective colleges — including Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, M.I.T., Kenyon, and Yale — expressed interest in changing their admissions process to not only focus on academic admissions criteria that typically disadvantage low-income students (like SAT scores and GPA), but also to consider factors such as community MARCH 2016 service and whether or not a student has helped family members or worked while in school.28 Still other institutions have launched wholesale reforms of their admissions processes to ensure that they serve more low-income and underrepresented students. For instance, former Amherst College President Anthony Marx made it a priority to shift resources to financial aid for low- and moderate-income students, rather than placing more resources into facility upgrades and other expenses that do not appear to strengthen student outcomes. 29 While the institution’s Pell enrollment is still only about one in five students, between 2005 and 2014, the school increased its share of low-income students from 13 percent to 21 percent.30 The University of Southern California, which enrolls large numbers (if not a high percentage of) Pell Grant recipients, maintains direct recruitment strategies that target highachieving, low-income students. For example, USC has a partnership with QuestBridge, an organization that connects high-achieving, low-income students with top universities and colleges. 31 Meanwhile, other institutions have eliminated early decision policies that favor students who can commit to attending a school at full price without first receiving information about aid packages from other institutions to enable comparison shopping. While the institutions noted below still have relatively low rates of Pell enrollment — low-income students account for fewer than one in four undergraduates — they still exceed the rates of schools with similar admissions rates and academic profiles. TABLE 3. Selective private nonprofit 4-year institutions by state, percentage of Pell recipients enrolled, percentage of Pell recipients graduating in 6 years, percentage of Pell recipients earning more than $25,000 6 years after enrolling, annual net price of education for low-income students Selective Private Nonprofit 4-Year Institution1 State1 Percentage of Pell Recipients Enrolled1 Percentage of Pell Recipients Graduating in 6 Years 2 Percentage of Pell Recipients Earning More Than $25,000 6 Years After Enrolling 3 Annual Net Price of Education for LowIncome Students1 Amherst College MA 20 94 66 $3,739 Columbia University in the City of New York NY 22 71* 82 $5,497 University of Southern California CA 23 90 81 $16,729 Vassar College NY 22 89 65 $5,062 SOURCES: 1 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): 2013. 2 The Education Trust: 2013. 3 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, College Scorecard: Calendar years 2011 and 2012. * T he Education Trust Pell completion rate is not available for this school. While The Education Trust Pell graduation rates consider the percentage of first-time, full-time Pell students who complete within six years, the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) completion rates consider the share of students who ever received a Pell Grant at the institution and who completed within six years, regardless of enrollment intensity or transfer-in status. Additionally, some schools may underreport completion to NSLDS. Therefore, the rates are not directly comparable. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students 9 MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education Institutions that Are Significantly Expanding Access stratification” — namely, the fact that large numbers of lowincome students attend institutions with a low graduation rate, where their chances for success may not be as great.32 A recent study by The Education Trust shows that, within an institution, low-income college students graduate, on average, at a rate just 5.7 percentage points below their non-low-income classmates. However, nationally the college degree gap between all Pell and non-Pell students is much greater, at 14 percentage points. The study attributes this gap in educational attainment between Pell and nonPell students, in large part, to inequities in “enrollment The following examples are institutions that have substantially increased their Pell enrollment over the last five years as a share of their overall undergraduate population, while demonstrating success in completion rates for those students. Without question, these schools provide significant pieces of the puzzle as we work to increase the numbers of low-income students with high-quality degrees over the coming years. TABLE 4. Public and private nonprofit 4-year institutions by state, percentage of Pell recipients enrolled in 2013, percentage of Pell recipients enrolled in 2008, change in Pell enrollment from 2008 to 2013, percentage of Pell recipients graduating in 6 years, percentage of Pell recipients earning more than $25,000 6 years after enrolling, and annual net price of education for low-income students: Various years. Percentage of Pell Recipients Graduating in 6 Years 3 56 $10,266 62 $11,500 Grinnell College IA 21 12 9 Kalamazoo College MI 19 10 8 New Jersey Institute of Technology NJ 39 28 11 57 81 $12,064 Ohio University-Main Campus OH 23 15 9 56 61 $14,499 Radford University VA 28 17 11 59 69 $10,623 The University of Texas at Dallas TX 35 22 14 55 75 $8,750 University of MarylandBaltimore County MD 27 16 10 61 74 $13,770 University of Massachusetts-Lowell MA 30 20 10 52 73 $10,258 University of North Carolina at Charlotte NC 40 26 14 53 69 $8,710 University of North Carolina Wilmington NC 28 18 10 65 64 $8,543 84 81 University of Richmond VA 20 9 11 82 81 $9,905 Vassar College NY 22 11 11 89 65 $5,062 Wisconsin Lutheran College WI 33 20 14 75 63 $13,491 SOURCES: 1 2 3 4 10 Change in Pell Enrollment from 2008 to 2013 by Percentage Points Annual Net Price of Education for Low-Income Students1 State1 Public and Private Nonprofit 4-year Institutions1 Percentage of Pell Recipients Enrolled in 2008 2 Percentage of Pell Recipients Earning More Than $25,000 6 Years After Enrolling 4 Percentage of Pell Recipients Enrolled in 20131 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): 2013. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): 2008. The Education Trust: 2013. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, College Scorecard: Calendar years 2011 and 2012. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education In contrast to the advancements some institutions have made in reaching low-income students, enrollment of lowincome students has declined at others. The economic climate over the past few years led to cuts in funding for universities, particularly those in the public sector. 33 The Delta Cost Project at American Institutes for Research found that state and local funding per student at public research universities was 28 percent lower in 2013 than in 2008. 34 For institutions looking to reduce costs and raise revenue, recruiting out-of-state and international students can be a profitable strategy. Institutions seeking to increase revenue can charge higher prices to out-of-state students, who cannot qualify for in-state tuition. A school’s bottom line may be better off if it enrolls an out-of-state student to whom it has given a modest merit award than if it enrolls an in-state student paying the lower in-state rate. Moreover, the more a public research university enrolls out-of-state students, the fewer seats it has left for low-income and minority students from the home state.35 Data featured in a recent Washington Post article show that 43 out of 50 schools known as “state flagships” enrolled a smaller share of in-state freshmen in 2014 than they had a decade earlier — with 10 flagships accepting more than half of their freshman classes from outof-state.36 While some of those students could have financial need, the emphasis has shifted to merit aid in many cases. Thus, institutions were able to raise additional revenues to back-fill cuts in state funding, which was repeatedly reduced in many states throughout the recession.37 But this practice has been charged with contributing to the challenges that low-income students face in having a fair shot at being admitted to, and succeeding in, higher education.38 Institutions with Missions to Serve Economically Disadvantaged Students There are still other institutions — some of which are also noted in other sections of this report — that have demonstrated a high commitment to serving low-income and underrepresented students. HBCUs are a group of over 100 federally recognized institutions that have a historical mission to provide college access to African American students. In addition to serving significant percentages of low-income students (approximately seven in 10 students at HBCUs are Pell Grant recipients39 ), they grapple with far greater challenges of institutional funding and capacity. Yet HBCUs can and do make significant contributions to improving the lives of black Americans.40 MARCH 2016 Additionally, MSIs serve disproportionately high numbers of low-income students and students of color, making them eligible to apply for additional, institutional capacity-building federal dollars. Those funds are provided above and beyond the federal financial aid dollars that flow through students, and can be used largely at the discretion of the institution. Unlike HBCUs, which are defined as historically black colleges or universities established prior to 1964, eligibility for most MSIs shifts based on enrollment trends for minority and low-income students. MSIs and HBCUs have adopted the mission of serving lowincome students and students of color. While some HBCUs and MSIs have completion rates that are below the national average, their large percentages of Pell Grant recipients mean that the schools produce many of the nation’s Pell Grant graduates. Moreover, recognizing that there is room for improvement, some of these institutions have taken up the charge of improving college completion rates and are implementing innovative and evidence-based strategies to help the students in their institutions. These include College of Mount Saint Vincent (with a 52 percent overall six-year completion rate), Morehouse College (54 percent), North Carolina A&T State University (43 percent), Spelman College (68 percent), and University of Illinois at Chicago (57 percent). Roughly half of the students at each of these institutions receive a Pell Grant. State Efforts to Improve Access and Success Many states have pursued parallel efforts that complement the work of the Department. Among many other states working to improve access and success in postsecondary education, these states are making noteworthy efforts: • Tennessee has improved access, particularly within its community college system. The state offers free community college. In the program’s first year, 57,000 students, representing almost 90 percent of the state’s high school graduating class, applied for the program. The program is coupled with college counseling, mentorship, and community service, all of which support greater enrollment, persistence, and college completion, early evidence suggests.41 Tennessee has also promoted access and success in its four-year sector.42 Its performance-based funding formula for four-year institutions incorporates multiple measures, including credit accumulation and degree completion, with a larger weight in the formula for FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students 11 MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education Pell-eligible and adult students. This method promotes both access and success, by dividing up state funding according to institutions’ efforts in both areas. • Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe recently announced a plan to boost higher education funding in the state by nearly $50 million in incentives for colleges to enroll and graduate more underrepresented students. While the plan is subject to approval by the state legislature, the added focus on low-income students represents an important shift. country that managed to earn an A on the “[degree] attainment equity” component of the Young Invincibles Student Impact Project’s annual State Report Cards, which assign letter grades to each state based on its investment in postsecondary education.43 Across the country, much work remains. Only two states have restored higher education funding to their pre-recession levels; most states have only begun to replenish their funding available at the start of the recession. To fill this gap, many public colleges and universities have increased tuition. • Kentucky has cut the gaps in graduation rates between white students and black and Hispanic students by double-digit numbers in recent years. Thanks to those efforts, Kentucky was the only state in the 12 FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education MARCH 2016 ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT Some institutions continue to underperform in providing high-quality opportunities to low-income students. For instance, nearly three in four undergraduate students at forprofit, four-year institutions are federal grant recipients.44 Yet those students’ completion rates are far lower than those at either public or private nonprofit four-year colleges — less than 16 percent of Pell Grant recipients at for-profit, four-year colleges graduate with a bachelor’s degree within six years, compared with half of those at public four-years and 55 percent at private nonprofit four-year institutions.45 But while many for-profit institutions carry very low completion rates, some public and private nonprofit institutions also suffer from poor performance. In some cases, relative to other institutions with similar academic profiles, postsecondary institutions have too-low completion rates for their Pell students. Other institutions have significant disparities even within their institutions. Using institutions with available data,46 fewer than 50 public institutions enroll more than 40 percent of their student body as Pell recipients and also complete more than half of their Pell recipients. Just over 100 private nonprofit institutions do. That is less than 10 percent of all such institutions. Moreover, sizeable gaps of 10 percentage points or greater remain between Pell students’ graduation rates and overall graduation rates at certain institutions. All told, only about 150 institutions with a Pell percentage above 40 percent of their student body have a gap in Pell and overall completion rates of less than 10 percentage points. These within-school gaps suggest that schools could have an even greater impact on the success of their Pell recipients by ensuring that they provide their students with needed support. Still, as The Education Trust report notes, even closing within-school gaps in Pell completion rates would not be enough to close the national gap, which persists largely due to insufficient enrollment of low-income students at institutions where most students complete their degrees.47 For instance, a handful of selective schools provide all students — including low-income students — with exceptional outcomes. Yet these schools enroll very few lowincome students, suggesting the potential for those schools to have a significant impact on the lives of even more lowincome students. • For instance, the University of California-Berkeley enrolls more than twice the share of low-income students as most Ivy League institutions. • Even relative to other selective institutions, certain schools within the Ivy League fall short on providing sufficient opportunities to low-income students — some enroll Pell Grant recipients as fewer than one in 10 students at the school, compared with about one in five at other highly selective schools. In sum, these figures suggest that institutions with high access for low-income students, and high completion rates among them, are too often the exception and not the rule. But those low numbers of high-performing institutions also suggest great room for improvement. If all four-year institutions with a Pell completion rate below 50 percent increased those rates by just 10 percentage points, they would graduate at least 100,000 more Pell Grant recipients next year than expected — a powerful opportunity to help more low-income students earn degrees. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students 13 MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education COLLEGE PATHWAYS FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS This report is focused on some of the predominantly fouryear colleges that serve low-income students well, and laments that many are falling short. However, a significant sector of the higher education space is not addressed in the report: community colleges. In 2014, nearly 6.4 million students attended community colleges, which tend to be far less expensive than other institutions.48 As a result, Pell Grants cover a larger share of the student cost of attendance at community colleges. In 2012-13, 56 percent of first-time, full-time community college students received an average of $4,300 in federal grants.49 Meanwhile, the average tuition and fees (excluding other costs of attendance) at public twoyear institutions totaled just $2,882 in the same year.50 Some four-year institutions have facilitated enrollment of low-income students by partnering with two-year community colleges. These collaborations mean clear academic pathways for students who prefer to enroll first at a community college — for academic or for personal reasons — as well as, frequently, a more affordable way to obtain a four-year college degree. Transfer students from two-year institutions typically perform as well academically as first-time students at four-year schools, research has found.51 In particular, these institutions have created powerful programs that align students’ academic, personal, and financial needs with the key coursework needed to earn high-quality degrees. A number of organizations are similarly invested in launching promising pathways for students: • Through the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation Community College Transfer Initiative, eight institutions created pathways from their local community colleges. Those institutions include Amherst College; Bucknell University; Cornell University; Mount Holyoke College; University of California, Berkeley; University of Michigan-Ann Arbor; University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill; and University of Southern California. Between 2007 and 2010, the institutions enrolled nearly 1,100 students from community colleges under the initiative; and six of the eight institutions planned to continue the program on their campuses even without the Foundation’s support.52 • The Tennessee Transfer Pathway program allows students to begin their studies at any community college 14 or similar two-year program in the state, earn their associate degrees through the program, and guarantee that all credits transfer to bachelor’s degree programs at every public — and some private nonprofit — colleges and universities in the state. Of students who completed a bachelor’s degree in the state in the 2013-14 academic year, more than a third began at a two-year institution before transferring to the four-year program, and nearly 30 percent began at a Tennessee community college.53 • The College Board’s Initiative on Transfer Policy and Practice seeks to highlight the importance of partnerships between two- and four-year institutions and promote their success. To that end, the Initiative has published several reports identifying and highlighting the critical characteristics of successful transfer partnerships. This work has yielded recommendations for leaders of both two- and four-year campuses, including a firm commitment to the mission of the project; better outreach to community college students, including guidance for students as they look to transfer their credits; and the need to establish clear and transparent credit transfer policies.54 • The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) has developed the Interstate Passport Initiative to create clearer transfer pathways for students. The project also received a nearly $3 million First in the World grant from the Department to expand its efforts. The Passport Initiative creates a cross-state transfer framework that accounts for students’ demonstrated knowledge, and will seek to help students transfer across institutions more easily, completing college more quickly and with lower costs.55 While many community colleges have lower college completion rates than do four-year institutions, they are nonetheless a large — and tremendously important — piece of the higher education sector. Community colleges serve large proportions of students who are low income, first generation, requiring remediation, and/or working while attending school.56 They also operate with far fewer resources per student than at the average four-year school.57 The vast majority of community colleges are also open access — they do not turn away students based FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education on preparedness — which makes it difficult to compare their graduation rates to other, more selective institutions. Already, the Department has convened leaders and launched renewed efforts to help improve completion rates of minority and low-income students at community colleges; and its landmark proposal, America’s College Promise, MARCH 2016 would permit students to enroll in community colleges, costfree. While they are not included in this report, community colleges must be a continuing part of the conversation and the on-the-ground work to improve college access and success. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students 15 MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education PROMISING PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING COLLEGE ACCESS AND COMPLETION Some institutions have already begun the hard work of improving college completion rates by implementing promising approaches and interventions with their own students, and in some cases, through engaging in partnerships aiming to advance these goals at scale.58 These approaches, if they are demonstrated to be effective, could help support hundreds or thousands of institutions as they work to graduate millions more low-income students in the coming years. First in the World (FITW) The Department conducted its first First in the World competition in 2014, followed by a second round of awards in 2015. The program is designed to improve college completion, particularly for low-income students, by implementing and testing innovative and evidence-based interventions. Thus far, there have been significantly more high-quality applications for FITW than available funds; however, Congress failed to fund the initiative in its FY 2016 budget. Of 742 applications received across the competitions in both years of the competition, appropriated funding was sufficient to support only 42 awards, fewer than 6 percent of applications received. Without additional resources, the nation is losing the opportunity to learn more about what works in improving college success and to scale up already proven practices. Still, current grantees are conducting promising work that will help us learn new ways to facilitate college success: • Georgia State University, an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution (AANAPISI) with an undergraduate enrollment that is 41 percent black, is partnering with 10 other institutions from the University Innovation Alliance to implement a proactive academic advising intervention for low-income and first-generation students. The program seeks to improve retention rates, academic progression, and completion rates for low-income and other high-need students at four-year public institutions. • John Carroll University, an institution in Ohio, is building a predictive analytics system to create “early 16 alerts” for at-risk students, as well as building a stronger learning community within the institution. • Spelman College, an HBCU in Georgia, is using random assignment to test the effectiveness of student metacognitive training in both classroom and peertutoring settings. The goal of the project is to enhance students’ awareness of their own thinking and learning, leading to improvements in academic success and persistence. • The University of Southern California is working with high schools in the state to build and distribute online and game-based tools that will help students from underserved communities learn about colleges and financial aid. The innovative approach to college recruitment will hopefully increase college-going rates, FAFSA completion rates, and college enrollments. • South Dakota State University is leading a consortium of seven universities, including tribal college Oglala Lakota College, to implement a pilot program that will recruit and retain low-income, underrepresented South Dakota students. South Dakota Jumpstart offers individualized guidance for first-year students and their families as they navigate the path to and through college. Beyond FITW, there are other examples of promising interventions that institutions are adopting to strengthen the academic progression of low-income students. A closer look at institutional data is helping to inform decision-making. For instance, at Goucher College in Maryland, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness systematically tracks retention and graduation rates of Pell Grant recipients, which has improved feedback about factors impacting success. Practices that cultivate a more inclusive learning environment and greater engagement among students can create a greater sense of belonging. Rutgers University-Newark, for example, emphasizes college access and success through a cohort model known as the Honors Living-Learning Community, in which students live and learn together to become citizens with agency in their communities. The program seeks to help students realize their capacity to thrive and succeed at the institution by honoring a wide array of talents and skills including leadership, innovation, and citizenship. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education While institutions continue to improve completion rates, colleges and universities with good outcomes for lowincome students also should focus on improving access for those students. All schools have the opportunity to promote access in the fall of 2016, when, as described earlier, for the first time the FAFSA will be available in October. If colleges and universities take advantage of the earlier FAFSA date to provide prospective students with information about available financial aid earlier in the college process, then students will better be able to understand and weigh their options. As schools consider their application and admissions processes, they should consider both how they target their financial aid resources and whether their admission procedures—such as early decision procedures— disadvantage low-income students in the admissions process. Many selective schools have eliminated early decision admissions as part of a strategy to ensure that lowincome students are not disadvantaged. MARCH 2016 Some schools have utilized other strategies for helping lowincome students understand what college is like and to think early about their college choices. This year the administration announced an experimental project that will allow lowincome high school students to qualify for Pell Grants if they are dually enrolled in both high school and college. The goal of the project is to test whether helping students get early experiences with college will help facilitate students’ enrollment in well-matched colleges and universities and college completion. Many schools also use summer programs to introduce high school students, including lowincome students, to higher education and schools. Each institution is different and will customize the strategies, systems, and approaches that best fit its needs and student population. We hope that this report will seed more conversations about identifying effective strategies and about the opportunities to deepen this work. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students 17 MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education CONCLUSION A great education for all Americans is essential for engaging in society and safeguarding democracy. This is why the Obama administration has developed initiatives to place a college degree within reach of more Americans — including those with low incomes. As the economy increasingly demands postsecondary education for career success, it is encouraging to see that many colleges and universities are prioritizing access for low-income and underrepresented students. However, more work remains to ensure that every student has the support and means to attend and graduate from a postsecondary institution. Schools that deliver a highquality education and demonstrate strong student success need to expand access to underrepresented students; schools that provide access but have low graduation rates need to upgrade their student supports and experiment with new success strategies; and states, institutions, and the federal government need to partner to ensure that a highquality education is affordable to low-income students. We look forward to sharing the stories of institutions already undertaking this work successfully. To that end, the U.S. Department of Education will periodically highlight institutions that choose to share their stories and experiences on its blog through a new compilation, The Completion Chronicles. Institutions interested in sharing through The Completion Chronicles should write to completionchronicles@ed.gov with a 400-600 word write-up of the institution’s work in promoting college access and success, including data to support the progress made to date. The College Scorecard includes the most comprehensive, reliable data ever published on student outcomes, and can support higher education leaders, policymakers, researchers, and developers who are improving measures of college performance and helping colleges set benchmarks and improve performance. To visit the data and explore colleges based on factors that matter to you and your community, visit the tool at collegescorecard.ed.gov and the full datasets at collegescorecard.ed.gov/data. 18 FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education MARCH 2016 APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY Using data from the College Scorecard data on the Department’s technical website, The Education Trust’s Pell Partnership project, Institute for Higher Education Policy’s (IHEP) Serving Their Share report, and The Upshot’s (New York Times) College Access Index, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) constructed a file with institutions matched to data on access, affordability, and outcomes measures. The initial institutions in this file were predominantly fouryear colleges and universities located in the 50 states plus the District of Columbia that participate in Title IV financial aid programs (a total of 2,053 institutions). ED then applied the following filters to narrow the list to those with strong outcomes in the 2012-13 Scorecard measurement year by excluding institutions with • a repayment rate of less than 50 percent; • threshold earnings of less than 50 percent (i.e., institutions at which fewer than 50 percent of borrowers were earning more than the typical working high school graduate [$25,000] six years after enrolling); • a six-year Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) rate or, where available, a Pell completion rate of less than 50 percent; • fewer than 200 degree-seeking undergraduates; and/or • data missing on repayment, earnings, graduation rate, or Pell. Next, ED applied a filter to create a shortlist of institutions that provide high-quality opportunities to a significant share of low-income students. These institutions included ones with the percent of Pell recipients in the top 33 percent (unweighted) of institutions in the same sector (control and predominant degree). ED also created a shortlist of institutions that have significantly increased their number and share of Pell students over the last five years. This list included institutions with percentage increase in Pell enrollment in the top 33 percent (unweighted) of institutions in the same sector (control [private nonprofit, public, proprietary] and predominant degree [predominantly bachelor’s degreeawarding, for example]). Once these two shortlists were created, ED selected example institutions, considering such factors as geographic diversity, size, and control, to highlight institutions based on • The Education Trust’s measure of the six-year graduation rate among first-time, full-time Pell students; • the net price paid of students who received Title IV aid in 2012-13 and belong to the bottom two family income quintiles (less than $48,000); • whether the institution is also highlighted in The Education Trust, New York Times, and IHEP reports; and • the extent to which the institution’s mission indicates that it is committed to serving students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. For identifying areas with significant room for improvement, we explored sectors and schools that were outperformed by their peer institutions in the IPEDS Data Feedback Report.59 We also looked at The Education Trust’s estimated gap between Pell completion and the overall IPEDS graduation rate in award year 2012-13 and highlighted in this report cases in which sectors had above-average overall graduation rates, but relatively low six-year Pell completion rates. And we noted that there are some institutions with exceptional outcomes, but below-average access for low-income students, relative to other schools in the sector. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students 19 MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education Data Elements The following data elements were considered in producing this report. Below are the descriptions, measurement year(s), and sources for each element. Name 20 Description Measurement Year Source Institutional Name (2013) Name of institution corresponding to the Unit ID Award year 2012-13 College Scorecard (IPEDS): https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ State (2013) Two-letter state postcode Award year 2012-13 College Scorecard (IPEDS): https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ Predominant Degree (2013) Predominant degree awarded Award year 2012-13 College Scorecard (IPEDS): https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ Control (2013) Control of institution (e.g., Public, Private, For-profit) Award year 2012-13 College Scorecard (IPEDS): https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ Pell Graduation Rate Peer Group Rank (The Education Trust) (2013) Pell grant recipient graduation rate peer group rank based on the six-year graduation rate among first-time-full-time Pell recipients. Blank if number of peers is equal to or fewer than 10. Award year 2012-13 The Education Trust: https://edtrust.org/resource/ pellgradrates/ # Institutions in Peer Group (The Education Trust) (2013) Number of institutions within Pell graduation rate peer group Award year 2012-13 The Education Trust: https://edtrust.org/resource/ pellgradrates/ % Pell Gap (predicted-actual) (IHEP) (2013) Gap between predicted and actual share of undergraduate students who received a Pell grant Award year 2012-13 Institute for Higher Education Policy: http://www.ihep.org/sites/default/ files/uploads/docs/pubs/ihep_ washington_monthly_final_1.pdf College Access Index (The New York Times) (2013) Combination of a colleges’ Pell graduates and net price, compared with the average school. (The index is based on the net price for both the $48,000-to-$75,000 income range and the $30,000-to-$48,000 income range.) A college with an average score on the two measures in combination will receive a one. Scores above one indicate the most effort. Award year 2012-13 The New York Times: http://www.nytimes. com/2015/09/17/upshot/collegeaccess-index-2015-the-details.html % Pell Recipients (2013) Percentage of undergraduates who receive a Pell Grant Award year 2012-13 College Scorecard (IPEDS): https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ % Pell Recipients (2008) Percentage of undergraduates who receive a Pell Grant Award year 2007-08 College Scorecard (IPEDS): https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ Change in % Pell Recipients (2008-13) Percentage point change in the share of students receiving Pell from 2008 to 2013 n/a Derived Percentage Change in Number of Pell Students (2008-13) Percentage change in number of students who receive Pell grants from 2008 to 2013 n/a Derived Pell Graduation Rate (The Education Trust) (2013) Six-year graduation rate among first-time-fulltime Pell recipients Award year 2012-13 The Education Trust: https://edtrust.org/resource/ pellgradrates/ Pell Completion at Original Institution (NSLDS) (2013) Percentage of students ever receiving Pell grants who completed at the original institution within 6 years Award year 2012-13 College Scorecard (NSLDS): https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ Pell Repayment Rate (2013) Three-year repayment rate among students who ever received Pell grants Award years 2013-14 (two-year pooled) College Scorecard (NSLDS): https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ Overall Graduation Rate (Four-Year Colleges) (2013) 150% bachelor’s cohort graduation rate for fouryear institutions. In IPEDS, Bachelor’s-seeking students are considered to have graduated “on time” if they graduate within 6 years. Award year 2012-13 College Scorecard (IPEDS): https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education Name Description Measurement Year MARCH 2016 Source % Earning > 25K Six Years After Enrollment (2011-12) Percent of title IV students earning at least $25 six years after enrollment Calendar years 2011-12 (two-year pooled) College Scorecard (Treasury): https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ Repayment Rate (2013) Three-year repayment rate, percent of students reducing principal balance Award years 2013-14 (two-year pooled) College Scorecard (NSLDS): https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ Net Price in Two Lowest Income Quintiles (2013) Average net price for $0-$48,000 family income (both public and private institutions) among students receiving Title IV grants or loans. Award year 2012-13 College Scorecard (NSLDS): https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ Gap between Pell and Non-Pell Graduation Rate (The Education Trust) (2013) Estimated gap between the six-year graduation rate of Pell recipients and the six-year graduation rate among non-Pell recipients Award year 2012-13 The Education Trust: https://edtrust.org/resource/ pellgradrates/ FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students 21 MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education ENDNOTES 1 Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, and Emmanuel Saez. “Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States.” NBER. June 2014. http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/images/ mobility_geo.pdf. 16 Nichols, Andrew. “The Pell Partnership: Ensuring a Shared Responsibility for Low-Income Student Success.” First in Education Trust. September 2015. https://edtrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/ThePellPartnership_EdTrust_20152. pdf. 2 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09). 17 Campbell, Colleen and Mamie Voight. “Serving Their Share: Some Colleges Could Be Doing a Much Better Job Enrolling and Graduating Low-Income Students.” Institute for Higher Education Policy. October 2015. http://www.ihep.org/sites/ default/files/uploads/docs/pubs/ihep_washington_monthly_ final_1.pdf. 3 P.L. 78-346. 4 P.L. 85-864. 5 P.L. 89–329. 6 http://www2.ed.gov/programs/triotalent/index.html 7 http://www2.ed.gov/programs/fws/index.html 8 P.L. No. 92318. 9 For more, visit CollegeScorecard.ed.gov. Includes all Title IV-participating institutions; consumer-facing site includes only degree-granting institutions, while data files include all schools. 10 “Toward a New Focus on Outcomes in Higher Education.” Remarks by then-Secretary Arne Duncan at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County (UMBC). 27 July 2015. http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/ toward-new-focus-outcomes-higher-education. 11 Ibid. 12 “Out-of-Pocket Net Price for College.” U.S. Department of Education, April 2014: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014902. pdf. 13 Burd, Stephen. “Undermining Pell: Volume II.” New America, September 2014: https://www.newamerica.org/downloads/ UnderminingPellVolume2_SBurd_20140917.pdf. 14 Burd, Stephen. “Undermining Pell: How Colleges Compete for Wealthy Students and Leave the Low-Income Behind.” New America. May 2013. https://static.newamerica.org/ attachments/2320-undermining-pell-2/Merit_Aid%20Final. b3b89c275d2249eeb19cb53d3fc049b6.pdf; Burd, Stephen. “Undermining Pell Volume II: How Colleges’ Pursuit of Prestige and Revenue Is Hurting Low-Income Students.” New America. 2014. https://www.newamerica.org/downloads/ UnderminingPellVolume2_SBurd_20140917.pdf; and Burd, Stephen. “Undermining Pell: Volume III: The News Keeps Getting Worse for Low-Income Students.” New America. March 2016. https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/12813undermining-pell-volume-iii/Undermining-Pell-III-3.15bba9018bb 54ad48f850f6f3a62a9fc.pdf. 15 “The Most Economically Diverse Top Colleges.” The Upshot, The New York Times. September 2014. http://www.nytimes. com/interactive/2014/09/09/upshot/09up-college-access-index. html; and “Top Colleges Doing the Most for Low-Income Students.” The Upshot, The New York Times. September 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/17/upshot/topcolleges-doing-the-most-for-low-income-students.html. 22 18 Giancola, Jennifer and Richard D. Kahlenberg. “True Merit: Ensuring Our Brightest Students Have Access to Our Best Colleges and Universities.” Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. January 2016. http://outreach.jkcf.org/TrueMerit/?utm_ source=all&utm_medium=all&utm_campaign=True_Merit. 19 Scrivener, Susan,, Michael Weiss, Alyssa Ratledge, Timothy Rudd, Colleen Sommo, Hannah Fresques. “Doubling Graduation Rates: Three-Year Effects of CUNY’s Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) for Developmental Education Students.” MDRC. February 2015. http://www.mdrc.org/ publication/doubling-graduation-rates. 20 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09). 21 FSA Data Center. 2013-2014 Award Year Grant Volume by School. Award Year Cumulative Activity through June 30, 2014. Run Date: 10/08/15 22 Giancola, Jennifer and Richard D. Kahlenberg. “True Merit: Ensuring Our Brightest Students Have Access to Our Best Colleges and Universities.” Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. January 2016. http://outreach.jkcf.org/TrueMerit/?utm_ source=all&utm_medium=all&utm_campaign=True_Merit. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Nichols, Andrew. “The Pell Partnership: Ensuring a Shared Responsibility for Low-Income Student Success.” The Education Trust. September 2015. https://edtrust.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/09/ThePellPartnership_EdTrust_20152.pdf. 26 Kahlenberg, Rich. America’s Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education. The Century Foundation. 2004. 27 Giancola, Jennifer and Richard D. Kahlenberg. “True Merit: Ensuring Our Brightest Students Have Access to Our Best Colleges and Universities.” Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. January 2016. http://outreach.jkcf.org/TrueMerit/?utm_ source=all&utm_medium=all&utm_campaign=True_Merit. 28 Kolodner, Meredith. “Elite colleges sound a call to reshape admissions – but will it spur any concrete changes?” The Hechinger Report. 20 January 2016. http://hechingerreport.org/ elite-colleges-sound-a-call-to-reshape-admissions-but-will-itspur-any-concrete-changes/. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students U.S. Department of Education 29 Leonhardt, David. “Top Colleges, Largely for the Elite.” The New York Times. 24 May 2011. http://www.nytimes. com/2011/05/25/business/economy/25leonhardt.html?_r=0. 30 Anderson, Nick. “Amherst a leader among elite colleges in enrolling students who need Pell grants.” The Washington Post. 25 March 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ education/amherst-a-leader-among-elite-colleges-in-enrollingstudents-who-need-pell-grants/2014/03/25/9df8ab6a-b41411e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html. 31 North-Hager, Eddie. “High-achieving, lowincome students connect with USC.” University of Southern California. https://communities.usc.edu/ high-achieving-low-income-students-connect-with-usc/. 32 Nichols, Andrew. “The Pell Partnership: Ensuring a Shared Responsibility for Low-Income Student Success.” The Education Trust. September 2015. https://edtrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/ThePellPartnership_EdTrust_20152. pdf; and Cohodes, S. R., & Goodman, J. S. (2014). Merit aid, college quality, and college completion: Massachusetts’ Adams scholarship as an in-kind subsidy. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(4), 251-285. 33 Anderson, Nick and Danielle Douglas-Gabriel. “Nation’s prominent public universities are shifting to out-of-state students.” The Washington Post. 30 January 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/ nations-prominent-public-universities-are-shifting-to-outof-state-students/2016/01/30/07575790-beaf-11e5-bcda62a36b394160_story.html?wpisrc=nl_draw. 34 After adjusting for inflation. Burd, Stephen. “Out-of-State Student Arms Race.” New America. 18 May 2015. https://www. newamerica.org/education-policy/out-of-state-student-armsrace/; and Desrochers, Donna and Steven Hurlburt. “Trends in College Spending: 2003-2013 – Where Does the Money Come From? Where Does it Go? What Does it Buy?” American Institutes for Research. 12 January 2016. http://www.air.org/ resource/trends-college-spending-2003-2013-where-doesmoney-come-where-does-it-go-what-does-it-buy. 35 Burd, Stephen. “Undermining Pell Volume II: How Colleges’ Pursuit of Prestige and Revenue Is Hurting Low-Income Students.” New America. 2014. https://www.newamerica.org/ downloads/UnderminingPellVolume2_SBurd_20140917.pdf. 36 Anderson, Nick and Danielle Douglas-Gabriel. “Nation’s prominent public universities are shifting to out-of-state students.” The Washington Post. 30 January 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/ nations-prominent-public-universities-are-shifting-to-outof-state-students/2016/01/30/07575790-beaf-11e5-bcda62a36b394160_story.html?wpisrc=nl_draw. 37 Burd, Stephen. “Out-of-State Student Arms Race.” New America. 18 May 2015. https://www.newamerica.org/ education-policy/out-of-state-student-arms-race/ 38 Ibid; and Burd, Stephen. “Undermining Pell: Volume III: The News Keeps Getting Worse for Low-Income Students.” New America. March 2016. https://static.newamerica.org/ attachments/12813-undermining-pell-volume-iii/UnderminingPell-III-3.15bba9018bb54ad48f850f6f3a62a9fc.pdf. MARCH 2016 39 “Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs): A Background Primer.” New America. 1 January 2015. https:// www.newamerica.org/postsecondary-national-policy-institute/ historically-black-colleges-and-universities-hbcus/. 40 “Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities.” National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces. ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/indicator6_24.asp#snapshot. 41 “Fact Sheet – White House Unveils America’s College Promise Proposal: Tuition-Free Community College for Responsible Students.” The White House. 9 January 2015. https://www. whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/09/fact-sheet-whitehouse-unveils-america-s-college-promise-proposal-tuitio. 42 “Using Federal Data to Measure and Improve the Performance of U.S. Institutions of Higher Education.” Executive Office of the President of the United States. September 2015. https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/assets/ UsingFederalDataToMeasureAndImprovePerformance.pdf. 43 “2016 State Report Cards.” Young Invincibles Student Impact Project. January 2016. http://younginvincibles.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/01/YI-State-Report-Cards-2016.pdf. 44 “U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2002 through Spring 2011, Winter 2011-12, and Winter 2012-13, Student Financial Aid component. https:// nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_331.20. asp?current=yes. This table was prepared January 2015. 45 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:04/09). 46 Many institutions do not have reported data for Pell completion rates from The Education Trust. 47 Nichols, Andrew. “The Pell Partnership: Ensuring a Shared Responsibility for Low-Income Student Success.” The Education Trust. September 2015. https://edtrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/ThePellPartnership_EdTrust_20152. pdf. 48 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS), “Fall Enrollment in Institutions of Higher Education” surveys, 1970 through 1985; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Fall Enrollment Survey” (IPEDS-EF:86-99); and IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2015, Fall Enrollment component. This table was prepared October 2015. 49 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS), “Fall Enrollment in Colleges and Universities” surveys, 1967 through 1985; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Fall Enrollment Survey” (IPEDSEF:86-99); IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2014, Enrollment component; and Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions Projection Model, 1980 through 2024. https://nces.ed.gov/ programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_307.10.asp?current=yes. This table was prepared March 2015; and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2002 FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students 23 MARCH 2016 U.S. Department of Education through Spring 2011, Winter 2011-12, and Winter 2012-13, Student Financial Aid component. https://nces.ed.gov/ programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_331.20.asp?current=yes. This table was prepared January 2015. 50 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Projections of Education Statistics to 1986-87; Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS), “Institutional Characteristics of Colleges and Universities” surveys, 1969-70 through 1985-86; “Fall Enrollment in Institutions of Higher Education” surveys, 1963 through 1985; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Fall Enrollment Survey” (IPEDS-EF:86-99) and “Institutional Characteristics Survey” (IPEDS-IC:86-99); IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2014, Enrollment component; and IPEDS Fall 2000 through Fall 2013, Institutional Characteristics component. (This table was prepared December 2014.) 51 Piñeros Shields, Thomas and Sharon Singleton. “Partnerships that Promote Success: Lessons and Findings from the Evaluation of the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation’s Community College Transfer Initiative.” The Center for Youth and Communities, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University. January 2014. http://www.jkcf.org/ assets/1/7/ccti_report_final.pdf. 52 Ibid. 53 “Articulation and Transfer in Tennessee Higher Education: Annual Report, 2014-15 Academic Year.” Tennessee Higher 24 Education Commission. 1 October 2015. https://www.tn.gov/ assets/entities/thec/attachments/Articulation__Transfer_ Report_2015.pdf. 54 “The Initiative on Transfer Policy and Practice.” College Board. 2016. https://professionals.collegeboard.org/higher-ed/ community-colleges/initiative-transfer-policy-and-practice. 55 “The Interstate Passport Initiative.” Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. 2016. http://www.wiche. edu/passport/home. 56 “Community College FAQs.” Community College Research Center. 2016. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-CollegeFAQs.html. 57 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2007 through Spring 2014, Finance and Enrollment components. This table was prepared January 2015. 58 “Increasing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students: Promising Models and a Call to Action.” The Executive Office of the President. January 2014. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ sites/default/files/docs/white_house_report_on_increasing_ college_opportunity_for_low-income_students_1-16-2014_final. pdf. 59 For more, visit the “Data Feedback Report” section of IPEDS at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Expt/ SelectComparisonInstitution.aspx. FULFILLING THE PROMISE, SERVING THE NEED — Advancing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students