Skip to content
Blog

Tag: federal government

Are the States Alright?

Posted on

You may have read a widely circulated New York Times article today concerning the possibility of the federal government creating a pathway for states to seek protection in federal bankruptcy court if their debt burdens spiral out of control. Some policymakers think that the severe economic strain created by the Great Recession has revealed deep structural problems in state budgets that may be unfixable without intervention.

However, in Misunderstandings Regarding State Debt, Pensions, and Retiree Health Costs Created Unnecessary Alarm, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities puts current state budget woes in historical perspective, and emphasizes that, while the near-term future for state budgets across the country remains grim, we must exercise caution in conflating the short term problems caused by the recent recession with the very long term structural issues associated with revenue systems and pension plans.

Supreme Court Decision on Medical Residents Upholds Status Quo

Posted on

As reported by Inside Higher Ed and many others, the Supreme Court decided this week that medical residents do not qualify for student payroll tax exemptions and must pay into social security and medicare as other employees do.

This ruling upholds U.S. Department of Treasury regulations issued in 2004, which the UW has been in compliance with since. Had the ruling gone the other way, medical residents across the country would have been reimbursed for taxes collected since 2005, and their institutions would have been able to cease collection in the future.

Federal Scrutiny of For-Profit Colleges Turns to Recruitment of Veterans

Posted on

Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of the US Senate HELP Committee, has released another report on the practices of the for-profit higher education industry, this time focusing on whether or not such institutions are taking advantage of US veterans in an effort to capture newly increased GI Bill education benefits (read our earlier posts on this issue: Senator Tom Harkin and the HELP Committee Continue to Investigate For-Profit Colleges, and  Under Federal Fire, For-Profit College Point Finger at Publics).

The New York Times published Wednesday a detailed article on this topic, Profits and Scrutiny for Colleges Courting Veterans, that included a host of primary source documents.

Senator Harkin has moved a hearing on the topic from early December to a yet to be determined day in early 2011. Because the Senate will remain in Democratic control, Harkin will continue as Chairman of the HELP Committee and is expected to carry forward his investigation of this rapidly expanding sector of higher education, which relies almost entirely on federal student aid dollars to generate large profits for shareholders while many students drop out  and face high levels of education loan debt. Some speculate that recent Republican gains in the Senate and House may hamper the likelihood of passing strong regulatory legislation in the coming year.

Meanwhile, the US Department of Education is in the process of implementing new regulatory rules aimed at tightening oversight on the sector (see previous post: New Federal Higher Ed Regulation Published Today).

We will continue to monitor this ongoing story, as well as some calls for the federal government to extend their scrutiny to traditional institutions.

Federal Maintenance of Effort Requirement Makes State Financial Aid Programs Vulnerable

Posted on

Both the American Recovery Act (ARRA) of 2009 and the 2010 Education Jobs Fund provided federal funding for education. In exchange for accepting federal funds, both fiscal relief vehicles came with Maintenance of Effort (MOE) provisions requiring states to continue financial support for higher education institutions at certain minimum levels. However, some forms of state support, such as capital projects, financial aid, and research support are exempt from MOE calculations.

The UW received ARRA funding in the state budget in the 2010 fiscal year. As a result, MOE requirements from both federal actions helped protect higher education funding in Washington State from what may have been even deeper budget cuts. Last year, the State reduced higher education spending down to the federally-required MOE floor for fiscal year 2011. Federal MOE requirements expire after FY 2011.

Due to a state budget deficit that continues to grow, the Governor has called a special session to achieve another round of mid-year budget cuts for the current fiscal year. If the state further reduces funding for higher education, it must choose to violate the federal MOE mandate, or reduce state support for higher education activities exempt from federal MOE, primarily the State Need Grant (SNG), Washington’s need-based financial aid funding program.

In her proposed special session cuts for FY 2011, the Governor chose the latter, recommending that the state delay $76 million of SNG funding until July 1, 2011 (start of FY 2012), with institutions temporarily funding the gap to protect students. The UW’s share of this funding shortfall would be $15 million. While the Governor’s proposal assumes reimbursement on the first day of the new fiscal year, delay of this payment would require the University to cut $15 million to balance its current FY 2011 budget. In addition, given the $5.7 billion state deficit that remains for the upcoming 2011-13 biennial budget, it is not at all certain that this delayed payment would be made to institutions in 2012, when the federal maintenance of effort provision will no longer be in effect.

Any option that reduces or delays funding for higher education will impact University of Washington faculty, staff and students. The Office of State Relations and the Office of Planning and Budgeting will work hard to keep the UW community up to date on special session, and important state budget related news in the coming days.

Should Federal Government Support a Regional Approach to Public Higher Ed?

Posted on

The Center for American Progress released a new report, Easy Come, EZ-GO: A Federal Role in Removing Jurisdictional Impediments to College Education, that presents a bold argument for the creation of Education Zone Governance Organizations (EZ-GO), which would provide federal resources to help ease barriers to higher education for citizens of metropolitan areas that cross state borders (20 out of 44). The Center argues that a more regional approach to higher education in such areas is necessary to reach ambitious new college attainment goals.

While higher education policy has historically been formed at the state-level due to state funding of institutions, the report asserts that this strategy is no longer sufficient given the growth of higher education participation coupled with the increased mobility of Americans. This is especially illustrated in the 20 metropolitan areas they identify as crossing state lines. In these locations, citizens are often restricted in their access to affordable, quality higher education based on their state of residence, primarily due to:

  • State based financial aid
  • Residency based tuition pricing
  • Credit transfer policies between institutions

One of five Americans live in such areas, including in Portland, a metropolitan area that reaches into Washington State. The majority of the institutional capacity in the Portland metropolitan area is located in the State of Oregon, which means that your specific address has real ramifications for your access to affordable higher education, which these authors argue is suboptimal for increasing attainment.

Ultimately, they recommend that the federal government create EZ-GO areas (overseen by an EZ-GO Commission) to:

  • Provide technical support to develop EZ-GO-wide articulation agreements
  • Support capital investments to built up institutional capacity
  • Assist in matching postsecondary programs to local labor markets
  • Encourage partnerships between institutions and across sectors

Expect a lot of proposals like this one to surface as stakeholders across the nation grapple with how to, in a relatively short period of time, raise the percentage of Americans with a two-year or four-year degree from 38% to 60%.

APLU Releases Regional Meetings Report

Posted on

In advance of the 123rd annual meeting in Dallas on November 14, The Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) has released the final report resulting from five regional meetings to discuss key concerns about the future of public research universities, one of which took place at UW Seattle on April 26, 2010.

The report, Ensuring Public Research Universities Remain Vital, outlines the important contributions that public research institutions like the UW make to knowledge, society and the economy. The report also reaffirms the need for institutions to remain committed to their public mission of providing world class education that is affordable and accessible, and for the states to remain committed to facilitating that mission by restoring and protecting the public investment in higher education.

Additionally, the report addresses ways that the federal government can help keep US public research institutions vital. First, by reforming indirect cost reimbursement rate setting policies and regulations associated with federal research grants. Second, by exploring ways that the federal government can partner with institutions to provide operating support, including endowed faculty chairs, funding for doctoral trainees, and new targeted research funding.

New Federal Higher Ed Regulations Published Today

Posted on

Having weighed tens of thousands of public comments, the US Department of Education released today a final set of regulations governing various aspects of higher education. While primarily aimed at what are widely seen as abuses within the for-profit higher education system, the regulations apply to all institutions and are driven by the federal government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the federal government’s $170+ billion annual investment in higher education via student aid programs (governed by Title IV of the US Higher Education Act).

Notably, final regulations regarding the controversial gainful employment rule were not published today. Having received over 90,000 public comments and facing an intense for-profit sector lobbying effort, the Department has indicated a need for more time before it is able to finalize gainful employment regulations. The Department will host public meetings on the rule on November 4th and 5th.

Inside Higher Ed has a good overview of the regulations released today, which will take effect in July 2011, as well as links to the rules and a list of the revisions made since the initial rules were proposed. Major changes include:

  • Eliminates loopholes allowing institutions to provide incentive pay for admissions and financial aid employees. The rules now explicitly state that incentive payments for employees can not “in any part” be based on enrollment or financial aid metrics.
  • Revises the definition of a credit hour for the purpose of awarding federal student aid.
  • Clarifies the timeline for returning federal student aid when a student is no longer enrolled.
  • Requires for-profit institutions to provide easily accessed graduation and job placement statistics, as well has college cost calculators.
  • Requires institutions to notify DOE of new non-degree certificate programs, some of which DOE may determine require a formal application for federal approval (note that this is an area where feedback/lobbying had a significant impact as the original rule required DOE approval for all such programs).

These rules represent a large step for the federal government in regulating higher education in the US.

For more information on the federal government’s intensifying scrutiny of the for-profit higher education sector and why it matters to traditional institutions, see our previous posts: Senator Tom Harkin and the HELP Committee Continue to Investigate For-Profit Colleges, and Under Federal Fire, For-Profit Colleges Point Finger at Publics.

Berkeley Report Provides Roadmap for ‘Smart Growth’ in Higher Ed

Posted on

John Aubrey Douglass of UC Berkeley’s Center for Studies in Higher Education has issued a new report on the current status of higher education, and potential paths for growth and change into the future.

In Re-Imagining California Higher Education, Douglass argues that the existing model for higher education in California (here representative of higher education in states across the US) has changed only incrementally over recent decades and is ill suited, due primarily to the combination of declining per student funding and increased enrollment, to meet the near-term demands of the economy, much less US stated goals of dramatically increased participation and attainment for the future.

Douglass proposes that California boldy reimagine its higher education system by building on the existing strengths of its current tripartite system (two year community colleges, the four-year California State system, and the four-year UC research institutions). Among his proposals:

  • An expanded community college sector that includes a set of institutions offering four year degrees and a set of institutions with a more explicit ‘transfer focus’.
  • A new poli-technic institution sector that focuses on applied degrees in science, engineering and technology.
  • A new online ‘open university’ that focuses on adult and/or placebound learners in California.
  • Increased focus on international recruitment to attract funding dollars and top talent to the state.
  • Increased focus on partnering with the federal government in funding institutions beyond basic research and financial aid to students.

With arguably the best– and certainly the largest– public higher education system in the country, if not world, the old saying ‘So goes California, so goes the nation’ comes to mind while reading Douglass’ report.

Will Expanded Higher Ed Tax Credit be Made Permanent?

Posted on

The federal Recovery Act of 2009 included a two year expanded higher education tax credit (based on the existing Hope Tax Credit). The new American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) maxes out at $2,500, can be redeemed for up to four years, is partially refundable (up to 40%), and eligibility does not start to phase out until joint household income reaches $160,000 per year. Overall, the AOTC is a much more inclusive and expansive tax credit when compared to the existing and permanent Hope and Lifetime credits.

A new report from the US Department of the Treasury provides details on the AOTC benefits provided to Americans during 2009 and 2010. They find that The AOTC has been a great help to families across the nation facing larger than normal tuition increases as state higher education budgets have been cut deeply.

  • 12.5 million students/families received a higher ed tax incentive in 2009.
  • AOTC increased total tax incentives for higher ed by over 90%, from $9.6b in 2008 to $18.2b in 2009.
  • AOTC recipients got an average tax credit of $1,700, a 75% increase over the average credit received via the Hope or Lifetime credits in 2008.
  • 4.5 million students and families were able to take advantage of the new refundable status of the AOTC, receiving an average of $800 that they would not have previously qualified for.

The AOTC is set to expire next year. The Obama administration has called for Congress to make the expanded credit permanent (at an estimated cost of $58 billion over 10 years). Visit the Federal Relations website, and keep up with their Federal Report for news of any action that Congress may take on this issue in the coming weeks and months, and keep an eye on the OPB website and blog for news about what changes in these tax credits might mean for UW students and their families.

Under Federal Fire, For-Profit Colleges Point Finger at Publics

Posted on

As a result of recent federal scrutiny, the for-profit higher education industry and its supporters have begun to turn their protests toward the unfairness of singling out the for-profit companies while ignoring traditional higher education’s non-profit institutions, particularly public community colleges and four year institutions.

Congressional scrutiny of for-profit education companies comes at the same time that the Obama administration has been pushing new Department of Education regulations that would use three tests– debt-to-earnings ratio for students, debt-to-discretionary income ratio for students, and the loan repayment rate of students—to determine whether a for-profit program would be eligible for federal financial aid funds under Title IV. A large lobbying effort led to over 90,000 public comments on these “gainful employment” regulations, causing the Department to delay publication of the rule.

Opponents of these rules and hearings include Republicans and Democrats as well as various interest groups, many of whom receive large sums of money from the for-profit education industry. The sector’s industry group, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (known up until September 22 as the Career College Association), institutions, and other stakeholders have spent millions waging a campaign against further regulation. Notably, these lobbying efforts include Chairman and CEO Donald Graham whose Washington Post Company owns Kaplan as well as an 8% stake in Corinthian Colleges, both giants in the for-profit education sector that currently provide over 60% of the Post’s annual revenue. The Post has been called to task for using its opinion and editorial pages to argue against the regulations.

At a HELP Committee hearing on September 30th, three Republican Senators, Richard Burr (NC), John McCain (AZ) and the committee’s ranking minority member Mike Enzi (WY), emphasized their disappointment that the scope of the hearings did not include non-profit institutions. Additionally, for-profit institutions have funded two reports claiming that for-profit colleges are more efficient at producing graduates, and more responsible with taxpayer dollars than non-profit institutions, including community colleges, public four years and private four years. The increased aggressiveness with which proponents of for-profit education are attacking traditional higher education with misleading information and data is troubling. The market share of for-profit institutions continues to rapidly grow alongside ambitions to compete with traditional institutions.

Ultimately, federal attention paid to this issue is a possible harbinger of increased scrutiny for all of higher education. The federal government spends over $170 billion dollars on student aid (loans and grants) each year, potentially providing powerful grounds for increased federal oversight. Looking forward, some of the same questions being asked of for-profit colleges about debt burden, retention, and completion could be asked of the non-profit sector as well. The combination of rapidly rising tuition in an economic crisis, concerns about US competitiveness in the global economy, and the aggressive goals to nearly double the portion of Americans with some level of higher education may create a compelling case for increased federal attention.